STV – British Columbia and Ireland

It’s an interesting time for us fans of the Single Transferable Vote. (In case you don’t know, STV is a voting system where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference, used in places such as Malta, Tasmania, elections for the Australian Senate, local council elections in Scotland and Cambridge, Massachusetts, all elections in the Irish Republic and all elections apart from Westminster elections in Northern Ireland.)

Next Tuesday, May 12, the citizens of British Columbia, the westernmost provice of Canada, will vote on a referendum on whether or not to adopt STV for future elections to the provincial parliament. BC has had some odd election results over the last few years, starting in 1991 when the NDP took power, moving from 22 seats to 51, despite losing 2% of their vote compared with the previous election; only to lose office ten years later, when the Liberal Party won 77 out of 79 seats in the parliament with 57% of the vote.

In the wake of the 2001 election, a Citizens’ Assembly was set up to consider improvements to the system – using a rather interesting method of random selection of one man and one woman from each of the 79 electoral districts, plus two First Nations reps. After a year of operation, the Citizens’ Assembly recommended (as any sensible body would) the adoption of STV in multi-member constituencies. A 2005 referendum got 57.7% of voters in favour (and a majority of voters in all but two electoral districts), but the threshold had been set rather artifically at 60%, so it was not implemented. On Tuesday, the voters get another go, with a slightly refined proposal. I wish them well. (Not sure if any are reading this – almost all my Canadian readers are in Toronto.)

Oddly enough, in the last couple of weeks the use of STV in Ireland has come in for criticism in a couple of pieces in the Irish Times. First off, the paper’s political correspondent Stephen Collins on April 25th:

The air of unreality that still pervades Leinster House in the face of the biggest crisis to face the country since the second World War is a commentary on our much vaunted multi-seat PR system. It is a system that has given us one-party domination for the past quarter of a century with the inevitable development of crony capitalism and its disastrous consequences in the housing bubble and banking crisis.

I disagree. (Obviously.) One-party domination has been delivered by the voters generally voting for one party – and not just over the past quarter-century, but in 18 of the last 23 elections since 1932. Crony capitalism developed not because of the electoral system but because of the policy choices of the policy actors – not just the elected politicians, but the unions and the employers, in agreeing the Social Partnership deals which kept the economy going but also protected all of those actors from serious public scrutiny. The electoral system had nothing to do with it; it was a form of groupthink which, in fairness, originated in reaction to a previous economic crisis. (I confess I don’t read the Irish media much these days, so my information may not be up to date; I found blog posts by my fellow emigrants Henry Farrell and P O’Neill rather interesting on the root causes of the crisis.)

Collins only mentions the electoral system in passing. On 4 May the Irish Times carried a passionate and bitter piece by Gemma Hussey, minister of education in the 1980s who has served for five years in each of the houses of the Oireachtas. In particular, she objects to the amount of time spent by members of parliament in servicing their constituencts:

The electoral system imposes a lifestyle on politicians which is directly inimical to good government and is a considerable deterrent to potential participants. The skills required to massage a constituency seven days and nights a week have nothing to do with running a small European country with an open economy. Ministers have to spend 20 to 30 hours a week attending local functions, holding clinics, going to funerals – they’ll lose their seats if they don’t.

She proposes a reduction in the number of members of Parliament (currently 166 for a population of 4½ million – compare British Columbia’s 79 for exactly the same population), which I agree with, and a switch to open list voting (as we have in Belgium) which I disagree with.

It is a poor argument that the electoral system makes life difficult for politicians because they have to spend too much time paying attention to voters. In a democracy, that is surely desirable rather than damaging. The fact is that the excessive – and it is excessive – clientelism of Irish politics long predates the adoption of proportional representation in the early 1920s. Probably it goes back to Daniel O’Connell’s invention of the political party as a mass membership organisation in the 1830s, a system which was then exported (with some variations) to the United States. The memoirs and biographies of Irish politicians of the late nineteenth century, unburdened by the duties of actual government, reflect the desperate need to keep the constituents on-side. Even though most of Ireland was dominated by a single party, the leadership could never safely gift parliamentary seats to its favourites – Parnell’s authority was deeply dented by his (ultimately successful) enforcement of his lover’s husband’s candidacy onto his local supporters in Clare and then Galway.

From the other side of the argument, I have to say that politics here in Belgium is equally criticised locally (with I think slightly less justification) as being too clientelistic, despite the fact that we already have Hussey’s preferred open list system. Our mayor in the village where we live has been in office since the municipal boundaries were last redrawn in 1976. He is grooming his niece for the succession. There are of course plenty of instructive similarities between Belgian and Irish political history, and as he built his movement in the 1830s O’Connell found much inspiration in the recent revolution here.

The real key to solving Hussey’s problem, I think, is in a different direction. The British political system has passed on to its spin-offs the peculiar notion that ministers in the government should also be members of parliament. The Americans quite sensibly created a system (based on the ideas of Montesquieu) where the legislature and executive are composed of different people. This was copied by the Belgians in 1830, and also has been implemented without apparent disaster by various other countries. Ministers are still accountable to Parliament and must come and answer questions there, but they do not have to carry out both the executive and the legislative roles at the same time. Obviously, this leads to a certain amount of turnover at the start of each parliament, as the newly appointed ministers resign their parliamentary seats if they have them, so you need a mechanism for replacement, but there are plenty of precedents for it. One other welcome consequence is that I think this encourages a greater turnover among the political class – many people give politics a try for a term or two and then get out, rather than being trapped inside the political hot-house.

I should perhaps say that whatever my agreements or disagreements with Hussey, I literally owe my existence to her. She introduced my parents to each other when they were all academics in University College Dublin in the mid-1960s.

(Hat-tip for the two IT articles to Brian Walker on Slugger O’Toole, who agrees with me that they are asking the wrong questions.)

Posted in Uncategorised

That crucial vote

I realised that the roll-call for the telecoms package vote had in fact been published. Below the cut, I have listed the MEPs by group (since that’s what is on the parliament site) with the Brits in red, the Irish in green and the Belgians in blue. Apologies for any mistakes or omissions.

The 407 in favour:

ALDE: Alvaro, Andrejevs, Attwooll, Baeva, Beaupuy, Bowles, Budreikaitė, Busk, Busoi, Chatzimarkakis, Ciani, Csibi, Dăianu, Davies, Dičkutė, Donnici, Drčar Murko, Duff, Ek, Ferrari, Gentvilas, Griesbeck, Hall, Harkin, Hennis-Plasschaert, in ‘t Veld, Jäätteenmäki, Jensen, Juknevičienė, Kacin, Kazak, Klinz, Koch-Mehrin, Krahmer, Lambsdorff, Laperrouze, Lax, Lebech, Lehideux, Ludford, Lynne, Maaten, Manders, Matsakis, Mohácsi, Morillon, Mulder, Newton Dunn, Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Onyszkiewicz, Oviir, Panayotov, Piskorski, Pohjamo, Polfer, Prodi, Raeva, Resetarits, Ries, Riis-Jørgensen, Robsahm, Savi, Schmidt Olle, Schuth, Staniszewska, Starkevičiūtė, Sterckx, Szent-Iványi, Vălean, Van Hecke, Veraldi, Virrankoski, Watson, Weber Renate, Wielowieyski

GUE/NGL: Adamou, Agnoletto, Aita, Brie, Catania, Droutsas, Figueiredo, Flasarová, Guerreiro, Hénin, Holm, Kaufmann, Liotard, Markov, Meijer, Papadimoulis, Pflüger, Portas, Ransdorf, Remek, Seppänen, Søndergaard, Strož, Svensson, Toussas, Uca, Wurtz, Zimmer

IND/DEM: Belder, Blokland, Clark, Dahl, Farage, Goudin, Krupa, Lundgren, Nattrass, Sinnott, Titford, Tomczak, Železný

NI: Claeys, Dillen, Fiore, Giertych, Gollnisch, Knapman, Kozlík, Lang, Le Rachinel, Martin Hans-Peter, Martinez, Mölzer, Rivera, Romagnoli, Schenardi, Vanhecke, Wise

PPE-DE: Caspary, Chmielewski, David, Fjellner, Fontaine, Fouré, Gacek, de Grandes Pascual, Grosch, Handzlik, Jackson, Jordan Cizelj, Kaczmarek, Kelam, Kušėis, Luque Aguilar, Mauro, Millán Mon, Olbrycht, Pietikäinen, Pomés Ruiz, Protasiewicz, Ribeiro e Castro, Rus, Schinas, Sonik, Thyssen, Ulmer, Visser, Vlasák, Wijkman, Zahradil, Zaleski, Zanicchi, Zwiefka

PSE: Andersson, Antochi, Arnaoutakis, Assis, Attard-Montalto, Ayala Sender, Badia i Cutchet, Barón Crespo, Battilocchio, Batzeli, Bedingfield, Beňová, Berès, Berman, Bösch, Bono, Bostinaru, Botopoulos, Boursier, Bozkurt, Bulfon, Bullmann, van den Burg, Busquin, Carlotti, Carnero González, Casaca, Cashman, Cercas, Chiesa, Christensen, Corbett, Corbey, Corda, Cottigny, Cremers, CreŃu Gabriela, De Keyser, De Rossa, Désir, De Vits, Dobolyi, Douay, Dührkop Dührkop, El Khadraoui, Estrela, Ettl, Evans Robert, Färm, Fava, Fernandes, Ferreira Anne, Ferreira Elisa, Ford, Fraile Cantón, França, Garcés Ramón, García Pérez, Gebhardt, Geringer de Oedenberg, Gierek, Gill, Glante, Gomes, Gottardi, Grabowska, Grau i Segú, Grech, Gröner, Groote, Gurmai, Guy-Quint, Hänsch, Harangozó, Hasse Ferreira, Hedh, Herczog, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Hutchinson, Iotova, Jacobs, Jöns, Jørgensen, Juri, Kinnock, Kirilov, Koppa, Kósáné Kovács, Koterec, Krehl, Kreissl-Dörfler, Kuhne, Lambrinidis, Le Foll, Lefrançois, Leinen, Lévai, Lienemann, Locatelli, Lyubcheva, McAvan, McCarthy, Madeira, Maňka, Marini, Martin David, Martínez Martínez, Masip Hidalgo, Matsouka, Medina Ortega, Menéndez del Valle, Miguélez Ramos, Mikko, Moraes, Moreno Sánchez, Morgan, Myller, Napoletano, Neris, Obiols i Germà, Öger, Paasilinna, Paleckis, Panzeri, Paparizov, Patrie, Peillon, Pinior, Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Podimata, Poignant, Prets, Pribetich, Rapkay, Rasmussen, Riera Madurell, Rodust, Roth-Behrendt, Rothe, Rouček, Roure, Sacconi, Sakalas, Sánchez Presedo, dos Santos, Sârbu, Schaldemose, Schapira, Schulz, Segelström, Severin, Simpson, Siwiec, Skinner, Sornosa Martínez, Soulage, Stihler, Swoboda, Tabajdi, Tarand, Teychenné, Thomsen, łicău, Titley, Trautmann, Van Lancker, Vaugrenard, Vergnaud, Vigenin, Weiler, Westlund, Wiersma, Willmott, Yañez-Barnuevo García, Zani

UEN: Aylward, Bielan, Borghezio, Boso, Camre, Crowley, Foltyn-Kubicka, Krasts, Kristovskis, Kuc, Libicki, Masiel, Muscardini, Ó Neachtain, Pęk, Podkański, Robusti, Roszkowski, Speroni, Szymański, Tomaszewska, Vaidere, Wojciechowski Janusz, Zapałowski, Zīle

Verts/ALE: Aubert, Auken, Beer, Bennahmias, Breyer, Cohn-Bendit, Evans Jill, Flautre, Frassoni, Graefe zu Baringdorf, Hammerstein, Harms, Hassi, Horáček, Hudghton, Irujo Amezaga, Isler Béguin, Jonckheer, Kallenbach, Kusstatscher, Lagendijk, Lambert, Lichtenberger, Lipietz, Lucas, Onesta, Romeva i Rueda, Rühle, Schlyter, Schmidt Frithjof, Schroedter, Smith, Staes, Trüpel, Turmes, Voggenhuber, Ždanoka

The 57 who voted against were:

ALDE: Cavada, Cocilovo, Cornillet, Costa, Deprez, Fourtou, Gibault, Susta

IND/DEM: Wojciechowski Bernard

PPE-DE: Ashworth, Berend, Bowis, Březina, Brok, Bulzesc, Callanan, Casini, Chichester, De Veyrac, Ehler, Elles, Esteves, Gaľa, García-Margallo y Marfil, Garriga Polledo, Graça Moura, Grossetête, Guellec, Harbour, Heaton-Harris, Hieronymi, Hoppenstedt, Jarzembowski, Karim, Lamassoure, McMillan-Scott, Mathieu, Mavrommatis, Mayer, Mladenov, Morin, Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Papastamkos, Pinheiro, Purvis, Saïfi, Sanz Palacio, Schöpflin, Sudre, Toubon, Van Orden, Vatanen, Vlasto, von Wogau

PSE: Rosati

UEN: Basile, Rutowicz

The 171 abstainers were:

ALDE: Degutis

IND/DEM: Coûteaux, Louis, de Villiers

NI: Belohorská, Bobošíková, Hannan, Helmer, Mote

PPE-DE: Albertini, Andrikien÷, Angelakas, Atkins, Audy, Ayuso, Barsi-Pataky, Bartolozzi, Bauer, Beazley, Becsey, Belet, Bodu, Böge, Braghetto, Brejc, Burke, Bushill-Matthews, Busuttil, Casa, del Castillo Vera, Cederschiöld, ChiriŃă, Daul, De Blasio, Dehaene, Demetriou, Descamps, Deß, Deva, Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Doorn, Dover, Doyle, Duka-Zólyomi, Dumitriu, Ebner, Fajmon, Ferber, Fernández Martín, Florenz, Fraga Estévez, Freitas, Friedrich, Funeriu, Gahler, Gál, Gaubert, Gauzès, Gawronski, Gewalt, Gklavakis, Glattfelder, Goepel, Gomolka, Gräßle, Hennicot-Schoepges, Higgins, Hökmark, Hudacký, Ibrisagic, Iturgaiz Angulo, Jałowiecki, Jeleva, Kamall, Karas, Kastler, Kirkhope, Klamt, Klaß, Koch, Konrad, Korhola, Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Landsbergis, De Lange, Langen, Lauk, Lechner, Lehne, Liese, Lulling, McGuinness, Mann Thomas, Manole, Marinescu, Marques, Martens, Matula, Mitchell, Nassauer, Nicholson, Niebler, Novak, Olajos, Oomen-Ruijten, İry, Pack, Parish, Peterle, Petre, Pieper, Pīks, Pirker, Pleštinská, Popa, Posdorf, Posselt, Queiró, Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Rack, Reul, Roithová, Rovsing, Rübig, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Sanzarello, Schierhuber, Schmitt, Schnellhardt, Schröder, Schwab, Seeber, Siitonen, Silva Peneda, Škottová, Sógor, Sommer, Spautz, Šťastný, Stauner, Stavreva, Stevenson, Stolojan, Sturdy, Szájer, Tannock, Trakatellis, Urutchev, Varvitsiotis, Veneto, Vidal-Quadras, Weber Manfred, Weisgerber, Wieland, Winkler, Wortmann-Kool, Záborská, Zappalà, Zatloukal, Zdravkova, Zieleniec, Zvěřina

PSE: Goebbels, Haug, Kindermann, Mann Erika, Walter

UEN: Chruszcz, Maldeikis

Verts/ALE: van Buitenen, Tıkés

After the vote the following MEPs wished it to be recorded that they were really in favour though recorded otherwise or not at all:

Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Vladimir Urutchev, Gérard Deprez, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, Dariusz Rosati, Pilar Ayuso, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Gerardo Galeote, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Gianluca Susta, Florencio Luque Aguilar, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Zuzana Roithová

the following wished it to be recorded that they were really against though recorded otherwise or not at all:

Marie-Hélène Descamps, Jean-Paul Gauzès

and the following wished it to be recorded that they would have abstained though recorded otherwise or not at all:

Marianne Thyssen, Daniel Caspary

Sorry, Ms Thyssen, you may be my neighbour but you’ve lost any chance you might have had of my voting for you; I’m all the happier to support Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck with my vote come June 7th.

The British MEPs who voted against or abstained were all Tories or ex-UKIP.
The Irish MEPs who voted against were all Fine Gael.
The Belgians who voted abstained were CD&V, and the one who voted against is MR (though he now says this was a mistake).

Posted in Uncategorised

Telecoms package fails over internet users’ rights

European Voice:

MEPs rejected the package because it would have exposed internet users to the blocking of their accounts as a penalty for illegal downloading. A parliament amendment inserted to protect these rights was removed just days before the vote, in a meeting between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The parliament plenary rebelled against this move.

European Parliament:

A user’s Internet access cannot be restricted without prior ruling by the judicial authorities, insists the European Parliament reinstating one of its first-reading amendments.

The Czechs are pissed off:

It is evident that the whole package has become hostage to the pre-election campaign of a part of MEPs. The issue of internet users’ rights, which was behind the decision of the MEPs not to respect the compromise, is indeed important and needs to be discussed thoroughly. However, the telecoms package is not the right place to deal with it. The question has nothing to do with the aims and purposes of telecoms market reform.

[Comment: Indeed, how dare MEPs pay attention to voters’ wishes, just because the member states wanted to sneak some repressive legislation into a proposal where it didn’t really belong?]

Liberals claim credit:

Sophie in ´t Veld (D66, Netherlands) said: "I am very pleased that the EP did not bow to the attempt of the Council to use the back door to insert a rule restricting the access to the internet."

Of course, the Liberals can hardly claim sole credit: 407 MEPs voted in favour of their amendment, with 57 votes against and 171 abstentions. Congrats to all who contacted their MEPs on this issue – the Czech government clearly identifies us as the villains of the piece! In particular, of course, kudos to La Quadrature du Net for their eternal vigilance.

Posted in Uncategorised

Book meme – the answers

The answers to yesterday’s book meme:

  1. Frith, Pipkin, Blackberry – Frith is the sun god, and the other two are rabbits in Watership Down by Richard Adams. Well done for spotting it first.
  2. Pastor Williams, Decuman, Lord Stansgate – Williams is the American Ambassador, Decuman an older schoolboy and Lord Stansgate the unseen head of the Holy Office in the alternative Catholic England of Kingsley Amis’ The Alteration, as guessed by an anonymous visitor posting from a German IP address.
  3. Bruce (the father), Helen (the mother), Joan (the girlfriend) – one of two that nobody got, but if I had given Bruce and Helen’s surname – Bechdel – it would have been obvious that this is Fun Home by their daughter Alison.
  4. Ulysse Mérou, Zira, Arthur Levain – Mérou and Levain are space explorers; Zira is one of the indigenous inhabitants of the planet where they crash, the only one of the three whose name is also used in the film version of La Planète des Singes by Pierre Boulle (in English, Planet of the Apes). Well done, .
  5. Duncan, Colin, Malcolm – the other one that nobody got. Again, if I had given their surname – Makenzie – it would have been obvious that this is the cloned patriarchal family running Titan in Imperial Earth by Arthur C. Clarke.
  6. Bendico, Don Calogera, Ciccio – Bendico is the dog, Don Caolgero the mayor and Ciccio the church organist whose vote was stolen in Il Gattopardo by Giuseppe di Lampedusa. Well done again, .
  7. Lake of the biology department, Atwood of the physics department, Captain Douglas – I didn’t want to make it too obvious by including the other scientist, Professor Frank H. Pabodie of the engineering department, in H.P. Lovecraft’s investigations At The Mountains of Madness. My German visitor got this one first.
  8. Thorn, Gran’ma, Bartleby – Thorn and Gran’ma are the key humans, and Brtleby a semi-domesticated rat-creature, in Jeff Smith’s graphic novel Bone, as spotted almost immediately.
  9. Rupert Potter, Benny Golightly, Selina Potter – the three children who are the central characters of Patricia Wrightson’s wonderful Australian urban fantasy, An Older Kind of Magic, identified again by my German visitor.
  10. Ellen Emmett, Phil Graber, Dr Moreby – Ellen and Phil are two of Conrad’s companions, and Dr Moreby their cannibalistic captor, in Roger Zelazny’s first (and Hugo-winning) novel, This Immortal / …And Call Me Conrad

Thanks for playing, all, and I’ve been fascinated to watch this on other people’s ljs.

Posted in Uncategorised

Northern Ireland’s MEPs

Say what you like about the European Parliament website, it does at least offer some transparency about what your MEPs have been up to over the last five years. This is the public record of the three MEPs from Northern Ireland.

MEP Jim Allister
(Ind)
(DUP -> TUV)
Bairbre de Brún
(GUE-NGL)
(SF)
Jim Nicholson
(EPP-ED)
(UUP)
Questions asked: 214 41 42
Motions Proposed 0 9 8
Reports drafted 0 1 2
Speeches in plenary 314 118 122
Written Declarations 3 0 4

As a point of comparison, my neighbourhood MEP – who is also our deputy mayor, and national chair of her political party – has asked 70 questions, put her name to 10 motions, authored three reports (on consumer policy), spoken 88 times and signed 1 written declaration.

To explain the categories:

Questions asked – fairly obvious, you can ask a question to the European Commission or the European Council. Allister clearly enjoys this most. De Brún sometimes signs onto questions asked by a group of her GUE-NGL colleagues.

Motions proposed – the mark of distinction between those who are inside the system and those who are outsiders. If you are not in a group, you can still vote yes or no to particular amendments or resolutions, but your access to drafting is much more limited.

Reports drafted – Allister’s zero here is again largely a consequence of his not being in a group, and therefore not being in the way of getting this sort of task; but actually I find all three MEPs a little disppointing; de Brún’s sole report, and both of Nicholson’s are Regional Development Committee reports on EU funds being spent in Northern Ireland. It would be nice if any of them had set their sights on issues other than local pork.

Speeches in plenary – this is potentially a bit misleading since the real arguments happen behind the scenes in the committee meetings, which although public events are not recorded with the same degree of completeness as the plenary sessions. However, it’s fairly clear: Allister speaks more often than the other two combined. It also has to be said that speaking in the chamber is not a good measure of effectiveness in other areas.

Written declarations – included for completeness, these appear about as relevant as Early-Day Motions in the British system.
 

My conclusion

Allister is a classic "outsider", more interested in using his elected position to promote causes that interest him than in playing the institutional game. Both de Brún and Nicholson have tendencies in this direction as well, but both are also at least partly inside the system; and both appear to have similar levels of impact, despite the fact that de Brún is from a much smaller group.

Posted in Uncategorised

Book meme

An interesting book meme from :

  1. I list three characters from ten favourite books.
  2. You try to guess what the books are!
  3. I reserve the right to be sneaky and use secondary characters.
  1. Frith, Pipkin, Blackberry
  2. Pastor Williams, Decuman, Lord Stansgate
  3. Bruce (the father), Helen (the mother), Joan (the girlfriend)
  4. Ulysse Mérou, Zira, Arthur Levain
  5. Duncan, Colin, Malcolm
  6. Bendico, Don Calogera, Ciccio
  7. Lake of the biology department, Atwood of the physics department, Captain Douglas
  8. Thorn, Gran’ma, Bartleby
  9. Rupert Potter, Benny Golightly, Selina Potter
  10. Ellen Emmett, Phil Graber, Dr Moreby

To make it easier, they are in alphabetical order by author. Also two of them are graphic novels.

Posted in Uncategorised

Sore tooth and things

I have a sore tooth. It’s the one that was completely replaced at huge expense last year after I broke it on an olive stone. I am seeing the dentist at lunchtime, and hope that they will sort it out.

Meanwhile I have been fighting fungus on various parts of my body. The outcropping under my left big toenail has been killed by fungicide and is growing out. The infection on my face seems to have died down for now. And a small patch on my tummy is now disappearing too.

Meanwhile here are a couple of interesting links:

I’m Glad I’m A Boy! I’m Glad I’m A Girl! Difficult to believe that this dates from as late as 1970. (hat-tip to .)

Of minority interest (though a minority well-represented among my readers): An Irishman’s Difficulties with the Dutch Language, by “Cuey-na-Gael” (real name the Rev. Dr. J. Irwin Brown); full text on-line.

Book meme to come.

Posted in Uncategorised

May Books 6) The Winter’s Tale, by William Shakespeare

This is not particularly funny as comedies go (just as Cymbeline is not particularly tragic). The King of Sicilia becomes obsessed with his wife’s relationship with the King of Bohemia; he hounds her to death (apparently) and has their baby daughter cast into the wilderness. Fortunately the girl survives, brought up by shepherds, to fall in love with the Bohemian prince. After some confusion (with a number of comedic moments) all is resolved happily; the dead queen is brought back to life, having been a statue (we are told) for fifteen years.

As with Cymbeline, there is a musical and dancing extravaganza, this time at the Bohemian sheep-shearing. I wonder if Shakespeare was under some semi-contractual obligation to include a spectacular musical scene? It depends a bit on the humorous character Autolycus, who dominates the relatively few scenes he is in.

And as for the ending, I’m totally convinced that Paulina has faked Hermione’s death and the statue story is a cover the two of them have cooked up. I know that is not the usual interpretation, but it seems to me crystal clear from the script.

I was lucky enough to see the Sam Mendes / Simon Russell Beale production of this in Brooklyn earlier this year. The Arkangel audio version is inevitably only a partial substitute for the real thing. It also doesn’t quite gel as some of the later productions do – sorry to bang on about accents again, but it seems off to have two Irish actors (Ciaran Hinds and Sinead Cusack) playing the king and queen of Sicilia, but sounding English – and yet to make the Bohemian peasants come from Mummerset. The standout performance, oddly, is the very very brief appearance of John Gielgud as Time.

Henry VI, Part I | Henry VI, Part II | Henry VI, Part III | Richard III / Richard III | Comedy of Errors | Titus Andronicus | Taming of the Shrew | Two Gentlemen of Verona | Love’s Labour’s Lost | Romeo and Juliet | Richard II / Richard II | A Midsummer Night’s Dream | King John | The Merchant of Venice | Henry IV, Part 1 / Henry IV, Part I | Henry IV, Part II | Henry V | Julius Caesar | Much Ado About Nothing | As You Like It | Merry Wives of Windsor | Hamlet / Hamlet | Twelfth Night | Troilus and Cressida | All’s Well That Ends Well | Measure for Measure | Othello | King Lear | Macbeth | Antony and Cleopatra | Coriolanus / Coriolanus | Timon of Athens | Pericles | Cymbeline | The Winter’s Tale / The Winter’s Tale | The Tempest | Henry VIII | The Two Noble Kinsmen | Edward III | Sir Thomas More (fragment) | Double Falshood/Cardenio

The President’s livejournal

I was fascinated to learn, via me good friend Fraser Cameron’s op-ed in today’s NYT/IHT, that Livejournal’s popularity in Russia goes right the way to the top: is President Medvedev’s account. Comments are moderated, and must be in Russian. Even so, his 22 April speech about the development of the internet in Russia, delivered straight to camera in jeans and casual jacket, has over 4000 comments. Even if you don’t have a word of Russian, take a few seconds to watch the way he does it – it’s an impressive performance.

Posted in Uncategorised

May Books 4) Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books, by Azar Nafisi

This is a brilliant book about literature in a society which is closing itself up. There are four sections (the first two names after books, Lolita and Gatsby; the others after authors, James and Austen) but the key is the first section, where Nafisi, fired from her university teaching post for not conforming to the strict dress code, sets up a reading group for seven women to read, among other works, Lolita. There is of course a gross parallel, in that the damage Humbert inflicts on Lolita is analogous (in some cases, identical) to that inflicted by the Iranian authorities on their own people, especially women. But the wider point Nafisi makes is to describe the response of her students to great literature and to make the case that it is an essential part of the human condition – and to deny it is inhuman.

The Gatsby section goes back to the early days of the revolution, and chronicles the heady times of ideals and the gradual encroachment of the values of the Islamic Republic, culminating in a rather funny court scene where The Great Gatsby itself is put on trial. Nafisi is pretty merciless in mocking the intellectual contributions of the most doctrinaire of the students, and I suspect that they are an easy target.

The second half of the book chronicles her gradual disengagement from Iran and eventual emigration. It’s still very good but the first half is the essential part of the argument, the bit that Marjane Satrapi doesn’t have as much of.

Wikipedia has an account of the criticism levelled at the book and the author from various quarters. A lot of it simply isn’t fair: Nafisi is a specialist in English-language literature, so it’s hardly surprising that she chose that as the subject of her classes. It is true that of course this may play to the prejudices of the monoglot Anglophone philistine, but this is clearly not Nafisi’s purpose. Another rather peculiar criticism is that the book describes Iran at its darkest, between 1979 and 1996, and things are better now. This is unfair because Nafisi is diligent at specifying dates, to moor the narrative to a particular set of points in the past rather than the present, and at portraying a society as it changes for the worse, but at the same time showing hope that it may change for the better. (And anyway, while things may have improved slightly under the later presidencies of Khatami and Ahmedinejad, I don’t get the impression that the improvement is much to write books about.)

Part of this, of course, is a reflection in Wikipedia of the peculiar toxicity attached to Iran in American public discourse. I was utterly astonished the other day to catch a CNN commentator describe President Ahmadinejad as the most evil person in the world (I do not paraphrase). There are a lot of other candidates; most of them are of course on better terms with the US government. The concentration on Ahmadinejad as hate figure (consider also the extraordinarily inhospitable remarks made by the President of Columbia University when introducing him back in September 2007) also displays an unwillingness to get to grips with the roles of the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians. It is a shame if Nafisi’s book helps perpetuate those prejudices, though I can’t believe that a thoughtful reader would take that message from it.

Posted in Uncategorised

May Books 3) Zoë’s Tale, by John Scalzi

The last of the Hugo novels for this year, and it’s been a good year. I’ve had difficulties with Scalzi’s writing before, and so am glad to report that I enjoyed this more than the other two books of his I have read. Zoë’s Tale actually takes place in parallel with last year’s Hugo nominee, The Lost Colony, being the story of the teenage daughter of John Perry and Jane Sagan, the leaders of the human colony of Roanoke, living through and playing a key role in the key points of humanity’s conflict with the alien Conclave federation. I had forgotten most of last year’s book, but Zoë’s Tale does clear up one (but not all) of the more handwavey plot elements.

Zoë herself is rather delightful, with a line in sarcasm that readers of her creator’s blog will recognise. The other characters seem fairly three-dimensional as well. The political background, and behaviour of the most senior political leaders, once again doesn’t make a lot of sense (a standard complaint of mine, and of course a YA novel like this more or less has to involve the protagonist getting one up on the adults) but it’s a decent enough story apart from that.

So, my Hugo voting order: a close run thing, but definitely Anathem first, followed closely by The Graveyard Book. After that it gets even more difficult to choose between Saturn’s Children, Little Brother and Zoë’s Tale – the Stross is probably better than the other two but unfortunately has anthropomorphic robots which I object to. Thanks in no small part to Scalzi’s efforts, you can join the Worldcon and download four of the five books for yourself.

Posted in Uncategorised

May Books 2) Fanny Kemble: A Performed Life, by Deirdre David

I became fascinated by Fanny Kemble (1809-1893) after reading her account of the death of William Huskisson, and even more so her memoir of life on a Georgian plantation in 1838-39, but rather bounced off the first biography of her that I read. This, however, was praised in the Economist, which was a good enough recommendation for me to put it on the wishlist. (And my wife got it for me for my birthday last week.)

David delivers on what she promises: assessing Kemble’s career as one of continual performance. Her time as an actress was actually very brief – the five years before her marriage in 1834, and her first year back in England, 1847-8, after her marriage finally disintegrated. She continued to perform in other ways, though: she had a long and successful stage career doing solo readings of Shakespeare’s plays, and David argues that her written words in her letters and journals (judiciously edited by herself for publication many years later, and the originals destroyed) are her most lasting performance before the audience of history (I paraphrase).

Kemble was a very intelligent and literate woman, who refused to be confined to her place as daughter or wife, and as a result became an object of fascination; as a young woman, she charmed Walter Scott; in her old age, she developed a deep friendship with the young Henry James and inspired him to write Washington Square. She was also an object of horror to her in-laws; her husband could not tolerate her desire to maintain her independence, and he and his family don’t seem to have realised just how serious she was in her opposition to slavery.

David has done a fantastic job of analysing how Fanny Kemble constructed her performances, and has amassed a tremendous range of secondary (and even primary) material to show how they were received by her audience at the time, including the (rare) hostile reviews along with the positive. I feel that Kemble’s charm is now explained for me without being disintegrated: David is clearly a little in love with her subject.

I was disappointed, therefore, that in her chapter on the 1838-39 plantation episode, David relies too uncritically on Kemble’s own account. I would have liked more depth. We know that her reminiscences were attacked for inaccuracy when they were published twenty-five years later; I am aware that there were a number of other slave narratives out there which Kemble might have drawn on, and to which she can certainly be compared. David makes an interesting point about Kemble seeing herself as a sort of inverted Miranda, but the political context is missing.

While I’m complaining, two more points of irritation: David makes a couple of very silly slips on political context, describing Paris in the 1820s as being under Louis-Napoleon (he ruled from 1848 to 1870), and speculating about the chances of the Republican Party in the 1840 US presidential election (it was not founded until 1856). And the notes are infuriatingly placed at the end of the book, mostly just citing her sources, but occasionally with some really juicy nuggets of information, printed hundreds of pages from their context; with today’s technology, there is no excuse for publishers screwing around their authors’ texts in this way.

One last point that struck me: David chronicles Kemble’s disastrous marriage and her more successful passionate friendships with women. But the most important man in her life, who provided the raw material for her successes on stage, inspired her to be a Portia or a Miranda, and to whom she wrote some of her more impassioned poetry, died almost two centuries before she was born (and like her was survived by two daughters). Shakespeare gets everywhere.

Posted in Uncategorised

May Books 1) The Patriot Witch, by Charles Coleman Finlay

This is hot off the presses, having been published only last week. Our hero, Proctor Ward, is a young Bostonian caught up in the start of the War of Independence. He discovers that he has magical powers, inherited from his Salem ancestors, and gets mixed up in faction and counterfaction of the secret network of witches, supported by Quakers and other free thinkers. (The British have magic too, led by the historical John Pitcairn, whose son discovered Pitcairn Island.)

It reminded me a bit of Orson Scott Card’s Alvin Maker books, which also feature a magical America from a few decades later in an alternate timeline. Finlay, however, is less mystical, less didactic and basically less annoying about it; where Card is retelling the biography of Joseph Smith, Finlay is using an intense knowledge of the setting to hang his plot on. There are also perhaps faint reflections of Buffy, with the young hero discovering mystical powers and dealing with family and love-life. (One thing Proctor Ward lacks, however, is a Giles-like mentor.)

Good marks for sense of place; slightly cheeky to have the hero not only fire the first shots at Lexington but also save the day at Bunker Hill; but in general the history doesn’t get in the way of the story, making it an enjoyable read.

A different books meme

This time it’s the top 100-ish books from the LibraryThing Legacy Libraries project, where you can compare your own library against 106 famous dead people’s libraries. (The ten top contributors to the list below are Thomas Jefferson, Ernest Hemingway, Carl Sandburg, C.S. Lewis, Eeva-Liisa Manner, T. E. Lawrence, John Adams, Alfred Deakin, Karen Blixen and Walker Percy.) As usual – bold if you’ve read it, italic if you’ve started but not finished, strike through if you couldn’t stand it. These are the top 103 books from the 106 libraries; there are a few cases of duplication (where a part of one entry apears seaparately) but I think we can cope.

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
The Odyssey by Homer
The Complete Works of Shakespeare by William Shakespeare
Complete Works by Horace
The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
Iliad by Homer
The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (complete sets) by Edward Gibbon
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
On the Nature of Things by Lucretius
Moby Dick, or, The Whale by Herman Melville
The Complete Essays by Michel de Montaigne
The Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell
The Golden Ass by Apuleius
The Anatomy of Melancholy by Robert Burton
Orlando Furioso by Ludovico Ariosto
Aesop’s Fables
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Metamorphoses by Ovid
Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir William Blackstone
Parallel Lives by Plutarch
History of his own time by Gilbert Burnet
The Bible
The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan
The Spectator by Joseph Addison
Paradise Lost by John Milton
Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Ulysses by James Joyce
Hudibras by Samuel Butler
Les Fleurs Du Mal by Charles Baudelaire
The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
Dictionary by Samuel Johnson
Telemachus by François Fénelon
Inferno by Dante Alighieri
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
Complete Works by Virgil
Erewhon by Samuel Butler
Confessions by Augustine
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Histories by Herodotus
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
Thus spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Poetical Works of Lord Byron
The Complete Poetry of John Milton
The Aeneid by Virgil
Lives of the English Poets by Samuel Johnson
Ab urbe condita by Livy
The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne
Republic by Plato
Travels of Anacharsis the younger in Greece by Jean-Jacques Barthélemy
The Poems of Virgil by Virgil
Death in Venice by Thomas Mann
Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius
Dubliners by James Joyce
Lives of Great Generals by Cornelius Nepos
Book of Common Prayer
Gil Blas by Alain René Le Sage (9)
Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
The works of Geoffrey Chaucer by Geoffrey Chaucer
A High Wind in Jamaica by Richard Hughes
Gargantua and Pantagruel by François Rabelais
Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
Reliques of Ancient English Poetry by Thomas Percy
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
The Orator’s Education by Quintilian
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
Walden by Henry David Thoreau
The ancient history of the Egyptians, Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Grecians and Macedonian by Charles Rollin
The Satyricon by Petronius
An historical and critical dictionary by Pierre Bayle
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
In Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus
The poems of Ossian by James MacPherson
The Voyage of the Beagle by Charles Darwin
The History of the Great Rebellion by the Earl of Clarendon
The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini
Comedies by Terence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
The Golden Bough by James George Frazer
Candide by Voltaire
Robert Ainsworth’s dictionary, English and Latin
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
Sartor Resartus by Thomas Carlyle
Comedies by Titus Maccius Plautus
The new law-dictionary by Giles Jacob
Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, duke of Sully, prime minister to Henry the Great
The analogy of religion by Joseph Butler
To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
Natural History by Pliny the Elder
Logic: The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth by Isaac Watts
Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson
The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler
Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres by Hugh Blair
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters
The Works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus
History of the reign of Charles the Fifth by William Robertson
History of England by David Hume

Posted in Uncategorised