Thursday 28th May 2026
Blog Page 544

And the winner is…? International Booker Prize postponed as book sales slump

0

“Restlessness gives wings to the imagination”.

Maurice Gilliams

Dutch author Marieke Lucas Rijneveld chose this epigraph to preface their debut novel, ‘The Discomfort of Evening’, long before Coronavirus demanded a state of restlessness worldwide. Now, the quotation takes on a hopeful and poignant quality, speaking to the many acts of creativity that have been borne from lock-down. But for Rijneveld and the other five authors shortlisted for this year’s International Booker Prize, this period has been rendered more febrile with the news that the announcement of the prize-winner will be postponed indefinitely.

The International Booker prize awards £50,000 for the best novel translated into English, which is shared equally between author and translator. The winner was due to be announced on 19th May, following the announcement of the shortlist on 2nd April. Organisers made the decision to delay the award after publishers and booksellers emphasised the unprecedented difficulties posed by Covid-19 to the sales and distribution of the shortlisted novels. A new date has not been given for the announcement of the winner, but it is likely to take place later in the year. 

Marieke Lucas Rijneveld’s ‘The Discomfort of Evening’ stands out as the only debut novel on the shortlist. At 28 years-old, Rijneveld, who uses the pronouns they/them, is one of the youngest authors ever to be shortlisted for a Booker prize, beaten only by Daisy Johnson, who was just 27 when her novel ‘Everything Under’ was nominated for the Man Booker Prize in 2018. Rijneveld’s debut tells the story of an intensely religious Dutch dairy-farming family, whose lives are fractured after one of their sons dies in an ice-skating accident. The narrative premise holds a striking parallel with the author’s own life; Rijneveld’s older brother died after being hit by a bus when he was 12-years-old. 

The novel is narrated through Jas, the middle child, and is quick to establish the unsettling mixture of childish innocence and profound psychological trauma that characterises the rest of the book. It opens with Jas feeling jealous of her older brother, Matthies, who sets off to go ice-skating with local children, somewhere too dangerous for the young Jas to join them. Simultaneously, Jas suspects that her father wants to serve her pet rabbit for Christmas dinner in a week’s time. Before bed that night, Jas adds a flippant prayer to her usual repertoire, asking for her rabbit’s life to be saved in place of Matthies’. The following morning, a doctor returns Matthies’ dead body to the family home. 

Rijneveld’s simple and candid tone, translated into English by Michele Hutchison, masterfully captures the interiority of a child’s mind, particularly the freedom of imaginative association that comes with youth — the warts on a toad’s back are like the ‘capers’ found in the kitchen of Jas’s mother, for example. But the authenticity of this innocent narrative voice takes on an increasingly uncanny quality as it is forced to confront the family’s trauma. In one vivid moment, Jas recalls a schoolteacher recommending that students push drawing pins into a map of the world, choosing the places they’d most like to go; Jas desires to escape the distressing world she finds herself in by folding up inside herself and disappearing, so she decides to push a drawing pin into her own belly-button. The wound becomes progressively more infected as the novel continues, serving as a gruesome marker of the passing of time.

Tactility is a major concern of the novel, allowing Rijneveldt to showcase their notable talent for transposing sensory experience into language. This starts as something innocuous and child-like, such as Jas’ experience of holding the decorative Christmas angels that lie around the house, or the feeling of sticking her fingers into the soft cheese that her mother makes from the farm’s dairy cows. It soon acquires a more sinister quality after Matthies’ death; Jas touches her dead brother’s eyelids, sensing the tissue paper that the mortician put behind them to paste them shut. In more sensitive moments, Jas mourns the loss of physical affection from her parents; she positions herself in the way of her mother in the kitchen in the hope that her mother might accidentally brush past her — the children have not been hugged or touched by their parents since the death. 

With their parents preoccupied by a potent mixture of extreme grief and religious guilt, each of the surviving children develop unsettling compulsions and obsessions. Jas refuses to take off her coat for months on end and starts to hoard a variety of objects in her pockets. Her older brother, Obbe, repeatedly bangs his head against the wall at night. These troubling behaviours are intensified by the backdrop of the family’s extreme evangelism — Matthies’ chair at the family dining table is kept untouched in its place as they anticipate his return at the Second Coming. Indeed, because the death occurs so early-on in the book, the reader finds herself questioning whether the children’s morbid behaviours were caused by this immediate trauma or were already established by their intensely stifling family dynamic. Death continues to follow the family even after the tragic accident; Obbe drowns his pet hamster in front of his sisters in a perturbed mirroring of their brother’s death, and the dairy-farm is blighted by foot-and-mouth disease (the book is set in the years after the millennium, when there were numerous outbreaks of the infection). 

This is a disturbing and unsettling read that is certainly not for the faint-hearted, but its vivid and gruesome components are in no way gratuitous. There are elements that may sit too uncomfortably with some readers, particularly its treatment of Jas learning about the Holocaust at school through her childish mind, and other visceral depictions of bodily orifices being penetrated by fingers and farm tools (Jas’ father tries to treat her constipation in a rather violent way, and later there is some difficulty with a cow and an artificial insemination device). But Rijneveld possesses a singular talent for narrating the abrasive, distressing and unnerving elements of extreme trauma when experienced through young minds. Already a bestseller in the Netherlands, ‘The Discomfort of Evening’ is a confident and provocative debut that undoubtedly deserves its spot on the International Booker Prize shortlist, if not the top-prize itself. 

‘Don’t Walk Away in Silence’: Ian Curtis Remembered

0

Monday 18th May marked forty years since Ian Curtis, the lead singer of Joy Division, took his own life by hanging himself in his kitchen using a washing line in the early hours of the morning. A quiet, scholarly boy from Macclesfield with keen interests in philosophy and poetry eventually became one of the most enigmatic figures to have made his mark on the post-punk scene in the late 1970s—and one of the most tragic.

Curtis was the archetypal “troubled soul”, plagued by mental and physical health issues. Diagnosed with epilepsy the same year that Joy Division’s debut album Unknown Pleasures (you know, the one on all the T-shirts) was released, his condition gradually worsened, coupled with depression, drug abuse and marital woes. Those who knew him describe him as a deeply contradictory figure—good-natured and friendly, but erratic and aggressive after a few drinks; a sensitive artist who championed bohemian ideas and at the same time a staunch Tory; a loving husband and father who embarked on an affair with Belgian journalist Annik Honoré. Who Curtis was as a man is shrouded in mystery, to fans and friends alike. He died before he had a chance to truly shine as an artist—just days before the band’s first North American tour was due to start. Curtis was never an especially big name at the height of his success—only in death could he become the cultural icon that he is today.

“Listening to Closer, you think, fucking hell, how did I miss this?” Stephen Morris, Joy Division’s drummer, remarked in an interview with the Independent to mark the fortieth anniversary of Curtis’ death. He has a point—Joy Division’s second album is saturated with imagery of disillusionment, isolation and anguish, and so through his songwriting, Curtis gave the listener a glimpse into his own deeply troubled mind. Knowing that the album was written in the immediate run-up to his suicide is, quite simply, chilling. Beneath frenetic, moody melodies lie the innermost thoughts of a man plagued by ill physical and mental health, creating a unique sense of manic melancholy that defined Joy Division’s music. He was one of many to have redirected the course of alternative British music, shifting this sense of undiluted contempt away from the establishment to mankind—and, often, himself. Of all of Joy Division’s releases, their 1980 single ‘Atmosphere’—released just two months before Curtis’ death, is among the most strikingly poignant. The line ‘People like you find it easy’ serves as a haunting reminder of how Curtis was gradually consumed by his health problems and yet suffered in silence as those who knew him struggled to understand what he was fighting. The signs were all there, and yet, at the same time they were not. He went to great lengths to hide his various conditions as much as he could, and his bandmates remember him as sound of mind until the weeks preceding his death. An incredibly young, unruly band on the precipice of international success were largely oblivious to the struggles of their lead singer until it was too late. 

It’s difficult to listen to Joy Division’s work today without looking at it retrospectively through the lens of Curtis’ untimely death. Curtis’ Macclesfield home and burial site have since become a site of pilgrimage for fans, à la the Dakota Building in New York or the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. But we cannot fall into the trap of deifying him as many have before with Lennon or Morrison. What set him aside from others is the unashamed, raw humanity that seeps through his lyrics. Without proclaiming himself to be a martyr, Curtis made no effort to conceal the demons that constantly haunted him. His music laid his trials and tribulations bare to listeners, a constant cry for help that fell upon deaf ears. Dead at the age of just twenty-three, Curtis did not even make it into the infamous ‘27 Club’ of tragically young ‘dead rock stars’—nor did he quite reach the status of ‘rock star’ in his lifetime. He was certainly no saint, nor should he be remembered as one—but his death marked the loss of one of the greatest talents of the past century, a life cut tragically short.

The New Music Celebrity

0

The glossy pages of the likes of NME and Rolling Stone were pored over by music aficionados in the past, hoping for a snippet of the intent of their hero’s use of a 5/4 time hi-hat on Track 6. Those unwrinkled pages were very much the landscape of music journalism in the past: a smooth grassland of domineering publications with any disturbance being minute, in the form of a fanzine or otherwise. It was a time in which scathing remarks and low ratings were very much part and parcel of music reviewing. So much so that Rolling Stone re-reviews now-beloved albums that they gave on initial release a mixed to poor review. Although these giants have wielded weighty words, many music fans approach traditional publications with scepticism and derision.

Circulation remained afloat nevertheless, with magazines fighting for exclusive interviews and photoshoots with the same musicians that they may have dismissed years earlier. Huge artists were part of a pantheon, defined by their myths and legends, and only music journalists had the authority to poke holes.

With the arrival of the World Wide Web in the early ’90s however, the internet became the meteor to wipe out the dinosaur publications. All of a sudden, fanzine (a portmanteau of fan and magazine) creators with no background in professional publishing could create blogs online dedicated to the independent music scene—crucially, with a guaranteed readership. Blogs shifted the focus away from glorifying the larger-than-life rock stars to profiling up-and-comers still playing the pub circuit. ‘Pitchfork’, now owned by Condé Nast, is heralded as a bastion of music reviewing, but it started out as a humble Chicago-based online music magazine. No longer did circulation and sales matter, but rather clicks and hits.

In an era of instant, anytime, anywhere media, video music journalism has undoubtedly become the hivemind of the internet music community. One of the early pioneers of D.I.Y videos is the eclectic, offbeat Nardwaur. The self-proclaimed ‘Human Serviette’, his work dates back as early as 1985, interviewing the likes of Courtney Love back in the heyday of ‘Hole’, and most recently interviewing industry it-girl Billie Eilish. Donning a tam o’shanter and a scarily encyclopaedic knowledge of the artist at hand, his charmingly bizarre interview style is enough to knock back any PR-curated facade. Even the previously-mentioned Pitchfork have capitalised on the visual media market, with video essays and even interviews where artists breakdown their creative process, all with a technical focus.

To talk about internet music journalism without mentioning Anthony Fantano would be impossible. His YouTube channel ‘theneedledrop’ has amassed over 2 million subscribers as of the writing of this article, and his influence has no signs of halting in the near future. ‘The internet’s busiest music nerd’ is famous for his album review videos, rounding off with a final score out of ten. This flagship content is interspersed with takes on industry news and, in the past, meme reviews The overwhelming appeal of Fantano may appear baffling to outsiders; there are few, if any, examples in history where a music critic has a clamouring fanbase magnitudes larger than many of the artists he reports on. It seems he has the perfect balance of sincerity and amusement; packaging compelling analysis in a wrapping of internet humour and distinct channel branding.

These online personalities have created enormous followings, and they have somehow become the new music celebrity. In an era where artists are more accessible than ever (see the multitude of Instagram lives during quarantine!), there is less need for journalists to brawl for the latest scoops when many artists are open to talking about their lives through social media. Nardwuar and Fantano, on the other hand, remain elusive to their fans, with appearances outside of their own content rare, which keeps interest and speculation rolling.

Nonetheless, the fixation with someone like Fantano’s music criticism can be inhibiting. I too have been guilty of hanging onto every word, waiting for the gavel to drop and the final rating to be uttered, but it has been argued amongst online communities that some fans may be forming musical opinions entirely based on the words of a few individuals. Ultimately, they are human too, and healthy disagreement is far more valuable to the discussion. Such behaviour, however, has existed since the dawn of music criticism and has simply been magnified by the lens of social media.

Regardless, the rise of independent journalism has been praised for its coverage of fringe genres and can be credited in part for expanding modern music tastes, with a face to boot. Where Rolling Stone was more concerned with the big label mainstream, niche artists with less industry backing are finally taking up their rightful space in the musical zeitgeist.

Opinion – Why this government boils my piss

0

First, I must admit I’m a leftist, I have my biases and I am certainly not a Boris Johnson fan but one consistent theme I have seen in this government’s response to COVID-19, especially over the last week, has been sheer hypocrisy. The defence by senior members of the government of Dominic Cummings’ breach of the lockdown rules is the most recent, glaring example of this.

Matt Hancock’s integrity is something I have questioned for a while since his branding of Boris Johnson as “dangerous” only days before backing him as leader and his similar rejection of suspending Parliament before ultimately backing it in government. His defence of Cummings was the nail in the coffin. On the 6th of May Hancock said Neil Ferguson, a government adviser who broke social distancing rules was “right” to resign and that social distancing rules are “very important and should be followed”. Fast forward a few weeks and it is revealed another important adviser, the Prime Minister’s right-hand man, has broken the rules. The same response? Of course not. Hancock tweeted it was “entirely right” for “Dom” to seek childcare for his toddler.

Michael Gove also weighed in on the debate on twitter stating, “caring for your wife and child is not a crime”. That is undoubtedly true but is also completely irrelevant. The argument is that Cummings broke the lockdown rules which is a crime, a crime introduced by the government Gove is a part of. I have read the regulations and as far I can see caring for your family is not a defence to breaking them. Nor are ministerial tweets a defence for crimes last time I checked.

Boris Johnson had gone M.I.A over the previous two days (presumably hiding in the Downing Street fridge), the silence was deafening. His eventual response was a car crash. The UK’s worst Churchill tribute act set out his case that Cummings’ actions were “responsible”, “legal” and done with the “overwhelming intention of preventing the spread of the virus”. The Prime Minister is wrong, it is clear he broke the regulations once if not twice. Travelling to a second home is explicitly what the government had been telling us not to do and was the reason the Scottish health chief was forced to resign only weeks ago! Cummings’ actions were not those of a man attempting to “prevent the spread of the virus” they were the opposite.

Although there is undoubtedly an element of this being a witch-hunt to remove Cummings, it is, at its core, a matter of principle. If you don’t hold your top adviser to account for failing to follow your own rules how can you expect anyone else to follow them? The answer from the Prime Minister was (uncharacteristically) clear: it’s one rule for us and another for him and his pals.

This was not the only time this week the Prime Minister showed himself to be a bumbling hypocrite. The post-Brexit immigration bill, introduced into Parliament on Monday, declared that care workers were “low-skilled” and that new foreign care workers would be subjected to surcharges on entry to the UK. This was until the government was forced into an embarrassing U-turn by Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. The people the government label as “low skilled” are those currently keeping the country going; they are the very people that this government clap for every Thursday, the type of people who Boris Johnson admitted saved his life. They clap for them with two hands and slap them with the other… three-handed monsters.

The final dose of hypocrisy is shown in the government’s similar U-turn on the problem of homelessness. The government set out its commitment to solve homelessness by 2024 in December last year. Fast forward to the outbreak of COVID-19 and they were able to get most people of the streets in two days. Why were they able to do this so quickly? Because suddenly homelessness became a problem for them. Fearful that COVID-19 would spread among the homeless they quickly took action to house people. Admittedly homelessness is a far easier problem to solve with hotels laying empty. But what it does show is that homelessness is a choice for government, it isn’t inevitable and with the will to solve it can be done, and fast.

Events during this pandemic have highlighted this government does not care about ordinary people. It is one rule for them and their pals and another for us. “Arrogant and offensive”, this government are “truth twisters”. Shout out to the Civil Service twitter page for that last quote.

In defence of Jerry Krause: Responding to ‘The Last Dance’

0

“Players and coaches don’t win championships; organisations win championships.”

These are the infamous, supposedly self-interested words of former Chicago Bulls GM Jerry Krause, the villain of Netflix’s ongoing 10-part documentary, The Last Dance. At the time of writing, two more episodes remain of the ultra-popular basketball documentary; and while public favour of former Bulls star player Michael Jordan seems to be at an all-time high, the same could probably not be said of MJ’s front office counterpart. At a time when people have more reason than ever to engross themselves in television, Krause’s infamy in pop culture is currently matched only by Tiger King protagonist Carole Baskin. If you aren’t familiar with the NBA or the documentary, here are a couple of tweets to give you an idea:

Throughout the series, Krause is portrayed as jealous, greedy and bitter. On multiple occasions he is openly mocked by Michael Jordan, mainly in reference to Krause’s stature. On one occasion, Krause is shown swallowing medicine while standing on the sidelines during a practice session. Jordan, without missing a beat, sarcastically remarks: “So those are the pills that keep you short! Or are those diet pills?” It was Jordan, the most decorated player in NBA history, who immortalised Krause’s nickname, ‘Crumbs’, in reference to the doughnut crumbs which Krause was often said to leave on his suits. Despite being ostensibly the boss of the team, Jerry Krause was at the very bottom of the Bulls’ social hierarchy. He sat by himself on the team bus, he was the butt of every joke, and he was critiqued – publicly and privately – by the Bulls’ playing and coaching staff.

Of course, some of this criticism was entirely fair. When Scottie Pippen, Jordan’s brightest co-star and a perennial all-star player in his own right, asked for a contract which didn’t even remotely come close to other players of his calibre, it was Krause who stubbornly refused. Pippen would become renowned as the most criminally underpaid player of his generation. And when the Bulls did win their sixth championship in eight years in 1998 – spoiler alert – it was Krause who seemingly inexplicably dismantled the team, losing four of the team’s starting five players and replacing long-term head coach Phil Jackson. The prevailing diagnosis for this decision has, for the guts of two decades, been that Krause simply could not stand being out of the limelight. That his jealousy simply overrode his professionalism and steered the Bulls into the (mostly) mediocre two decades which followed in his absence. I, however, would like to offer up a defence.

It is not easy to win a battle of public opinion against a man like Michael Jordan. In today’s age of ultra-accessible celebrities enabled by social media, it is simply impossible to quantify the scale of Jordan’s ethereal fame in the 90s. Between commercials with Nike, McDonalds or Coca-Cola, Jordan would win a record 6 MVP awards and find the time to star in Space Jam, which at the time was the highest-grossing sports movie ever which didn’t have a bloke called Rocky in it. Suffice to say: Jordan speaks, people listen. And, in The Last Dance, he speaks at great length – usually at the expense of Jerry Krause.

But here’s the problem: in the NBA, general managers aren’t supposed to engage in wars of public opinion, and Krause was dragged into a public trial which he never wanted any part of. One of his more complimentary nicknames was ‘The Sleuth’, earned due to his renowned ability to keep secrets and do his work outside of the mass media horde. The team Krause inherited in 1985 consisted of what Jordan himself compared to “a travelling cocaine circus”, and The Sleuth transformed this into the most successful team in the history of the sport within 15 years, winning three championships in a row on two occasions. For those unaware, the NBA operates on one crucial egalitarian principle: each year, the teams with the worst record in the previous season receive the first choices in the following year’s NBA Draft, consisting of the best prospects from colleges throughout the country and elsewhere. If you’re a good team, that means you have to try exceptionally hard to find diamonds in the rough if you are to achieve any modicum of longevity, given every other worse team are being given the best young players in the world year upon year – and as it happened, diamonds in the rough were Jerry Krause’s speciality. In one famous example, he travelled to Yugoslavia to personally scout young forward Toni Kukoč, who would go on to be drafted as late as 29th overall in 1990, and ended up being an integral part of the team as the Bulls won their second ‘three-peat’.

Other than Jordan, there was not a single player on any of the Bulls’ championship-winning teams in the 90s who hadn’t been hand-picked by Jerry Krause, and yet the Bulls faithful and general public have painted him as the villain at every turn. The Last Dance and its long full-feature interviews with Jordan and Pippen do not help to soften this depiction. “[Krause] would rather destroy an institution than see it thrive,” seethes one of the aforementioned tweeters off the back of another episode of the documentary, but in my view this anger is misplaced. Jerry Krause orchestrated arguably the most successful period of sporting dominance of the last 30 years and initiated a rebuild of the team when it appeared as though that era was coming to an end. Krause died in 2017 and wasn’t able to be interviewed by the producers of The Last Dance. Perhaps if he had been, the unfortunate narrative which continues to shroud his legacy could have been reversed.

The Housing Crisis: coronavirus and ‘mass evictions’

0

In the midst of a global pandemic, another dangerous crisis is emerging on British soil. This time, Day Zero will be the 25th of June. Unless action is taken before this point, the UK government’s inability to provide strong safety nets for private renters will end in perhaps the worst housing crisis this country has faced yet.

Private renting has seen a significant increase of 63% in the previous decade, with 4.5million households now living in the private rented sector. With few rights as renters, the COVID-19 pandemic has showcased how fragile this market is, and the danger this poses to millions. Government measures announced in mid-March to protect renters and landlords lack any financial support, rent freeze or subsidies, and instead suggests co-operation between tenants and landlords to avoid devastation. While the effective “eviction freeze” until the end of June has provided short term reassurance, its lifting can only end in mass evictions unless more is done.

This crisis cannot be understated. Unless the Government provides financial support for renters, or a rent freeze, mass evictions will become the norm, as more and more are unable to meet their monthly rent. Research by Citizens Advice this month showed 2.6million tenants have already missed a rent payment, or expect to do so, owing to coronavirus. As an increasing number of workers are furloughed or face job losses, lack of home security will become a serious threat to millions. Private renters especially will struggle to make ends meet as the English Housing Survey of 2017-18 found that 63% of this group reported no savings. A further study, by YouGov and Shelter, found that in 2019, almost three million private renters were a single pay check away from losing their home. Such a dire situation prior to the pandemic can only have been expedited since.

Worryingly, this appears to be affecting our most vulnerable disproportionately; those in the government’s categories of “increased risk” to COVID-19 are three times as likely to have fallen behind on a bill during this time. Families with children are also at an increased risk of losing their homes during this pandemic. In the same YouGov and Shelter study in 2019, it was found that in the case of job loss, 44% of these renting families would not be able to pay their rent or mortgage from savings at all. This means that 550,000 families would be immediately unable to pay their rent in the case of job loss, a prospect increasingly likely in the current climate.

Come June 25th, when the eviction freeze ends and court proceedings begin again, where will these families go? Recent government leaks suggesting the end of the homelessness support scheme enacted in March, will expedite this fear and rightly so. A large portion of our society has been abandoned by their government. To avoid the imminent crisis, the government must do more – as must the opposition in holding them to account. Labour’s recent 5-stage plan response was welcomed but found lacking – it too did not propose the rent freezes or subsidies that would alleviate those in precarious positions.

This pandemic has the potential to be the crescendo of a housing crisis that’s been brewing for years, and unless we see a major re-shaping of legislative support for renters, it will be catastrophic. Going forward, there must be an in-depth assessment of how housing is provided in this country, and for now we must put pressure on elected officials to immediately provide home security for all, through legislation and financial support.

Anyone who is facing homelessness can get free and expert advice from Shelter by visiting www.shelter.org.uk/get_help or by calling their emergency helpline on 0808 800 4444. If you too feel strongly about this, get in contact with your local MP to put pressure on the government.

SATIRE: Has anyone checked in on Gwyneth Paltrow recently?

0

Holly Holiday from Glee consciously uncoupling from her brain stem has become the definitive image of Steven Soderbergh’s 2011 pandemic-based thriller, Contagion. Yes, Contagion, you know, that one where Gwyneth Paltrow dies like five minutes in. It’s easy to see why: her distinct lack of characterisation in said five minutes means the audience is basically just watching actual real-life Gwyneth go through the motions of a film’s exposition… (“That’s Gwyneth Paltrow flying home to a cuckolded husband!”)…until she’s not… (“That’s Gwyneth Paltrow’s forehead being peeled back in an autopsy room!”). The shock of so-called Beth Emhoff’s death is really the shock of imagining a virus so ostentatious as to remind us that Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare-in-lover and vagina-egg-entrepreneur, is as vulnerable to collapse of the central nervous system as the rest of us nobodies.

The film in general, whilst host to some of the finest acting talent the western world has to offer, as well as (sorry) Gwyneth Paltrow, isn’t that great. It’s difficult not to laugh when we see Gwyneth go from sweaty brow to grand mal seizures before you can sing two happy birthdays– have you tried Matcha for that, Gwyneth? Kate Winslet shivering herself to death again is still, however, more uplifting than Gal Godot’s rendition of Imagine but perhaps less educational than Kylie Jenner’s stunning revelation that “Coronavirus is a real thing”.

In the midst of the literal apocalypse, it’s difficult to sit back with Bake-Off-Style fodder (You know what else is crumbling, Sandi?! The NHS!), but turning to BBC1 after the credits roll on the 26 million dead only to be hit with ‘Pandemic death toll reaches 200,000’ is far from reassuring. Some things, naturally, are more relatable than others: I have been informed by conspiracy theorists (you know Jude Law is the bad guy in this film because the powers-that-be spent God knows how much of their $60 million budget giving him a snaggletooth to indicate general neckbeard nefariousness) that COVID-19 is a government-controlled bioweapon/5G radio waves /Greta Thunberg’s coup-de-force of climate activism. I have not been kidnapped on a WHO mission to rural China as a hostage for vaccine priority, but hey, who knows what’s going on with you. You do you, Marion Cottillard, you do you.

Christopher Orr complained in The Atlantic that Contagion was too ‘clinical’, that it needed a lesson beyond ‘wash your hands and hope for the best’. Besides this confusingly apt adjective – The CDC? Clinical? Surely not – Orr, alongside those posting pictures of Venice’s dolphin/swan/ichthyosaur-laden canals, seems to have missed the point of the film: global pandemic does not a metaphor make. COVID-19 is not Mother Nature getting her own back, nor punishment for straying from God’s light (Can you imagine? You’re a card-carrying Catholic, you masturbate once and bam – worldwide pandemic). It’s biology. People become fomites – your aunt is suddenly a weapon of mass destruction who must be avoided like the plague, because she is the plague. There is no allegory here: Contagion is about contagion. Wash your goddamn hands and hope for the best. And please, someone tell Gwyneth Paltrow about catch-it, bin-it, kill-it.

Oxfess Wars: Fun, Harmful, or just plain Boring?

0

Most Oxford students’ lives right now are defined by uncertainty. Will we be faced with an online Michaelmas as well as Trinity? When will we be able to see our friends and family in person again? Will the world we live in ever return to something resembling normality? 

Yet one certainty remains. Seeking respite from an essay crisis or trying to pass the time during lockdown, we open up Facebook to see a feed clogged with heated political debates between anonymous strangers desperate for validation. I am, of course, talking about Oxfess. 

I’m sure at some point Oxfess was better. A confessions page should be a place to share embarrassing, hilarious stories free from judgment, to give others a quick laugh during a break from their busy schedules. I’m not saying that there aren’t still great Oxfesses- there are always gems to uncover, however many “Oxford colleges as ‘Simpsons’ characters” or “OUCA members as flavours of crisps” posts you need to sift through first. But the recent preponderance of political discourse between enraged keyboard warriors has turned Oxfess sour. 

Don’t get me wrong- political debate has its place, and passionately supporting your views is an essential part of liberal democracy. But Oxfess shouldn’t be that place. Relentless arguments between increasingly angry students are at best boring and annoying to the majority, and at worst anxiety-inducing. At a time where many have lost loved ones or are trying their hardest to deal with working in difficult home environments, to be told there is yet another issue we absolutely MUST care about is a step too far. Even if these debates are engaged with, they achieve very little; seldom do people change their minds or reach common ground after a series of emotionally charged rants over Facebook.  

True, there is a certain irony about writing an entire article about content you ostensibly claim to not engage with. But this trend on Oxfess seems to showcase part of what’s wrong with current political discourse. The Internet allows views to be expressed without the need for accountability; behind a veil of anonymity, people can say whatever they want, however outlandish, ignore or shut down criticism, and find like-minded groups where their subjective opinions are accepted as fact. Now that COVID-19 has forced people into physical as well as political bubbles, there is a risk that politics will become further distorted, with common ground harder to find. Real constructive debate, between passionate individuals willing to openly defend their beliefs, risks being replaced by anonymous ideologues screaming talking points at a computer screen, achieving nothing. 

So as much as you might feel an undying urge to ‘confess’ your belief that taxation is theft, or that private schools are an abomination, or that the controversial SU motion of the hour is a much-needed recognition of existing systemic issues/ushers in an Orwellian police-state, please don’t. Or express your opinion in an appropriate space, like a niche ideological sub-reddit or the YouTube comments on a Jordan Peterson video. 

Or Twitter.  

Self-worth and Size: what we’ve learnt from celebrity weight loss

0

As I’m sure everyone is very aware at this point, Adele has lost some weight. In the past she’s often been cited as a ‘plus-size’ icon, an inspiration to heavier women everywhere. And of course, she’s also been heavily criticised for her appearance. “A little too fat”, was Karl Lagerfeld’s comment after her appearance on the cover of Vogue in 2012; only one of thousands of judgements she’s had to deal with throughout her career. 

And now, naturally, people feel the need to address her new appearance. With almost 250 thousand comments on her recent Instagram post at the time of writing, ranging from “Talk about a glow up!” to “YOU LOOK SO UNHEALTHY!”, people clearly have a lot of opinions on her ‘transformation’. But why does celebrity weight loss, or indeed any kind of weight loss, engender such a strong reaction? Why do we feel the need to speculate on a person’s life, their health, the motivations for their actions, when they change the way they look?

Honestly, I think the explosive response to Adele’s post says a lot more about society than it does about the singer herself. We shouldn’t be talking about Adele right now; we can’t know the exact reasons for her weight loss and, what’s more, those reasons are absolutely none of our business unless she chooses to share them. Which she hasn’t. What we should be talking about, however, is the obsession our society seems to have with tying a person’s self-worth to their size. 

This can happen in a lot of different ways: people can be shamed for being too big, too small, for changing, and a whole host of other things. They can also be praised for the way their body looks, something which is often just as damaging. When we make a big deal out of a person’s weight, we send them a message that this is something which defines them, and the way other people see them. At the end of the day, the people who can’t stop talking about Adele’s weight loss are the kind of people who actually do let their opinion of someone be determined by superficialities like appearance and body type. And if social media right now is any evidence, most of us seem to be that kind of people. 

Anyone who has lost or gained a lot of weight over a short period will tell you that it spurred on no shortage of speculation and gossiping. People want your advice, they want to give you advice, they want to praise or sympathise with or disapprove of you. Nine times out of ten, those comments aren’t helpful, unless it’s already been made clear by the person in question that they’re comfortable talking about their weight. 

As a society, we have a tendency to assume that a person’s weight must directly correlate to their identity in some way. When someone’s weight changes, we go crazy because of some idea that we now need to change the way we look at them; they’re a different person, after all. Well, here’s my opinion. They’re not. And unless they personally decide that their weight makes up a big part of their identity, it really has nothing to do with who they are. We should all stop wondering about what Adele’s weight loss means for who she is and start thinking about what our reactions to it mean for who we are.

Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial has only 50% chance of success as cases fall in the UK

Oxford University’s COVID-19 vaccine trial has only a 50% chance of success as the virus is disappearing so quickly in Britain, warns a professor co-leading the project. 

Professor Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, revealed in an interview with the Telegraph that an upcoming trial involving 10,000 volunteers may return “no result” owing to low transmission of the coronavirus in the community. 

This comes days after pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced it would be ready to mass-produce the potential new vaccine from September. Meanwhile, the Government reached a deal with the company to pay for up to 100 million doses, with Business Secretary Alok Sharma adding in a press conference that 30 million of these could be available by September, should trials prove successful. 

But as COVID-19 cases continue to fall in the UK, Professor Hill told the Telegraph that the research team are facing a potentially major setback, casting doubt on the feasibility of the September deadline: “It is a race, yes. But it’s not a race against the other guys. It’s a race against the virus disappearing, and against time.

“We said earlier in the year that there was an 80% chance of developing an effective vaccine by September. But at the moment, there’s a 50% chance that we get no result at all.

“We’re in the bizarre position of wanting Covid to stay, at least for a little while. But cases are declining.”

According to the WHO, Oxford University is one of the 76 global contenders racing to develop a vaccine for COVID-19. The experimental vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (or ZD1222), is one of only eight across the world that has started to test on humans, with researchers conducting an initial trial of more than 1000 volunteers in April when the virus was at its peak. The results of this first trial will be released in early June. 

Of the 10,000 people recruited for the second trial, however, Professor Hill expects fewer than 50 people to become infected with the virus due to dwindling community transmission. If fewer than 20 people test positive, he warns the results may be of limited or no use.

“The first trial is going fine. We’re still in business, I can tell you that.

“But we’re not going to do what others have done – say we’ve got something good, but we’re not showing you yet. That’s just bonkers. You either disclose your results or you don’t.”

In the event that the next stage of trials proves successful, the U.K. “will be first to get access” to the vaccine, Sharma pledged at a government briefing.

Professor Hill stressed, however, that the University had secured “hardwired” assurances that wealthier countries would not have unfair priority access to the vaccine. This follows a US announcement that it would provide $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca to fund the vaccine’s development. 

“The reputational damage to the university would be enormous if we provided the vaccine only for the UK and US, and not for the rest of those countries of the world where it’s very likely that the pandemic will still be raging,” Hill said.

The team is one of many planning to conduct further trials in COVID-19 hotspots in other countries. They have already arranged trials in the US, and are currently in talks with other countries where virus transmission rates remain high. 

Hill was keen to warn that despite vast international investment in the project, funding “doesn’t guarantee the result,” adding that “it could be nothing or could be great or somewhere in between.”

Various senior ministers in the British Government have also warned that there is “no guarantee” that a vaccine will be found, and that funding research into other drug treatments is equally vital to help combat the impact of the pandemic on the UK population.

Image by Phoebe White