Radical Book Fair, Conway Hall, London

Well, well - Saturday 11th May 2013 proved to be quite some day for us (well, for Glenn, Alexander and I it did).

Firstly, it was off to get a mower mended - Alex's first mower and him wanting to keep it no matter what (but heavens - got to stop the petrol leak - hence the visit to the shop!).

Then, tea, food and chat in the cafe of the garden shop. Talking about Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke, Mary Wollstonecraft and Roger Scruton. Also, fitting this in with both the Tories search for an ideological base (see Roger Scruton's article in 'The Guardian' of 11th May 2013 -
http://www.amazon.co.uk//gp/css/summary/edit.html/?orderID=026-6098229-2509152)
and Gregory currently studying about the Enlightenment period.

Next, Alex and I go off to the Radical Book Fair at Conway Hall, London  - see http://www.artrabbit.com/all/events/event/38821/london_radical_bookfair
(whilst Glenn sadly had to return, for now, to being a marking machine).

Now, what made us decide to go to this? Well, it was Alex looking at the results of the recent local elections in the shires, and the disturbing inroads being made by UKIP (UK Independence Party) and the far right. 'Whatever has happened to the left?' Alex asked. Is there no 'left' left at all? (excuse the irresistible pun). This concerned us on a number of fronts:

1. The actual state of the left.
2. That Alex 'felt' this even though he has us as parents, telling him so much about what is going on, on the left (even though we are obviously very disappointed with the general trend).
3. The power of the media, which is controlled by the dominant, ruling class, which has not only been very successful in helping to put the right in the powerful place that they are now in, but also into manipulating people's minds into thinking that the 'right' is even more powerful and successful than it actually is! And so it all starts to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. No point in getting involved in the left, because there is nothing left worth getting involved with. So, just accept the right-wing agenda and that way of life. So it goes.

So, anyway, the decision was made - we would go to the Radical Book Fair. And what a wise decision that proved to be, and is something that we can now very much build on in a positive way.

The Radical Book Fair. Wow - it was great. Lots of stalls, lots of people, lots of books and some nice, wholesome food. We have been to the Anarchist Book Fair (in fact, Glenn and I went there with friends Elaine and Richard a few years ago) but the Radical Book Fair - that was something new and it was even better.Yes, it was great - bringing the various strands on the left and critical thinkers together: socialists, left labour, anarchists, communists, feminists, critical thinkers etc etc..

On arrival I bumped into Andrew Coburn, from Essex libraries. I got to know Andrew through the Library Campaign which he ran - trying to protect and enhance public libraries and all that. But of course, things aren't looking good on the public library front, but we can return to that another time.

Next - to look at the book stalls. Right by the door - Newham Bookshop bookstall. And what do we find? A book by Martin Hoyles. So what, you might well ask? Who is that? 'Could he be the same person?', I asked myself, I checked the bio info at the back of the book. Yes, it was the same person. My A' Level English Literature teacher from school! Wow!

Now, Martin Hoyles was very inspirational for me in my formative teenage years. Well, we studied D. H. Lawrence's 'Sons and Lovers' with him and it was Martin Hoyles that told us that Lawrence had been influenced by Nietzsche. And it was Martin Hoyles that got us to see Ken Russell's film of 'Women in Love'. And it was Martin Hoyles that got us to go to the Greenwich Theatre and see great plays such as 'The Doll's House' and 'The Cherry Orchard'. And it was Martin Hoyles that got us to see and view English Literature in a good way; enjoying it; thinking for ourselves; engaging with it. Not just digesting text and critics in order to feed it back to the examiners, thereby risking losing our own minds and our enthusiasm. This was so important to me; as fiction has always been such a love of my life. To have that messed up and destroyed by straight-jacket study methods and techniques would have been dreadful. And so, in this way, Martin Hoyles was a great saviour for me.

So, anyway, here was this book by him, on the Chartist Movement.The book is entitled: 'William Cuffay: the life and times of a Chartist leader' (Hansib, 2013). Well, our friend Dave Black has also written a book about the Chartists, so this became a 'must-buy'.  I wonder if they have met up or if we could arrange for them to meet up, I thought to myself?

So, purchase No. 1.

Purchase No. 2? One for Glenn - a book with a picture of a boy with a gun on the cover, with the title 'How I killed Margaret Thatcher' . The book was by Anthony Cartwright and published with Tindal Street Press, 2013. A work of fiction. Another 'must buy'. Something for Glenn to read after 'The Game of Thrones' - yes, all 7 of them, so will take him some time. Perhaps, Alex might want to read it too.

Purchase No. 3 -  a DVD each of the excellent film 'The Spirit of '45' (http://www.thespiritof45.com/), directed by Ken Loach. Glenn and I saw it at the cinema recently. Gregory also recommended it. Perhaps, this film can do what the left politicians seem unable to do these days - i.e. engage and move people, to work towards a better and a kinder world (rather than a worse and a crueller world). Ken Loach the director of great films, such as 'Cathy Come Home' and ''Kes'. Everyone should watch 'The Spirit of '45' in my view, (bar the ruling class and the enemy - see information about 'What we are fighting for' talk below). Not that we can stop the opposition from knowing what we are up to in that way, but still...

The film showed how the NHS was set up following the Labour landslide after the 2nd World War; and how many of the other state-provisions came into being - e.g. council housing, railways. After people fought for their country and following on from all the death, misery and suffering that people went through, and how brave they had been for their country, something had to be done (or else there might have been riot and revolution). And so the state intervened and did all these wonderful things for the ordinary people. And then Thatcher gets into power, and ever since then, all this good work is being systematically undermined and dismantled. This was what the film showed so clearly. It brought tears to my eyes.

Then, decided - enough purchases for now. Let's look round the stalls. Great variety - Housmans, Virso, Zero, Feminist Library etc etc. Picked up various leaflets.

We missed some of the talks as we got there late, but no matter - 'just enjoy the day'.

Next on the agenda - a talk about Children's Radical Publishing. Excellent. 2 childrens' authors talking about 2 books that they had recently written and published.

Jeanne Willis on 'Wild Child', published by Walker, 2012 - see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Child-Jeanne-Willis/dp/140632308X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368862854&sr=8-1&keywords=jeanne+willis+and+wild+child

Sarah Garland on 'Azzi in Between', published by Frances Lincoln Children's Books, 2012 - see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Azzi-Between-Sarah-Garland/dp/1847802613/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368862964&sr=1-1&keywords=sarah+garland+and+azzi+in+between.

Both books were entered for the Children's Radical Book Prize at the fair. Sarah Garland's book won.

In regard to the talks, Jeanne Willis spoke first. She has over 200 books published. Jeanne spoke about and read her latest book, a picture book called 'Wild Child'. It was wonderful. About a child that was able to go off to play and wander all day in the countryside. Jeanne spoke about how she was able to do this with her sister when they were children and how today children are often not allowed/not able to 'run wild' in this way. There is now this great concern with 'safety'. And children are being turned more and more into consumers at ever younger ages.

Whilst  'Azzi  in between' focuses on the topic of refugees trying to integrate into the community and the difficulties they face. As it says on the publicity flyer for the book:

"Escaping from her home in a war zone, Azzi has to leave her Grandma behind and embark on a long and difficult journey by land and sea to the safety of a new country. Here, everything is strange to her. How can Azzi learn a new language? How can she make friends at her new school? Will she ever see her Grandma again?"

The book is in a graphic format, thereby making it available to a wider range of ages. Sarah Garland drew the pictures herself.

The talks were followed by questions and comments from the floor. A lady who had recently completed a PhD on children's literature asked a very interesting question. She made the point that the authors were adults, aiming to look at the world through the eyes of children. She said that all that was fine, but wondered what the authors thought to the idea of children getting more involved; with children's thoughts and ideas being valued in this way. The 2 authors seemed to be struggling with this one, so I then suggested the possibility that gifted children could work with adult authors such as themselves, but that this can be very difficult as publishers need to get material published as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to enhance their profit margins.  I was thinking here, in particular, about Victor growing up, being encouraged by his teacher to publish and so much wanting to do it; putting so much effort into it, but how we were not able to achieve it on our own. Jeanne Willis said that if a gifted 9/10 year old contacts her she provides them with information about how to get their stories published, so everything is fine. They can become successful writers; no worries and all that. But I think that Jeanne is being rather romantic here. For most children, it is a lot more complicated and more difficult than that. Perhaps, Jeanne has not come against the rawity of capitalism in the way that we have!

I wanted to say something about Jeanne's book; how wonderful it is but how it is much more difficult for urban children to be able to wander off all day and have these wonderful adventures. I also thought about Glenn and D. H. Lawrence who were bought up by or near the countryside and were able to wander off like this as children and enjoy all the plants, flowers and wildlife etc. Whilst, as an urban child, I was much more confined and could not have such great adventures. Although, I did play in the street - skipping, 2 balls, he, hop-scotch etc. And so I turned to my story books. But I never got to say that in the end; oh well, not to worry.

Next talk: ' What we are fighting for'. This was 4 men talking about their recently published book 'What we are fighting for: a radical collective manifesto', edited by Federico Campagna and Emanuele Campiglio (Pluto Press, 2012). This was also excellent. So much so, that one person at the end of Federico Campagna's talk said that he had been waiting to hear something like that from the left for 30 years. Wow! So what was so important and significant about this? It was the tone of the deliveries, in particular, with the emphasis being on how to defeat the right.

Federico Campagna made it clear that he thought that we were in a War, but that the left do not realise this enough. Thatcher realised this, which was why she was so successful. The left, on the other hand, are too concerned with being tolerant, considerate and peaceful.

Now, whilst we must obviously be against capitalist and imperialist wars, this should not lead us to being against the idea of war in general, he said, when it comes to thinking strategically (as opposed to actually using weapons and killing people).  But Victory is what we are after; and the aim is to win; it is not just about a beautiful gesture. The enemy - is someone that has to be defeated. This does not mean that, as individuals they might not be nice people; but one has to differentiate between individual people's personalities, and what side they are actually on/representing.

Also, that we need to be fully aware of the fact that the 'right' have control of 'reality engineering', with PR, advertising, tabloids, TV etc., so they have so much stacked up in their favour in this way. So, we need to know what we are up against.

In addition, we sometimes need strategic disengagement, to enable the left to set longer term goals. Thus, a multiplicity of strands is needed, and different terrains. One man said, for example, that he saw the SWP as his ally but not his comrade. Also, how we are often complicit in our own subjection to power. And that if we can't protect our own Labour party how ever can we defeat capitalism? I thought this was a very good point; well, they were all good points. So, we need a different strategy. The left also needs to work together through the different strands, focus on attacking the actual enemy, with the aim of winning and victory, rather than the left having in-fighting amongst itself. In contrast, 'resistance' is no good as an aim; it just means that one is resisting dying. Something far more positive is needed. We thought it was all really good and very much got to the heart of the matter.

Unfortunately, the session over-run, so there was no time for questions and comments. But Gayle Chester, from the Feminist Library, and acting as Chair, made a closing comment though, which I thought was very unfortunate, to say the least. She asked where the women's voice was; now, as far as I am concerned, this once again, is dividing the left; the very thing that the editors and writers of the book were aiming to overcome. Oh well, such is life.

The contributors in the book include Owen Jones, David Graeber, John Holloway, Nina Power, Mark Fisher, Franco Bifo Berardi and Marina Sitrin.

Then, on to the book prizes. Nina Power was one of the judges. Now, Glenn told me to look out for her and her book, 'One Dimensional Woman' (Zero Books, 2009). She is also a Philosophy lecturer. We wanted to buy this book, and also 'What we are fighting for' - but both were sold out at the fair! Wow - shows how popular they are. I did talk to someone, though, that runs 'The Fuse Book Club', a monthly book club on left non-fiction works, held at Housmans Bookshop. So, perhaps, will get involved with that. Looks interesting, but have to see.

So, all in all, what a great day. We had a bite to eat. What next? We didn't just want to go home. It had been such a wonderful day.

So, what next? Go and watch a film? Go and see a play? Go and see a musical? We wandered round. We went in the Arts Theatre at Leicester Square for a tea. Should we see the play, a love story, that was on there? Alex thought not; he wanted something that had more fire in its belly; preferably something that exposed some of the horror of capitalism. We ended up at Piccadilly Circus. Noticed that 'The Place Beyond the Pines' was still on in one of the cinemas. I told Alexander that Glenn said it would be a good film. We knew nothing much about it; but we went for it - purely going on Glenn's recommendation (not that he had seen it - he was just going on the reviews). But what a winner it turned out to be. It was sensational; it was amazing. Addressing class issues; addressing police corruption issues; addressing the 'Eternal Return of the Same' issues. I would certainly really recommend it. It stars Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes and Ray Liotta. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/movie/146649/place-beyond-the-pines

Came home tired but very satisfied and happy and gave the various goodies to Glenn.

P.S. A few days later, I could not resist it - I had to read 'How I killed Margaret Thatcher' by Anthony Cartwright. A very good book, although not quite what I had been expecting. The story was told through the eyes of a 9-year old boy. The author was born in 1973, so I suspect that what he was describing was the type of Thatcher-world that he saw as he was growing up as a boy. Co-incidentally, Anthony Cartwright has also worked as an English teacher in schools in East London.

Take this great paragraph as an example from the book, following on from the boy Sean talking about Thatcher taking away the school milk:

"She must really hate us, I think. You can see if you watch her on telly or even if you hear her voice coming out of the radio that we make her angry. At least, someone makes her angry. Even when she said that Saint Francis stuff, it was like she was telling everyone off. Things are getting out of hand. She wants to stop people going to work, let all the factories close. That's what my grandad says. I want to know why. I don't know what we've done to upset her, but we've done something. If we know why she's angry maybe we can stop her." (p. 86)

The whole book also got me thinking; why did she so much want to destroy various communities - close factories, shut down industries, force pubs and libraries to close in villages etc? And why did she and do the Tories want to make ordinary people pay for their health care and schooling etc? I thought it was just that they did not care about the ordinary people; were not bothered about what happened to them, as their concern is with defending the interest of their own class. But perhaps there is more to it than that.

Perhaps, Thatcher thought that there were just TOO MANY ordinary people; TOO MANY working class people. Sir Keith Joseph said, at the time, that ordinary people were breeding too much; perhaps, we should take his words more literally.

So, what has happened is that ordinary people and communities have died and are dying through neglect; and this will increase now that the National Health Service no longer formally exists (as from 1st April of this year) and private capital starts to make more and more inroads into the NHS. Then, it will be - do or die; pay or die. So, just how different was Margaret Thatcher from Adolf Hitler, one might start to wonder? Is it just another way of getting rid of unwanted people? What a scary thought. But coming back to 'What we are fighting for', if one has a clearer idea about what the enemy is about, what strategies it is using, and what its long-term goal is, then one is better armed, and more able to defeat the enemy.

'How I killed Margaret Thatcher' is definitely a book that I would recommend.

The Never Ending Story

What is this about? The Never Ending Story?

Well, this is a film that I re-watched with our middle son, Victor Rikowski, over the Easter period (at Victor's suggeestion). This is one of Victor's favourite films, and indeed, it is one of my favourites too. Victor was given this by his Auntie Julie, when he was quite young (about 8 years old). But even more surprising is the fact that Glenn took Alexander to see it in the cinema in Cromer, Norfolk when he was only about 6 years old. At the time, they thought it was a bit strange. Victor, Gregory and I watched it later on (when we got the video from Aunt Julie), and we all really liked it. Well, Victor and I really loved it, in fact! And now, we have just re-watched it.

So, what is this film about? And what is so special about it? Well, it is about the land of Fantasia. And this land is only kept alive by children's imagination. But the land is dying, the people are dying, the different species are dying; the emptiness is threatening the world of imagination, and the 'Nothing' is taking over. This is because children's imagination is dying. They are being turned into consumers at ever younger ages, of course. This was not stated explicitly, but the message is there implicitly.

The film opens with a young boy, Bastian, being bullied. He escapes by going into a book shop. The man running the bookshop is reading a book, but tells him that it is not for the boy; that it is no ordinary book. That, of course, is 'The Never Ending Story'. The boy runs off with the book. He gets very absorbed in it; he seems to become part of it. How easily I could relate to that! Getting away from bullies, and into a book instead!

Meanwhile, in the story we have the boy child, Atreyu (the other side of Bastian) that is on a mission to save Fantasia; a young Artistic Warrior one could say.

I thought of Nietzsche and his ideas around the übermensch, the overman, the superman and all that. Yes, I have suddenly started pouring myself into the ideas of Frederick Nietzsche and I am really fascinated by it all! I got it wrong; I have been unfair on him. But then again, it is all so complex. Whilst now, Victor has turned right away from him. Oh well - such is life! These great geniuses and thinkers move and shake us in all sorts of ways. But they are where it is at - that is the most important thing to remember, in my view. The great books, the great thinkers, the great writers, the great artists: those people that want to transcend and indeed, are often driven to transcend, every day reality.

Such people take us on to another plane; they take us on to another level; another way of thinking, being and existing. And I am part of that. I have always been a part of that. But I have not had many of the advantages that many of the greats have had, so I am not being taken as seriously. Nietzsche had a very tough life in many ways and he was, indeed, very courageous, and he broke through so many boundaries and said just so much that others would not dare to say. Well, never dare to think, let alone say and write. But he did have the advantage of being a Professor at a young age, which gave him a head start, in terms of confidence and getting taken seriously (D. H. Lawrence was the same here). But anyway, we all find our own way and I am finding mine. But I do also think that women have to be more careful and cover themselves more (and those from less privileged backgrounds even more so). If a woman wrote as Nietzsche did she would almost certainly be accused of being head-strong, prejudicial, irrational etc. etc. And a woman is also more vulnerable to such attacks, because at the end of the day, most women are physically weaker than men. But anyway, we all find our own way, which is what Nietzsche wanted. And so, as I say, I am finding my own way.

Coming back to the Overman, this is what Nimrod Aloni says in his great book 'Beyond Nihilism' about Nietzsche's overman:

"...the overman stands as the materialisation of the theme that the primary element through which life grows in value or attains power is neither knowledge nor morality, but the creative form-giving, value-assigning, meaning-introducing human enterprise. In other words, in the doctrine of the overman Nietzsche associates the enhancement of life, the elevation of man, and man's metaphysical destiny with a self-determining creative process that is dominated by the will to power, manifested in the introduction of ever-new forms of patterning experience, and continually aiming to surpass and perfect its prevailing state of being." (Aloni, 1991, p. 176)

So, we have the creative outlet driven forward by the 'will to power'.

Then, a little later, and very near the end of the book, Aloni says:

"Nietzsche places the highest value on continual self-overcoming through the spiritualization and creative employment of the passions, identifying man's highest form of self-affirmation with 'the power of creating beyond oneself ' without losing oneself." (Aloni, 1991, p. 185)

Thus, self-overcoming; taking hold of one's life; 'going for life' etc.

Also, the 'Nothing', from an adult perspective, can be associated with Nietzsche. A nihilist state (which could be equated with 'the nothing') that Nietzsche thought had to be reached and recognised in order to then overcome it and move beyond it. Reject Christian morality, reject conformist value systems, all of which leads to sickness in humankind: 'God is dead' (Nietzsche). And so we then have a state of nihilism. Then, the overman can create a new set of values, 'a revaluation of the previous values'  (Nietzsche) and so the 'nothing' is overcome. This is one adult way in which 'The Never Ending Story' could be developed and built on.

Children, on their own, cannot overcome nihilism. The fear is that if it was all just left to children, then barbarism might well take a hold and take over instead (e.g. Golding's 'Lord of the Flies'). It is all too dangerous, and too much left to chance. So, we need to find another way; an adult way but one that is inspiring, fulfilling, creative (and not where the adult lives in an alienated and sick state). But this would build on the power and beauty of children's imagination; of taking adults when they were imaginative children and building on this.  Able, gifted and fortunate children that are able to develop creatively and imaginatively.

But Atreyu, as a child is using the force of his personality, his strong beliefs, his courage and his bravery to try to find the Empress and to call forth Bastian in order to defeat 'the nothing' and to save Fantasia. And of course, in a story it is possible; well anything is possible in stories and in one's imagination. Also, these are very courageous and different young people of course (or the same person, but we won't go into that one here). And if stories and fiction writing in general can help to enrich our real lives, and be real lights to us in the process about how to live more fulfilling lives, so much the better. But we need more than that; we need to put it into an adult context.

And then we have these incredibly wise words from Karl Löwith, in his good book Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. He says:

"The teaching of the eternal recurrence repeats The Birth of Tragedy and makes possible the 'revaluation of all values' that follows, because this teaching pertains in its principle not to just any single value but to the now problematic 'value of existence' as such and as a whole: the reversal of the will to the nothing of nihilism, into the willing of the Being of the eternal recurrence of the same." (Löwith, 1997, p. 26)

Yes, a 'revaluation of all values', to overcome nihilism; to overcome 'the nothing'.
Also:

"To Hegel the death of God is the abyss of the nothing into which all Being sinks, in order to emerge anew in the movement of becoming." (Löwith, 1997, p. 39)

Yes, becoming and:

"A superhuman will of the man of the future, a will that creates itself and the world as its own, takes the place of God, who creates Being out of nothing." (Löwith, 1997, p.43)

And so again, we have Nietzsche's notion of the 'will to power'.

In general, I wasn't understanding Nietzsche before - well I never studied him formally. And I had got caught up in the hype with the right-wing and fascist propaganda, his many 'anti-women' remarks, the madness, the post-modernists taking him up (seen to be their godfather) and much else besides.

But Glenn and Victor's persistence and enthusiasm with Nietzsche over many years made me think that there must be something important in it all and that I should really try to get to grips with some of it. Also, then, there is my own personal love of D. H. Lawrence who was heavily influenced by Nietzsche of course. And so, this is what I have been turning my attention to of late. And in some strange way, things seem to be fitting together. And I now realise what a genius Nietzsche was.

But how could a child achieve so much? How could any child, on his/her own, save Fantasia? Well, you could argue that, of course, she/he could simply because she/he is a child, and it is a childlike world that he/she is trying to save - the world of children's imagination. So, if children have a strong enough and powerful enough imagination (which Bastian clearly did) then Fantasia can be saved. But one can take this a step further; and indeed, I think it should be taken further. That society, in many ways, tries to force us to be in the supposed 'real world'. Working and functioning in capitalism; being both producers and consumers. And only using our imagination where it fits in with capitalism; such as going to the movies, and spending money, but not getting too sucked into it all, as we need to go out and labour in capitalism again. But this is not good for us. We need our imagination; we need our fantasies; we have to escape from the real world; we have to get beyond day-to-day reality in many ways. And so we do. And so the contradictions continue.

But can all this be really achieved by a child? Well, clearly not. And that perhaps is where the confusion comes in. Perhaps, Victor thought that, in some way, he could achieve it. That would make sense, with his enthusiasm for Nietzsche. That as a child; then as a teenager; then as a young adult, he could have some big impact on the world creatively and artistically. Well, one can in various ways of course, but it is very hit and miss and it is very difficult to make a real and lasting impact. It is still something worth striving for though, as it makes life worth living. Also, it means that one is sharing one's gifts, one's work, one's creative output, one's ideas etc. with others, and thus hopefully helping to enrich the world in general in some way. Or at least, that is a good aim, I think.

And that is one way where we can go wrong with the geniuses; with the greats. We can expect too much from them. They are only human, when all is said and done. We should appreciate the fact that they give so much to the world. And so with Nietzsche - his work 'blows one's mind' and can, on one level, seem contradictory - or far worse of course. But we should appreciate the fact that he was trying to find a different way to live, and challenging conventional wisdoms. To such an extent that in the end he went, mad of course. Well, enough said on that one, for now. We also need to bear in mind that life is quite short, so any one person, any one genius, can only ever do so much. Nietzsche can't sort everything out; Marx can't sort everything out; D. H. Lawrence can't sort everything out. And on top of all of that, they had so many prejudices against them, as applies to so many great thinkers, movers and shakers.

So, coming back to Victor, he decided that it was all dangerous nonsense (after reading Geoff Waite's book Nietzsche's Corpse); and currently he has no time much for the notion of the 'Artistic Warrior' or Nietszchien-type stuff in general. Oh well! I was certainly very much against Nietzsche at one time, so who am I to talk? And I still can't really read much of Nietzsche's raw text, it has to be said, (so am reading some good books by others interpreting his work), but hopefully in time, with the help of this reading, I will be able to read more of the raw text, and continue to make more sense of it all. Having said that though, I also now realise that Nietzsche did not really intend for his books to just be read from cover to cover. He was just such a very different thinker and writer - it is often more appropriate to 'dip into them'.

I realise now though that Nietzsche's philosophy was about a way of life, and not confined to reasoning (and that is very important). As Alistair Kee says:

"...he [Nietzsche] set himself to develop not a system of philosophy, but a philosophy by which to live." (Kerr, 1999, p. 20)

And for me, that is also the essence of philosophy; although thinking rationally is also vitally important in capitalism. Because the capitalist system is just so mad, one has to use one's reason in order to be able to function in it. But people are going to be very disappointed if they think that by such sensible behaviour they will then be living in a sane and rational system! No way!

But coming back to 'The Never Ending Story' - well, I think we need a 2nd good film, showing how an adult artistic warrior can take all this forward. That is my conclusion. And, of course, that also fits in with Nietzsche (overcoming nihilism). Now, there is the film 'The Never Ending Story II: the next chapter' (this is on the same video actually). But it just isn't very good at all. It just does not capture one's imagination (strangely enough!), is not very gripping, and has too many adults in it (but not doing very worthwhile and interesting things either).

Suddenly, I wanted to find out more. Surely such a great film, must be based on a book? So, I did a search on Amazon, and - hey presto, I was right. It is based on a book by the famous children's fiction author, Michael Ende. Amazing! But I should have guessed that before! So, I had to find out more. I found out that the 2nd film was not really based on the book - so that explains that one! Some were saying that it should be a classic, and I quite agree. I then went into my local Waterstones bookshop, found it on the shelf (great!) and bought it. I will read it soon. Then, I read a really interesting review of the film by Kylopod on Amazon (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088323/reviews) They say:

"No fantasy film I've seen has tapped more successfully into the kinds of philosophical thoughts that kids have...This is the type of film that greatly appeals to introspective kids who think about things like infinity and the end of the universe. Do children think about such things? I did. People who find that surprising have forgotten how profound children can sometimes be."

I did too! That is really profound, I think. But a little later the person has this to say:

"Bastian never grows as a character, he never learns to put his feet on the ground, something the early scenes suggest will happen."

And this is, indeed, the problem, I think, and why it could confuse and mislead intelligent children in particular, and why a second, good film is needed to try to address the problem.

I also think they were right about some of the characters that the director, Wolfgang Petersen created in the film, and that he did not seem to have a clear enough idea about what age group he was filming for. As Kylopod says::

"Some of the scenes are quite scary and violent, making this film inappropriate for younger children. Yet, the muppet-like characters are presented in an annoyingly condescending way that I doubt older kids (not to mention teens and adults) would appreciate."

And I think this was what Glenn didn't like.

I checked further and found that a 3rd film has been made - 'The Never Ending Story 3' - but that is even worse that the 2nd one apparently, and actually features in the 'Badmovies.org' website, would you believe. What a tragedy. All getting worse, rather than better. Dear oh dear!

So, anyway, instead, a completely different kind of sequel is needed. This should be where an adult artistic warrior takes it all forward. This could be done in various ways by the adult; such as through sophisticated fiction writing, through art, through philosophical writing, through music etc. Indeed, perhaps more people writing like Nietzsche. And people writing and/or living in real and genuine ways; where they really try to become themselves; be true to themselves (and not get taken in by the propaganda etc); to 'go for life'; to be real; to be genuine. And this of course, was what D. H. Lawrence also very much took up (being inspired by Nietzsche and all that) - 'going for life', aiming to be a whole person, taking risks etc. He wrote a letter to his friend Catherine Carswell, for example, congratulating her on her marriage, saying that:

"I only want to know people that have the courage to live."

That about sums it up.

Then, at the end of his book Apocalypse (which he wrote just before he died), he said:

"What man most passionately wants is his living wholeness and his living unison, not his own isolate salvation of his 'soul'...What we want is to destroy our false, inorganic connections, especially those related to money, and re-establish the living organic connections with the cosmos, the sun and earth, with mankind and nation and family." (Lawrence, 1974, pp 125-6)

So, this childhood, innocent wonderment could be taken into adulthood and in that way, it can drive it all forward (as D. H. Lawrence did with his novels of course), and help adults to live a better life; one where consumerism does not dominate. Lead by example, and all that. Use one's adult brain, but use it wisely.

To just leave it with the child being the saviour, is rather dangerous on one level and can give people (especially children) false hopes, I think. Children thinking that they can change the world by adopting childlike ways of behaving, with their vivid imagination and that, in this way, they can do better than adults. And giving themselves too much self-importance.

But of course, this cannot be done, because capitalism is just too powerful. Take Michael Jackson here as an example. Michael Jackson trying to remain childlike, living in Neverland and wanting to be Peter Pan. But of course, it was not possible, and the cruel, capitalist, greedy society basically 'got to him' and killed him. And Thatcher as good as defeated the unions and old Labour, and much else besides, when all is said and done and crippled and debilitated the working class. How much easier it would be, and is, for the 'right' to defeat children and childlike mentalities. They don't really have a leg to stand on!

But I want to find ways forward, in general and indeed, that is what I intend to do! A way to overcome; a way to take control of one's life; a way to live a fulfilled life; a way to live life in a beautiful, creative and meaningful way, but where fantasy and escapism (which ideally should first be developed in childhood) also has its important part to play and can shine through. Yes, even guide us forward. And that is where Nietzsche's Eternal Return of the Same comes in, but that can be for another time and another day.

N.B.  In my blog entry 'Fiction Write-Ups' I make clear that I am moving away from the type of
fiction write-ups that I have previously entered on this blog. This entry builds on this (and is no deviation):

1. It is about a film, not a book
2. Only parts of the plot are revealed
3. It deals with some important philosophical issues, which not many of my other fiction write-ups have dealt with; 'The Age of Reason' by Sartre being one big obvious exception here. Also, Sartre's 'Nausea' and Douglas Kennedy's 'The Moment'.
4. It provides an introduction into my newly discovered understanding, thoughts and insights into Nietzsche.

Link to film: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Neverending-Story-Thomas-Hill/dp/B0017U09JE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366886677&sr=8-1&keywords=never+ending+story+film

Link to book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Neverending-Story-Puffin-Books/dp/0140317937/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1366886677&sr=8-2&keywords=never+ending+story+film



References
Aloni, Nimrod (1991) Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche's healing and edifying Philosophy, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland

Kee, Alistair (1999) Nietzsche agaist the crucified, SCM Press, London

Lawrence, D. H. (1974) Apocalypse, Penguin, Middlesex (first published in 1931)

Löwith, Karl (1997) Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same, University of California Press, London

Waite, Geoff (1996) Nietzsche's Corpse, Duke University Press, USA

The Grieving Process, Thatcher and All That

I felt that I just had to write something about this, after the death of Margaret Thatcher.

How dare people tell others how to grieve! The grieving process is a very personal thing and one grieves differently for different people. But British society would have us believe that there is only one way to grieve, which includes doing things such as wearing black, being quiet, keeping one's head down, crying, and reminiscing.

Heavens! There are many different ways to grieve.

And if one thinks that one particular person caused or helped to cause misery, suffering and death to millions of people, then one might well be inclined to dance, cheer, sing and celebrate rather than to cry and wail when that person dies. And Margaret Thatcher was one such person.

And so we have much of the population singing and dancing to 'Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead'. Good luck to them!

This is supposed to be a democracy that believes in freedom of expression. If that is the case, then heavens - let the people sing as and when they want to. The issue of 'freedom of expression' also came up on another blog entry of mine - 'Emotional Geology'. There is such hypocrisy in this country around this notion.

But what else do we find? That many of those in positions of power and influence that did not like or agree with Margaret Thatcher's policies are not daring to say much about what they actually thought about it all. Presumably, this is because they are worried about being accused of being disrespectful.

And so it is left to the likes of people such as Glenda Jackson (see my previous blog entry) and John Prescott. And even then, Miliband is getting 'ticked off' by the likes of Tony Blair for letting his rank and file run wild. Heavens!

John Prescott  is very brave here, it has to be said. Writing in the Daily Mirror of 12th April 2013 (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-margaret-thatcher-deserves-1829090), he refers to how Margaret Thatcher stood on the doorstep on No 10 in 1979 quoting St Francis of Assisi (a sore point for me, as I was brought up to really believe in and value the words of St Francis). Talk about using words and twisting them for one's own agenda. And, this is what Prescott exposes very magnificently.

For example, St Francis saying:

"Where there is doubt, may we bring faith."

And Prescott replying:

"Thatcher never had faith in society. She claimed it didn't exist. Her belief in the individual led to selling off council homes and refusing to build new ones, leading to record waiting lists for social housing and homelessness. "

He ends his article saying:

"On Wednesday I'll remember the wasted lives, the blighted childhoods and the lost industries that were the result of Margaret Thatcher's policies.

And I'll pay tribute to a former PM who made Britain stronger, healthier and happier, not weaker, sicker and despondent.

Clement Attlee, Prime Minister, 1945-1951."

Right on John!

I have looked around to see what other famous left people are saying but it is pretty thin on the ground. Shirley Williams's comments in 'The Guardian' of 8th April 2013  (See http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-dies-portraits) are quite amusing though, as well are revealing. She says:

"Margaret Thatcher was neither the cleverest nor the most eloquent politician of her generation. But she was without question the most determined...[she studied at Oxford but] The principal of her college, Somerville, the distinguished, radical haematologist Janet Vaughan, dismissed her as 'a second-rate mind', the ultimate academic put-down."

I very much agree with Shirley Williams's comments here. However, this should also help us to be mindful and fearful of those with lesser brains, and lesser intellects - they can do a lot of harm and damage both to society and to individuals if we are not careful.

Indeed, George Monbiot highlighted the fact that the Daily Mail  (no less!) reported the findings of some research that found that conservatives do actually have lower intelligence/lower IQ. This was in an article he wrote for 'The Guardian' on 6th February 2012, entitled 'The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left: Conservatism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object.'

Monbiot says:

"Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact...Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn...This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies. But what we now see among their parties - however intelligent their guiding spirits may be - is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism."

For the full article see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left

So, we must keep our wits about us in general and not fool ourselves otherwise, and try to ensure that wise heads and some kind of worthiness prevails in some way.

Anyway, the whole thing about grieving and the supposed importance of being respectful to the dead is clearly playing an important part in all of this. Even though no such rules apply to dictators and thugs abroad that die and that we, as a country, are pleased about. Oh no, it is fine to celebrate such deaths!

Glenn has also had some interesting comments made on his Facebook page on this matter; with him being accused of being disrespectful to the dead and those grieving. One person, for example, said 'What about her family?' suggesting that Glenn shouldn't be talking in the way that he was. But how on earth do we know how her family feel or how they want to grieve? And how presumptuous of us to assume that we do know. As well as Mark Thatcher's many shortcomings anyway - but we won't go into that one here.

But when my father-in-law died, for example, I was going around the house singing and dancing to Michael Jackson's music. Now, no-one else would or could understand that, and I would not expect them to. How ridiculous it all is!

And so, for now, I rest my case. But that is all I am resting for now!

Glenda Jackson's Speech on Margaret Thatcher

I was really moved to hear Glenda Jackson's wonderful speech about Margaret Thatcher in the Commons today. But where were all the others? Why does she seem to be such a lone voice?

Glenda Jackson. What a real inspiration she has been to our country - first with her fine acting and then with her move into politics.  That's the sort of woman that we should be admiring and looking up to.

And why is this so significant for me? Well, we come full circle in yet another way- she has had a huge influence on my life, particularly as I was growing up in my mid teens, with her wonderful acting of Gudrun in Ken Russell's brilliant film directorship of D.H. Lawrence's wonderful book, 'Women in Love'.

Glenda Jackson Speech During the Debate on Tributes to Margaret Thatcher, House of Commons, London 19th April 2013:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-not-a-w_n_3053402.html

Fiction Write-Ups

I started the Fiction Write-Ups that are on this 'Serendipitous Moments' blog as a way of coping following on from the death of my father-in-law - some 4 years ago now. I found it to be very therapeutic and beneficial.

However, it also proved to be time-consuming, so some while ago I decided to limit it to a few select books only.

Now, it is time to rethink things and to move on, once again. This has been prompted, in particular, by Linda Gillard's comments on this blog (see 'Emotional Geology').

So, as ever, I am grateful to fiction and fiction writers.

Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings'

Now, here is a big topic; a topic and a half eh!

J. R. R. Tolkien's work - 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings'.

I was first introduced to all of this in my mid-teens. I read 'The Hobbit' and quite enjoyed it. At the time, I was inspired by adventure stories, and I liked stories with little people and little species (as a child, I loved reading Mary Norton's 'The Borrowers', for example). So, I read Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and liked it. I then went on to try 'Lord of the Rings'. I read about one third of Part 1 and then gave up. At the time, I thought that it was just going on too much and there was too much description (I felt the same about Charles Dickens novels then, but years later got to really enjoy them.) But 'The Fellowship of the Ring' was all just too vast for my liking and I could not relate to it all enough (unlike 'The Hobbit'). Somehow, I was getting lost amongst it all.

That was that, I thought. I did not envisage myself ever venturing down the path again, or ever trying to read the books again.

But then suddenly 'The Lord of the Rings' films (directed by Peter Jackson of course) hit the screens. Our sons (in their teens and early 20's at the time) somehow got hold of DVD copies unbeknown to us, and they were suddenly all sitting there watching it all enthralled. At the time, they had no understanding or knowledge that these were classics. How strange life can be! For some reason, we had never spoken to them about either 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'The Hobbit'. Then, suddenly Glenn got drawn in; and he was also loving the films. Even more bizarre, as he gave up on the books in his teens even sooner than I did!

I tried to give the films a go - I liked the atmosphere, but found it vast, and still, I largely found myself falling asleep! I concluded that my basic thoughts about 'Lord of the Rings' all those years ago remained the same. So, I left them all to it (or so I thought!).

Meanwhile, though, our eldest son Alexander, was getting more and more enthralled with it all. He had not studied 'English Literature' or indeed, or read any novels at all much over the years, so this was really all quite something. Something incredible was happening! And so he started reading 'Lord of the Rings'. He poured himself into it; he loved it all. Be was besotted; he was consumed; he was immersed; he was enchanted. He read all 3 of them; and read them all quite quickly - 'The Fellowship of the Ring'; 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King'. Then, he bought the music for it and a big poster, and google searched about it all. His big room was being transformed into 'Lord of the Rings' land - there seemed no end to it all. Once again, I left him to it, but did listen to him, to some extent, telling me how wonderful it all was! And I was certainly pleased that he had ventured into some classical literature - and I hoped that it might be the start of him starting to read some other classical works of literature at some point.

Anyway, then, recently of course, 'The Hobbit' film (1 of 3) hit the cinemas. Well, I thought that I really should go and watch that as I had enjoyed reading 'The Hobbit' in my teens. I also decided that I must be prepared to persevere a bit. Well, I quite enjoyed the film, although I did find it rather drawn out - a 3 hour film, and we are only one third of the way through it all! Is this not cashing in on 'The Lord of the Rings' films, I wondered? Ideally, there should probably have been one film of 'The Hobbit' made first in my opinion; then followed by the 3 films of 'Lord of the Rings'. But then of course, money is ruling this, not literature, I guess. But of course, I don't know what the 2 other 'Hobbit' films are like, as they have not been released yet! Still, the first of 'The Hobbit' films was certainly all very well-acted, wonderfully put together; beautiful scenery and a lovely atmosphere.

So, this all made me think and helped me to make my decision. Yes, I would re-read 'The Hobbit'. I also wanted to read it again, because so often, the film can end up getting more praise than the book; the director more praise than the author, as it were. And the director is often being derivative really - taking the text, the ideas, the plots that the authors have so painstakingly created. That's how I tend to view things anyway. I also got slightly irritated with Glenn here actually, because he ended up loving the films just so much, but had no intention, at all, of trying to read the books again! But on the other hand, I guess the films alerted my attention to it all again, and helped me to decide to have another 'go' at the books. Something which I am sure that I would never have attempted to do otherwise. In fact, this is a huge topic for me - books v. films. Now is not the time to write further on this, but perhaps I will on another occasion - have to see. But for now, and if readers are interested, they could have a look at my 'Woman in the Fifth' blog. Incidentally, that blog is currently running as the 2nd most popular of all my blogs of all time! So, the film must be playing its part in helping to put Kennedy on the map as an author in some way, must it not.

However, I digress, and must return. So, I re-read 'The Hobbit'. I surprised myself really. I read it in about 3 days and I really enjoyed it. And I could see why I liked it in my teens. Tolkien wrote the book, originally, for his children of course. And the way it is written - it is clearly written for children; bright and intelligent children - it is not at all patronising. I thought it was really clever - how Tolkien managed to 'pull that off'. It was also very manageable and readable; it was great for ones imagination; wonderful fantasy and all written in a very seamless way, flowing together just so well. It is all written so well and so beautifully, of course. Such craftsmanship, the likes of which we might never see again. So, next, could I dare to try reading 'The Lord of the Rings' again? Yes, why not? Might as well, I decided. I thought it would also very much please Alexander if I did that - as he rates it all so highly.

Another strand to all of this is 'The Game of Thrones' by George Martin. That also helped me to make my decision. Now what is all this about, one might well ask? Well, our middle son Victor suddenly started talking loads about this. He had bought the whole set on DVD a few months ago, and said it was really great. Another fascinating angle to this is that we sent draft chapters of Victor's story 'The Megalith' to 2 publishers when he was in his mid-teens. He got some very positive feedback, but was told (of course) that he needed to go through an agent. One of the publishers, Voyager, also suggested that he read 'The Game of Thrones'. They were the publishers of this, and it was one of their best-sellers and I guess they thought that Victor could learn something from reading this. They sent him a copy of the book. Victor read some of it, but did not persevere (bit like me with 'Lord of the Rings', I guess). Now, we have bought the whole set of books as well, and believe it or not (as Glenn hardly ever reads fiction), Glenn has now started reading them and is enjoying it all (and he has also already watched the whole DVD set several times)! Wow! How strange life can be!

Am I digressing again? Well, no, not really. Why not? Well, because 'The Game of Thrones' is being compared to 'Lord of the Rings' would you believe! What a big coincidence! It is another huge epic fantasy story, set in another time and another place (a more primitive one). But the main difference is that, whereas with 'The Lord of the Rings' goodness fundamentally wins out (remembering of course, that Tolkien was a Roman Catholic Christian), in 'The Game of Thrones' this is often not the case. Instead, badness often seems to be winning. It is more up to the reader/watcher to make sense of it all. But having said this, I tried watching 'The Game of Thrones' but did not like the general atmosphere much at all (unlike 'The Lord of the Rings'). So at that point, I gave up really with 'The Game of Thrones'. Perhaps, these huge fantasy/adventure stories are more for the male species, I thought. But no, rather than take that attitude, I would try reading Tolkien's work again. That was a much better idea, I decided. Victor and Gregory, by the way, have not (at least so far) read any of Tolkien's work at all.

So, to return to where I was at. Right - I had re-read 'The Hobbit' and enjoyed it. I would try reading 'The Lord of the Rings' again, I decided. Part 1 - 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. I started reading it. I was determined to concentrate and give it my best effort. And hey - I was pleasantly surprised. I was finding myself enjoying it: it was beautifully written; it was all just so artistically put together. A real craftsmanship. Such clever sentence construction; and such a wide variety of language. Amazing! The effort that Tolkien must (and clearly did) put into it all, to make is just so perfect and so complete in this way. I liked the atmosphere with the overpowering feeling of good defeating evil, I liked the characters and I loved the scenery. And I was following it all OK - although one definitely had to pay attention, and it certainly was not an easy read. Well, how could it be? Yet, on the other hand, the writing was beautifully clear (as well as being clever) and of course was also very poetic in many places.The plot progressed slowly, but it was good. I wanted to find out more. But then unfortunately, some things happened in my life that rather distracted me. I could not be so heavily absorbed in it all, and I was finding it more difficult to really engage with it. I still liked the overall feel of it though - as indeed, I did with the films. I managed to finish Part 1. But could I go straight on to Part 2? I decided that I really couldn't. I needed a break; I needed something lighter. And I would perhaps return to it on another occasion, and/or try the films again.

Whilst reading 'The Hobbit' and 'The Fellowship of the Ring' though, I also read another book alongside it. This was 'Tolkien's Ring' by David Day (illus by Alan Lee), Pavilion Books, London, 1999 (hdbk). This is a great book; beautiful illustrations, and explores much of the background to 'The Lord of the Rings'. It looks at, for example, how important the ring in general has been symbolically down the ages (e.g. Wagner's 'Ring') and how Tolkien wanted to create an English legend; English mythology. Indeed, we discover that Tolkien wrote in a letter to a friend:

"I am interested in mythological invention, and the mystery of literary creation. I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own, not of the quality that I sought, and found in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish; but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff." (p. 12).

So, I now had a much better understanding about what Tolkien's huge project was all about. So, this is a book that I would definitely recommend if one wants to engage further with Tolkien's work. And coupling this up with reading about Tolkien on the web, things were starting to make more sense to me. By creating this amazing and wonderful myth, he hoped to guide people to the virtuous path, to follow the Roman Catholic Christian path, in fact. But of course, this was all done very subtly (and at first unconsciously by him), and indeed, he criticised C.S. Lewis (who he helped to convert to Christianity in the first place) for making the Christian message all too transparent in 'The Chronicles of Narnia'.

I was amazed to think that one person would work so hard and would put just so much effort in, in this way. He must have been really convinced that he was doing the right thing, that he was doing something very worthwhile and important. It must have been so intrinsically a part of who and what he was. That this was really the most effective way to convey the messages that he wanted to convey; to portray goodness and to convince people that Christianity was right (although, as I say, at first this was done unconsciously by him). We also learn about the importance of trying to figure things out for ourselves, with the wizard Gandalf, leaving them (hobbits and dwarfs) at various points, and them having to work things out for themselves. What a valuable lesson that is; and indeed is one that I think everyone could do with learning!

In addition, Alexander has nearly always tried to do the right thing in his life in one way or another, and perhaps this is one reason why he took to 'The Lord of the Rings' just so much. But I would never have realised the extent of this if I had not read 'The Fellowship of the Ring', so I am glad that I read it for that reason alone (apart from anything else).

So, Tolkien's 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' has done a great deal of good for our family in one way and another, and this was probably one reason that I thought I should venture down the path that I did. It is also a great credit to Tolkien - that it has had such a powerful effect on our whole family, is it not (usually, only one or two of us like a particular work, and/or a particular author). Tolkien's work must have helped just so many other people and families in this and other ways. Creating great fantasies; helping one to be able to develop ones imagination, but also demonstrating that if one aims to do the right thing, then it should pay off in the long run. So, in this way it can also help one through life. It can help to encourage and inspire people to do the right thing (and that one does not have to be a large and handsome hero in order to make this possible!), and it can inspire and help to give people faith and hope in humanity. What more can I say?

I concluded that Tolkien must really have appreciated his Roman Catholic upbringing - well, it did, after all, give him a very good, comfortable, interesting and worthwhile life. Also, that he must have felt all this very instinctively and intuitively. That it shows just how much he appreciated it - that he choose to use his great intelligence in this way.

Tolkien's mother, Mabel Tolkien, was received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1900 - even though her Baptist family protested. When he was 3 years old Tolkien and his brother went to England with his mother, but his father died in South Africa. Mabel taught her children herself, and Tolkien could read by 4 years of age. But Mabel sadly died very young - 34 years of age. But she assigned the guardianship of her sons to Fr. Francis Xavier Morgan of the Birmingham Oratory. Fr. Francis was assigned to bring the 2 boys up as good Catholics. Tolkien went on to study at Exeter College, Oxford - first, the Classics and then changed to English Language and Literature. He then became a Professor at Oxford, of course, as well as being a writer, poet and philologist. So, clearly he felt that he had a lot to thank his Christian Catholic upbringing for.

Tolkien himself said that:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

Perhaps, again, that is the power of Christianity - it has been around for so long. And it has helped to keep society very stable of course, down the ages. And of course, the symbolism, and rituals in Tolkien's works helps to demonstrate the Catholicism integral in it all. So, Tolkien wrote from the heart, from deep within himself, and it only gradually dawned on him that he was basically portraying Christian Catholicism. All this I have learnt. I felt this instinctively myself as a I read Tolkien's work anyway as I was also bought up Christian, of course, so I had some understanding about where he was coming from. He was not just evangelising - it was far deeper and more complex.

But could Tolkien perhaps have used his intelligence in any better way? Did he just put far too much effort into this project? Who is to say. But obviously, this raises issues for me, as I personally rejected Christianity in my teens. But still, we should be grateful that Tolkien left us this great work; this great mythology; this epic fantasy; this great legend. It is there for us all now, for all time, and it is something that the English can, indeed, be very proud of. That is the problem with geniuses; we can always expect more; we can always not be satisfied and can forget that geniuses are still also just mere mortals, mere human beings, that have to negotiate their way through all the things that life throws at them. They are not divorced from it all.

So, having read Part 1, I decided that I could not continue straightaway with Parts 2 and 3 - I needed some light relief! I needed to read plots that gripped me quicker and that basically cheered me up a bit in a shorter time span So, I read Jane Green's latest book, 'Patchwork Marriage' and 'Emotional Geology' by Linda Gillard, both of which I really enjoyed - (see my last but one blog about 'Emotional Geology'). Hopefully, the author now has some appreciation about how I came to read her book in the first place! I think she should take it as a big compliment, don't you? That I put Tolkien's 'The Two Towers', which I had also borrowed from my local library to one side, and decided to read her book instead! She says in her comment on my blog that it took her a long time to write her book, but it cannot be anything compared to how long it took Tolkien, as it took Tolkien some 13 years to write 'The Lord of the Rings' (1936-1949). Yes, I choose her book over his. Hopefully, this puts things into perspective a little for her. Mind you, I am certain that my whole family will not go on to read (or watch) her works!

I wonder whether I will get round to reading 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King'? We will have to see; and/or perhaps I will go and watch the films again - but concentrate properly this time! Although I have some idea about what happens, I would like to know it in more detail, so this thirst will probably eventually lead me to read and/or watch! So, perhaps watch this space, although in terms of my basic understanding about the whole mission and purpose of the project - well, I think I am basically there with it!

Education for Sale?

A debate on the privatisation of education

University of East London

Cass School of Education & Communities

Stratford Campus

Wednesday February 13th 2013


The Panellists:

Dr. Glenn Rikowski (University of Northampton)

Professor John Schostak (Manchester Metropolitan University)

Professor James Tooley (University of Newcastle)

Dr. Patricia Walker (University of East London, and Labour councillor for Acton)


Chair: Claire Fox – Director, Institute of Ideas: http://www.instituteofideas.com/


Tea & Coffee: 3.30-4.00

The Debate: 4.00-5.00

Wine reception: 5.00-6.00


Further information, contact Charlotte Chadderton: c.chadderton@uel.ac.uk

Free and All Welcome

Please circulate