What I owe my mitochondria #5203*

reddalek

There was a little stress to begin with, last night, as a crowd of historians began gathering in chilly conditions for the annual Caius History Society Dinner whilst I paced around declaring that I would only require two further things in life to be happy forever after: a photographer and a Radio 4 controller. Within minutes, however, they had duly both arrived and everything was set for a wonderful evening. The food was delicious, Mark’s speech was excellent – although having heard some of the feedback which Radio 4 gets direct from the controller’s mouth, I don’t think the frequently hilarious Feedback will ever hold quite the same allure again – and our Part II DoS, Emma Hunter, delivered a happy dose of embarrassment to many of us by pulling quotes direct from our personal statements. (Beware, children! They may well come back to haunt you years later!) I left the after-party sometime after 2am, although it was very much still going strong for some, feeling very pleased and content that this mini-feat of organisation had come off alright on the night. (And only a little sad that it would be my last time going to one of these… ) So… hurrah for you all!

Hmm, now to get back to all of that work I’ve been neglecting…

*Yes yes, I realise this isn’t literally true, but it’s the spirit of maternal inheritance which counts. Oh, and the number isn’t arbitrary either…

As you might expect, I’m really not a huge fan of the 1980s. The 1980s equals Reagan, Thatcher and the painful final seasons of the long-running ‘Cold War’ series, which had long ago jumped the shark and was now resorting to frankly implausible twists to keep us interested. (Yeah yeah, maybe we can shoot their missiles out of the sky with our own magic missiles from Star Wars, whatever. Like that would work.) In fact, since correlation always equals causation, I’d argue that I was born in 1989 – immediately saw that something was terribly wrong – and thus the immeasurably superior 1990s was born.

However, one thing which is hard to deny is that 1980s music videos had the property of being ‘not crap’ in a way which was never really regained:

I was thinking about this whilst watching the marvellous Krush (above) and reading the recent slew of reports about the exposure of children to sexual imagery and accompanying damage. And if only to make the point…

Videos old and new

Videos old and new

But as Krush demonstrate, we would all benefit if our culture adopted a bit more of the outrageously silly in favour of the blandly sexual. Because one of the problems here is that we’re all acting as if subjects such as ‘body image’ should be centre stage in everyone’s lives, whether that be in our desires or in our critiques of other people’s desires. This misses a central point: ‘body image’ is boring. Talking about the exact dimensions of waists, whether photoshopped or otherwise, is the equivalent of trainspotting fat. We have to do it now, undoubtedly – I’m not arguing that we hush ourselves up – but we should at least have the good grace to do it with a collective sigh of reluctance that our precious living time is being wasted by such po-faced seriousness.

Fact: humans are inherently ridiculous. Mad apes with delusions of universal grandeur, we’re also basically pretty ugly when you think about it. (Mm – blood, bone, muscles, fat and insufficient body hair! Intelligent design fail.) Sexuality is a cheap hack to get us to reproduce, and of course we play along, but to talk about the media as projecting ‘unobtainable’ images of ‘perfection’ is absurd. We’re so very far from perfection it isn’t funny, but if you really wanted to project images of at least ‘some genuine improvement’ in a human being you wouldn’t concern yourself with the tedium of body shape. You’d photoshop a creature that didn’t require advanced medical intervention to be born without a scarily high chance of dying, was immune to the charms of Jeremy Kyle and could get basic percentages right. Models would be pictured reading books at the speed of light whilst simultaneously playing Twister without falling over. In space.

We can’t do this, obviously. (At least not at the moment. I hold out hope for the future. C’mon, genetic engineering and/or cybernetics!) But in the meantime, we could at least derive some genuine enjoyment from our innate rubbishness rather than strutting about and pouting. It’s fun to hop around in baggy jumpers and baseball caps – it’s also a sign of intellectual self-awareness that human beings, far from being divine receptacles of holy reason, are charmingly absurd. Pretending that we should spend all of our time trying to be sexually attractive, on the other hand, is terrifically insecure. Relax, humanity. We’re not going to lose the urge to procreate any time soon, and there’s no need to fool ourselves into thinking that we need to make a special effort about it. It’ll only be disappointing in the end.

– As promised, my Varsity interview with Ken is now online. Though you’ve probably seen it already, what with Twitter and Facebook and whatnot

Shark Attack 3 is by far the greatest bad film I’ve seen since Space Mutiny. A must see. (Cheers, Simon.)

– I realised I never elaborated any further on Secret Project X from a couple of posts ago. Well, I hope this illuminates:

Oliver’s Interactive Adventure

Oliver’s Interactive Adventure

I Am Geek

– Dear Newnham college: I don’t understand you. Why made it hard for people to leave the building at night? Aren’t you trying to keep people out? But on the other hand, speaking purely theroetically, surely it wouldn’t be that hard to forge a note from someone in the college in order to be let out? And anyway, what are you going to do – make us sleep on the floor?

– (I don’t want to sound like I’m complaining about Sunday night, because this was the night that I beat Andrew in a race. Yes. It happened! Mr. Tillin would be so proud of me! )

– Happy anniversary, Ling!

Repentant Woods sorry for affairs

Repentant Woods sorry for affairs

I thought trivial news was at least supposed to have the element of surprise?

Jubilant Woods really enjoyed himself

Jubilant Woods really enjoyed himself

One of life’s oddities: this evening, I got to interview Ken Livingstone.

OK, backtrack. So there I was a couple of weeks ago in Special Subject class when the girl opposite me (hey, Emma!) leaned forward over the table and asked if I’d volunteered on Ken’s last election campaign. Which came rather out of the blue for me, but of course Emma had chatted a while ago to my former DoS, who’d gossiped what she knew about the other people in the class. And of course, my former DoS knew I’d volunteered on Ken’s campaign because I, too, like to chat. And Emma’s an editor of the student newspaper Varsity, and was wondering if I’d fancy doing a quick interview with Ken when he came to speak to the Union Society…?

Well, naturally I would, thank you! And it’s all the easier because my contact at the Union turns out to be a guy (hey, James!) who sat next to me at the Peterhouse Politics Society dinner last year. (We chatted about Ken.) And oh, now Ken’s here and I’m able to give him a copy of the interview from the last time I did this – a decade ago. (Don’t we all look younger in the photo!) I was ten, and yet here I am now asking him basically the exact same question about running for the mayoralty with or without the Labour party.

The moral: life is strange, fun and ever so slightly cyclical. And you make it better by idle chatter

Anyway – since it is Varsity‘s interview, I shall refrain from blogging the content until I can link to the online version. (Don’t expect great revelations, obviously. He’s an old pro at this. But hopefully it should still be a good read…)