My summer holiday book this was a book I have been meaning to read for many years, having heard many rave reviews from both magazines and friends. Captain Correlli's Mandolin was the book recommended and, as suggested, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. There are parts of the book I did not particularly enjoyed, and also parts where I thought the author, Louis De Bernieres, could have done better. Nevertheless, Captain Correlli's Mandolin is certainly a 'must-read' for anyone who enjoys a nail-biting and believable plot.
One of the primary reasons why I enjoyed this book is the intertwining of both a personal storyline and a historical narrative. The personal aspect of the book is told through the wonderful variety of characters, the long-suffering Pelagia, secretive Carlo, enigmatic Mandras, who all have a part in the narrative. De Bernieres uses these characters and their stories to develop the plethora of ideas he is analysing and confronting.
For example, Mandras' story is harrowing account, full of injustice and horror, and how war affects even the best of us, turning men into monsters. This challenging idea, not just of how deeply war affects people, but also how so few are either villain or hero, and are often capable of atrocity and humanity. However, De Bernieres also uses the story of Mandras as a corner-stone of the plot, as well as being an interesting story from a purely literary standpoint.
Furthermore, this area of the book is used by De Bernieres to examine the historical events of the time in Greece, particularly the civil war, and rivalry with Communists and Monarchists. From academic historical perspective, this narrative is not instructive, as De Bernieres, although accurate in abroad sense with regard to history, has undoubtedly taken some historical licence and developed his own twists and turns. Nevertheless, the history that can be gained from a lay-man's perspective is profound. In addition, De Bernieres is effective at communicating not just the historical tangibles, such as numbers of deaths, buildings destroyed etc., but more importantly the emotions and passions that are created by war, and also the suffering and privations.
De Bernieres is so talented at conveying emotions because his ability to adapt his writing style, specifically the language he uses, to different situations within the plot is unparalleled. For example, when the plot is focused on the superfluous and educated Dr Iannis De Bernieres's choice of words become much more eloquent, not just in the speech of Dr Iannis, but in the narrative also. However, when the plot is focused on characters whose mannerisms are much coarser, the language and descriptions change to reflect the milieu. Whether this is an unconscious change, or whether De Bernieres intentionally adapts his writing style, it is impossible to say for certain. However, it is certain that this change in style is very effective and sits comfortably with the situation in the plot.
De Bernieres's story is also wonderfully varied and unexpected, particullarly the conclusion. The ending of the whole book is a wonderful mix of emotions, both happiness and sadness, and throughout the novel De Bernieres contrasts humour, horror etc. with wonderful effect. The side chapters of Mussolini's rants are wonderfully comic, yet also have a darker side as they show how vain and arrogant he was. By doing this, De Bernieres creates a very interesting mix of emotion and feelings in the reader.
However, if there is anything that can be criticised in De Bernieres novel it would be the swiftness and almost cursory way in which the passage of time from 1950 to the present day is dealt with. I felt that there was a lot left out of the storyline that De Bernieres could have focused on, and not swept through at a very fast pace. Consequently, the reader arrives at the stage of Pelagia's old-age without feeling that there was an intermediate stage of her life. Furthermore, Corelli, a central character, simply falls off the stage. In the early and middle phases of the book the story was told from many different viewpoints. However, as Pelagia enters old age we no longer receive such a variety of viewpoints. This is partly due to the fact that many of the characters are no longer relevant. However, i felt that the story would have been enriched if we had had an account of Corelli's experiences as well as Pelagia's.
Nevertheless, this criticism is slight and insignificant, for the book remains a brilliant read, full of emotion, controversy and excitement, which grips the reader and hold you spellbound, and unable to put the book down.
Saturday, 18 August 2007
Saturday, 4 August 2007
Education under Tony Blair
During his election campaign Tony Blair famously said that his three priorities were 'Education, Education, Education.' In this essay I shall examine the success of the Labour Government in tackling this issues, and whether they have met their targets. A cursory examination of the progress of education by perusing newspapers and magazines would suggest that Labour and Tony Blair have failed to deliver on schools and education. The majority of stories and articles regarding education suggest that, despite students achieving better exam results, funding and equipment for schools has dropped, teaching standards are lower, and there is a growing gulf between children those who do well at school and those who are under-achieving It would, however, be untrue to say that funding for schools has dropped in the past 10 years. In 1996 the education budget was £70m per annum, compared with a projected £10.2bn in 2011. (source: The Independent) The equivalent amount in today's terms would be slightly under £100m. This increase in funding is a massive leap and shows an increased financial commitment, if nothing else, to education within the UK. This investment also suggests an increase in the spending on equipment such as laboratory tools and books. However, many questions have been raised over how this money has been spent, and whether the extra funding has helped schools that need it the most. A considerable percentage of this funding has been and will be spent on establishing City Academies, a highly controversial Labour proposal. Many claim that, rather than spending money on establishing a new system of education, the money should be spent on raising standards in existing schools. Another criticism of Labour educational policy is an increasing interference from the Government in dictating the role of teachers. National Curriculum guidelines have been tightened, Ofsted inspections have become more frequent and more rigorous, and the implementations placed upon teachers regarding attaining goals in children is intense. This interference is regarded as unnecessary by many, who view the experts as the teachers themselves. And indeed such a level of interference almost certainly constrains teachers to boundaries and prevents them from giving their whole attention to teaching in a way that seems appropriate for them and for the students.
Nevertheless, the Government is aware of the need to maintain standards in schools across the board, and ensure that children are not disadvantaged as much as possible. By laying down guidelines for teachers to follow, the Government is just as likely to be helping by improving the quality of teaching and standards for children who would otherwise be left by the way-side, than disadvantaging those children that have the potential to be stretched. In an ideal world we would should be able to do both, to support the less-able and underprivileged as well as push the high-achievers. However, we can only do so much, and it is far better for the Government to create a level playing-field than maintain a system where some children are pushed and others not supported.
Also, the Government is acutely aware of the need to be seen to be taking action, both because it promised to do so in its manifesto, but also to present a break from the apathy of previous governments and parties. Therefore, a high level of Government involvement suggests that those with power are aware and are working to solve problems within the educational system.
In higher education the government also has a chequered track-record. The cost of university fees has dramatically increased, with over 50% of students paying in excess of £3,000 each year. The amount of available grants has, however, increased, with over 50,000 students receiving grants. Anyone who's family income is below £60,000 is entitled to a half-grant, amounting to up to £1,750. Families who's income is under £25,000 are entitled to a full grant for their university tuition fees, and also receive bursaries for maintenance costs. Therefore, to say that the Government has been successful with regards to university education would be untrue, but it would also be unjustified to claim that, because the cost of university study has gone up, students are worse off.
Overall, therefore, the Government has had a mixture failure and success in its educational policies. However, no-one would expect any Government to have unmitigated success in any area of policy, as one cannot simply please everyone. However, Tony Blair was unfortunate in that, as he promised such sweeping reforms in the education system, such as a move towards much less academic selection, he has not delivered. His focus on education has, predictably, led to many pundits focusing on Labour's educational policy, and consequently, its failures. Overall, therefore, Labour has had mixed success, but its choice to focus on education as a cornerstone of its policy has led to much criticism and derision.
Nevertheless, the Government is aware of the need to maintain standards in schools across the board, and ensure that children are not disadvantaged as much as possible. By laying down guidelines for teachers to follow, the Government is just as likely to be helping by improving the quality of teaching and standards for children who would otherwise be left by the way-side, than disadvantaging those children that have the potential to be stretched. In an ideal world we would should be able to do both, to support the less-able and underprivileged as well as push the high-achievers. However, we can only do so much, and it is far better for the Government to create a level playing-field than maintain a system where some children are pushed and others not supported.
Also, the Government is acutely aware of the need to be seen to be taking action, both because it promised to do so in its manifesto, but also to present a break from the apathy of previous governments and parties. Therefore, a high level of Government involvement suggests that those with power are aware and are working to solve problems within the educational system.
In higher education the government also has a chequered track-record. The cost of university fees has dramatically increased, with over 50% of students paying in excess of £3,000 each year. The amount of available grants has, however, increased, with over 50,000 students receiving grants. Anyone who's family income is below £60,000 is entitled to a half-grant, amounting to up to £1,750. Families who's income is under £25,000 are entitled to a full grant for their university tuition fees, and also receive bursaries for maintenance costs. Therefore, to say that the Government has been successful with regards to university education would be untrue, but it would also be unjustified to claim that, because the cost of university study has gone up, students are worse off.
Overall, therefore, the Government has had a mixture failure and success in its educational policies. However, no-one would expect any Government to have unmitigated success in any area of policy, as one cannot simply please everyone. However, Tony Blair was unfortunate in that, as he promised such sweeping reforms in the education system, such as a move towards much less academic selection, he has not delivered. His focus on education has, predictably, led to many pundits focusing on Labour's educational policy, and consequently, its failures. Overall, therefore, Labour has had mixed success, but its choice to focus on education as a cornerstone of its policy has led to much criticism and derision.
Friday, 6 July 2007
Iraq War
If there is one event that will define the years that Tony Blair was in power, it will undoubtedly be the invasion of Iraq and the pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This event will stand out certainly because of the negative criticism he has received for the decision, also because of the loss of life, but also because many regard it as epitomising the attitude of British politicians towards the United States of America.
One of the major condemnations of the Iraq conflict for Tony Blair is the inability to find any WMDs in Iraq, suggesting that the claim that Saddam Hussein was able to launch nuclear missiles against the UK was a fabrication. Obviously, if this is the case, Blair would deserve the criticism he receives as deliberately misleading the public, especially over a matter of conflict involving potential loss of life, is serious indeed. And British public opinion seems decisively against the decision to invade; with 55% of people believing the decision to invade Iraq was wrong as of 7th June 2007. (Figure from YouGov.com)
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why politicians around the globe would fabricate evidence such as this in order to invade. Despite their being a case to suggest that American foreign policy was directed towards securing Middle-Eastern oilfields, it hardly seems credible that such a big piece of evidence should be fictitious.
One reason for this notion is that, although Russia, Germany and France opposed the war, they did not claim that Iraq was not in the process of producing, or had at the time, any WMDs. Rather, their claim was that they were not credible threats to their countries or the world. Therefore, it is the nature of the weapons that it questioned, not the existence of the weapons.
Secondly, it seems odd that politicians should fabricate such a big piece of evidence in order to be allowed to invade Iraq. They would have been aware that nay of invasion would place them under an obligation to find these WMDs. If their existence was faked, it would become apparent after the invasion that they never existed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Iraq did not have WMDs. However, it is certainly the case that the American-led forces have been unable to find these weapons, suggesting that they were either destroyed, removed to Syria etc. or that they never existed.
Overall, therefore, the case for the existence of WMDs is strong, but it is the fundamental nature of the weapons, and their disappearance that causes questions to be raised as to the credibility of evidence cited by the Government. Thus, politicians who sued this argument to justify the invasion, such as Tony Blair, have found themselves on loose ground.
Many people find fault with the Iraq war because of the apparent complicit nature of Tony Blair and his government to the foreign policy of the USA. Indeed, it would seem that far from being independent of America, Britain, like many states in the world, have become tools for implementing America’s ideological and political ideas. However, American influence cannot be said to stretch as far as to totally influence the actions of the British government, but it can be seen where the UK was attempting to keep in step with the USA’s tune, something many opponents see as a major falling point for Tony Blair.
It must be stressed, however, that it was not only Labour politicians who voted for the war, far from it. Many voters against the war were Labour MPs, and many supporters of the war were Conservative politicians. The decision to go to war was not a executive decision, but a legislative one, done so because a majority of MPs voted for the war. In short, the war is as politically legitimate (provided no deception took place) as any bill enacted by Parliament concerning theft or murder.
Another major problem for Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq war was the inevitable loss of civilian life in Iraq, and the loss of soldier’s lives. Human rights groups, the church, and indeed, many ordinary citizens have been rightly angered by the appearance of arrogance and callousness on the part of the leaders for how their action will affect people in the Middle East. It would be impossible to consider the decision to invade Iraq as humanitarian towards its civilians in terms of the deaths that would occur.
Nevertheless, the most compelling argument for the Iraq war I have heard is to challenge the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein’s rule. People argue that, as Saddam Hussein was installed as the effective ruler of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1990, he is considered a legitimate ruler by many of the participant countries of the 1st and 2nd invasion of Iraq, particularly America and Britain.
Despite this, it is my personal opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despot. His subjects had no right to habeas corpus in law, no right to an elected, uncorrupt Government, no right to free speech or religion, or even to expect fair treatment by the police, army or judiciary. In short, 18 of the fundamental articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of 30 were breached by Saddam Hussein or his government. In my view, anyone who denies these rights to it citizens is not worthy of governing his country. I believe that no-one or country is exempt from these principles, especially the USA. Therefore, I advocate the removal of any dictators, totalitarian rulers etc. If George Bush, or any leader, is complicit in any breaching any of these declarations, he is not fit to govern. The removal of leaders should firstly be by imposing sanctions and international pressure. If however, these methods fail, I do not believe that military action should not be considered.
However, it is easy to see why people oppose the war in Iraq, given the circumstances surrounding the war, the apparent following of American foreign policy, the potential loss of civilian life and the ulterior motives of many of the leaders who advocated the war. Because of this, the war in Iraq should be considered as one of Tony Blair’s failures, even if some regard it as a moral and ideological triumph of democracy over totalitarianism and oppression.
One of the major condemnations of the Iraq conflict for Tony Blair is the inability to find any WMDs in Iraq, suggesting that the claim that Saddam Hussein was able to launch nuclear missiles against the UK was a fabrication. Obviously, if this is the case, Blair would deserve the criticism he receives as deliberately misleading the public, especially over a matter of conflict involving potential loss of life, is serious indeed. And British public opinion seems decisively against the decision to invade; with 55% of people believing the decision to invade Iraq was wrong as of 7th June 2007. (Figure from YouGov.com)
Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why politicians around the globe would fabricate evidence such as this in order to invade. Despite their being a case to suggest that American foreign policy was directed towards securing Middle-Eastern oilfields, it hardly seems credible that such a big piece of evidence should be fictitious.
One reason for this notion is that, although Russia, Germany and France opposed the war, they did not claim that Iraq was not in the process of producing, or had at the time, any WMDs. Rather, their claim was that they were not credible threats to their countries or the world. Therefore, it is the nature of the weapons that it questioned, not the existence of the weapons.
Secondly, it seems odd that politicians should fabricate such a big piece of evidence in order to be allowed to invade Iraq. They would have been aware that nay of invasion would place them under an obligation to find these WMDs. If their existence was faked, it would become apparent after the invasion that they never existed. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that Iraq did not have WMDs. However, it is certainly the case that the American-led forces have been unable to find these weapons, suggesting that they were either destroyed, removed to Syria etc. or that they never existed.
Overall, therefore, the case for the existence of WMDs is strong, but it is the fundamental nature of the weapons, and their disappearance that causes questions to be raised as to the credibility of evidence cited by the Government. Thus, politicians who sued this argument to justify the invasion, such as Tony Blair, have found themselves on loose ground.
Many people find fault with the Iraq war because of the apparent complicit nature of Tony Blair and his government to the foreign policy of the USA. Indeed, it would seem that far from being independent of America, Britain, like many states in the world, have become tools for implementing America’s ideological and political ideas. However, American influence cannot be said to stretch as far as to totally influence the actions of the British government, but it can be seen where the UK was attempting to keep in step with the USA’s tune, something many opponents see as a major falling point for Tony Blair.
It must be stressed, however, that it was not only Labour politicians who voted for the war, far from it. Many voters against the war were Labour MPs, and many supporters of the war were Conservative politicians. The decision to go to war was not a executive decision, but a legislative one, done so because a majority of MPs voted for the war. In short, the war is as politically legitimate (provided no deception took place) as any bill enacted by Parliament concerning theft or murder.
Another major problem for Tony Blair in justifying the Iraq war was the inevitable loss of civilian life in Iraq, and the loss of soldier’s lives. Human rights groups, the church, and indeed, many ordinary citizens have been rightly angered by the appearance of arrogance and callousness on the part of the leaders for how their action will affect people in the Middle East. It would be impossible to consider the decision to invade Iraq as humanitarian towards its civilians in terms of the deaths that would occur.
Nevertheless, the most compelling argument for the Iraq war I have heard is to challenge the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein’s rule. People argue that, as Saddam Hussein was installed as the effective ruler of Iraq after the Gulf War in 1990, he is considered a legitimate ruler by many of the participant countries of the 1st and 2nd invasion of Iraq, particularly America and Britain.
Despite this, it is my personal opinion that Saddam Hussein was a despot. His subjects had no right to habeas corpus in law, no right to an elected, uncorrupt Government, no right to free speech or religion, or even to expect fair treatment by the police, army or judiciary. In short, 18 of the fundamental articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights out of 30 were breached by Saddam Hussein or his government. In my view, anyone who denies these rights to it citizens is not worthy of governing his country. I believe that no-one or country is exempt from these principles, especially the USA. Therefore, I advocate the removal of any dictators, totalitarian rulers etc. If George Bush, or any leader, is complicit in any breaching any of these declarations, he is not fit to govern. The removal of leaders should firstly be by imposing sanctions and international pressure. If however, these methods fail, I do not believe that military action should not be considered.
However, it is easy to see why people oppose the war in Iraq, given the circumstances surrounding the war, the apparent following of American foreign policy, the potential loss of civilian life and the ulterior motives of many of the leaders who advocated the war. Because of this, the war in Iraq should be considered as one of Tony Blair’s failures, even if some regard it as a moral and ideological triumph of democracy over totalitarianism and oppression.
Sunday, 1 July 2007
Tony Blair - An Analysis - Introduction
As Britain enters a new phase of leadership with Gordon Brown, much has been made of the legacy left by Tony Blair, particularly those seeking to deride his premiership and the changes that have been made. No-one can deny that the Blair years have seen great changes in Britain, and even his staunchest critics admit that Tony Blair was instrumental in these changes. Instead they seek to carp the achievements relentlessly. Too many people, in my view, are quick to stress the problems that have been encountered over the last 10 years rather than the successes. Undoubtedly this is due to the fact that any leader, in the closing phases of their tenure, comes under much greater criticism. An analysis of many British PMs is sufficient.
More importantly, however, the Conservative party have successfully repositioned themselves since the 1997 general election debacle to hold a more central ground in British politics, and have also lost some of their air of stuffiness and middle-class appeal. The Conservatives are in a much better position to attack the Labour government with the failures of their term in Government very much consigned to the history books.
Some of the criticism is undoubtedly due. Government heavy-handedness and relentless cuts in the National Health Service have certainly damaged the ability of hospitals to provide treatment and care, and severe criticism will always be made of the handling of doctor training under Patricia Hewitt.
Similarly, there will be those who will always find fault the Government’s decision to send troops into Iraq. The invasion is certainly the most controversial issue of the Blairite years, and those opposed to the war will constantly use the loss of life and failure to rebuild Iraq quickly as ammunition to attack the Labour party.
However, there have been significant improvements in Britain as a result of a Labour Government in a variety of policy areas.
Economically Britain has prospered, with the Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown orchestrating the oft-quoted ‘longest period of economic growth in contemporary British history.’ Although house prices have risen considerably along with interest rates, the overall wealth and productivity of the nation has risen out of all proportion to other western EU countries.
Constitutional and legal reform has also been a key area of legislative success for the Labour Government, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and successive reductions in the numbers of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Both of these mark significant steps in improving the democratic process and nature of the UK’s constitution.
I hope, in a series of articles, to analyse in a very amateur way, the success of the Labour party under Tony Blair over the last 10 years in many areas of policy and governance. I am a Labour voter, and I believe my analysis will reflect that. However, I recognise that there are faults, and that mistakes have been made, just as I consider their have been successes. I shall try to be as impartial as possible in my approach and judgement in order to produce a successful analysis of the Blair years.
More importantly, however, the Conservative party have successfully repositioned themselves since the 1997 general election debacle to hold a more central ground in British politics, and have also lost some of their air of stuffiness and middle-class appeal. The Conservatives are in a much better position to attack the Labour government with the failures of their term in Government very much consigned to the history books.
Some of the criticism is undoubtedly due. Government heavy-handedness and relentless cuts in the National Health Service have certainly damaged the ability of hospitals to provide treatment and care, and severe criticism will always be made of the handling of doctor training under Patricia Hewitt.
Similarly, there will be those who will always find fault the Government’s decision to send troops into Iraq. The invasion is certainly the most controversial issue of the Blairite years, and those opposed to the war will constantly use the loss of life and failure to rebuild Iraq quickly as ammunition to attack the Labour party.
However, there have been significant improvements in Britain as a result of a Labour Government in a variety of policy areas.
Economically Britain has prospered, with the Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown orchestrating the oft-quoted ‘longest period of economic growth in contemporary British history.’ Although house prices have risen considerably along with interest rates, the overall wealth and productivity of the nation has risen out of all proportion to other western EU countries.
Constitutional and legal reform has also been a key area of legislative success for the Labour Government, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act of 1998 and successive reductions in the numbers of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Both of these mark significant steps in improving the democratic process and nature of the UK’s constitution.
I hope, in a series of articles, to analyse in a very amateur way, the success of the Labour party under Tony Blair over the last 10 years in many areas of policy and governance. I am a Labour voter, and I believe my analysis will reflect that. However, I recognise that there are faults, and that mistakes have been made, just as I consider their have been successes. I shall try to be as impartial as possible in my approach and judgement in order to produce a successful analysis of the Blair years.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Selective Education - The Modern Apartheid for Children
I have posted this on the Conservative Party blogspot, on the PM blog spot and sent it to many newspapers. It is a short letter giving my views on selective education.
Dear Sir,
The recent argument over grammar schools is, in my opinion, long over-due. I myself am a former student of a comprehensive college, and now attend the 6th Form of the school. In my experience there a two major negative influences that grammar schools have.
Firstly, because an element of the school system is selective, we segregate students. Not only do we split the male and female students, but also split between high academic achievers and low academic achievers. This generates a completely false idea of what the world is like. Not only are there few places where life is accordingly separated, but also, it engenders an idea that it is acceptable to treat people differently because of their abilities. We moved on from the idea that women were different because of their sex in 1928, that blacks were different because of their skin in 1990 when apartheid ended, so why do we still cling to such an old fashioned notion nowadays?
Secondly, having a selective school system means that at some schools, presumably, students are supposed to receive a better quality of education, or be in a more desirable environment because of the academic surroundings. (If this is not the case, why do people send their children there?) Therefore, because there are schools that are supposed to offer better education, it makes comprehensive schools appear as second best. In my case, I probably would have been able to enter my local grammar, but my parents refused to send me there. Because of that, have I received a poorer education or be expected to get lower grades? Of course not. But because grammar schools are for ‘brighter students’ (quoting hundreds of ‘Letters to the Editor’), ones that are going to get to the top of tree, by not going there, I am not expected to reach as high or be as academically talented.
Therefore, I would urge anyone who wants to keep grammar schools to consider what good selective education actually does for students at these schools. But, more importantly, consider the damage a selective education does to comprehensive educated students, their self-esteem, aspirations and ability to aim high. This is more of plea than a statement of opinion. It simply isn’t fair on comprehensive students to have a two tier system, nor right that some students should receive a better class of compulsory education. Please reconsider your attitude to grammar schools and their relevance in the 21st century.
Dear Sir,
The recent argument over grammar schools is, in my opinion, long over-due. I myself am a former student of a comprehensive college, and now attend the 6th Form of the school. In my experience there a two major negative influences that grammar schools have.
Firstly, because an element of the school system is selective, we segregate students. Not only do we split the male and female students, but also split between high academic achievers and low academic achievers. This generates a completely false idea of what the world is like. Not only are there few places where life is accordingly separated, but also, it engenders an idea that it is acceptable to treat people differently because of their abilities. We moved on from the idea that women were different because of their sex in 1928, that blacks were different because of their skin in 1990 when apartheid ended, so why do we still cling to such an old fashioned notion nowadays?
Secondly, having a selective school system means that at some schools, presumably, students are supposed to receive a better quality of education, or be in a more desirable environment because of the academic surroundings. (If this is not the case, why do people send their children there?) Therefore, because there are schools that are supposed to offer better education, it makes comprehensive schools appear as second best. In my case, I probably would have been able to enter my local grammar, but my parents refused to send me there. Because of that, have I received a poorer education or be expected to get lower grades? Of course not. But because grammar schools are for ‘brighter students’ (quoting hundreds of ‘Letters to the Editor’), ones that are going to get to the top of tree, by not going there, I am not expected to reach as high or be as academically talented.
Therefore, I would urge anyone who wants to keep grammar schools to consider what good selective education actually does for students at these schools. But, more importantly, consider the damage a selective education does to comprehensive educated students, their self-esteem, aspirations and ability to aim high. This is more of plea than a statement of opinion. It simply isn’t fair on comprehensive students to have a two tier system, nor right that some students should receive a better class of compulsory education. Please reconsider your attitude to grammar schools and their relevance in the 21st century.
Monday, 7 May 2007
Review of Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafón
I have just finished reading an excellent book called ‘Shadow of the Wind’ by Carlos Ruiz Zafón. The book follows two different stories at once, one of a Daniel, young boy growing up in his father’s book shop in Barcelona, and the other trailing an author of a book that Daniel has become devoted too.
The reasons that this story is a must read are manifold. Firstly, it is exceptionally well written by Carlos Ruiz Zafón with a great understanding and ability to communicate the intricacies of Spanish culture. The author is of Spanish origin, so his knowledge on this subject is unsurpassable, but his ability to convey the sense of the Spanish mindset and lifestyle is faultless. Zafón brilliantly expresses the relaxed, lazy atmosphere of the Spanish afternoons spent in coffee shops and Tapas bars, everyone enjoying the hot afternoon sunshine in the Plaza.
Zafón also blends in with his wonderful descriptions of good Spanish living with the much seedier, squalid poverty of Barcelona in the 1940’s under Franco’s governance. Many of the characters either experience or come into contact with the poverty and abandonment that faced many Spanish citizens, for the oppressive and prejudicial nature of the Government and the law. The blend of the two ways of Spanish life in this novel is quite unique to me. Too often books about 20th century Spain focus on Franco’s rule and how this crippled the country, destroyed Spanish culture etc. all of which are undoubtedly true. However, Carlos Ruiz Zafón is distinctive in that he chooses neither to focus on how bad Franco’s rule was nor what it did to individuals or the country, without making clear that there was an amalgamation of the good and bad of Spain at that time.
Finally, this book was fantastic because it was chillingly cold-hearted and abject in places, yet also was full of hope and possible happiness. This reflects his description of Spanish lifestyle, but it is much more apparent in the themes and story line of the book.
As an example of this I point to the story of Penelope Aldaya. I am trying not to give too much away in this review, but no reader will be left untouched by the description of Penelope’s fingernails scraping the door in an effort to get out of the room where she had her illegitimate and incestuous baby, with her parents standing on the other side refusing to help. Similarly shocking is the discovery of the room years later by Daniel, who finds the blood stains on the wall and floors. Zafón goes a good deal beyond horror in this scene. Yet, we also get wonderfully refreshing and heart-warming incidents, such as in the opening chapters where Daniel meets Clara, reads to her and listens to her piano playing.
I would unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone who wants a challenging read and a book that deals with complex emotions. As a rule I only like books that have a happy ending, but keep you guessing until the end, and Shadow of the Wind was no exception.
The reasons that this story is a must read are manifold. Firstly, it is exceptionally well written by Carlos Ruiz Zafón with a great understanding and ability to communicate the intricacies of Spanish culture. The author is of Spanish origin, so his knowledge on this subject is unsurpassable, but his ability to convey the sense of the Spanish mindset and lifestyle is faultless. Zafón brilliantly expresses the relaxed, lazy atmosphere of the Spanish afternoons spent in coffee shops and Tapas bars, everyone enjoying the hot afternoon sunshine in the Plaza.
Zafón also blends in with his wonderful descriptions of good Spanish living with the much seedier, squalid poverty of Barcelona in the 1940’s under Franco’s governance. Many of the characters either experience or come into contact with the poverty and abandonment that faced many Spanish citizens, for the oppressive and prejudicial nature of the Government and the law. The blend of the two ways of Spanish life in this novel is quite unique to me. Too often books about 20th century Spain focus on Franco’s rule and how this crippled the country, destroyed Spanish culture etc. all of which are undoubtedly true. However, Carlos Ruiz Zafón is distinctive in that he chooses neither to focus on how bad Franco’s rule was nor what it did to individuals or the country, without making clear that there was an amalgamation of the good and bad of Spain at that time.
Finally, this book was fantastic because it was chillingly cold-hearted and abject in places, yet also was full of hope and possible happiness. This reflects his description of Spanish lifestyle, but it is much more apparent in the themes and story line of the book.
As an example of this I point to the story of Penelope Aldaya. I am trying not to give too much away in this review, but no reader will be left untouched by the description of Penelope’s fingernails scraping the door in an effort to get out of the room where she had her illegitimate and incestuous baby, with her parents standing on the other side refusing to help. Similarly shocking is the discovery of the room years later by Daniel, who finds the blood stains on the wall and floors. Zafón goes a good deal beyond horror in this scene. Yet, we also get wonderfully refreshing and heart-warming incidents, such as in the opening chapters where Daniel meets Clara, reads to her and listens to her piano playing.
I would unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone who wants a challenging read and a book that deals with complex emotions. As a rule I only like books that have a happy ending, but keep you guessing until the end, and Shadow of the Wind was no exception.
Monday, 30 April 2007
Idiocy in Immigration - An False Belief
Immigration has to be one of the most contentious issues that politicians can discuss today. Somehow it has become ingrained into the British mindset that immigrants bring nothing but crime, unemployment and, frankly, mean trouble. It seems to be even more the case that it is not just extremists like the BNP that think this, but also a small minority politicians in the more ‘respectable’ and main stream British parties.
One of the main reasons why I think that immigration has been such a controversial issue for the UK is because of the legacy of the British Empire and what it has left in this country. For there still exists in Britain an ideal that somehow the British are superior to the rest. Now this is not a view that is expressed very often, certainly not vocally, but at least in our attitudes towards other countries, in particular Eastern Europeans and Asians it is very apparent. Whenever the immigration issue crops up in discussion or politics, there are always those that bring out the argument that immigrants are just here to live off the state and the benefits it awards. Aside from being misguided and completely incorrect, the idea typifies the attitudes some people have in this country towards foreigners. Somewhere the thought has been put into their heads that, simply because they are not British, they will not be putting something back in this country. There is absolutely no basis for any claims that immigrants to this country will not work when they come here. Immigration figures from independent sources show that unemployment amongst the white male population stands as 4%, whereas in Indian or Chinese male populations the figure is 7-9%. This shows that although unemployment is higher amongst other ethnic groups, the change is hardly on the scale that is often represented.
So why does this idea exist? Where has the idea that British people work harder and deserve more come from? We cannot simply put it down to a sense of national pride. If it were true that a nationalistic feeling was responsible for the notion that foreigners deserve less in this country because of a false belief in their work ethic, why aren’t people in the BNP and other right-wing groups up in arms about the thousands of American, French or Irish natives who live here? Of course they aren’t. So we have to turn to another solution, which I believe is the simple fact that it somehow irks certain people that others should be enjoying this country and working hard for it just as much as themselves. It is the selfish attitude that people such as Poles or Pakistanis should be allowed to enjoy the privileges of living in such a fine country, because that means they will have to share what they enjoy so much.
One of the main reasons why I think that immigration has been such a controversial issue for the UK is because of the legacy of the British Empire and what it has left in this country. For there still exists in Britain an ideal that somehow the British are superior to the rest. Now this is not a view that is expressed very often, certainly not vocally, but at least in our attitudes towards other countries, in particular Eastern Europeans and Asians it is very apparent. Whenever the immigration issue crops up in discussion or politics, there are always those that bring out the argument that immigrants are just here to live off the state and the benefits it awards. Aside from being misguided and completely incorrect, the idea typifies the attitudes some people have in this country towards foreigners. Somewhere the thought has been put into their heads that, simply because they are not British, they will not be putting something back in this country. There is absolutely no basis for any claims that immigrants to this country will not work when they come here. Immigration figures from independent sources show that unemployment amongst the white male population stands as 4%, whereas in Indian or Chinese male populations the figure is 7-9%. This shows that although unemployment is higher amongst other ethnic groups, the change is hardly on the scale that is often represented.
So why does this idea exist? Where has the idea that British people work harder and deserve more come from? We cannot simply put it down to a sense of national pride. If it were true that a nationalistic feeling was responsible for the notion that foreigners deserve less in this country because of a false belief in their work ethic, why aren’t people in the BNP and other right-wing groups up in arms about the thousands of American, French or Irish natives who live here? Of course they aren’t. So we have to turn to another solution, which I believe is the simple fact that it somehow irks certain people that others should be enjoying this country and working hard for it just as much as themselves. It is the selfish attitude that people such as Poles or Pakistanis should be allowed to enjoy the privileges of living in such a fine country, because that means they will have to share what they enjoy so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)