March « 2006 «

Archive for March, 2006

Jump the shark

Wednesday, March 29th, 2006

Until yesterday morning I had never heard of this phrase. Then all in the space of 24 hours I browsed through a post on The Guardian blog, read a comment made by Simon Amstell in an interview in Heat Magazine, and listened to Christian O’Connell’s breakfast show on Virgin radio. And all of them mentioned the words ‘jump the shark’. As the blog was the first thing I read, and as it had a link to the site from whence the phrase hails, I was able to find out pretty quickly what it means.

The site has been around for almost ten years now, (and hence I feel a little bit behind the zeitgeist on this one), and the phrase has obviously recently come into such popular usage that a quick google of it reveals the following results: 1 and 2 are direct links to the site. 3 is a wikipedia definition. 4 is a wordspy definition. 5 an urban dictionary one. 6 an article from USA Today discussing the sudden popularity of the word. 7 another online definition. In short, most of the articles are concerned with the etymology of the phrase.

At university, my linguistics tutor had a passion for the development of the English language. I will always remember him – a man who is viewed as one of the foremost worldwide authorities on Beowulf, a man who eschewed college functions and could, by all accounts, more regularly be found in the seedier pubs playing pool with the townies, a man who habitually wore black trousers, a white shirt and white trainers, with his shoulder length, receding hair tied in a pony tail to give him the look of Bill Bailey – leaning forward in his chair, jumping up to pull down a book from the thousands which lined his rooms, hopelessly trying to convey to a couple of hung-over, coming-down undergraduates the dynamic, vital nature of a language which has evolved and grown over so many thousands of years.

Perhaps this seed eventually germinated, but I gradually (and way too late for it to be of any use to me in my degree mark) developed a similar passion, and while with me it is not supported by much scholarly research, I still admit to a frisson of excitement when I spot a new trend in linguistic development. Having such an interest at times makes me feel as though my default position is one of deep conservatism. I refuse to abbreviate in text messages, find smileys abhorrent, and still bristle when I walk into a cafe to be confronted with a sign offering me ‘2 egg’s, bacon and sausage’s.’ The English language is a glorious thing, and if I were to be appointed guardian of it, (arrogant, perhaps, but this comes vertiginously close to topping my all time dream jobs list) I would allow only judicious and witty rule breaking when it comes to its evolution.

But the English language is also a completely organic thing, and has always been subject to change due to popular movements. The same tutor once set an essay on dictionaries – whether they were prescriptive or descriptive. Samuel Johnson tried to write ‘a dictionary by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, and its attainment facilitated; by which its purity may be preserved, its use ascertained, and its duration lengthened’. It was an admirable but completely misguided task to set himself, and he soon realised that it would not be possible, and instead concentrated for the first time in recording the usage of words in print, drawing his definitions from how they had been used, not how he felt they should be. In the end, he had altered his stance so radically that he believed that “to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride”.

So I have to accept, it would seem, that changes to the language which I won’t particularly like are bound to pass into common usage. And that they will happen precisely because it is such a progressive force. And I will have to keep my mutterings to a minimum if and when the cafe owners win out and the incorrectly placed possessive apostrophe passes into wider usage. And modulate my voice when I complain ‘egg’s what?’ But in the meantime I can also celebrate when something gets added or changed, of which I wholeheartedly approve. And ‘jump the shark’, because it is an interesting, vibrant coinage; because it describes a phenomenon which is particularly of-the-moment, and because it is memorable and unique, is one such addition.

The site’s quite fun too.

Posted in Internet, Levity | 12 Comments »

Clear positioning

Tuesday, March 28th, 2006

In the time I spent working as a copywriter for an advertising company, probably the most important thing I learnt was that every piece of work I produced had to speak for itself, and the clarity of the message was paramount. If I were to work on a campaign, it was vital that the different elements worked together to portray the same message.

So I am left confused at the recent discordant message being transmitted on issues of rape and female abuse. At the same time as a swishy ad campaign attempts to inject levity into an issue which is surely anything but frivolous, judges have called for a lightening of sentences for convicted rapists which would equate to almost 15%. The justification for this is that prison regimes are now harder than previously.

We must have all read the statistics which have been repeated across the various papers: only 1 in 20 reported rapes ends in a conviction; it is believed that this is an even smaller figure when compared with how many cases are actually reported. And these figures are brought to life by the stories which we are daily bombarded with – Mary Ann Leneghan’s brutal rape and murder, the teenager in Manchester who raped four girls aged between 7 and 12., the constant attacks by men on vulnerable women.

Now I am aware I am starting to sound tabloidy in my ranting, and that is not my intention. But until there is a clearer policy on rape I just don’t see that anything will change. So the horrendous results which Amnesty’s report last year yielded are not surprising when the people who uphold the law feel that cutting sentences back is acceptable. As a reminder, these are the findings: ‘one third of those surveyed believe that women who flirt are partly at fault if someone rapes them. A third see women as being “partially or wholly” responsible for being raped if they are intoxicated. Finally, more than a quarter of those interviewed think women invite rape to some extent if they wear seductive clothing.’

It has been widely reported in shocked tones that the ad campaign being run at the moment cost the government £400 000. This is a paltry budget, and it should be noted how it compares to other big news stories which featured advertising spends: Anderson’s rebrand to Accenture which cost £175 million in 2001; around £18 million spent by both the Tories and Labour in their bid to win the last election. Just this month, Teletext launched a £6 million advertising campaign to modernise itself. Jamie Oliver is thought to earn over £1 million per year for fronting Sainsbury’s. And you can be sure that all of the corporate campaigns which spend this much money have people both from the agency and the corporation who ensure that a company’s brand or proposition is communicated internally so that everything the company does is kept ‘on message’.

I think it is time that everyone involved in campaigning and legislating against rape gets together and makes sure they know what their message is. Because as a woman I could lay to one side my concern about the message of the campaign itself – that the responsibility in sex lies entirely with the man – if I felt that the result would be a reduction in rape. Instead it feels like a highly visible thing for the government to do, to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Posted in Topical | 5 Comments »

“It’s great to be free”

Friday, March 24th, 2006

I was delighted to hear this quote yesterday, made by Norman Kember having been freed after over 100 days in captivity, especially since Tom Ford’s murder a couple of weeks ago had made the situation look ever bleaker. And by the sounds of it, the SAS team led a rescue mission worthy of the most exciting episode of 24, and I am indulging in some Friday morning work displacement by pleasantly daydreaming some Jack Bauer-style fantasies about the operation mounted to effect the rescue.

So far, Messrs Blair, Straw and Reid have issued statements making political mileage out of the brave rescue, the months of covert surveillance and intelligence work which the undoubtedly heroic team undertook. More politicians will undoubtedly jump in soon to help celebrate the release. Which makes me recall the way that members of the government branded Mr Kember as reckless when he was first captured. Doubtless the taking of hostages has made the already incredibly delicately balanced situation in Iraq even more precarious. But Norman Kember, along with people like Margaret Hassan, whose years of humanitarian work in the area led to her death at the hands of kidnappers eager to reap their own mileage, seems to me to have genuinely campaigned for the good of the Iraqi people. The oft-misquoted Burke quote, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing’ springs to mind as a justification of their actions.

His wife, Pat, made a touching statement on a New Zealand radio station, saying that she felt he had been ‘a bit silly’ to go to Iraq. Kember is a life-long peace activist, who first made a pacifist stand when he refused to do national service in the army, choosing instead to work in a hospital. Despite the danger which he knew it might place him in, he felt he had to go to Iraq to try and make a difference. All people who believe in freedom should laud him, and any suggestion of him having brought this on himself should be avoided. The news of his release will be a huge relief to those who caused a situation in Iraq which necessitates people like him to try and make a stance. The hypocrisy of their claiming it as their victory is heightened by the fact that the news sits on so many newspapers next to the headline that Bush is predicting at least another 3 years of occupation by US forces in Iraq.

Posted in General | 9 Comments »

Musing

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006

Excuse me as I venture today into the realms of the sentimental…

The other day, before going to the cinema to see the ‘ok in an “I wouldn’t watch it again” kind of a way’ Oscar winning South African film Tsotsi, and whilst eating a mixed grill in the ‘best Turkish grill in London’ that I like to call lambland with RawSausages and Genius, we were discussing my latest bout of pregnancy related discomfort, and he asked me if I had enjoyed my pregnancy at all.

Which made me stop and think.

My pregnancy book divides chapters into months of the pregnancy. And at the beginning of each month, I have read the next chapter to be prepared for what could be coming up. Babyfather commented in my first trimester that if we read of a possible symptom in the book, I was bound to have it. And it does seem to have been a textbook ‘confinement’.

In the eight months since conception, I have experienced (in vaguely chronological order): morning sickness; constipation; food aversions; food cravings; a migraine which lasted a week; anaemia; loss of appetite; dizziness; erratic emotional outbursts; fatigue; muscular pain in the abdomen; aching bones in the pubis and pelvis; groin pain; swollen ankles after flying; increasing back pain; swollen wrists leading to carpel tunnel syndrome, pins and needles in my hands, and the inability to wear my rings; worse constipation and an outbreak of piles; inability to sleep at night due to the discomforts listed above and the fact that my now mammoth belly is in the way; and most recently, extreme terror over the idea of giving birth. In addition, I have suffered greatly with travelling on public transport – the tube making first trimester nausea unbearable, and the rudeness of people who don’t offer seats to visibly pregnant women having more than once led to me bursting into tears on the number 38 (including this morning: what happened to the English being a well-mannered nation?) Moving house and problems at work have meant that my stress levels have shot up, and worrying that the stress is hurting my baby has compounded this.

Not planning a pregnancy, I wasn’t in great physical condition when I conceived, with my fractured coccyx in particular having added to my discomfort. If I were to do it again (after all this!) I would ensure that I got healthy first to try and avoid as much of that list as I could.

But it only took me a couple of seconds of thinking before I answered RawSausages in the affirmative. When I told Blonde my news, before Babyfather and I had decided whether we were going to go ahead with the pregnancy, she told me ‘no one ever regretted having a baby, and lots of women have regretted getting rid of an unborn one’. And despite all of my concerns and fears, despite all of the discomfort, I am sure that what is about to happen to me will be the most rewarding thing I have done. I just hope that I am able to do my child justice.

The Queen of Cakes and I have an ongoing ‘dysfunctional family of the week’ mantle which gets passed back and forth depending on levels of jaw-dropping behaviour in our respective families, (she will excuse me for commenting that she currently wears this, as her brother knowingly tried to set her up with a man last week who, it turned out, is friends with the men who murdered her sister’s husband a year and a half ago) and I commented to her yesterday that my own little offshoot of my family is already in danger of being a regular wearer of this mantle, and one of the members hasn’t even been born yet. So I am going to spend the next few weeks trying very seriously to work out how best to give my child a stable, loving environment amidst all the uncertainty of its immediate environment and all the ‘evilitude’ of the wider world.