Update

I haven't posted anything for a while. Mainly because nothing interesting has happened, but I felt obliged to write something. So yeah, boredom reigns, and I don't even have anything to rant about in lieu of news.

Twas, however, my brother's birthday on Thursday, so we went out. I must say, having experienced £1.30 a pint, it was rather difficult to pay £3.10 for one tonight.

That's about it. Bye bye.

Peace and love

Death of the Bookshop

(Warning : the following post may contain violence, Classics and scenes of a sexual nature)

Today, I made a jaunt into Leeds in order to spend some hard earned book vouchers I've had knocking about for a few months. I was quite irritated that had to travel all the way to Leeds to find a decent bookshop anyway. Ever since the demise of Borders and the closure of the one at Junction 27, there are no good bookshops nearby anymore.

My ire was further raised when I arrived in Leeds, and found that said bookshops contained very few actual books. They were far too full of posters, CD's, DVD's and stationary to contain much more than 2 Mill's and Boon's and an old copy of Wuthering Heights (both of which I dislike, by the way).

Now, correct me if I'm incorrect, but surely the primary purpose of a bookshop is the sale of books to the general public. I don't have a problem with coffee shops in bookshops, because they give you a good place to go and discuss your purchases with the other losers who spend their time in such places. But if I wanted to buy a set of stationary featuring Roundabouts of Great Britain or the latest (and probably rather terrible) Steven Segal DVD, then I'll go to a stationary shop or a DVD shop. So don't put them in Waterstones, please. Cheers. Rant (or furor) over.

In case you can't tell, they didn't have the book I wanted.

Peace and love

Conservative Government? No ta, I quite like my milk....

I'd like to begin with another apology for my most recent hiatus. Far from being ICT coursework causing this one, it was in fact.......history coursework. Alas (or eheu), blogging does tend to suffer due to A Levels.

Now then, it had to be done eventually. Politics. More specifically, the "new" Tory/Lib Dem government. As you've probably guessed, I'm pretty conservative in outlook. Im all in favour of the monarchy, long jail sentences etc etc. But the Conservative Party? I just couldn't vote for them (if I had actually been deemed old enough to make my my own decisions about our leaders yet).

Why, I hear you asking (or, more likely, why do I actually read this). Well, several things. One, my parents lived through Mrs Thatcher's last government, so I have been instilled with a suspicion of all things Tory since I was able to say "milk-snatcher".

Second, I dislike David Cameron. He's always trying to look "cool" and "down with the kids" and "one of us". I mean, he's a Conservative, for God's sake. He's an upper middle class bloke (i.e a toff), so he should start acting like one. I'd probably like him more if he just accepted that fact, but instead he insists on rolling his sleeves up and wearing open necked polo shirts, trying to fit in amongst the people on the streets. Tut tut, Dave.

Thirdly, what do they actually stand for? All I've learnt from the Conservative election campaign is how awful Gordon Brown is. Not once have I heard a "Vote for us, because we can fix the economy, and sort out immigration, and the prison system, and the welfare state, and, above all, listen to the people." Its all just been a massive smear campaign against Labour, bitching about their faults and their mistakes, and it smacks of playground politics.

So, all in all, the Conservatives. I have sincere doubts as to whether they will actually solve any of the myriad problems Great Britain currently finds itself mired in, before the people see their true colours as a party for the wealthy minority. Of course, I would love to be proved wrong, but I'm still dubious of Dave and co. If any further proof was needed, just look at their slogan. The Conservatives: Vote for Change. Oxymoron, or what?

p.s. oxymoron, incidentally, comes from the Greek for "stupid and sharp". ( Sorry,couldn't go a whole post without any Classics references at all)

Peace and love

Classical Fury: or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Classics Related Movies

First things first, apologies for not updating the blog for a while. ICT coursework is rather time consuming, ysee, and I just haven't got round to it. However, the coursework is done, thank the Lord. So I shall now return to the wondrous world of blogging. Oh the pure, unadulterated joy.

To be honest though, I don't have that much to talk about. One thing has occurred to me recently though. Classics folk (among whom I count myself) often feel an inordinate amount of fury at inaccurate Classical references. Poor Latin grammar on television or using the wrong set of names for the gods can literally cause Classicists to become so angry that they will send several hundred e-mails to the person responsible, telling them they will rot in Tartarus under the lash of Tisaphone for eternity for such a transgression as appalling as saying "Jupiter" instead of "Zeus".

This brings me neatly on to the subject of the film "Troy". Normally, you would be instantly skinned alive, crucified and burnt for even mentioning Troy in front of Classicists, such is their hatred of it. This stems from the fact that it has numerous changes from the Classical text on which it based, Homer's Iliad. These range from the deaths of several characters in the film who didn't actually die in the epic, most notably Menelaus and Agamemnon, through changes to the plot, like Ajax (the Greater, of course) being killed by Hector, to a complete lack of divine intervention throughout the whole film, something that was a major theme in the book. Those who are Classical inclined absolutely refuse to watch it, and sometimes even to speak its name. But, having just finished watching it, I thought, is it really so bad that its different from the Iliad?

For a start, the film is called "Troy", not "The Iliad: The Motion Picture". It never claims to have done anything more than take its inspiration from Homer's account of a war that even the Romans considered ancient. It certainly doesn't claim to be an exact replica of that epic, so why are some people so insistent that it should be exactly the same? Hollywood film makers need action to keep a modern audience interested, and the Iliad's description of duels between great heroes lacks the ability to captivate in the same way as a huge CGI generated battle, so why not let them have it?

Another thing that came to me is, as a Classicist, isn't re-interpreting old stories what its all about? Its what ancient playwrights did. The majority of the stories they told would have been familiar to their audience, but it was the way they interpreted it that made the audience like or dislike it. So, surely, we should judge the Hollywood telling of the story of Troy on its own merits, rather than dismissing it out of hand as a bad copy of the Iliad.

I spose the point I'm trying to make is, maybe people should try and just enjoy things for what they are, rather than complain about the things they aren't. I mean, Troy might lose some of the plot points of the Iliad, but it does gain some pretty cool battle scenes. So enjoy them, and stop complaining!

Peace and love