Supernanny vs. Totoro

I don't know much about anime, but I know what I like. After seeing Spirited Away some years ago, the Imaginary Friend and I have sought out and watched the vast majority of films created by Hiyao Miyazaki; none of them is a stinker, and some of them are truly outstanding. He is frequently described as the Japanese Walt Disney, but that does the former a disservice; it ignores the subtle detail of his artwork and the complex content of his films.

Auteur is perhaps an overused term, but I think it applies in Miyazaki's case. There are a great number of common themes that emerge from his oeuvre that deserve close inspection: concern for the environment; strong female characters, including the grandmother figures; complex characterisation, with the absence of clear-cut "goodies" and "baddies"; the use of title and credit sequences to provide prologues and epilogues. Then there is the sheer beauty and art of his animation: all hand-drawn (at least until Howl's Moving Castle, there was no CGI). Sunsets (my screen wallpaper is Porco Rosso flying against a crimson sky); woodland and fields with each individual leaf seemingly picked out; running water; reflections in mirrors. None simple, yet all deftly executed and interwoven without showiness, despite the skill on show. And the petrolhead in me loves the faithful recreation of technology in the old cars and planes that recur. Miyazaki's father was apparently in the team that designed the Zero fighter plane.

But the theme I would like to highlight in this post is Miyazaki versus Supernanny. We are afflicted by an Expert culture which claims a monopoly of knowledge witheld from us mere mortals. Now, while this is probably the case for the theoretical physicists among us, parenting ain't rocket science: we all have the instincts to manage if we only had belief in ourselves, and no-one knows individual children better than their own parents. Trouble is, Supernanny has little or no theory, and doesn't have kids. The notoriously litigious Gina Ford likewise has no children, basing her approach on observations of her pet dogs. Are these the people we should be entrusting our children to, rather than taking reponsibility ourselves? I know parenting is not easy, but outsourcing is not the answer. Particularly not if we want children who sincerely apologise because they want to, rather than out of fear of the naughty step. Not if we want children who can think for themselves, and understand where their best interests lie, rather than unthinkingly submitting to whichever authority figure stands over them. Not if we want children with high self-esteem. I like Alfie Kohn's approach:

My advice is to make a point of apologizing to your child about something at least twice a month. Why twice a month? I don't know. It sounds about right to me. (Almost all the specific advice in parenting books is similarly arbitrary. At least I admit it.)

Kohn is a little harsh on himself, there, as his work draws heavily on peer-reviewed studies. Still, the cry goes out from this Community: take our children seriously.

So what does this have to do with anime films? Well, let's look at My Neighbour Totoro. I'll try not to give too many spoilers. although the film is really character driven rather than an incident-packed romp. A Japanese academic moves with his two children - Tsatsuki and Mei - to a tumbledown house in the countryside. The girls' mother is in hospital with an unspecified disease (unlike Mr Kermode's thesis on the "Non-specific Hollywood Illness", however, she doesn't look exceedingly glamorous). If you have a tendency to interpret art with reference to biography, you may be interested to learn that Miyazaki's own mother was hospitalised with Tuberculosis...

The girl's father is an absent-minded academic (so no cliches there); it seems at first as though his laissez-faire attitude to letting the girls get on with exploring the house and its environs by themselves is simply a function of his unworldliness. In their roaming, the girls uncover, first, dust sprites, and then the eponymous Totoro - one-half cat, one-half owl, one-half teddy-bear and one-third innumerate. Unlike Elliott in ET, however, the girls see no need to conceal their finds from their father or from the elderly neighbour they call Granny. Indeed, Granny says she used to see the dust sprites herself as a young girl. The girls clearly see the adults in their life as allies, not adversaries; as a result of the trust placed in them, they have the confidence and independence to act on their own. This doesn't result in mischief-making: an extended sequence revolves around the girls going to meet their father off the bus, which entails a long walk on a rainy evening.

The route to Totoro's lair is not always open. Mei - the younger child - is the first to see the three Totoros, and is determined to show them to her sister and father, but can't find the route, leading to a comical episode of her running in and out of bushes. But when she accuses the others of thinking she is lying, her dad steps in and says no, he thinks she saw the spirit of the forest (anyone hear any echoes from Princess Mononoke?). They walk to the tall camphor tree that dominates the valley to pay their respects. In this way, the father shows that he does take his children's beliefs and needs seriously, and will take steps to meet those needs, however strange or unnecessary he might find them himself. The quid-pro-quo (although I would be reluctant to argue that this behaviour is solely motivated by such naked calculation) is the strong and loving relationship he enjoys with his children.

Similar ideas can be seen in Kiki's Delivery Service, where it is the tradition for young witches to spend a year away from home completing their witch's training: the witch herself sets out to choose the place and form of that training. Kiki and her parents clearly have a close relationship, illustrated by a scene in which her father spins her around in an echo of her childhood, but that relationship is healthy enough for her parents to be able to let her go when the time comes. Similarly, in Whisper of the Heart, which, although animated, is a realistic portrayal of coming-of-age. The young heroine is a typical Japanese schoolgirl, under pressure to do well in her exams, but she is overwhelmed by the need to try writing a novel. Aware that her schoolwork is suffering, her parents discuss the matter with her; on seeing the importance of the novel to their daughter, they agree that she should devote her energy towards completing it.

Now, I don't know enough about Japanese society to judge whether this approach is typical among Japanese parents. What does strike me when I watch these films again is how refreshing it is to see such ideas reflected on the screen as opposed to the standard set-up pitting parents against children. I cannot speak highly enough of Miyazake's films, and will probably return to the subject in future posts. My Neighbour Totoro is an outstanding film for people of all ages, a delightful contrast to the frenetic nature of Western films aimed at children (Magic Roundabout, anyone? Thought not...) Perhaps the biggest mystery for me is that Studio Ghibli were not confident anyone would go see it, so they distributed it as a double bill with Grave of the Fireflies, a harrowing tale of two children effectively orphaned in a World War II firestorm...

Quis custodet ipsos custodes?

MH002 KUL-LHR

Depart KUL 23.55
Arrive LHR 05.20
Flight time c.13 hours.



My heartfelt thanks to Gracchi, who despite difficult circumstances has somehow managed to maintain his usual very high standards in posting to this blog while I was away. The Community has been a better place for his contributions, and I hope that quality will not slip too far back down now that I will be posting again myself.

Iraq and Ellee Seymour

Ellee Seymour is pleased to note that British troops are going to withdraw from Iraq. Ellee is an intelligent and great blogger and seems to be an incredibly nice woman as well- so its hard to disagree with her. Much of her post is entirely correct- I don't disagree that Iraq has been a foreign policy disaster for the United Kingdom, or that the occupation has been handled by the Americans with a minimum of competence. But the withdrawing of forces may not neccessarily be the way forwards- particularly if it leads to the withdrawing of US troops as well. Their is a key distinction which I will come to at the end of this post- but firstly let me map out of a couple of thoughts on withdrawing forces from Iraq.

My thoughts about the withdrawel of Western forces from Iraq revolve not so much about upon the idea that Iraqis can't govern themselves or are best able to govern themselves but upon the central problem to do with Iraq which is the response of its neighbours. If we withdraw from Iraq and Iraq splits peacefully into a trio of new states- Shia, Sunni and Kurd- a highly unlikely scenario but one worth considering- then the problems would begin. At the end of January, Turkey's Parliament held a secret session to discuss whether to invade Northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists- even with our troops present disquiet amongst the Turkish authorities is rising. Garret Johnson reported upon these issues recently here. Garret's article demonstrates just how difficult relations between these sub-groups and neighbouring powers could become. It is very possible that given an independent Kurdistan or even groups operating within Kurdistan and going into Turkey (or even Iran) that Turkey might invade northern Iraq.

Let me put another scenario- Andrew Sullivan, an advocate of withdrawel has raised the possibility of genocide in Iraq should the Americans and British withdraw- he thinks that we will have a quick genocide instead of a slow drip of genocidal killings under our authority should we stay. But what would the impact be of a genocidal campaign against Shias on Iran- would that not compel the Islamic republic to itself invade to support the Shia. And what about vice versa, should Sunnis get killed in large numbers, thousands or hundreds of thousands, what would happen with regard to the Saudis? Given that private citizens in Saudi Arabia are giving millions to Sunni insurgents in Iraq already- how much worse could it be if we withdrew and the Shias started massacring the Sunnis?

Looking at it in this way, withdrawing could quite possibly lead to something even worse than an Iraqi civil war- it could lead to a regional war involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and possibly Syria and other states. Its only one possible outcome- and definitely the surge is another kind of bet, the Iraq Studies Group report is another kind of bet and may be a better one, withdrawing is another kind of bet and its upsides are obvious. This post only demonstrates though that there is a possible downside to withdrawing not that the bet is wrong- but there are problems that might emerge.

Then there is the question of only British withdrawal. As a British subject I don't like the fact that British soldiers are dying in Iraq, nor do I like our present policy in Iraq but I understand the problems that ministers face and the reasons why they struggle with this. Personally I can see that if you think that the surge strategy is bound to fail then withdrawal is a possible decision but there are costs. Should we withdraw and America not, we face diplomatic problems. In many ways it would be an even worse blow to the American administration than had we not been in at the beggining, its more of a betrayel to start something together and not finish it than to have publically declared your disagreement at the beggining. We knew that it was this administration that we went in with- should we not have thought about how they might respond to the invasion. Such a withdrawal would make us the toast of democrats and the enemy of republicans. It is a question worth considering at least before we withdraw without the Americans though we might still decide to go.

I don't pretend that staying put and continuing the same policies, nor backing the surge is a good idea. I personally don't find the logic behind the surge convincing and have argued thus here. But I think our response to withdrawing should not be cheering- it will mean that fewer western troops die- but it might mean that there might be that the consequences would be terrible- a regional war which would draw in neighbouring states and have unmeasurable consequences. Ellee's glee at withdrawing would turn then very quickly to sorrow and sadness.

None of this is certain and I agree with Ellee that the thought of British troops out of Iraq and in Barracks is a very welcome one but the consequences might be terrible. They might be positive- but I'm not sure we should cheer about a decision that could go disastrously wrong- lets just pray that if the west withdraws the worst does not happen. If we withdraw without the Americans then lets hope that everything goes well in Iraq and for Britain on the international stage. Either way withdrawing is a difficult decision- especially if its withdrawing with the Americans- it could end in disaster. I'm not sure I'm in as celebratory mood as Ellee therefore- rather I'm biting my fingernails and hoping that everything is ok.

Drinking Culture

James Hamilton runs one of the most interesting blogs on the internet. A couple of days ago he analysed the drinking culture within British football- a culture that still undermines the lives of many players- both during and after their careers. Ellee Seymour recently noted how the same phenomenon can be observed amongst a very different group of people- the British political class and knowing some of the University especially Labour societies but also Tories the next generation are as much fixated on drink as the present alcohol soaked generation. Its crucial to realise firstly that as Hamilton suggests the kind of common sense "they should just stop" attitude is wrong and that drink leads moderately to good things and pleasant evenings out, but to the extents we are talking about here to depression, physical decay and eventual death- not to mention to what stupid things footballers and politicians do when drunk.

Hamilton writes sympathetically about drinking and the culture around it. As he is right to point out drinking is part of an evolving culture- there is no particular reason why the British should drink- furthermore he points out that our drinking culture is changing, alcopops and wine are taking over from ale, the closing hours imposed in the First World War are at last being abolished. Drink can often be a way out of distress and dispair. Often it can be the expression of other fears and particularly can enable one to either forget or express one's emotional concerns. I'm not a psychologist but drinking is an issue we need to consider and people like Hamilton have a worthwhile- (more worthwhile than mine) contribution to make.

Will Europe become Eurabia?

This is an interesting review in Prospect magazine which suggests that the fantasy of Europe turning into Eurabia is indeed that a fantasy. Based on a new book from two scholars from the Brooking Institute, Jonathan Lawrence and Justin Vaisse, Stephanie Giry is able to demonstrate that international study after study has demonstrated that French muslims share the attitudes of mainstream French people to most issues. There is a problem she argues with the Muslim youth in the suburbs who feel disenfranchised- but its less to do with religion than to do with the economics of their situation.

Lawrence and Vaisse have here done a good job- highlighting that whilst the position of some within French society is precarious- the overall picture is one that we should be cautiously optimistic about. Rhetoric about Eurabia is folly.

The Role of Argument in Mr Smith goes to Washington

One of the most intriguing and interesting films about politics made in Hollywood during the 1930s is Mr Smith goes to Washington. I don't want to write a full review of it here- I'm saving that up- but rewatching the film for the umpteenth time last night, something struck me that I think gets to the heart of a very important political principle. Mr Smith goes to Washington is ultimately a film about language and the way that ideas are transmitted between people- the film's idealism is not merely an idealism about how politics should work but also an idealism about how conversation should work.

The film is about the confrontation between honesty and dishonesty. At the beggining of the film the odds are stacked for the dishonest and against the honest. The way that the honest Mr Smith acheives his objectives is not through any particular political skill- his friends try and publicise for him in his own state but that effort is easily stopped by the local party bosses- what he succeeds in doing though is just speaking honestly and openly to the senate and he convinces them, he even convinces his own worst opponent to back down. The power of conversation, of oratory is displayed throughout the film- ideals are encapsulated in wonderful language and the rhetoric, the art, the sculpture is their protection. So Mr Smith gestures towards the statue on the top of the Capitol building and asks the senators to adhere to its ideals- he himself is made more idealistic by a child murmuring the Gettysburg address. He is able to convince using the art and biblical references that surround him- a master of words he is able to fillibuster effectively, not merely delaying but also convincing his opponents. The final moment when he turns to his father's friend and now his opponent and quotes back his father's words about lost causes being the best ones to fight for is in this sense the culmination of something that goes throughout the entire film. Typically for a man whose first name is the last name of a founder, Smith continually calls his listeners back to the ideals that they once subscribed to, that they've sworn to or that their friends swore to.

Jefferson Smith's success illustrates something about the way that politics works, the way that convincing people works. He convinces through showing how his actions lie within the current of the convictions expressed by everyone else- language becomes a weapon because he shows how concepts that everyone shares back his line of action- that is why in Mr Smith conversation wins the day, because ultimately the political culture within that senate is shared and Smith manages just through words to convince them that he is right and his opponents are interested in graft.

An Islamic alternative to the Taliban in Afghanistan

I've blogged before on my own blog about the possibilities of the emergance of a new Islamic centre in the Middle East. Its interesting reflecting on that to look at a new movement, emerging in Afghanistan, Fedayeen-e-Sul led by the Abdul Rahim Warduk son of the current Defence Minister of Afghanistan. Warduk senior was a commander against the Russians in the civil war. Information about it is difficult to find on the net, but this article is from a freelance reporter on Eurasia Net who they say concerns himself mainly with central Asian security affairs. Warduk, in an interview with him, argued that the Taliban are being supported by Iran and that he offers the possibility of an Islamic movement which is sensitive to the equality of women. Caution is advisable- the article is the only one in English according to Google on the movement and it may be that its strength is being hyped here and possibly we are getting a particular version of what this movement actually is.

You might think this even more given that Warduk junior wants money and wants support from the EU and US. He wants us to focus on building him up rather than building Afghan institutions of government. Warduk's plea for finance is something I'm not qualified to adjudicate on- whether he is a corrupt Afghan politician betting on being pro Western to get money or whether he is a principled man needing our support, is not for me to say. But it is worth thinking about- what should our strategy towards places like Afghanistan be, once we've got in there, what should we do.

It is an interesting issue. It seems to me that the institutions of government are very important- you do need fair elections because without them the government instated by them lacks legitimacy. But on the other hand part of the institutional framework is the spirit of the people- if they are inclined towards democracy then institutions will be able to develop- without popular support even the greatest constitutions in the world won't work. It seems worrying that in 1996 the British government got rid of the BBC arabic service, a service which turned into Al Jazeera but could have been a useful weapon for the West like Radio Free America etc in the cold war. There is an issue though, which is as soon as funding is too obviously directed in such efforts lose their value- nationalism means that few people support quislings.

Adjusting that balance is a difficult task- and an unenviable one. Institutions are neccessary and so is winning the battle of ideas in the Islamic world at the moment. Without that things will get worse. An interesting point though to be remembered is that there are little fragments of news coming out of the Middle East, the Far East and Central Asia which suggest the development of an Islamic democratic movement. Whether this report is accurate it fits into a pattern of the gradual growth of movements which are both Islamic and democratic- that can only be good- but how we help them is another matter altogether.

Jeremy Black on Slavery

Professor Jeremy Black is very eloquent on 18 Doughty Street here discussing slavery and the way that we should respond to slavery. He beleives, and I think he is right that politics should be about the present so that we should take slavery and not apologise for it but make sure that it doesn't happen here say around prostitution or abroad in Darfur. But he blows apart the whole notion of an apology for slavery to say Africa or for the reconquista to say Spain. Noticing that say apologising to the President of Gambia seems a little odd given that Gambians were selling slaves from the African interior to Europe. His point though is broader than that- the world has moved on since 1600- but most civilisations in 1600 adopted and used slavery- Ottoman Turkey did, African societies did- indeed as a hypothesis many slaves taken away from Africa may have been men sold into slavery by victors in war or lower status men sold by their tribes. Most societies in human history have. Coercion in labour built the pyramids and constructed most of the ancient monuments of the world. Apologising for it as opposed to trying to do something about greivances in the present is almost an easy option. Professor Black makes some very interesting points about the situation in the United States- where blacks have been disadvantaged by government policy but not neccessarily through slavery- later policies may have contributed to maintaining a legacy of slavery. The problem of slavery is something that creates incredible emotions- but simply talking about people in stark terms of colour and saying that one lot need to apologise to another- is simply historically inaccurate. Slavery Black argues is the most 'extreme form' of a series of involuntary forms of labour- serfdom would be a kind of slavery, indentured labour might also be a kind of slavery. Liberty is only a recent phenomenon- rights of workers are only a recent phenomenon- slaves probably had it worst than all others within pre modern societies- but it isn't right to say that there was one group enslaved and the rest of the world was free. Even slavery differed- galley slaves in the Meditereanean most of whom were white were very badly treated, house slaves say in Virginia had a much nicer life as they did in Constantinople, Mecca or even Beijing.

Using history as a cudgel to bash other people is not very productive- its often very erroneous- no nation has a uniquely good or bad history. Unless you are directly involved its very complicated to assert how you have lost through that act but not gained through something nasty your ancestors did further back in the past.

Using history to cudgel onesself- if Europeans feel guilty about slavery in the New World, Muslims about slavery in Africa, Africans about tribalism etc though is a good thing. National pride in my book is normally a source of conflict and folly- it leads to the idea that there is something good about this collection of human beings and not about others. Reflecting and reminding oneself about what one or one's ancestors did badly in the past is a good way to force onesself to recognise that we are all human beings and that means that we are all morally and intellectually flawed.

And that brings me to my last point, for everyone to swap insults about slavery loses I think the primary purpose of history which is to understand and converse. We need in the modern world more than ever to try and understand other human minds- history is one means of doing that, of reintroducing ourselves to our ancestors who as soon as we look at them honestly look very strange, so strange that though they are part of us, mentally they seem worlds away. Trying to understand them despite that distance enables us to understand the world in a better way and consequently can enable us to understand our contemporaries. That more than any condemnation of the past will help us persuade people now to give up slavery themselves- we may not need history to tell us that slavery is wrong- we might need it to understand how people become slave owners and how we might be able to persuade them or force them to liberate their slaves.

Reasons to be vigilant

Most of us know both about historical anti-semitism within Europe and about the anti-semitism felt by radical Islamists today- perhaps though more obscure is the worrying growth of extremist anti-semitic movements along the fringes of Catholicism in the United States and throughout the world. The Southern Poverty Law Center has done wonderful work exposing the threat that neo-nazis pose to the United States- as I reported months ago on Bits of News they reported on the over 60 terrorist plots by Neo Nazi terrorists against the United States since 1995.

Neo-Naziism therefore is still in some quarters a threat to the way that we live in the world. But there is a further dimension to this which the Southern Poverty Law Center has also recently illustrated in a report which I link to further down. One of the organisations which has done stirling work particularly over the last thirty or forty years to attack totalitarianism has been the Catholic Church. John Paul II was one of the most courageous opponents of Communism and his role in attacking it shouldn't be forgotten. After Vatican 2 the Church sought as well to forever disavow any anti-semitic teachings that it might have allowed in the past to corrupt the faith. Never more would Catholics say masses for the conversion of the Jews and in Nostra Aetate the Church declared that anti-semitism was repugnant. Jewish and anti-racist organisations have stepped forward to salute the Vatican for its work and so they should.

However when the Church reformed in the 1960s many people disagreed. Some traditionalists even went as far as arguing that the see of Rome was empty. Some of these traditionalists attacked the whole set of reforms, and objected in particular to the reforms concerning the abandoning of a prayer to convert the Jews in the Mass. The Southern Poverty Law Centre's most recent report documents from literature and observations at conferences and services an extensive record of anti-semitism amongst Traditionalist Catholics in the United States. They draw on the kind of history that the Church has declared is an aberration, a falling off from the tolerant message of Christ. They derive strength from it though and particularly from the fact that men like Leonard Feeney, amongst their intellectual ancestors, too found themselves opposed by the liberal heirarchy. Father Leonard Feeney once stated that

Essential to the understanding of our chaotic times is the knowledge that the Jewish race constitutes a united anti-Christian bloc within Christian society, and is working for the overthrow of that society by every means at its disposal

Compare this to Brother Anthony Mary who argued at the St Joseph Forum in 2005 that The perpetual enemy of Christ is the Jewish nation, that the Jews had started both World Wars and that their eventual aim was to destroy all Christian nations. Brother Mary described the Jews as the synagogue of Satan. At an earlier conference in 2003, the SPLC researchers spotted anti-semitic literature like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on sale.

The numbers given for these groups range from 17 million sympathisers and 2 million beleivers right down to Michael Lawler of Creighton University's estimate that there are only 50,000. The SPLC estimates that there are around 100,000. The Scotsman agreed in a 2004 article. There don't seem to be many therefore in comparison with the 60 odd million American Catholics- having said that though its worth remembering that the SPLC argues that they are increasing in numbers by 10% a year and as the Scotsman argued they are battling a Church that in the States has a demoralised leadership. All traditionalists are probably not anti-semitic- and its worth remembering that but its also worth remembering that the SPLC has shown convincing evidence that there is a lot of anti-semitism around within the movement. What proportion are or aren't is not something I know- the SPLC assumes that most are anti semites but I don't know.

It buttresses though a suspision of mine- that whilst it is right for us to keep watch on the Islamic terrorists and to keep a weather eye open for totalitarians abroad, we also have to remember that the poisons which disturbed our body politic, in Europe and America in the twentieth century are still there- there are still battles out there to be fought and won. One of those is between the orthodox Catholics and those who disdain the philo-semitic tone that the Church has adopted- there are other battles as well for other groups, Protestant, socialist, liberal etc to fight. We should not stop our vigilance at home just because there are dangers from abroad.

1 Sam 16-24

Ian normally on this site maintains a healthy interest in religion- and I too as an agnostic am very interested in religion particularly in the religions that in many ways have influenced me most- Judaism and Christianity. Given that, I have a rather amateur interest in the historicity of the Old Testament and what it tells us about the people of that time- it strikes me for instance that the psalms are some of the most evocative poetry I've ever come across- and in times of darkness they can be a comfort even to those who have no religion.

It will therefore come as no surprise that this discussion of the first book of Samuel by the faculty at UCLA fascinated me, supplemented of course by this related note. The articles are long and well worth reading for themselves- they consist of a deep textual analysis of the parts of the first book of Samuel dealt with and referenced in my title, which largely deal with the fall of Saul and rise of David. There are a couple of notable points- for example, one academic points out that Saul as much as David may be the focus of the chapter, another tries to deal with the way that God communicates with David, there is much discussion of David's character, his wilyness and political skill and a brief discussion on which I'd love people's views about the degree to which Samuel's dire prophesies about monarchy were not born out by Saul's reign but within the reigns of David and his successors.

So much, so good. I want to make though one brief criticism of the articles and that is of their criticism of the source. What you have here is a very detailed account of the way that the text deals with various things- but what we don't have here is an account of the problems with the text which would make one see some of the contradictions they note disappear. For example its perfectly sensible to argue that the bible was actually written and recompiled by several different authors and that the division of books (made centuries later) does not reflect the way that the text's authorship was divided. At one point a speaker does argue this and also suggests the fairly sensible point that the text looks like it was produced to be an ex post facto justification of David's assumption of rule in Israel. Obviously they are aware of this- it just makes me wonder though about the attention they have to the detail of the text- wondering about Doeg the Edomite seems a little problematic when the text we have is something reworked from a version written after the events. We don't know for example that in the tenth century Doeg's nationality would neccessarily have worked against him and whether 'the Edomite' were words added later.

There is a further connected point- which is that the authors argue that David is perhaps a parallel character to Odyseus and that there may be a case here of influence. Their argument is based upon the idea that Phoenician sailors would have heard the first Homeric poems and brought them back across to Palestine. There is some merit in that example- but in my view it strains credibility- to say that something is a possible influence isn't the same as saying that it was an influence and probably if you are going to look for outside influences, I would look to the mythologies of Phoenicia itself and other surrounding peoples- rather than presuppose a Greek influence. Just because we have Homer and we have the Bible- doesn't mean that other stories were circulating in other cultures at the time.

Having said all this- the discussions are well worth reading- whether you are religious or not- the world of Ancient Israel is a fascinating and very interesting one- and this set of close readings of some of the few texts that tell us about that world are well worth reading- even if you end up disagreeing with their conclusions!

Rupert Everett, Fame and biography

Apologies to readers of this blog if this isn't my best- see here for the reasons why I'm not functioning at fill tilt at the moment.

Sean Kennedy has written an interesting review on Salon of Rupert Everett's new biography. Basically Kennedy argues that Everett never gets to the point, never explains what his inner life was like, particularly what coming out in the nineties was like, but instead focuses on glitz and glamour, those he met, wined and dined.

Everything is relayed in a carefree this-happened-and-then-this-happened style, as if the events of his life were one long run-on sentence.

There is something in this that refers back to early cinematic history- particularly the question that haunts Citizen Kane- how do you tell the story of man's life. One way is to focus on the famous people he met, the cocktail parties, the glamour- one might call that the Everett way. Kennedy does have a point about the gay issue but what he is really writing about is that there is no underlying idea about Everett in this book, no blood flowing throgh it, a false sense of intimacy and no sense of emotional intimacy. It is an interesting issue that I don't pretend to want to delve into tonight as to what a biographer or historian can do and what duties he owes his subject, but there is something in what Kennedy says if the point is the truth. The truth about me is not that I've met William Hague and Michael Howard, though I have, its that I've met and loved numerous people who nobody would ever have heard of. Richard Nixon said that his mother was not the kind of person that people write books or newspaper profiles of, what he meant by that was that she wasn't famous- Mr Everrett wrote a 'book' which showed us the life of a famous person- I would agree with Mr Kennedy that far more interesting is the life of the unknown Everett!

Mao Now- some inexpert thoughts

I visited China in 2003 with some friends and went to Beijing and during my period of stay there was very impressed of course with the Chinese capital. One thing though that impressed me in a different way the position of Mao within Chinese popular culture- the fact that taxis often had little portraits of Mao hanging at the front, the fact that you could buy little souvenir Mao portraits and little red books, the fact that in the centre of Tianamen was a monument to Mao. On visiting the Ming tombs, a friend of mine even asked one of the guides there what his impression of Mao was and he parroted out the party line- that Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong. This ambivalence to Mao within modern Chinese culture is something therefore that even a relative newcomer to all things Chinese like myself could appreciate.

However others who know much more about China also appreciate its significance. Jeremiah who runs the excellent Granite Studio Blog recently posted an article at the Peking Duck on Mao's position in chinese society today. He is in part responding to this fascinating article by Ross Terrill at the Wilson Centre. Terrill basically argues that the Chinese attitude to Mao which is semi religious reflects the deep dichotomy in Chinese society between authoritarian political institutions and capitalist economic institutions- between the rejection of Western democracy and the embrace of Western economics. Jeremiah raises two questions- one is about Chinese attitudes to freedom and the other about Chinese attitudes to the state.

Both Jeremiah and Ross have interesting points to make and know far more about the Chinese context to this embalming of Mao than I do. But it does for me some up some of the peculiar characteristics of China as a place that Mao has this ambiguous role within its history. Partly I would suggest he has a place as a national refounder- it was fascinating to hear the same guide I cited above describe everything before 1949 in China as ancient and everything after it as modern China. I wonder I visited China in 2003 with some friends and went to Beijing and during my period of stay there was very impressed of course with the Chinese capital. One thing though that impressed me in a different way the position of Mao within Chinese popular culture- the fact that taxis often had little portraits of Mao hanging at the front, the fact that you could buy little souvenir Mao portraits and little red books, the fact that in the centre of Tianamen was a monument to Mao. On visiting the Ming tombs, a friend of mine even asked one of the guides there what his impression of Mao was and he parroted out the party line- that Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong. This ambivalence to Mao within modern Chinese culture is something therefore that even a relative newcomer to all things Chinese like myself could appreciate.

However others who know much more about China also appreciate its significance. Jeremiah who runs the excellent Granite Studio Blog recently posted an article at the Peking Duck on Mao's position in chinese society today. He is in part responding to this fascinating article by Ross Terrill at the Wilson Centre. Terrill basically argues that the Chinese attitude to Mao which is semi religious reflects the deep dichotomy in Chinese society between authoritarian political institutions and capitalist economic institutions- between the rejection of Western democracy and the embrace of Western economics. Jeremiah raises two questions- one is about Chinese attitudes to freedom and the other about Chinese attitudes to the state.

Both Jeremiah and Ross have interesting points to make and know far more about the Chinese context to this embalming of Mao than I do. But it does for me some up some of the peculiar characteristics of China as a place that Mao has this ambiguous role within its history. Partly I would suggest he has a place as a national refounder- it was fascinating to hear the same guide I cited above describe everything before 1949 in China as ancient and everything after it as modern China. I wonder whether especially given the instability of China in the twenties and thirties, the occupation by the Japanese and the second world war and the way that is a huge school textbook issue, Mao gets the credit for unifying the country. But is there something deeper also going on here- one of the most interesting trends in the modern era has been towards decentralised small states which are governed popularly and pool varying amounts of sovereignty in greater entities- the EU even the United States. China though remains an empire and remains a system with strong authoritarian tendencies- Mao of course dealt with the problem of decentralisation in a vicious way and was heavily influential in repressing democracy.

These are just ideas without any evidence I'm tossing out there to see if anyone picks them up- I don't stand by them at all and am willing to have them denied. But do read both Jeremiah's article and Ross Terrill's discussion, both to the amateur like myself are interesting to read especially as the myth of Mao holds so strongly in such an important nation. But there might be something deeper going on here- one of the most interesting trends in the modern era has been towards decentralised small states which are governed popularly and pool varying amounts of sovereignty in greater entities- the EU even the United States. China though remains an empire and remains a system with strong authoritarian tendencies- Mao of course dealt with the problem of decentralisation in a vicious way and was heavily influential in repressing democracy.

These are just ideas without any evidence I'm tossing out there to see if anyone picks them up- I don't stand by them at all and am willing to have them denied. You have an open invitation to do so and contribute some thoughts. But do read both Jeremiah's article and Ross Terrill's discussion, both to the amateur like myself are interesting to read especially as the myth of Mao holds so strongly in such an important nation.