I am so loathe to re-read Dracula that I can't put into words my antipathy and apathy. This is a basic paraphrase of one of the introductory diary entries: "I don't have anything to say today, so I will recount, with precision, what I ate for dinner." What the fuck? I bloody hate this fucking period of novel. I hate realism, and I hate magical realism as well. This is like... genre-less, but it might as well be the former, for all the merits it has as anything else. I just find it so infuriating to read: Obfuscating language which leads nowhere. Circuitous novels which basically just go from A to B, but B is A anyway. Ever read A Sicilian Romance by Ann Radcliffe? It could so easily be construed as a parodying bildungsroman; simply because it starts at a point, there is a series of obscure trials which the protagonist endures, and then there is a slight character development. The impetus of satire is removed when the genre is so banal as to negate the point. A hybrid of romanticism and fatalism: Romantalism/Fatacism. I think I prefer the latter. Fatacism novella. Tedious.
Don't get me wrong, I empathise devoutly with these authors: Writing is an ultimately unfulfilling course, your only companions being self-doubt, criticism, and depression.Open the window to the soul of a modern-day writer and inside you find a tortured being; chaos-theory incarnate, struggling against the bounds of their own limited abilities. You're always searching harder, striving harder, trying to articulate ideas beyond your station: Novels are impossible, I think. Sure you read something wonderful, something compelling and enlightening; something which stirs up emotion unbeknownst to you until you feel it; gouging out pity and laughter from the deepest recesses of your conscious - but have you ever read anything you don't feel could be done better? Harder? Stronger? More assiduously?
So, as you can probably tell, anything I ever write, I include a sort of self-parodying caveat of insincerity and laziness. I try to tack my own failings as a writer onto mental lethargy, and not to the reality of disbelief and inability. For it is when we read back what we have written with a smile, or a nod, that we realise how utterly facile this whole process is. I've never put pen to paper and come up with anything of any merit - I'd struggle to find anyone who was ever genuinely inclined to seek out something I have written. That's frustrating, as someone who wants to write. I know we are our own toughest critics, but sometimes reality trumps cliché, and this really is the case here. Depressing.
Finding my musings riddled with pathos? Ah yes, the failures of the inarticulate but lexically well-endowed. Call me Jan Moir. Speaking of which, there has been some pseudo-developments in the case thus far. The PCC - which is so near to be the most delicious autological word - has driven home the 'family card': It probably won't uphold any complaints regarding the article unless the Gately family choose to complain themselves (as I discussed yesterday) - given the fact that anyone is entitled to complain of breaches of the code, it seems illogical for them to acknowledge a breach by implicating the family's prerogative, but failing to act on it because of either cowardice or laziness. The more interesting aspect of development is the reading of the article: Is it homophobic, or heterosexist? Online Journalism Blogseems to be suggesting the latter, whereas yesterday I implicated the former. The main difference here, for ease, is that I am suggesting a fear of the unknown, whereas they are suggesting a superiority complex attributed to heterosexual couplings.
It's a difficult question really, and one that I feel can only be expounded upon by close analysis.
The article starts off by painting a picture of hyperbole, of vacuous rhetoric intent only on analogising this death with ones considered deprave or morally lacking. What we have here is a childish technique of debate: It's ad hominem and it's weak analogy. Discredit the man by slotting him into a mould he doesn't belong in:
"... fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice."
The allusion to Gately's life having been shadowed by dark appetites - presumably the smoking of cannabis and the consummation of a homosexual lifestyle - leads us to believe that surely we've not got a neutral objective here? Given the statement of only two facts: Stephen Gately was a homosexual, and he was found to have smoked cannabis on the night that he died; surely the comparison between this and others leads us to believe that both of those things qualify as "dark appetite[s]" or "private vice?" Far be it from I to suggest that spinning homosexuality as vice somewhat undercuts the importance of a mainstream sexuality - so here we have a heterosexist point of view; one which embodies the superiority of heterosexuality, whilst casting aspersions and doubts on a homosexual lifestyle. And yet, with the usage of "dark appetite" we too could suggest a latent homophobic twist to the line: You've got the idolisation of these people interplayed against this "dark[ness]" - it's entirely created in order to spite you against the protagonist. In other words, you're meant to be embittered against Gately based on his morally deprave life, or, as she only provides us with two other facts, with his homosexuality and cannabis smoking.
We then go on to compound what has already been said:
"There are dozens out there with secret and not-so-secret troubles, or damaging habits both past and present."
This method of conceit is rudimentary at best: The continued comparisons between them, of whom she speaks, and they who died under mysterious circumstances is meant to further turn you against sympathising. What is the necessity of this comparison in an article explaining the certain unexplained actions that surround his death? I note an important point here: I am in no way saying that the article's intent is wrong, anything should be explored from all points of view, it is the only way to get to the truth, and to get us some closure on what is a tragedy. No, what I am saying is by exploring the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, but only providing us with an argument of homosexuality, we are left wanting for any logical rationale, and must instead turn to wondering what fear or hatred drove this zine. What impetus drives an article of exploration devoid of evidence? I'm genuinely unsure that Moir's efforts were to this end, I fail to see her as a homophobe, or a bigot; what I do see her as though, is someone who does not realise her own power: Someone who underestimates the effect words can have on people undergoing high-stress. And for that, she doesn't deserve to have an influential column. Nuances are intrinsic to good writing, and they've been overlooked here by both lazy editing and tight deadlines.
Moir writes that it is not long "before the first concerned hand reaches out to touch an icy celebrity shoulder" and fails to see the irony of her stance. I've said it before: Profiteering.
The tacit implications keep rolling on as the article progresses to the biographical element. The issue here surely drives from the truly scornful tone that Moir employs to make her points:
"In the cheerful environs of Boyzone, Gately was always charming, cute, polite and funny."
A nice message, delivered with a hand of mocking insincerity - a line transformed from a pleasing epitaph, to a belittling slight at his public standing at the time of his death. Take what I mean: "In the cheerful environs of Boyzone" is a thinly veiled sentence of synonym for "After Boyzone, Gately is...". This continuance of ad hominem surely lends credence to my argument of homophobia? It wasn't until late in the life of Boyzone that Gately was "smoked out" of the closet: So, deserved public adoration during his time in boyzone; comes out: Not any more. This is compounded by the derisive tone taken to juxtapose:
"Gately worried that the revelations might end his ultra-mainstream career as a pin-up, but he received an overwhelmingly positive response from fans. In fact, it only made them love him more."
I am sure I am not the only reader who has noticed the tone of the piece; that there is undeserved acclamation in becoming a champion of gay rights. I also worry about the tone because of Jan's later claims that she is a Gay-rights activist, herself; yet she speaks about gay rights activists with condescension and scorn, saying that "surely" Gately would want to set a good example. The patronising contradicts the excuse, does it not? Look, I know no writer for a newspaper writes with the intention of putting latency behind every sentence: But subconscious ideology is easy to track if you look in the right places; tone and form are intrinsic to the formation of argument, and it's simple to watch a mental progression. It's a fairly rudimentary form that this article follows: Discredit the person, add in conjecture as to their lifestyle, discredit their lifestyle, allude to something unexplained by the inquests, pile on some hollow sympathies. If we watch it, and compare it with the construction of the sentences, there is a definitive pattern of thought that we can ascribe to one of the two concepts that I spoke of at the beginning of this. OK, let's move on. Following our pattern, we move onto the main reason for the article:
"All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are - perhaps understandably - keen to register their boy's demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident."
This paragraph is overloaded with extraneous words: "official" implicates an unofficial decision being different; "all" dictate that quantity has in fact nothing to do with how accurate they are, &c. This is also - perhaps understandably - my least favourite of all the paragraphs: "The Gately family are - perhaps understandably - keen...". All we have here is a sneering aside as to their reasoning, it scoffs at the fact that they would want to put it down to a "tragic accident" (how empathic) - it also further alludes to there being a cover-up of the reality. The under-tone (hard to phrase) points towards there being information pertaining to the case which is being ignored for the sake of closure "on the national consciousness". Interesting, perhaps, but the allusions are groundless and unsubstantiated. It's sensationalism intended to create controversy: It's Daily Mail 101. Yet can that be it? Sensationalism surely requires motive, and on a columnist who quite clearly needs not produce anything of merit to maintain her position, it's not just the monetary side. What kind of ideological drive impetuses an article of loathing? Surely a fear? A fear of something misunderstood which requires slander to those as a part of it. It's simplistic tackling of problems outside of an intellectual remit: Conceptual analysis by critiquing a part; defunct and redundant to anyone with half a brain.
The sneering aside - the apostrophe, if you will - merely exemplifies an on-running theme of trivialising and mocking. The utterly disgusting comparison between the "spin" and a "teacup" is merely compounded upon by this kind of vacuous conjecture. What you have to note is that there is a presentation of evidence for the side of it being a natural death, and the only opposition fielded by Moir is that of jocular metaphors. Where a lawyer presents verdict, where an inquest does, where parents seek closure; all are compared to the triviality of the teacup - do you see? There's negligible substance to the rumination.
"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."
What bitter truth, Jan? You should also look up the definition of fatal, because if you realise its meaning, and have used it knowingly, it kind of debunks your entire argument. "Fatality: death resulting from accident or a disaster" - hmm, oh dear, eh? There are thousands of young men dying each and every year from underlying physical conditions such as pulmonary oedema - something which you later go on to explain. Where is the consistency here? Whence there is no consistency, surely the motive is homophobic? No, I'm being too harsh, but I am trying to explore how this article came into being, and how it has been defended.
"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy."
In case anyone is unaware of the circumstances which surrounded his death, they can be neatly paraphrased to: "A gay man enjoying his holiday". Whether or not the taking of cannabis or the promiscuity of multiple sex partners (rumour) is sleazy is neither here nor there. Also, are we going to be honest? Why bother now? We seemed to have tacked that on after 400 words of anything but honesty. Fear not, we read the end of my litany, but I have saved the best - as Jan did - till last:
"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships."
Here we have it: Our definitive evidence of ideological poison. This is fatalism not even trying to hide itself. For the uninitiated it's basically that our decisions are pre-fated because of 'fate'. So by being involved in a gay marriage, Gately has prescribed to himself a "sleazy" life, and a premature death. What "myth" are we referring to, also? This is quite clearly part of the memo which I missed: Civil partnerships are too immature in creation for there to be anything but rumour surrounding their effects; and why should there be any difference? This is clear heteronormative thinking: Homosexual 'marriages' will be less because they aren't heterosexual; they thus cannot be legitimised, and cannot be accepted within the societal 'norm'. It's un-evidenced thought, but prevalent throughout several strata of society. There is no myth: The idea of civil partnerships is not the solidifying or legitimate consummation of a relationship probably worth more than a heterosexual one because it's had so much to endure. No, the idea is for equality; slightly disconcerting given the truly harrowing statistics regarding heterosexual marriage - wouldn't you say, Jan? On which justification do we stand at this precipice of bigotry? That is the juncture we find ourselves at. We go on:
"Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael..."
The declaiming of gay activists as such separates Jan herself from their camp; and yet was not one of her defences that she was a gay activist? Contradiction is rife, again.
"Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened. "
Why do they raise questions about the legitimacy and practice of civil partnerships, though? I've failed to read anything in the article which would question the ideas behind legitimizing homosexual marriage. What I have read is that a man had a bit of a fuck sesh and got baked - so what? To what end does the bring into question gay marriage? Two people have died who were in a civil partnership. News just in: Since writing this sentence, 3,000 people who were in heterosexual marriages have cheated on their partners, or died of natural causes. Jan: It's fallacy darling, and because there's no substance, it's homophobia.
Fear. It's dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment