31. Shaft
This was just utterly boring. An awful film. Avoid.
30. Coriolanus
If tried and tried, but I just don't like Shakespeare. I thought the plot of this was average to poor, and I can't stand the whole Shakespearian-language-in-a-modern-setting thing they keep doing.
29. The Lord of the Rings
No, not the new one. The 1978 animated one. Really very poor. Laughable in fact. Thank God for Peter Jackson.
28. Alien: Resurrection
Ludicrous. Didn't even make sense. Some cool action, and Sigourney Weaver, were the only positives.
27. Dante's Peak
Similar to above but slightly less ludicrous and without Sigourney Weaver.
26. 12 Monkeys
I've seen it twice and I couldn't tell you what it's about. Very forgettable, except for Brad Pitt's brilliant performance - the only thing that saves the film.
25. American Psycho
Christian Bale is superb as always and the film is strangely gripping, but in the end it's not much more than a load of rubbish.
24. Source Code
A brilliant idea which falls apart when it runs into logic. Not an awful film but far from satisfactory. Some good ideas, but in the end, I felt cheated of an actual storyline.
23. Drive
I quite liked the first half, mainly because of Carey Mulligan. The second half kind of fell apart, and not even a bit of Carey Mulligan could hold it together. Half of a reasonable film.
22. Nativity 2
A few hilarious scenes that had me laughing out loud, but the ridiculous plot means that this is not a good film. Entertaining, but not quality.
21. The Wolfman
This was ok. Not particularly good, not particularly bad, just ok.
20. Spartacus
Long, but I don't mind that. Some pretty dramatic stuff. Just not that inspiring or gripping in the end. It's like the Tesco Value version of Gladiator.
19. Juno
A good, fun, lighthearted film. I enjoyed watching this, though I probably wouldn't bother watching it again.
18. The Recruit
This was a reasonable film. Some very gripping moments. But ultimately, it's a spy film, and I don't really like spy films.
17. Phantom of the Opera
This was reasonable. Really good music, nicely done.
16. Life of Pi
Great effects, though that's not unusual these days. I really liked large chunks of it, but it had a lame ending. and not a great start.
15. Looper
Some excellent moments, and they really tries hard to make it a sensible film. It was great to watch, but met the obstacle that every time-travel film meets: its doesn't make any sense.
14. What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
This would be a lot lower if it weren't for Leonardo DiCaprio. He is amazing in this. Other than him, it's not that special, but his performance is outstanding.
13. Contagion
I missed this in the cinema so was happy to see it on DVD. It's exciting and gripping. A good film.
12. The Wrestler
This was very good, very watchable, but had a disappointing ending.
11. Phone Booth
What a brilliant idea, and really well done. Very exciting, and Colin Farrell is excellent.
10. An Education
This is a decent film. But Carey Mulligan is, as always, brilliant. She makes this film.
7=. Brave
Pixar never really fail do they? Good plot, great animation, watchable, funny.
7=. Alien
Some amazing scenes and great acting. Completely gripping. Limited by poor effects, but that's about it.
7=. Alien 3
More like Aliens than Alien, but not quite as good as Aliens and about as good as Alien.
6. Aliens
Bigger, more exciting, more impressive than Alien. And therefore slightly better.
4=. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Quality. In pretty much every respect. A really, really good film. David Fincher is definitely one of my favourite directors.
4=. Holes
Wow. Quite simple, and quite a small film, but really good. Very deep and thought provoking, and also very entertaining.
2=. The Hunger Games
Great plot, great action, great characters - a great film.
2=. The Dark Knight Rises
There was a lot of pressure on this film, but it delivered. All round excellence. Review here.
1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
No, it's not LOTR. So far, it's certainly not as good as LOTR. But it still does almost everything better than almost any other film. If most films are on Earth, and LOTR is on another planet, then this still is one of the films that is on the moon. Review here.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Albums of 2012
Here is a ranked list of the albums I have got this year. Just in case anyone cares. Bizzarely, there are three times as many albums on this list as on last year's. It seems I have acquired a lot of new music this year.
21. Northern Lights - Someone Else's Eyes
This is ok. Some nice tunes. Just not very interesting.
20. Jamie Hill - One Day
Meh. It's just ok.
19. Phil Joel - The Deliberate People
Some reasonable songs here. Nothing special though.
18. Sigur Ros - Valtari
Other than () and Takk, I'm not too fussed by Sigur Ros. Those two albums are incredible. This one is ok.
17. Soul Survivor - Soul Survivor 2011
This is quite mediocre. The best songs on here are the ones of Matt Redman's album or One Thing Remains - all of which I already knew. Not that impressive.
16. The Gentlemen - A Candid History of Faith, Hope, Love
This is cool. Not as good as their first album, but not bad.
15. Bluetree - Kingdom
Quite underwhelming after their impressive first album, but some decent songs here.
14. Syntactical Sugar - The Deuteronomy
This is pretty cool. Not amazing, but no weak points.
13. The Last Spectacular - The Last Spectacular
A nice album, featuring, but unfortunately dominated by the outstanding No Resistance.
12. Jenny and Tyler - This Isn't a Dream
Some really nice songs. A good album, though it doesn't hit the heights of some of their other stuff.
9=. Jenny and Tyler - Open Your Doors
Slightly better, including the lovely Skyline Hill.
9=. Bloc Party - Four
This is certainly no Weekend in the City, but it still has some really good songs.
9=. The Birthday Suit - A Conversation Well Rehearsed
Solid. Just very solid all round.
8. Something Like Silas - Divine Intervention
Similarly solid. I really like listening to this album.
7. The Temper Trap - The Temper Trap
The Temper Trap are really good, and this album is really good.
6. Tom + Olly - Spirals
I love Tom + Olly's style. This album is packed full of tunes.
4=. Muse - The 2nd Law
Another very strong album from the inimitable Muse. Highlights include Madness, Follow Me and Big Freeze.
4=. Anberlin - Vital
A happy return to form after the previous album. Great stuff. Anberlin back to (almost) their best.
3. Jesus Culture - Come Away
Very strong. Just very strong. They really are excellent at this stuff.
2. The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour
Very surprising. This band only appeared this year. But this is really good. Not quite Idlewild-good (The frontman is former Idlewild guitarist Rod Jones), but still really good.
1. Jenny and Tyler - Faint Not
A very good album, with at least 5 superb songs, including probably my song of the year, Song For You.
It should be noted that I also got The Chilis' Stadium Arcadium this year, but couldn't committ to putting it on this list as it's a double album, which felt a bit like cheating. I do like it though. There were also some decent EPs this year: This is Freedom - Welcome Home; To Kill a King - My Crooked Saint; Martin Smith - God's Great Dancefloor; Lifecolour - Time to be Free; Dennis - Colliery Welfare.
21. Northern Lights - Someone Else's Eyes
This is ok. Some nice tunes. Just not very interesting.
20. Jamie Hill - One Day
Meh. It's just ok.
19. Phil Joel - The Deliberate People
Some reasonable songs here. Nothing special though.
18. Sigur Ros - Valtari
Other than () and Takk, I'm not too fussed by Sigur Ros. Those two albums are incredible. This one is ok.
17. Soul Survivor - Soul Survivor 2011
This is quite mediocre. The best songs on here are the ones of Matt Redman's album or One Thing Remains - all of which I already knew. Not that impressive.
16. The Gentlemen - A Candid History of Faith, Hope, Love
This is cool. Not as good as their first album, but not bad.
15. Bluetree - Kingdom
Quite underwhelming after their impressive first album, but some decent songs here.
14. Syntactical Sugar - The Deuteronomy
This is pretty cool. Not amazing, but no weak points.
13. The Last Spectacular - The Last Spectacular
A nice album, featuring, but unfortunately dominated by the outstanding No Resistance.
12. Jenny and Tyler - This Isn't a Dream
Some really nice songs. A good album, though it doesn't hit the heights of some of their other stuff.
9=. Jenny and Tyler - Open Your Doors
Slightly better, including the lovely Skyline Hill.
9=. Bloc Party - Four
This is certainly no Weekend in the City, but it still has some really good songs.
9=. The Birthday Suit - A Conversation Well Rehearsed
Solid. Just very solid all round.
8. Something Like Silas - Divine Intervention
Similarly solid. I really like listening to this album.
7. The Temper Trap - The Temper Trap
The Temper Trap are really good, and this album is really good.
6. Tom + Olly - Spirals
I love Tom + Olly's style. This album is packed full of tunes.
4=. Muse - The 2nd Law
Another very strong album from the inimitable Muse. Highlights include Madness, Follow Me and Big Freeze.
4=. Anberlin - Vital
A happy return to form after the previous album. Great stuff. Anberlin back to (almost) their best.
3. Jesus Culture - Come Away
Very strong. Just very strong. They really are excellent at this stuff.
2. The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour
Very surprising. This band only appeared this year. But this is really good. Not quite Idlewild-good (The frontman is former Idlewild guitarist Rod Jones), but still really good.
1. Jenny and Tyler - Faint Not
A very good album, with at least 5 superb songs, including probably my song of the year, Song For You.
It should be noted that I also got The Chilis' Stadium Arcadium this year, but couldn't committ to putting it on this list as it's a double album, which felt a bit like cheating. I do like it though. There were also some decent EPs this year: This is Freedom - Welcome Home; To Kill a King - My Crooked Saint; Martin Smith - God's Great Dancefloor; Lifecolour - Time to be Free; Dennis - Colliery Welfare.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Hobbit: review
- I've seen the film in 2D and 3D. 3D still does not impress me - it just costs a bit more and makes my eyes hurt a bit. I expect that 3D IMAX would be very impressive, but I haven't seen it. I also haven't seen the film in 48fps, so I can't comment much on it - but I expect it looks good and I expect it to become the cinematic norm.
- It was great to see Ian Holm and Elijah Wood in the film. It helps to connect the film to LOTR. I actually teared up when these two came on screen.
- Martin Freeman is perfect. I expected him to be very good, but he exceeded my expectations. Simply outstanding. He's a very capable serious actor but also has a great deadpan humour about him. Sometimes it was just like watching him in The Office (in a good way).
- New Zealand looks, if anything, even more spectacular than it did in LOTR. Some of the wide shots are stunning.
- The soundtrack is brilliant, both in it's own right and in the way it connects to the LOTR soundtrack. Howard Shore, I salute you.
- All three LOTR films started with some sort of prologue, and the first Hobbit film followed the pattern. It worked really well, especially with Ian Holm's Bilbo narrating it. I also liked the bonus prologue section later on detailing Azog and Thorin's enmity (more on Azog later).
- The party scene was an excellent to introduce the dwarves. It was full of humour but also meaty exposition. It started to paint the picture of dwarven culture. And it had some really good camerawork too.
- Riddles in the dark was superb. Everything I'd hoped for. It's one of my favourite scenes from any book, and I was not let down. I've already said how good Freeman is, and Serkis is, of course, a master.
- The action sequences were sometimes a bit ridiculous. The troll fight was good, as was the battle outside Moria, but the storm-giants scene and the escape from goblin-town were ludicrously overdone. The storm-giants scene was unnecessary, and there was little chance anyone would have survived such an encounter, let alone all 15 of them. Similarly, sequences in goblin-town were very unconvincing, especially with respect to the survival rate of the heroes. One reviewer described these scenes as "extended, jovially bloody battle between dwarves and goblins, larded with visual jokes involving decapitation, disembowelment, and baddies crushed by rolling rocks. The sequence is more like a body-count video game than like anything in the sedate novel, where battles are confused and brief and frightening, rather than exuberant eye-candy ballet."
- The warg attack was excessive and unnecessary. It slowed the story down. They could have just let Radagast go back to keep an eye on Mirkwood, and have Gandalf convince Thorin to go to Rivendell to check out the map.
- One common criticism has been that the dwarves are just a bunch of personality-less simulacrums. To an extent I agree with this. I think Dwalin, Balin, Fili and Kili are distinct, partly because they arrive at the party in small groups, and Bofur is too, because he has an enlargened role and everyone always remembers James Nesbitt. But the others lack screen time as individuals and lack opportunities to show themselves. I can understand that a viewer would struggle to identify with many of them, especially if they hadn't been following the film's developments in advance. I think Jackson could have spent more time with the dwarves, developing their characters, and cut the warg attack.
- The troll scene good - funny but also perilous, and another chance to see the dwarves in action just being dwarves - as I just mentioned, the film needed more of this.
- I liked the Radagast/Necromancer stuff. It added an extra level of plot and peril above what was going on in the dwarves' quest, and it helped to start linking the film to LOTR.
- Azog's role was changed from the book. This was good. It helped expand Thorin's role and added an extra elements of suspense. It also provided this first film with a climax - much like the character or Lurtz did for FOTR. More on Azog here.
- The use of the orc language confused me. In LOTR, orc and uruk-hai use the common tongue - not precisely accurate, but it makes sense from a simplicity point of view and makes the film easier to watch. In The Hobbit, orc spoke their own language (subtitled) while on their own, and used the common tongue in scenes with dwarves. This just seemed inconsistent with LOTR, which is a shame while most of the film is consistent. It would have been better to just keep the orcs using the common tongue.
- Gandalf's magic seemed inconsistent especially compared with LOTR. He uses his magic a lot more in The Hobbit, or at least a lot more overtly. Which begs the question, why didn't he use it more in LOTR. Again, this is a consistency issue between the two trilogies. It will be interesting to see what happens in parts 2 and 3.
- I think they chose a good point at which to break the film - between the eagles and Beorn.
- When Thorin charges Azog at the end of the film, the music playing is the Nazgul theme. This baffled me. I have no idea why they did this. Anyone care to suggest a reason?
- FOTR was practically the perfect film. It had no weaknesses. This wasn't as strong an opening to a trilogy as that was, but this was nevertheless an excellent film. And I expect that the extended edition will include more dwarvishness, which I will enjoy.
- Overall - a great film and excellent adaptation. A very promising start to the trilogy indeed. A bit to action-heavy for me, and the action that was there was sometimes over the top. But other than that I have very few complaints. My film of the year, perhaps? That list will come soon.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Soundtrack of 2012
Here is my soundtrack of 2012 - the songs I have been listening to most this year.
The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour (no video available)
I love the start of this song - the guitar, drums everything. A very catchy song, with great melodies.
Bluetree - Burn Me Up
From when Bluetree weren't afraid to be creative. I love how stripped back large parts of this are.
DC Talk - In The Light
A very funky song. DCTalk doing what they do so well. Great sounds, great message.
Dennis - Ella
I love listening to this song. Very upbeat, and a lot of fun.
Dennis - Carry Me Home (no video available, but you can listen here)
Possibly my favourite Dennis song. It's just lovely. I love the build through the choruses near the end.
Easyworld - A Stain To Never Fade
An old song that reminds me of being a teenager. David Ford's vocals are still ridiculous.
Jenny and Tyler - Song For You
Possibly my song of the year, and on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list. It's just massive.
Jenny and Tyler - Through Your Eyes
Beautifully haunting? Hauntingly beautiful? Either way, this song is wonderful.
Jenny and Tyler - Skyline Hill
Not normally the sort of thing I'd go for, but this song grabbed me this year and didn't let go.
Jesus Culture - Come Away/Let Me In
Jesus Culture are so good at what they do. I love the positivity of this song.
The Last Spectacular - No Resistance (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song, possibly more than any other song, impressed me from the very first time I heard it. Another on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list.
Lifecolour - Faking Masqurades (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song reminds me of Hebron. I don't know why. I just love it.
Muse - Follow Me
Another great song by Muse, they just keep coming.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Otherside
An old song, but it's been in my head all year. It has everything I love about the Chilis.
Rock'n'Roll Worship Circus - Everybody Awake
Fun, optimistic, and a good tune. This was the first song onto my soundtrack this year.
Sigur Ros - Vaka
A lovely tune. Interestingly, the only Sigur Ros song I can sing by heart in its entirety.
The Sunshine Underground - The Messiah
I love how this song is less than 6 minutes long, but feels like at least 8. Some great moments of music here.
The Birthday Suit - The Eleventh Hour (no video available)
I love the start of this song - the guitar, drums everything. A very catchy song, with great melodies.
Bluetree - Burn Me Up
From when Bluetree weren't afraid to be creative. I love how stripped back large parts of this are.
DC Talk - In The Light
A very funky song. DCTalk doing what they do so well. Great sounds, great message.
Dennis - Ella
I love listening to this song. Very upbeat, and a lot of fun.
Dennis - Carry Me Home (no video available, but you can listen here)
Possibly my favourite Dennis song. It's just lovely. I love the build through the choruses near the end.
Easyworld - A Stain To Never Fade
An old song that reminds me of being a teenager. David Ford's vocals are still ridiculous.
Jenny and Tyler - Song For You
Possibly my song of the year, and on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list. It's just massive.
Jenny and Tyler - Through Your Eyes
Beautifully haunting? Hauntingly beautiful? Either way, this song is wonderful.
Jenny and Tyler - Skyline Hill
Not normally the sort of thing I'd go for, but this song grabbed me this year and didn't let go.
Jesus Culture - Come Away/Let Me In
Jesus Culture are so good at what they do. I love the positivity of this song.
The Last Spectacular - No Resistance (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song, possibly more than any other song, impressed me from the very first time I heard it. Another on my 'contenders for greatest song of all time' list.
Lifecolour - Faking Masqurades (no video available, but you can listen here)
This song reminds me of Hebron. I don't know why. I just love it.
Muse - Follow Me
Another great song by Muse, they just keep coming.
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Otherside
An old song, but it's been in my head all year. It has everything I love about the Chilis.
Rock'n'Roll Worship Circus - Everybody Awake
Fun, optimistic, and a good tune. This was the first song onto my soundtrack this year.
Sigur Ros - Vaka
A lovely tune. Interestingly, the only Sigur Ros song I can sing by heart in its entirety.
The Sunshine Underground - The Messiah
I love how this song is less than 6 minutes long, but feels like at least 8. Some great moments of music here.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Things I looked forward to in 2012
About a year ago I posted a list of things I was looking forward to in 2012. All but one of these have now happened, and the last, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, will probably get a review post of its own.
Here is what I thought of these things.
Continuing reading The Malazan Book of the Fallen - I'm half-way through book six of this ten-book epic, having taken an extended break from August to October after book five. I like it a lot, though it's one of the hardest things I've read. A full review might come next year.
Returning to Monday night football - it has been so good to play semi-regular sport again. I missed it a lot. The injury is still there and is still limiting, but I'm coping with it.
June Project - in half term! - It was great to be involved again. I co-led team sport, as I'd done on the first JP back in 2007. Great times.
Lord of the Rings Lego - I haven't bought any of it, but the models look pretty good. Lego just looks less impressive than it used to though, which is sad. I'm still waiting for a model of Minas Tirith.
Red Dwarf series 10 - variable, to be honest. Some outstanding moments, and generally entertaining, but overall not as good as the older stuff. Most episodes tended to focus on cheap gags rather than actual situational comedy and character comedy.
Here is what I thought of these things.
Continuing reading The Malazan Book of the Fallen - I'm half-way through book six of this ten-book epic, having taken an extended break from August to October after book five. I like it a lot, though it's one of the hardest things I've read. A full review might come next year.
Game of Thrones series 2 - brilliant. Lived up to expectations following series 1. Bring on series 3 in the Spring.
Kingdom by Bluetree - a disappointment, compared to their first album. Not completely hopeless, but much weaker than I'd expected. Review here.
June Project - in half term! - It was great to be involved again. I co-led team sport, as I'd done on the first JP back in 2007. Great times.
The Dark Knight Rises - at the time of writing, my joint top film of the year. Almost guaranteed to stay in the top three by the end of the year. Well done Chris Nolan and co. Review here.
Lord of the Rings Lego - I haven't bought any of it, but the models look pretty good. Lego just looks less impressive than it used to though, which is sad. I'm still waiting for a model of Minas Tirith.
Weddings (including one of my oldest friends and my sister (not to each other)) - really fun. Steve's seems a very long time ago now, but it was a great day. Jenny's was wonderful, of course. I ushered and MCed which was a lot of work but even more fun.
London 2012 - it was amazing, wasn't it? Though it didn't exceed my expectations. My expectations were very high, and the Olympics just about delivered. More here.
Red Dwarf series 10 - variable, to be honest. Some outstanding moments, and generally entertaining, but overall not as good as the older stuff. Most episodes tended to focus on cheap gags rather than actual situational comedy and character comedy.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Honour Spotlight: Chris Juby
Chris Juby is a friend of mine from church. I've known him for about 6 years. In that time I've come to realise we are quite similar in some ways. We're both geeks. We're both into music. We've had the same phone as each other for the last 5 years. Talking to Chris is something I find easy to do, but is always an 'experience'. The guy has all sorts of bizarre and interesting knowledge. I remember having lunch together once and covering topics such as number plates, phone numbers and postcodes. You wouldn't think these would be interesting, but Chris has a way of making them interesting.Chris is a really deep thinker. I like this, because it make me feel less strange for being one too. But while my thinking is very analytical, Chris' is...visionary. He sees stuff I had no idea could be seen. He even has a theology of Mary Poppins, which sounds bizarre but actually makes a lot of sense when you hear it. Chris has so many ideas and plans and thoughts in his head that he's been thinking about and praying about and investing in - it's really quite staggering. I don't think I know anyone else who has as much vision for things as Chris.
Chris leads worship at our church. I remember talking to him a few years ago about Matt Redman, and he said 'when Matt Redman leads worship, you get the feeling he's been praying about it for, literally, years'. I get the same feeling when Chris leads worship. He is so good at understanding what's going on in the room and in the congregation, and leading them on.
I've always thought that Chris exudes a kind of quiet self-confidence. He knows his strengths and weaknesses but doesn't become defined by them. I like that.
Chris is a bit of a role model for me. But don't tell him that, he'll be embarrassed...
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Why I am like Arsenal
A few days ago my housemate posed the question 'if you were a football team, who would you be?' My almost immediate response was 'Arsenal - idealistic but not always effective'.
I have since thought more about this. The analogy is by no means perfect, so please don't be offended by the final comparison! Also, you will need a working knowledge of both Arsenal Football Club and myself to understand this.
Reasons why I am like Arsenal:
I have since thought more about this. The analogy is by no means perfect, so please don't be offended by the final comparison! Also, you will need a working knowledge of both Arsenal Football Club and myself to understand this.
Reasons why I am like Arsenal:
- Idealistic, but not always realistic
- When I get it right, it's a sight to behold
- When I get it wrong, you might wonder what on earth I was thinking
- Prone to unpredictable collapses on occasion
- I always back myself and believe in what I do
- The guy in charge can do a lot with very little
Friday, October 12, 2012
Kids these days
Last week I went on a two-day school trip to London. We went on a sightseeing tour, saw Wicked, and went to the Warner Bros studios. A few things on this trip highlighted to me how different the kids were to what I was like at their age. Few if any of these things were new to me, but realising or remembering them all in a short space of time was interesting.
As I said, I knew all this stuff. But seeing it all in a short space of time really brought it home to me how much the childhoods of these kids were different to mine. Something to ponder.
- Within about 20 minutes of leaving on the Thursday morning, before we even got to Darlington, some of the kids were asking 'are we nearly there yet?' There weren't joking. They actually thought that, after 20 minutes of driving, we were probably nearly at London. They had no idea how far away London is. When, at one point, we said we were near Leeds, hardly any kids had heard of the place.
- Because we were going to the Warner Bros studios, we had a Harry Potter quiz on the way down. I wrote it (obviously), and based the questions on the books (even more obviously). That meant that some of the questions couldn't be answered if you'd only seen the films. Almost all the kids had seen at least some of the films. Hardly any had read any of the books. I was actually shocked at how many of these pretty big Potter fans hadn't read any of the books. When we asked why, they simply said 'I don't read'. Like, ever. Reading was just not something they did. Over the course of the whole trip, I saw just one child (out of 55) reading a book.
- Most of the kids took spending money in the region of £150-200. For a two-day, one-night trip. At their age I would probably have taken £20. Wow.
- We spent an hour or so walking round London, seeing some of the sights. Many of the kids really struggled to deal with so much walking. An hour. At a relatively slow place, with a fair few pauses. They were just not used to walking anywhere.
- One kid lost his phone. His reaction? He looked for it in his bag, and his hotel room, and then shrugged and said 'It's ok, I'll get an iPhone for Christmas'. The culture of disposability.
- At the Harry Potter studios, most of the kids had their phones or cameras out to take photos. Fair enough. But some of them did this to such an extent that they barely even looked at the exhibits. They were using their phones instead of their eyes. They could have just stayed at home, given me a camera, and got me to email them the photos when I got back, and they'd have had pretty much the same experience. Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but they did seem to be sacrificing the moment itself for the sake of recording the moment.
- Having said all this, it was very sweet to see their reactions when we got back to school on the Friday night. It was as if they'd been away for a month, they were so delighted to be home. Of course, for many of them, it was the longest time they'd been away from home.
As I said, I knew all this stuff. But seeing it all in a short space of time really brought it home to me how much the childhoods of these kids were different to mine. Something to ponder.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Albums in thirds
Epic geekery here.
I have a theory that an important factor in making a good album is to have a strong final third. So many albums start well but tail off towards the end. Sometimes this is because the artist doesn't really have enough good songs to make an album, and packs their two or three decent singles in the first 5 tracks.
I have analysed 145 of my albums to find out a few things. I mainly wanted to know the proportion of the albums that bucked the trend and finished well, and whether there were any patterns from any particular artists.
I did this by splitting albums in half and awarding a point to whichever half was strongest, and splitting albums into thirds and awarding three, two and one points for the strongest, middle and weakest thirds respectively. I only did this for albums that (a) had at least 9 tracks, and (b) I was confident I knew well enough to analyse well.
There were various problems with the method. It's hard to split an 11 track album into thirds, for example. Or, this gives no indication of how much better one section of an album is than another. But given the resources available (time, energy, inclination, knowledge, ability), it was the best I could do.
The findings? Of 145 albums, 120 had a stronger first half and only 25 had a stronger second half. The total points for thirds were: 1st third - 382; 2nd third - 259; 3rd third - 229. So the final third is not, on average, much weaker than the middle third - but the first third is definitely the strongest. And first halves are stronger about 80% of the time.
A total of 59 albums were 'perfectly front heavy' - that is, the first third was the strongest, the final third was the weakest, and the first half was stronger than the second. Only 6 albums were the opposite - first third weakest, final third strongest, second half stronger than the first. These six albums, if you are wondering, are Athlete - Beyond the Neighbourhood, Bottlerockit - Angel on a Vespa, British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power, Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and all his Friends, Hurts - Happiness, and Lifehouse - No Name Face.
In terms of artists, I looked at any artist with three or more albums on the list, and looked for patterns.
Anberlin: consistently front heavy (i.e. strongest in the opening third), with weak middles.
Athlete: very varied, no pattern, each album is very different
Bloc Party: always front heavy, except for their best album, A Weekend in the City, which is back heavy
British Sea Power: same as Bloc Party - front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Casting Crowns: always perfectly front heavy and declining throughout the album
Coldplay: slightly varies but mostly front heavy
Delirious: generally front heavy, lots of weak middles
Enya: front heavy, except for her first two albums
Idlewild: very varied, like Athlete
The Killers: always front heavy
Lifehouse: front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Matt Redman: front heavy except for his best album
Mew: consistently front heavy
Muse: front heavy
Oasis: generally front heavy
Stellastarr*: front heavy with weak middles
Tim Hughes: front heavy
U2: front heavy
The pattern is pretty clear throughout: most albums are front heavy. Interestingly, there are several artists whose strongest album is the only one that is back heavy. Of the nine of my top ten albums of the decade for 2000-2009 that were in this analysis, only 1 had the final third as its weakest section, and 5 had it as the strongest section. It seems that, for me at least, a strong final third is an important factor in a good album.
I have a theory that an important factor in making a good album is to have a strong final third. So many albums start well but tail off towards the end. Sometimes this is because the artist doesn't really have enough good songs to make an album, and packs their two or three decent singles in the first 5 tracks.
I have analysed 145 of my albums to find out a few things. I mainly wanted to know the proportion of the albums that bucked the trend and finished well, and whether there were any patterns from any particular artists.
I did this by splitting albums in half and awarding a point to whichever half was strongest, and splitting albums into thirds and awarding three, two and one points for the strongest, middle and weakest thirds respectively. I only did this for albums that (a) had at least 9 tracks, and (b) I was confident I knew well enough to analyse well.
There were various problems with the method. It's hard to split an 11 track album into thirds, for example. Or, this gives no indication of how much better one section of an album is than another. But given the resources available (time, energy, inclination, knowledge, ability), it was the best I could do.
The findings? Of 145 albums, 120 had a stronger first half and only 25 had a stronger second half. The total points for thirds were: 1st third - 382; 2nd third - 259; 3rd third - 229. So the final third is not, on average, much weaker than the middle third - but the first third is definitely the strongest. And first halves are stronger about 80% of the time.
A total of 59 albums were 'perfectly front heavy' - that is, the first third was the strongest, the final third was the weakest, and the first half was stronger than the second. Only 6 albums were the opposite - first third weakest, final third strongest, second half stronger than the first. These six albums, if you are wondering, are Athlete - Beyond the Neighbourhood, Bottlerockit - Angel on a Vespa, British Sea Power - The Decline of British Sea Power, Coldplay - Viva la Vida or Death and all his Friends, Hurts - Happiness, and Lifehouse - No Name Face.
In terms of artists, I looked at any artist with three or more albums on the list, and looked for patterns.
Anberlin: consistently front heavy (i.e. strongest in the opening third), with weak middles.
Athlete: very varied, no pattern, each album is very different
Bloc Party: always front heavy, except for their best album, A Weekend in the City, which is back heavy
British Sea Power: same as Bloc Party - front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Casting Crowns: always perfectly front heavy and declining throughout the album
Coldplay: slightly varies but mostly front heavy
Delirious: generally front heavy, lots of weak middles
Enya: front heavy, except for her first two albums
Idlewild: very varied, like Athlete
The Killers: always front heavy
Lifehouse: front heavy except for their best album which is back heavy
Matt Redman: front heavy except for his best album
Mew: consistently front heavy
Muse: front heavy
Oasis: generally front heavy
Stellastarr*: front heavy with weak middles
Tim Hughes: front heavy
U2: front heavy
The pattern is pretty clear throughout: most albums are front heavy. Interestingly, there are several artists whose strongest album is the only one that is back heavy. Of the nine of my top ten albums of the decade for 2000-2009 that were in this analysis, only 1 had the final third as its weakest section, and 5 had it as the strongest section. It seems that, for me at least, a strong final third is an important factor in a good album.
Football and the pinch of salt
I like watching football. I support Liverpool. But I view my support of them as a bit of a hobby. I think I am less fussed about how they do than many of my friends are about their own teams. I would like to support them more ardently, but I don't think I can justify it.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games. It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly. I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens. It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence. Big decisions that change the game. It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups. Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt. I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically. I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.
The reason for this is that I don't think I can trust the results of many (maybe even most) football games. It seems to me that most games have at least one significant moment where a game-changing decision is made incorrectly. I've posted on this topic before, but until recently I hadn't noticed just how often this happens. It might be a goal wrongly disallowed, or a dodgy penalty decision, or a mistaken red card offence. Big decisions that change the game. It seems that a large proportion of games have these incorrect decisions, so I can't trust the results of quite a lot of games, and hence leagues and cups. Therefore is it pointless getting too worked up about supporting a team.
I still want to enjoy watching football, but I intend, more than before, to take it all with a large pinch of salt. I'm happy to associate myself with a team and hope they win games, but I want to not get too worked up about whether or not they do.
It's a shame, because I would like to support more fanatically. I just can't justify that much emotional energy in something that produces such untrustworthy results.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
In defence of Harry Potter
This link was recently posted on my Facebook wall. I promised a blogged response, so here it is. I suggest you read the linked article before this post, as I will be responding to the points made in the article.
First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm. This is inaccurate. While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm. The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers. The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave. His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.
The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill. This is simply incorrect. Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not. Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on. Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.
Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths. Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant. I fail to see how it isn't both of these. It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic. As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series. Secondly, Lupin and Tonks. Here I have to concede the point. I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).
Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent. The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'. The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching). Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal. The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch. Veritaserum? To be honest, I don't know. This may well be a plot hole. But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally. Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows. In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.
Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.
The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.
So there we go. My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.
First, the character of Harry is criticised for not being that good at anything except for flying and the patronus charm. This is inaccurate. While being academically average, Harry is good at Defence Against the Dark Arts in general, not just one charm. The suggestion that he is only good at the patronus charm because he learnt it earlier than usual is weak, as evidence from Dumbledore's Army scenes, and the rest of books 6 and 7, suggest that he was more successful with this charm than his peers. The author also overlooks the fact that Harry is exceptionally brave. His bravery is probably his strongest character trait.
The author is unhappy that Harry, while not being good at much, is "touted by others as being a wonderful and excellent wizard for no discernible reason". Two points in response to this. Firstly, the times he is praised by many people are the times when he has done something particularly good, such as killing a basilisk, evading a dragon or escaping from Voldemort. Secondly, a lot of the hype placed on Harry throughout the series is because he (admittedly unknowingly) caused first downfall. It's the standard response to a saviour-hero. Nothing that unusual, and certainly not Harry's fault.
The article says that most things that happen to Harry are due to others, and not his own skill. This is simply incorrect. Some things are due to the skill of others (usually Hermione or Dumbledore), but plenty of things are not. Such as: fighting off Quirrell, killing the basilisk, driving off dementors several times, evading the Hungarian Horntail, escaping Voldemort in the graveyard, getting out of the Department of Mysteries with Hermione unconscious, Ron temporarily insane, and Neville and Ginny injured..the list goes on. Again, many of these things come down to Harry's bravery.
Harry is then criticised for not trying hard enough in the Triwizard Tournament, and for needing help to get through it. It should be noted that both Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, the strongest wizard and witch from their respective schools, needed help from their mentors. Harry is about three years younger than them and probably gets no more help than them.
Then comes a classic issue: angry-Harry in book 5. I've said before that, given Harry's circumstances, a little anger is not unexpected and maybe even reasonable. He acts like a normal teenager would. The author of the article acknowledges this, but argues that Harry is not a normal teenager. However, the author gives no reason for this argument, but simply goes on to criticise Rowling's writing - a separate issue that gives no evidence to the debate over Harry's anger. Hence, there is no argument that Harry is not a normal teenager. I would like to point out that (a) I don't happen to think he is a normal teenager, but the article gives no evidence for claiming that he isn't, and (b) I don't think he is sufficiently abnormal to be immune to anger!
So, that's Harry defended. He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be? He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.
Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing. The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing. Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view). Harry is initially just a kid. He's young. Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way. Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books. It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges. He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling. There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black). The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character. That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.
Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense. Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament. Two points in defence of this. One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools. Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years. It was a massive deal. I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding. The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety. The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort. However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy. This is all explained at the end of book five. Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry? Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions. Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it. Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.
Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it? Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out. It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic? The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy. From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?
Dumbledore kept information from Harry for two reasons. One is explained in book six (Harry even asks this question!) - Dumbledore told Harry everything he knew for certain; from then on, it was guesswork. The second is that Dumbledore was a master schemer. He kept information from people all the time, you could argue he even sacrificed people for the long-term goal of killing Voldemort. Dumbledore's character is possibly the most interesting of the lot. Remember the whole 'greater good' thing from his youth? I reckon he carried elements of that on through his life.So, that's Harry defended. He's by no means perfect, nor is he good at many things other than flying, DADA and being brave - but since when did he have to be? He's not my favourite character, but the accusations levelled at him in the article are unfounded.
Next, the article moves on to criticise JKR's writing. The series is critisied for the first few books being more black-and-white with respect to 'goodies and baddies', and then introducing more grey areas in later books. The author of the article seems to find this unconvincing. Personally, I have always found this to make a lot of sense, because, we must remember, the story is told almost entirely from Harry's point of view (in fact, in books 1-3, other than the opening chapter in which he is 1 year old, only about 10 lines are not from his point of view). Harry is initially just a kid. He's young. Like most children of his age, he sees things in quite a black and white way. Therefore it makes sense for him to see 'goodies and baddies' as fairly black and white characters in the first few books. It should also be noted that, even when he's older, Harry is not the most logical of people and tends to jump to conclusions and hold strong grudges. He is not a particularly good judge of character.
The comment about Hogwarts alumni objecting to the banning of quidditch by Umbridge is just baffling. There is no indication of alumni getting involved at Hogwarts for any reason, and even if they did, by this time Hogwarts was ministry-run, under the guidance of Umbridge - I very much doubt that any alumni could have done anything about the ban.
The comments about Harry's father aren't much better - they're understandable but, like much of the article, not based on canonical fact. Yes, Harry finds out bad stuff about his dad as he grows up - but there are still people who defend his dad as generally a good guy (e.g. Remus Lupin and Sirius Black). The revelations about Harry's dad are part of the theme of Fatherhood that runs throughout the series, and help to flesh out James' character. That's the purpose that the author doesn't seem to notice.
Next we have the plot points that allegedly don't make sense. Firstly, the author questions that lots of Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students come to Hogwarts for a whole year for only one to compete in the Triwizard Tournament. Two points in defence of this. One - this is not a normal school system; no doubt they do things differently to muggle schools. Two - this was the first Triwizard Tournament for over 200 years. It was a massive deal. I'm not surprised people risked a year of education for the chance to compete.
Next, the author has some questions about the prophecy which "doesn't really mean anything" - this is a crude and exaggerated way of putting it, though not entirely inaccurate, but shows a misunderstanding. The prophecy means several things when heard in its entirety. The interesting thing about it is that it is not a perfect prediction of the future - it doesn't bind Harry to killing Voldemort. However, because Voldemort chooses to follow the prophecy, the two of them will eventually meet and one will die - but because of Voldemort's choices, not because of some fatalistic prophecy. This is all explained at the end of book five. Anyway, the authors' questions about the prophecy, and my answers, are:
So why exactly did Dumbledore and everyone keep that from Harry? Firstly, it's Dumbledore, not everyone else - the rest of the Order don't seem to know what the prophecy is, they're just following Dumbledore's instructions. Secondly, they don't really seem to be keeping it from Harry - Harry never really asks about it until after he's heard it. Thirdly, if Dumbledore does keep things from Harry, it is because, as Dumbledore explains, he doesn't think Harry is ready to hear everything yet.Why did it matter so much to make sure Voldemort didn't hear the end of it? Because the end of the prophecy explains why Voldemort couldn't kill Harry, which is exactly what Voldemort was trying to find out. It's delaying tactics.
If it was really that big of a deal, why couldn’t the good guys destroy the recording held at the Ministry of Magic? The authority to do this would lie with the Ministry, who didn't believe Voldemort had returned and, even if they did, did not know the contents of the prophecy. From their point of view, they had no reason to destroy it.
Another set of questions related to the plot: At the end of Book 5, didn't Dumbledore promise not to keep things from Harry anymore? So why did he immediately start keeping things from Harry in Book 6 about the Horcruxes? Why drag out that whole plot/discussion throughout the course of the book when he could have sat Harry down and explained things in one go?
Nearly at the end now...the author disagrees with JKRs handling of deaths. Firstly that of Sirius because it wasn't dramatic and poignant. I fail to see how it isn't both of these. It's in the middle of a big wizard battle, he's killed by his own cousin, having come to rescue his godson - that's pretty dramatic. As for poignancy, I think, and I think many fans would agree, that it's one of the hardest-hitting parts of the series. Secondly, Lupin and Tonks. Here I have to concede the point. I actually think the story would have been better if Tonks had lived, and I do think that Lupin should have had an 'on-screen' death (though I can see the attraction of the brutality of having it off-screen).Next, we have the accusation of JKR being inconsistent. The examples used are 'Why don't wizards always apparate instead of using other methods of transport?' and 'Why don't they use time-turners and veritaserum more?'. The apparition question is answered several times in the books - not all wizards can apparate, not all wizards like apparition, apparition is risky (splinching). Time-turners are so dangerous as to be practically illegal. The question shouldn't be 'why they don't use them more?', but 'how was Hermione allowed to use one?' - this was clearly an exceptional situation for an exceptional witch. Veritaserum? To be honest, I don't know. This may well be a plot hole. But in a story this complex, plot holes are guaranteed to appear occasionally. Having said that, I am sure JKR would be able to answer this question, given the amount of background information she knows. In fact, a quick internet search reveals this quote from JKR on the very first hit:
Veritaserum works best upon the unsuspecting, the vulnerable and those insufficiently skilled (in one way or another) to protect themselves against it. Barty Crouch had been attacked before the potion was given to him and was still very groggy, otherwise he could have employed a range of measures against the Potion – he might have sealed his own throat and faked a declaration of innocence, transformed the Potion into something else before it touched his lips, or employed Occlumency against its effects. In other words, just like every other kind of magic within the books, Veritaserum is not infallible. As some wizards can prevent themselves being affected, and others cannot, it is an unfair and unreliable tool to use at a trial.
Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses. The sad fact is that even if Sirius had told the truth under the influence of the Potion, Mr. Crouch could still have insisted that he was using trickery to render himself immune to it.
So that's that settled.
The final criticism in the article is of the length of the last four books. The author cynically suggests that this was because editors didn't want to drive away the by-then very successful writer that Rowling was. No evidence for this. And, to be fair, the books are awesome. I'd rather the first three be longer than the last four shorter.
So there we go. My defence of the Harry Potter series against whoever it was who wrote that article.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Gove's plan hides a bigger problem
The education system, and particularly its assessment, is a bit of a mess. This has been clear to me since I started teaching, 4 years ago. Grade boundaries fluctuate, sometimes wildly. The difference between a C in one qualification and another can be huge. Many exams are an unrealistic way of assessing people. The number of resits that can be taken has become absurd. Teaching to the test is rife. Grade inflation has become a joke.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things. I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make. I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.
First, a bit of background. A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced. This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language. Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability. Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs. This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac. The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac. In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects. It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take. (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)
In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to start with). It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules. It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11. The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation. A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago. Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth). This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one. More rigour is needed. Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results. Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with). (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)
However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake. Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have. At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June. Mental. But stopping modules altogether is a step too far. As is removing coursework. I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils. In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that. The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world. This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.
Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration. A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades. Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades. Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority. Classic Tory.
However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results. Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be). The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can. Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.
Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there. This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. Grade inflation for one. The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two. Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one. Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year. Which pupils get extra help for coursework. Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier. Teaching to the test. Pupils breaking down with stress. Staff breaking down with stress.
There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules. There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils. But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment. I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment). But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer. That would be Mr Gove's job. And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.
I can completely understand Michael Gove's desire to change things. I just don't agree with all the changes he is planning to make. I don't agree with all of them...though I do agree with some of them.
First, a bit of background. A year or two ago, the English Baccalaureate was introduced. This is an award gained by achieving grade C or higher in English, Maths, Science, a humanity and a language. Achieving the EBac would be a sign of general all-round academic ability. Less academic subjects such as drama and DT were not included in the EBac but are still assessed as normal GCSEs. This sounded (and still sounds) like a good idea - essentially, pupils do GCSEs in the same way as before, and there is a way of identifying the all-round academic pupils by seeing who achieved the EBac. The problem is that schools can be assessed not only on the magic '% of 5 A*-C including English and Maths', but on the % of pupils achieving the EBac. In my school, this led the management to look at our EBac target (e.g. 65%), then find the 65% of pupils most likely to achieve the EBac, and force them to take those subjects. It restricted choice and pushed kids into subjects they didn't want to take. (Note 1: pupils subject choice fuelled by school targets and results)
In the last week, Gove has proposed the English Baccalaureate Certificate - a new qualification to replace GCSEs in some subjects (English, Maths and Science to start with). It is designed to be more rigorous, with no coursework or modules. It will be assessed by a single exam at the end of year 11. The idea behind increasing the rigour stems, I believe, from the desire to stop ludicrous grade inflation. A GCSE grade C is worth less now than it was ten years ago, simply because more people achive grade C now than they did ten years ago. Exams are (or at least they were until about a year ago) easier than they used to be (that is not a myth). This desire to stop grade inflation is a good one. More rigour is needed. Another way that Gove plans to reduce grade inflation is to have only one exam board, to prevent the current situation of exam boards competing to offer slightly easier qualifications than their competitors, so that schools will choose their qualification and improve their results. Having only one exam board is a good idea (though not a difficult one to come up with). (Note 2: grade inflation due at least in part to schools competing for better results)
However, removing coursework and modules is a mistake. Admittedly, we need fewer modules than we currently have. At the moment, pupils sit exams in November, January, March and June. Mental. But stopping modules altogether is a step too far. As is removing coursework. I can't put it better than this quote from Liz Brimacombe on the BBC website:
"My final comment is that doing a limited amount of work all year and then cramming like mad for a three-hour exam (as was the case in the O-level days) is not a skill relevant to most jobs. Having to produce quality work, under deadlines, sometimes project based throughout a year is far more applicable in today's world."
Traditional-style exams are not a good way to assess pupils. In no real-life situation do you have to do something like that. The ability to produce good coursework, however, is a skill transferable to the real world. This does not necessarily mean there is no place for exams - it is important to assess what pupils understand by themselves, without reference materials.
Another feature of Gove's new plan is to remove the two-tier system of Higher and Foundation courses, because Foundation courses, while easier, have a maximum grade of C, and could be seen to prevent aspiration. A good sentiment, but it is countered by the idea of more rigour and a traditional end-of-course exam, which will make it more difficult to achieve the top grades. Under this new system, less academic pupils could find themselves unable to get good grades. Gove's new system appears to cater for only certain types of pupils - the academic ones who are, probably, the minority. Classic Tory.
However, the fact that this new system will only benefit a few is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that as qualifications get, basically, more difficult for the majority (no resits, no coursework, more rigour etc), schools will be under even more pressure to deliver results. Emphasis on exams, teaching to the test, and exam pressure will all increase, and the main reason will not be to enable pupils to do as well as they can (though it should be). The main reason will be so that schools get the best results that they can. Because, sadly, the thing that drives almost everything in education is league tables.
Schools strive to improve results each year, because the better their results in the broadsheets at the end of August, or the better results they can put in their prospectus, the more year 6 applications they will receive, the more money they will receive, and the more staff will want to work there. This desire to improve results (a) is ludicrous, and (b) drives many other things.
It is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. Grade inflation for one. The fact that some years are cleverer than others for two. Varying exam boards, varying difficulties of exams, the fact that some schools have a catchment that predisposes pupils to do well at school, and so on.
It also drives many other things - the courses that pupils are allowed to take being a huge one. Targets that teachers have to set for themselves each year. Which pupils get extra help for coursework. Grade inflation over the years, as exams steadily become easier. Teaching to the test. Pupils breaking down with stress. Staff breaking down with stress.
There are some good things about Gove's proposals - one exam board, fewer modules. There are plenty of bad things - no coursework, no modules, only benefits a minority of pupils. But it simply masks, and is a response to, the competitiveness between schools to out-achieve each other.
I don't have the answer at the moment. I do have some ideas, which mostly revolved around more teacher assessment of pupils, moderated by external examiners (as mentioned above, traditional exams are not a realistic method of assessment). But I don't get paid a six-figure salary to come up with the answer. That would be Mr Gove's job. And so far, he has failed - I'd probably give him grade E.
Monday, September 03, 2012
First World Problems
I've had a bad day (bear with me, this post is not just a whine). I started off pretty tired, physically and emotionally. My sister got married on Saturday - I was ushering and managing logistics. We finished clearing up at about 12, then I had to be at church for 8 to set up on Sunday morning. Following church and then clearing up from it, I was helping to clear the wedding reception until about 5. Then there was the mix of emotions that goes with one's sister getting married, and the bizzare feeling of situations like seeing my oldest friend, Annie, for the first time in about 3 years, and only having time for a quick hug,
I woke up pretty shattered. And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching. The last thing I wanted was the first day of term. Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday. Yes, that's the day the kids come back. And the labs will be empty when they arrive. Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue. When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock. It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam. I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal. I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.
This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening. I reckoned I needed to get some perspective. As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'. I remembered that I have a continual supply of food. I have a phone, a car, and a house. I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive. I have a laptop on which to write this. I have had amazing experiences in the past. I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth. I have done Lord of the Rings marathons. I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset. I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times. I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times. I've been up the Eiffel Tower. I've watched live athletics at London 2012. I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life. My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.
The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening. My short-sightedness is shameful. And the scary thing is, I do this every day. And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.
I woke up pretty shattered. And my knee (long term injury) and shoulder (more recent but currently more annoying) were both aching. The last thing I wanted was the first day of term. Particularly this term, knowing that, although the kids don't come back until Wednesday, we will only have Tuesday to move our entire science department, including all the equipment, back into science labs following a refurb (it took us a whole week to move out).
This morning we found out we won't be able to get into the science labs until Wednesday. Yes, that's the day the kids come back. And the labs will be empty when they arrive. Today was filled with mostly boring, mostly pointless, mostly inefficient meetings.
I came home via taking two carloads of church kit back to our normal venue. When I got home I locked the car and then realised that half the key had snapped off and got stuck in the lock. It's less than a month since I had to get a replacement car key cut.
I decided to play football for an hour with some friends to try to let off some steam. I played really badly and got really frustrated, and damaged my thumb playing in goal. I didn't have much appetite for dinner.
It was all a bit pathetic.
This evening I went to our monthly prayer evening. I reckoned I needed to get some perspective. As I stood in a room filled with people I love and trust, I remembered that phrase 'First World Problems'. I remembered that I have a continual supply of food. I have a phone, a car, and a house. I have time to do things I enjoy, beyond just staying alive. I have a laptop on which to write this. I have had amazing experiences in the past. I have played for possibly the greatest sporting club on earth. I have done Lord of the Rings marathons. I've climbed to the top of a mountain in Norway at 11pm to watch the sunset. I've seen Idlewild live in concert three times. I've been to the mast wonderful summer camp a total of ten times. I've been up the Eiffel Tower. I've watched live athletics at London 2012. I've ushered at my sister's wedding.
And that's not to mention any of the people in my life. My family, my friends from home, the imperfect people who somehow make up the seemingly perfect community in Durham.
Suddenly I was feeling overwhelmed with gratitude.
The contrast between my blessedness and my ungratefulness is staggering and sickening. My short-sightedness is shameful. And the scary thing is, I do this every day. And if you have the means to read this, you probably do too.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
An unusual preference
I have a preference that I have noticed is unusual.
I like long films. I've realised this over the last few years - I hardly ever think a film is too long, but I often think a film is too short. Other people seem to often complain about films being too long, but I like long films. I find that films under about two hours seem to finish before they've really got started. I enjoy the depth of plot that can occur in a film of 2.5-3 hours.
I quickly made a list of 22 of my favourite films. Even using the short versions of the Lord of the rings films, the average film length was 2 hours 22 minutes. And that's including three anomalies at 92, 95 and 98 minutes.
I tried this with my list of contenders for greatest song ever - 23 songs, at an average length of 4 minutes 54 seconds. Then I tried it with 27 of my favourite albums - average length of 50 minutes and 28 seconds.
A brief internet search suggests that the average film length is 2 hours (22 minutes short of my average), the average song length (in western culture) is 4 minutes (54 seconds short of my average), and the average album length is 43 minutes (7.28 minutes short of my average).
Further maths gives my average film length at 18% longer than average, my average song length at 22.5% longer than average, and my average album length at 17% longer than average.
I've noticed that I like long books too - I'm currently half-way through a ten-book series, each book having about 1000 pages. The reason for this may be similar to the reason for the films - more length allows greater plot depth and complexity, greater character development, and I find that, as long as it's good, I don't get bored. I'm not sure about the music though. Probably similar reasons - I find that short songs are over too soon - I don't have as much time to fully get into them. Same with albums - over before they've begun.
It seems that most people like things to be a little shorter than I do. I'm not sure why.
I like long films. I've realised this over the last few years - I hardly ever think a film is too long, but I often think a film is too short. Other people seem to often complain about films being too long, but I like long films. I find that films under about two hours seem to finish before they've really got started. I enjoy the depth of plot that can occur in a film of 2.5-3 hours.
I quickly made a list of 22 of my favourite films. Even using the short versions of the Lord of the rings films, the average film length was 2 hours 22 minutes. And that's including three anomalies at 92, 95 and 98 minutes.
I tried this with my list of contenders for greatest song ever - 23 songs, at an average length of 4 minutes 54 seconds. Then I tried it with 27 of my favourite albums - average length of 50 minutes and 28 seconds.
A brief internet search suggests that the average film length is 2 hours (22 minutes short of my average), the average song length (in western culture) is 4 minutes (54 seconds short of my average), and the average album length is 43 minutes (7.28 minutes short of my average).
Further maths gives my average film length at 18% longer than average, my average song length at 22.5% longer than average, and my average album length at 17% longer than average.
I've noticed that I like long books too - I'm currently half-way through a ten-book series, each book having about 1000 pages. The reason for this may be similar to the reason for the films - more length allows greater plot depth and complexity, greater character development, and I find that, as long as it's good, I don't get bored. I'm not sure about the music though. Probably similar reasons - I find that short songs are over too soon - I don't have as much time to fully get into them. Same with albums - over before they've begun.
It seems that most people like things to be a little shorter than I do. I'm not sure why.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
London 2012: The brutality of sport
This is the last post in this series on London 2012. During the Olympics it struck me, as it has done before, how brutal sport is.
Take Liu Xiang in the 110m hurdles for example - 2004 Olympics: Gold; 2005 Worlds: Silver (missing Gold by 0.01s); 2007 Worlds: Gold. A superb athlete, world record holder, and favourite for the Olympic Gold in 2008. Then injury hit, and Xiang missed his home Games. London 2012 was his chance fore redemption. 7th July, first round, final heat, Liu Xiang preparing to go through to the semis. He starts quickly, jumps for the first hurdle, and his damaged achilles means he doesn't get high enough, takes out the barrier, falls and fails to finish the race. One of the best hurdlers in the world (arguably the very best) over the last 7 years, and he hasn't even got to an Olympic semi final in that time. Not his fault, just the brutality of injury.
Or take Argentinian hockey player Luciana Aymar, 7-time world player of the year, easily the best player ever. Olympic record? Zero gold medals. Not because she's not awesome, but because she plays for a team who have never been the best team. Not her fault, just the brutality of being the best player in the world but not in the best team in the world
Or (and this is the most interesting one) how about gymnast Jordyn Wieber, or the Spanish men's football team, or archer Brady Ellison - all pre-Olympic favourites for gold having performed excellently in buildup events, but who all underperformed when it came to the Games. Although this one is their fault, it's only their fault because they are not perfect. They were the best for the last, say, 12 months, and just had their blip at the crucial time. The brutality here is that the medals are often awarded based on a very small sample of performances - usually just one race, or one game. And it doesn't matter how well you perform in warmup events, or even in the semifinals. What matters is how you perform in the final, and if that's when you have an off-day, that's it. No second chances, no excuses.
It is true that part of top-level sport is the requirement to perform under pressure on the big stage, but sometimes things just go wrong, and in most sports, where you only get one chance, that is brutal.
Sailing is, interestingly, a little different: ten races, with the overall best sailor being awarded the gold (a bit like the annual Formula 1 competition). Equally interestingly, BMX racing uses a very similar model in the heats and semifinals, but reduces the final to one race. Not only is this brutal, it seems unnecessarily brutal.
The brutality of sport is that it doesn't matter how good you are, if you're not good (or fit, or on the right team), at the time when you are assessed. You can win every race in four years but if you come fourth in the Olympic final, hardly anyone will know who you are.
London 2012: Greatest Olympians
During the Olympics one of the most interesting discussions was over who is the greatest ever Olympian. Here are my thoughts on the question.
According to these discussions, Olympic greatness should be measured mainly by success in Olympic games, i.e. by gold medals or medals in general. The Olympics are about competition and the aim is to win. Therefore we should look for athletes who have won many medals. Swimmer Michael Phelps has won 18 golds and 22 medals in total, so surely he is the greatest, right? Wrong.
7 of those golds and 9 of his total medals were from team events (i.e. relays), which surely don't count to the same extent as individual medals. If you look at individual medals, gymnast Larisa Latynina comes top. Interestingly, both swimming and gymnastics are sports that allow athletes to compete in multiple events at one Olympic games. In fact, of the top 20 all-time Olympic medallists, 14 are swimmers or gymnasts. A female gymnast can compete in beam, floor, vault, uneven bars, all-around, and team events. A swimmer like Michael Phelps can do 100m free, 200m free, 100m fly, 200m fly, 200m IM, 4x100m medley relay, 4x100m free relay etc. Compare this to, say, a hockey player, who can only enter one event per Olympics. Or a decathlete, who does ten events but can only win one medal. Looking at Phelps' events, many are very similar (e.g. 100m free, 200m free, 4x100m free, 4x200m free) - like Usain Bolt running 100m, 200m and 4x100m - whereas a decathlete's events are much more varied.
Then there's the issue that some sports, like equestrian, can be competed at for many more years than others, like diving. Horseriders can go on well into their fifties. Divers peak at age 22. A horserider will be able to compete at many more Olympic games than a diver.
There's also the fact that some sports, like rowing, require more physical recovery time than others, like swimming. Others are barely physical at all, like archery.
Then what about the argument that it should not only be medals that are used to decide the greatest Olympian, but medals won over several Olympic games? Is it valid to argue that winning 5 golds at five different games is more impressive than winning 5 golds at a single games?
There are so many variables - how long you can compete at the top for, how many events are enterable, whether medals are won as an individual or in a team, and so on. It is not possible to say who the greatest ever Olympian is, even if we only consider medals, without thinking about personal circumstances or contribution to the Olympic movement as a whole or sport-changing performances.
So who is the greatest Olympian of all time? No-one knows. And if they think they do, they're wrong. It's not really even that easy to have a personal opinion about, if you think about how many variables there are that could contribute to greatness, let alone form a cohesive argument to propose the 'greatest'.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
London 2012: Sport vs performance
Towards the end of the Olympics, Ben Dirs wrote this on the BBC website.
On the face of it, the article is about why only some sports are in the Olympics, but it's really about what makes a sport a sport. The example of synchronised swimming was used, but references were also made to dressage and rhythmic gymnastics. The following key point was made:
"I respect the participants of synchronised swimming and their indefatigability I salute. The French duet was throwing shapes to Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and that presumably takes some doing, especially when you're upside down, shin-deep in chlorinated water and trying to keep up with your mate next door.
But at what point does performance become sport? People have been dancing to Swan Lake for almost 150 years - they call it ballet. By extension, if you put a set of judges down in the orchestra pit at the Bolshoi, then ballet becomes sport."
A fair point. Synchronised swimming is very similar to ballet, just in water. Dressage and rhythmic gymnastics (and I would add diving and possibly artistic gymnastics and trampolining) are similar. All these are scored by a panel of judges who make - and this is the crux - qualitative decisions, which they then give quantitative scores. A sport like hockey or handball is measured quantitatively, by counting goals. These other sports are measured in a more qualitative way. Judges look for how well competitors perform certain moves. They look for something like straight legs, but judge it qualitatively rather than actually measuring the angle of bend at the knee. Does this mean they are not sports? Not necessarily. But I think it does mean that if they are, then something like ballet could legitimately be considered a sport. And if ballet, then surely other forms of dance could be judged in a similar way and be called sports. Of course, dancing competitions do happen...but they are not considered sporting competitions. Similarly, playing a musical instrument can be judged, even in a competitive way, but is not considered a sport.
But looking at it another way, what about chess? Quantitatively measured, but a game, not a sport. Why? Because of the lack of physical exertion? Well what about darts? Darts is considered a sport but involves very little physical exertion. While ballet is the opposite - not a sport, but physically very demanding.
If you include synchronised swimming, diving and gymnastics as sports, you have to be willing to include ballet and trombone playing. If you include darts, you have to include chess.
A brief look at Wikipedia and the IOC website reveals that sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity. In therms of the Olympics, to be a potential Olympic sport, an activity must have an international federation and be practised around the world. Interestingly, they IOC recognises five 'mind sports' - bridge, chess, draughts, go and xiangqi.
This is clearly a minefield of inconsistency. It seems that the definition of a sport should either be much narrower or much wider than it currently is, but I don't know which!
On the face of it, the article is about why only some sports are in the Olympics, but it's really about what makes a sport a sport. The example of synchronised swimming was used, but references were also made to dressage and rhythmic gymnastics. The following key point was made:
"I respect the participants of synchronised swimming and their indefatigability I salute. The French duet was throwing shapes to Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, and that presumably takes some doing, especially when you're upside down, shin-deep in chlorinated water and trying to keep up with your mate next door.
But at what point does performance become sport? People have been dancing to Swan Lake for almost 150 years - they call it ballet. By extension, if you put a set of judges down in the orchestra pit at the Bolshoi, then ballet becomes sport."
A fair point. Synchronised swimming is very similar to ballet, just in water. Dressage and rhythmic gymnastics (and I would add diving and possibly artistic gymnastics and trampolining) are similar. All these are scored by a panel of judges who make - and this is the crux - qualitative decisions, which they then give quantitative scores. A sport like hockey or handball is measured quantitatively, by counting goals. These other sports are measured in a more qualitative way. Judges look for how well competitors perform certain moves. They look for something like straight legs, but judge it qualitatively rather than actually measuring the angle of bend at the knee. Does this mean they are not sports? Not necessarily. But I think it does mean that if they are, then something like ballet could legitimately be considered a sport. And if ballet, then surely other forms of dance could be judged in a similar way and be called sports. Of course, dancing competitions do happen...but they are not considered sporting competitions. Similarly, playing a musical instrument can be judged, even in a competitive way, but is not considered a sport.But looking at it another way, what about chess? Quantitatively measured, but a game, not a sport. Why? Because of the lack of physical exertion? Well what about darts? Darts is considered a sport but involves very little physical exertion. While ballet is the opposite - not a sport, but physically very demanding.
A brief look at Wikipedia and the IOC website reveals that sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity. In therms of the Olympics, to be a potential Olympic sport, an activity must have an international federation and be practised around the world. Interestingly, they IOC recognises five 'mind sports' - bridge, chess, draughts, go and xiangqi.
This is clearly a minefield of inconsistency. It seems that the definition of a sport should either be much narrower or much wider than it currently is, but I don't know which!
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
London 2012: expectations and reactions
Before the Olympics, some people were very excited (myself
included), but many people were quite underwhelmed. ‘I'm not into sport’, ‘It’s not worth the
financial cost’, ‘We’ll be rubbish anyway’ were phrases commonly heard. This enraged me a little. I always love the Olympics, since I first
watched it in 1992. Sport is both wonderful
and brutal, and displays extremes of joy and despair. The Olympics brings together 36 sports
(currently), and has them all at the same time.
It brings together sporting superstars from almost every country of the
world. It unites people. The Olympics is a massive deal, and having
them in our own country so that, not only is the action on TV during daylight
hours (Sydney 2000 was a nightmare!), but we can actually go and see events
live, is amazing. I had been counting
down to London 2012 for seven years.
But the most infuriating thing is not that people were not
excited about the Olympics. The most
infuriating thing was the hype that emerged when GB started doing well. I loved that GB did well, I loved that we won
medals. I did not love the hype that
emerged. In the space of two weeks, the
public seemed to go from apathetic to euphoric about the Olympics – which is
great. It is great that people became
interested and supported our athletes.
What is not great is the delusion that accompanied this, and what I fear
will happen now the Olympics are over.
According to most people, including the media (who are part
of the problem), GB had an unexpectedly superb Olympics. This is not true. We were only superb in two sports: cycling
and rowing. In these events, we
undoubtedly dominated. Particularly in
rowing, where we exceeded any expectations.
In cycling, although we dominated, none of the medals we won were
unexpected. Hoy, Pendelton, Kenny,
Trott, Wiggins et el are the best cyclists in the world. They’ve been winning things for years. If anything, we actually underperformed in cycling, as we could reasonably have hoped for a
medal in the women’s team sprint, the men’s road race, and at least one BMX
race as well. How about other sports?
In athletics, we won some medals, but again, none were
unexpected. Ennis, Farah and Rutherford
were all world leaders going into the games.
Grabbarz is European Champion and in the form of his life. Ohurogu always performs at the big
meets. But there could have been so much
more. Sayers, Idowu, Rooney, Greene,
Yamuchi, Dobriskey, men’s 4x1 and 4x4 relays could all have medalled, but none
of them did, and only Rooney and the 4x4 got close.
Swimming? Only 3
medals and 2 medallists. Nowhere near
the (reasonable) target of 5-7 medals.
There were disappointments all over the games. Sarah Stevenson in Taekwondo, Keri-Anne Payne
in the swimming marathon, Daley and Waterfield in the 10m synchronised diving,
arguably both football teams.
Volleyball, handball, basketball, water polo – no teams got out of the
groups, few teams even won a match.
Of course, this is all balanced by the wonderful surprising
successes. Copeland and Hosking, Jade
Jones, the men’s gymnastics team, Karina Bryant, Luke Campbell and so on. But there are fewer of these. Even the equestrian success was not that
surprising given the riders’ form over the last couple of years.
At any Olympics, there will be surprising wins and
disappointing losses, but they don’t seem balanced to me. GB did well, with our best medal tally ever,
but we could (should?) have had more. I
am delighted with how well we did, but I am disappointed with the euphoria
suggesting we surpassed our wildest dreams.
We did not. We can be happy and
celebrate our successes, but let’s not delude ourselves. We only came third in the medal table because
in the UK we count Gold medals first. In
any other system (total number of medals, total points based on gold=3,
silver=2, bronze=1, number of top 8 finalists) we came 4th behind
USA, China and Russia – exactly where we hoped to come before the games. We did not overachieve.
Some will say I should stop being so negative, and that any Olympic
success is to be celebrated. This is true,
but that does not mean that a fourth or fifth place, or even a silver medal, cannot
be a disappointment. It depends on the
expectation. If GB had only one a single
silver medal and nothing else, I’m pretty sure that, while celebrating that
silver medal with the athlete, we would be disappointed that GB did not achieve
more. This is part of why some athletes
apologised in their interviews. If you,
your coaches, your families and your fans expect you to do well, based on world
ranking, previous success, form or whatever, and you don’t do well, that is
disappointing. There is such a thing as
failing to live up to expectations. This
doesn’t mean we should have a go at someone who only comes fifth in a final,
but we should allow them to be disappointed, we can be disappointed with them,
and we should not tell them not to apologise if that’s what they feel they need
to do. As Zac Purchase said, “Even though it’s a silver medal, it still hurts when
you come for gold.”
Our failure to be ambitious and the way we have been drawn
into the hype that says everything was a roaring success and Team GB far
surpassed expectations disappoints me.
Many athletes did well and we should celebrate their success. Many others underperformed and, while we
should stand by them and support them, we should also acknowledge the
disappointment and remember that we could have had much more success than we
did.
The other thing that disappoints me is what I fear might happen
next. Here’s a quote from an article in
The Independent by Chris McGrath.
“Here is
the bald truth suppressed at the heart of our present euphoria. In most cases
you could stage exactly the same events as "world championships",
last year or next, and hardly anyone would cross the road to watch. Very few,
in fact, would bother to shift a thumb on the television remote. Jessica Ennis
herself completed her Olympics warm-up before 300 paying customers.
Now
clearly the Games mean more than a world championship to many of the
participants themselves, albeit not in mainstream sports such as football or
tennis. And that warrants respect. But only up to a point. Because it's
blatantly dishonest to dismiss all these people as nobodies one day, and
acclaim them as "icons" the next; to exalt, overnight, minority
pastimes you have long considered dull or ludicrous.”
Have we just got caught in the media hype surrounding the
Olympics? Or do we actually care more
about judo, canoe slalom and dressage than we did before? Will we maintain our interest in these sports
and these athletes? How many people will
watch next year’s athletics world championships, let alone the world championships
of the lesser-known sports? Are we as
dishonest as Chris McGrath suggests?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)