Fiction
'The Picador Book of the New Gothic', ed. by Patrick McGrath and Bradford Morrow
For the second month running I have been disappointed by a short story collection that I had hoped would be interesting and contained at least one story which I found so unpleasant that I decided to throw the book away rather than pass it on to someone else as I usually do. This book is in large part an artificial creation and demonstrates that when it was published in 1991, it would have been wrong to have spoken of the 'New Gothic' if this is what it consists of. The reviews and introduction speak of this genre as being about terror in the mind more than physical fears, though also suggests that the stories will often occur in traditional Gothic contexts. In fact the collection falls down on both accounts.
'Ovando' by Jamaica Kincaid is an engaging story of the rise of a demon to great power in the world and is quite lyrical though rather too sweeping a subject for a short story. 'Horrorday' is an extract from 'London Fields' by Martin Amis (1989) with 'horror' appended to words in a story about an ordinary man involved in quite mundane activities and some violence in London and comes over as very artificial. 'Newton' by Jeanette Winterson is a strange story, with a reasonably unnerving edge, about a seemingly unconventional man in suburban USA that does not really develop. 'Banquo and the Black Banana' by Paul West is a rambling story about a ghost viewing various developments through history and with more coherence would have been an interesting story. 'Freniere' by Anne Rice is an extract from her novel 'Interview with the Vampire' (1976) which was dated even when this book was produced but I suppose fitted the rediscovery of vampires in the 1990s and is a decent enough story in itself, though of course by now looks doubly tired.
'Blood' by Janice Galloway, apart from the title, does not belong in this collection. It is a mundane story about a girl whose mouth is bleeding when she has a tooth extracted who returns to school to do some piano practice and seems to have no connection with any era of Gothic. 'Didn't She Know' by Scott Bradfield perhaps comes close to what you could define as 'New Gothic' featuring a lower middle class woman exploiting her friendship with elderly men of various degrees of wealth for financial gain. It has that kind of amorality and almost predestined outcome that is at least characteristic of film noir and probably a form of Gothic. 'Regulus and Maximus' by John Hawkes almost comes over as some kind of strange parable and only seems to be featured because it is about monks. Two sets are fleeing from monasteries running contrasting regimes.
'A Dead Summer' by Lynne Tillman consists of a series of fragments from the viewpoint of a girl/woman over a period of time. This disjuncture and the things she sees actually make this worthy of being in this collection. If there is one common theme in this book, it is how unpleasant suburban life, especially in the USA can be, and how unpleasantness is most unsettling when it is mundane. This is sustained in 'Why Don't You Come Live With Me It's Time' by Joyce Carol Oates about a girl making a night-time visit to her grandmother's house and finding her not to be the woman she thought she was. This reminded me of the style of Roald Dahl 'Tales of the Unexpected' stories and better than some of the others which have a child's perspective show that the adult world is difficult to judge and that its unfamiliarity can in itself seem sinister, but that does not mean that it is not indeed genuinely threatening or dangerous.
'The Dead Queen' by Robert Coover is a modern seeing of the Snow White fairy story and so of course now reminds me of the television series 'Once Upon A Time'. It is decent, but probably does not exploit the actual Gothic aspects of fairy tales to the extent that it could have done. 'The Merchant of Shadows' by Angela Carter exploits that dark aspect of Hollywood cross-fertilised by European Expressionist cinema and if this story was made into a television drama Mark Gatiss would be involved. It rather does not know how to end and the twist is rather too telegraphed. However, compared to some of the other stories in the collection it seems to fit the 'New Gothic' designation. 'The Road to Nadeja' by Bradford Morrow, is another which is not stunning but not appalling. It is about a kleptomaniac stealing from and deceiving her friend and reminded me of the movie 'Heavenly Creatures' (1994). 'For Dear Life' by Ruth Rendell is an extract from her novel 'King Solomon's Carpet' (1991) and is about a spoilt wealthy young woman dying on the underground really because she cannot simply cope with being so close to ordinary people. Rendell is pretty good at dark contemporary tales such as 'A Fatal Inversion' (1987) and 'Gallowglass' (1990) and probably could be ascribed to 'New Gothic'. Unfortunately in this story you care too little about the central character to feel any of her fear, with someone less privileged the story would have been more effective. In fact by the end you are quite glad to see the back of her and that reduces the potential to scare.
'Rigor Beach' by Emma Tennent is an account of a few hours in a beach house with a man and a woman. It is well described but very little happens. It is more a setting for a story than the story itself. 'The Smell' by Patrick McGrath, whilst again reminding me of Dahl, but maybe that is inevitable with edgy short stories, is probably the one story that deserves the 'New Gothic' tag and combines that terror from the mundane suburban life with the macabre. 'The Kingdom of Heaven' by Peter Straub, is an extract from his novel 'Throat'. He produced a novel called the 'The Throat' but that was not published until 1993, so this may have been a preceding shorter story; that is supposedly a successful horror book, but those elements seem to be missing from this extract. Fine as it is, a well described story of US unit in the Vietnam War charged with collecting corpses of fallen soldiers. The individuals and the scenes are well described, but it is too clinical for Gothic, it lacks that unearthliness, whether implied or exposed that is necessary for the Gothic sense. 'Fever' by John Edgar Wideman is pretty much the same, a good description of a black man in 18th century America dealing with the spread of disease and the racism he faces. It describes these things well as a historical story, but lacks any Gothicism.
'J' by Kathy Acker is a waste of space, simply 'dropping the c bomb' as I have heard it described, using offensive words for the sake of it, rambling on about AIDS incoherently. This certainly has no relevance to this book and is why I cannot send it to a charity shop. Yes, AIDS is a terror of our time and there are effective stories using it as a horrific threat, involving deception and modern versions of Gothic settings and yet this story does not put such aspects to any effective use. It revels in simply tossing these words around and in that way is no more impacting than a child waggling its tongue at you.
'The Grave of Lost Stories' by William T. Vollmann is clever, exploring what happens to those stories and the characters in them that authors do not complete. It is whimsical rather than frightening but a good antidote to Acker's stuff. Again if intended to be more Gothic, it would have portrayed the characters as being more threatening to the author's sanity.
Whilst there are some stories which are reasonable and many more which are poor, many of them have simply been cobbled into this collection without bearing much relevance to the theme. Obscenity is not horror, to be genuinely frightening that has to be far more subtle, upfront, aggressive abuse is not that, it is too explicit to really terrify. On the evidence of this book, I conclude that aside from some disparate writings there certainly was not a 'New Gothic' genre in the early 1990s.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Monday, 29 October 2012
What If The Tour De France Rankings Were Reallocated
Like Miguel Indurain, I still have doubts about the case made against Lance Armstrong on the grounds that he had performance enhancing chemicals during his career. As I have noted before I feel a lot of this is more about international politics than about cycling. On 22nd October, Armstrong was stripped of all of his seven wins of the Tour De France, i.e. 1999-2005. However, the rankings have not been reallocated to other men who came in behind Armstrong. Of course, many of these men have already suffered penalties as a result of their drug cheating, as 'The Guardian' noted on 13th October, 89 of the 190 men who had received a podium position in the Tour De France, Giro D'Italia and Vuelta a Espana, i.e. in the top 3 places in the race, since 1992, have now faced penalties. In fact I believe they have left out a number more who have done so. What interests me in this posting is, assuming that all of the drugs cheats had been eliminated, who would have been the winners of the Tour De France? With Armstrong and these others gone, we see very interesting patterns appearing and men who are known only to cycling enthusiasts would probably be known across the world, the way Armstrong became.
Miguel Indurain won the Tour De France five times in a row, 1991-5 and with Armstrong gone is now an unrivalled record once more. Indurain has never been found guilty of any drugs cheating so these wins would remain. However, Claudio Chiappuci who came 2nd in 1992, Tony Rominger who came 2nd in 1993, Marco Pantani who came 2nd in 1994 and Alex Zulle who came 2nd and Bjarne Riis who came 3rd in 1995 would all be removed. Bjarne Riis would also lose his 1st place in 1996, a year when the top three riders, Jan Ullrich and Richard Virenque being the other two, were all drugs cheats.
Rather than writing out all the changes in text, a list is probably easier. This in italics are riders who would have risen up the table if the drugs cheats had been removed:
1992
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Gianni Bugno (Italy)
3rd Andrew Hampstein (USA)
Hampstein was twice winner of the Tour De Suisse and once the Giro D'Italia and only lost out to Bugno in the 1992 Tour De France in the final time trial.
1993
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Zenon Jaskula (Poland)
3rd Álvaro Mejía (Colombia)
Jaskula had won the Volta a Portugal and stages of stage races and Mejia had won regional ones such as the tours of Galicia and Murcia.
1994
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Roberto Conti (Italy)
Conti came 6th, his best ever position in the Tour De France, but the three riders above him, including Pantani, Luc Leblanc and Virenque have either been penalised or have admitted being drugs cheats.
1995
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Melcior Mauri (Spain)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Mauri won the Vuelta a Espana and Escartin came 2nd in that race twice. Them stepping up the rankings from 6th and 7th place, would have made 1995 a clean sweep for the Spanish.
In 1996 and 1997, all of the top three finishers were drugs cheats, so after Indurain ended his reign, we would have seen men in this top spot that did not attract as much attention at the time.
1996
1st Peter Luttenberger (Austria)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Now, we begin to see history becoming changed. Luttenberger is basically unknown beyond tight circles, but is now becoming recognised as the 'real' winner in 1996. Ugrumov would have won his second 2nd place and Escartin would have come 3rd two years running, meaning more attention would have been on these men and they would likely have attracted teams and support that was otherwise missing when they were just in the top 10.
1997
1st Abraham Olano (Spain)
2nd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
3rd José María Jiménez (Spain)
With Ulrich, Virenque and Patani as the top 3 in 1997, again we would see different names coming to the fore, altering people's careers to a great extent. Olano and his compatriots would have continued the Spanish predominance in the 1990s. Like a number of the winners, he won the Vuelta a Espana. Escartin would have been on the podium for the third year in a row. This would no doubt have attracted attention to him to a greater extent than happened, he may have been seen the way Cadel Evans was in the latter 2000s as an 'almost man'. He would have been a rare sprinter to win the race. Of course, if he had held these positions, he may have been projected to win. Jimenez would die of a heart attack only five years later at the age of 32. However, no evidence of drugs cheating has come out against him.
1998
1st Christophe Rinero (France)
2nd Michael Boogerd (Netherlands)
3rd Jean-Cyril Robin (France)
The 1998 tour was seen as the one in which doping came really to the fore, so eliminating many riders for taking ranking positions, again wiping out the top 3, Pantani, Ullrich and Bobby Julich. Reassinging their positions brings the men skilled on climbs, Rinero and Boogerd to the fore. This would have been seen as the year in which the French and the promising Dutch fought back against Spanish dominance of the race.
1999
1st Fernando Escartin (Spain)
2nd Angel Casero (Spain)
3rd Abraham Olano (Spain)
The blip of 1998 would have been overcome and the Spanish would be back in control. Escartin, the most consistent rider in the Tour of the late 1990s would finally have got his win. By now he would be far more recognised than has been the case with others like Lance Armstrong, Alex Zulle and Jan Ullrich cheating to take the positions over this period. However, a new personality would have been poised to step into the limelight and have the longest run of wins since Indurain.
2000
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
As you will notice, with so many of the top cyclists taking drugs, we similarly see other names appearing on a regular basis with Beloki but also Escartin still on the podium. Though Beloki was investigated for doping, he was cleared in 2006. Out of the top 6, the others being Armstrong, Ullrich, Christophe Moreau, Roberto Heras, Virenque, Beloki was a rare one in the top flight not to be taking drugs, or has so far been proven.
2001
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Andrey Kivilev (Kazakhstan)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
The podium positions of the 2000 race: Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki, were repeated in 2001. However, eliminating the drugs cheats, still gives Beloki his second win of the race, but brings other names forward. It certainly would have put Kazakhstan on the map of cycling to a much greater extent. Some believe Kivilev should have won 2001 because of the subsequent suspicions around Beloki. Whatever happened it would make his death in 2003 during the Paris-Nice race from injuries sustained even more poignant. The Spanish would be continuing their pre-eminent position seen in the 1990s.
2002
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
Beloki came 2nd in 2002, but taking out Armstrong would have given him his third consecutive win, and a very small group it is that have done that. The Spanish would still be to the fore.
2003
1st Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With Armstrong, Ullrich, Alexandre Vinoukourov, Tyler Hamilton, Iban Mayo, Ivan Basso, Moreau and Francisco Macebo, eight of the top ten have all had drugs penalties. Thus, even with a number of Spaniards now being caught, 2003 would see the continuing Spanish dominance. It has been suggested to me, that by this stage the race organisers would have altered the routes to play down the mountains on which so many Spanish and Colombians are strong.
2004
1st Andreas Klöden (Germany)
2nd José Azevedo (Portugal)
3rd Georg Totschnig (Austria)
2004 would have been like 1998, the year when the consistent line of Spanish victories was broken briefly. Azevedo rode for Armstrong's team so may in future be proven to have been on drugs, but so far I cannot find a record of him being accused. Klöden came 2nd anyway and is now being acclaimed as the 2004 winner by some.
2005
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
With the top 6 riders having faced drugs penalties and three already having been disqualified: Armstrong, Ullrich and Levi Leipheimer, 2005 would have been the year of Cadel Evans first victory, six years earlier than has been recorded. Australian riders were coming to the fore in this period, but it would be years before they reached the level that they should have done. The number of drugs cheats, and it seems Yaroslav Popovych should be among them even though he has denied the charges, means that Zubeldia, originally 15th in the race and now 11th due to disqualifications, would have been back on the podium, reasserting Spain's standing.
2006
1st Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
2nd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
3rd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
By 2006 we would be seeing the development of a leading clutch of riders, given that Evans came in 5th, moved up to 4th already now by the disqualification of Floyd Landis. It would have been fascinating to see how close the quartet of Evans, Pereiro, Klöden and Sastre, probably Zubeldia too, would have been. This was the first year that Armstrong was not the winner for seven years, but in this readjusted race, there would be a number of leading names, not seemingly as unassailable as Armstrong, but still with credit.
2007
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
Sastre would have clearly staked his claim as being the latest of the Spaniards who dominated the Tour De France in the 1990s and 2000s. Evans would have won his second Tour after the disappointment of 2006. In theory with Alberto Contador being removed for drugs Evans won this year anyway.
2008
1st Carlos Sastre (Spain)
2nd Cadel Evans (Australia)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With the reassignment of positions, the rise of Sastre would be much clearer, with him stepping up the podium in succeeding years and developing a clear head-to-head battle with Evans. Menchov, who it is often commented is the quiet man of the Tour would have again received greater recognition.
2009
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Bradley Wiggins (UK)
3rd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
As it is, the winner of the race, Alberto Contador has been stripped of the title for drug cheating so Schleck is the actual winner. With Armstrong also out, Wiggins's story changes and he arrives on the podium three years earlier than the history we know. Klöden again shows he had not disappeared in the battle between Evans and the Spaniards. Frank Schleck originally came 4th but has now been found to have been a cheat, possibly being fairer on his brother than I was on Popovych, I have left Andy in place until proven guilty. If that does ever happen, then the 'Year of the British' would have come first in 2009 rather than 2012.
2010
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Denis Menchov (Russia)
3rd Samuel Sanchez (Spain)
For the first time in two decades, there is no need to alter the rankings of the 2010 Tour De France. With these changes, Schleck would have won his second consecutive tour and the arrival of Menchov in 2nd place after two 3rds over a seven year period would be less of a surprise. Sanchez, no doubt, would be seen as the latest in a long line of Spaniards right at the top of the Tour.
2011
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
3rd Thomas Voeckler (France)
With Frank Schleck removed from 3rd place for drugs, the ever popular Frenchman, Voeckler, a winner of some stunning stage victories would get on the podium, the first one since Rinero's victory in 1998. Sanchez would have come 4th, showing that whilst to the end of the 2000s and into the 2010s, other nationalities were coming to the fore, Spain was not lagging too far. Evans would have been winning his third victory at the Tour which would probably make him insufferable but also the winner with victories stretched out the longest, over seven years.
2012
1st Bradley Wiggins (UK)
2nd Chris Froome (UK)
3rd Vincenzo Nibali (Italy)
Another, which as far as we know needs no alterations. However, it would seem less incredible given Wiggins's 2nd place in 2009, though there would probably be even more discussion of where he had been in the meantime.
Thus, if we remove all the drugs cheats from the Tour De France rankings, we discover a difference race. However, one, that seems to make more sense. It is clear that Indurain ushered in a period of Spanish dominance of the race, even setting aside the Spaniards who have used drugs, and in this I am including EPO, doctored blood. We see much more the rise of riders like Zubeldia, Pereiro and Sastre, even of Menchov. There were interesting battles among a leading group of cyclists, which of course how the races have been shown, was ignored, because these men had been fighting sometimes for 10th place. However, all were putting in good times and doing so through their own effort.
Doing the analysis for this posting, however, has probably brought me around to the UCI's view that the slots of those men disqualified should not be filled. When you find the large majority of the top 10 or 20 of those who came home in any Tour De France were on substances of one kind or another, it makes nonsense of the whole process. I do hope, as some commentators are doing, as on Wikipedia, that those men who rode clean and so ended up 5th or 11th or something similar because they were up against drugs cheats, will get the recognition that they should receive for their efforts.
Miguel Indurain won the Tour De France five times in a row, 1991-5 and with Armstrong gone is now an unrivalled record once more. Indurain has never been found guilty of any drugs cheating so these wins would remain. However, Claudio Chiappuci who came 2nd in 1992, Tony Rominger who came 2nd in 1993, Marco Pantani who came 2nd in 1994 and Alex Zulle who came 2nd and Bjarne Riis who came 3rd in 1995 would all be removed. Bjarne Riis would also lose his 1st place in 1996, a year when the top three riders, Jan Ullrich and Richard Virenque being the other two, were all drugs cheats.
Rather than writing out all the changes in text, a list is probably easier. This in italics are riders who would have risen up the table if the drugs cheats had been removed:
1992
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Gianni Bugno (Italy)
3rd Andrew Hampstein (USA)
Hampstein was twice winner of the Tour De Suisse and once the Giro D'Italia and only lost out to Bugno in the 1992 Tour De France in the final time trial.
1993
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Zenon Jaskula (Poland)
3rd Álvaro Mejía (Colombia)
Jaskula had won the Volta a Portugal and stages of stage races and Mejia had won regional ones such as the tours of Galicia and Murcia.
1994
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Roberto Conti (Italy)
Conti came 6th, his best ever position in the Tour De France, but the three riders above him, including Pantani, Luc Leblanc and Virenque have either been penalised or have admitted being drugs cheats.
1995
1st Miguel Indurain (Spain)
2nd Melcior Mauri (Spain)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Mauri won the Vuelta a Espana and Escartin came 2nd in that race twice. Them stepping up the rankings from 6th and 7th place, would have made 1995 a clean sweep for the Spanish.
In 1996 and 1997, all of the top three finishers were drugs cheats, so after Indurain ended his reign, we would have seen men in this top spot that did not attract as much attention at the time.
1996
1st Peter Luttenberger (Austria)
2nd Piotr Ugrumov (Latvia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
Now, we begin to see history becoming changed. Luttenberger is basically unknown beyond tight circles, but is now becoming recognised as the 'real' winner in 1996. Ugrumov would have won his second 2nd place and Escartin would have come 3rd two years running, meaning more attention would have been on these men and they would likely have attracted teams and support that was otherwise missing when they were just in the top 10.
1997
1st Abraham Olano (Spain)
2nd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
3rd José María Jiménez (Spain)
With Ulrich, Virenque and Patani as the top 3 in 1997, again we would see different names coming to the fore, altering people's careers to a great extent. Olano and his compatriots would have continued the Spanish predominance in the 1990s. Like a number of the winners, he won the Vuelta a Espana. Escartin would have been on the podium for the third year in a row. This would no doubt have attracted attention to him to a greater extent than happened, he may have been seen the way Cadel Evans was in the latter 2000s as an 'almost man'. He would have been a rare sprinter to win the race. Of course, if he had held these positions, he may have been projected to win. Jimenez would die of a heart attack only five years later at the age of 32. However, no evidence of drugs cheating has come out against him.
1998
1st Christophe Rinero (France)
2nd Michael Boogerd (Netherlands)
3rd Jean-Cyril Robin (France)
The 1998 tour was seen as the one in which doping came really to the fore, so eliminating many riders for taking ranking positions, again wiping out the top 3, Pantani, Ullrich and Bobby Julich. Reassinging their positions brings the men skilled on climbs, Rinero and Boogerd to the fore. This would have been seen as the year in which the French and the promising Dutch fought back against Spanish dominance of the race.
1999
1st Fernando Escartin (Spain)
2nd Angel Casero (Spain)
3rd Abraham Olano (Spain)
The blip of 1998 would have been overcome and the Spanish would be back in control. Escartin, the most consistent rider in the Tour of the late 1990s would finally have got his win. By now he would be far more recognised than has been the case with others like Lance Armstrong, Alex Zulle and Jan Ullrich cheating to take the positions over this period. However, a new personality would have been poised to step into the limelight and have the longest run of wins since Indurain.
2000
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Fernando Escartin (Spain)
As you will notice, with so many of the top cyclists taking drugs, we similarly see other names appearing on a regular basis with Beloki but also Escartin still on the podium. Though Beloki was investigated for doping, he was cleared in 2006. Out of the top 6, the others being Armstrong, Ullrich, Christophe Moreau, Roberto Heras, Virenque, Beloki was a rare one in the top flight not to be taking drugs, or has so far been proven.
2001
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Andrey Kivilev (Kazakhstan)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
The podium positions of the 2000 race: Armstrong, Ullrich, Beloki, were repeated in 2001. However, eliminating the drugs cheats, still gives Beloki his second win of the race, but brings other names forward. It certainly would have put Kazakhstan on the map of cycling to a much greater extent. Some believe Kivilev should have won 2001 because of the subsequent suspicions around Beloki. Whatever happened it would make his death in 2003 during the Paris-Nice race from injuries sustained even more poignant. The Spanish would be continuing their pre-eminent position seen in the 1990s.
2002
1st Joseba Beloki (Spain)
2nd Santiago Botero (Colombia)
3rd Igor González (Spain)
Beloki came 2nd in 2002, but taking out Armstrong would have given him his third consecutive win, and a very small group it is that have done that. The Spanish would still be to the fore.
2003
1st Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With Armstrong, Ullrich, Alexandre Vinoukourov, Tyler Hamilton, Iban Mayo, Ivan Basso, Moreau and Francisco Macebo, eight of the top ten have all had drugs penalties. Thus, even with a number of Spaniards now being caught, 2003 would see the continuing Spanish dominance. It has been suggested to me, that by this stage the race organisers would have altered the routes to play down the mountains on which so many Spanish and Colombians are strong.
2004
1st Andreas Klöden (Germany)
2nd José Azevedo (Portugal)
3rd Georg Totschnig (Austria)
2004 would have been like 1998, the year when the consistent line of Spanish victories was broken briefly. Azevedo rode for Armstrong's team so may in future be proven to have been on drugs, but so far I cannot find a record of him being accused. Klöden came 2nd anyway and is now being acclaimed as the 2004 winner by some.
2005
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
With the top 6 riders having faced drugs penalties and three already having been disqualified: Armstrong, Ullrich and Levi Leipheimer, 2005 would have been the year of Cadel Evans first victory, six years earlier than has been recorded. Australian riders were coming to the fore in this period, but it would be years before they reached the level that they should have done. The number of drugs cheats, and it seems Yaroslav Popovych should be among them even though he has denied the charges, means that Zubeldia, originally 15th in the race and now 11th due to disqualifications, would have been back on the podium, reasserting Spain's standing.
2006
1st Óscar Pereiro (Spain)
2nd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
3rd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
By 2006 we would be seeing the development of a leading clutch of riders, given that Evans came in 5th, moved up to 4th already now by the disqualification of Floyd Landis. It would have been fascinating to see how close the quartet of Evans, Pereiro, Klöden and Sastre, probably Zubeldia too, would have been. This was the first year that Armstrong was not the winner for seven years, but in this readjusted race, there would be a number of leading names, not seemingly as unassailable as Armstrong, but still with credit.
2007
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Carlos Sastre (Spain)
3rd Haimar Zubeldia (Spain)
Sastre would have clearly staked his claim as being the latest of the Spaniards who dominated the Tour De France in the 1990s and 2000s. Evans would have won his second Tour after the disappointment of 2006. In theory with Alberto Contador being removed for drugs Evans won this year anyway.
2008
1st Carlos Sastre (Spain)
2nd Cadel Evans (Australia)
3rd Denis Menchov (Russia)
With the reassignment of positions, the rise of Sastre would be much clearer, with him stepping up the podium in succeeding years and developing a clear head-to-head battle with Evans. Menchov, who it is often commented is the quiet man of the Tour would have again received greater recognition.
2009
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Bradley Wiggins (UK)
3rd Andreas Klöden (Germany)
As it is, the winner of the race, Alberto Contador has been stripped of the title for drug cheating so Schleck is the actual winner. With Armstrong also out, Wiggins's story changes and he arrives on the podium three years earlier than the history we know. Klöden again shows he had not disappeared in the battle between Evans and the Spaniards. Frank Schleck originally came 4th but has now been found to have been a cheat, possibly being fairer on his brother than I was on Popovych, I have left Andy in place until proven guilty. If that does ever happen, then the 'Year of the British' would have come first in 2009 rather than 2012.
2010
1st Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
2nd Denis Menchov (Russia)
3rd Samuel Sanchez (Spain)
For the first time in two decades, there is no need to alter the rankings of the 2010 Tour De France. With these changes, Schleck would have won his second consecutive tour and the arrival of Menchov in 2nd place after two 3rds over a seven year period would be less of a surprise. Sanchez, no doubt, would be seen as the latest in a long line of Spaniards right at the top of the Tour.
2011
1st Cadel Evans (Australia)
2nd Andy Schleck (Luxembourg)
3rd Thomas Voeckler (France)
With Frank Schleck removed from 3rd place for drugs, the ever popular Frenchman, Voeckler, a winner of some stunning stage victories would get on the podium, the first one since Rinero's victory in 1998. Sanchez would have come 4th, showing that whilst to the end of the 2000s and into the 2010s, other nationalities were coming to the fore, Spain was not lagging too far. Evans would have been winning his third victory at the Tour which would probably make him insufferable but also the winner with victories stretched out the longest, over seven years.
2012
1st Bradley Wiggins (UK)
2nd Chris Froome (UK)
3rd Vincenzo Nibali (Italy)
Another, which as far as we know needs no alterations. However, it would seem less incredible given Wiggins's 2nd place in 2009, though there would probably be even more discussion of where he had been in the meantime.
Thus, if we remove all the drugs cheats from the Tour De France rankings, we discover a difference race. However, one, that seems to make more sense. It is clear that Indurain ushered in a period of Spanish dominance of the race, even setting aside the Spaniards who have used drugs, and in this I am including EPO, doctored blood. We see much more the rise of riders like Zubeldia, Pereiro and Sastre, even of Menchov. There were interesting battles among a leading group of cyclists, which of course how the races have been shown, was ignored, because these men had been fighting sometimes for 10th place. However, all were putting in good times and doing so through their own effort.
Doing the analysis for this posting, however, has probably brought me around to the UCI's view that the slots of those men disqualified should not be filled. When you find the large majority of the top 10 or 20 of those who came home in any Tour De France were on substances of one kind or another, it makes nonsense of the whole process. I do hope, as some commentators are doing, as on Wikipedia, that those men who rode clean and so ended up 5th or 11th or something similar because they were up against drugs cheats, will get the recognition that they should receive for their efforts.
Friday, 26 October 2012
‘You Can’t Handle The Truth’: Forced To Create A ‘Legend’ In The Workplace
As regular readers will know in the past few years I have suffered in jobs as a result of individual words and sentences that I have uttered. These were not rude words or offensive sentences, they just did not fit with very exacting standards that employers have around every word you might utter. I have got into trouble for saying ‘I am not a cleaner’ when in fact I was not a cleaner. I have got into trouble for trying to notify my manager of a hospital appointment connected with my diabetes. I have got into trouble discussing the curriculum that the boy who lived in my house was studying. I have got into trouble for saying that I was not responsible for organising an even date that, in fact, I truly was not responsible for organising. I guess one problem is that as yet I have not learnt how to suck up all the blame being levelled at my managers as if it was my own fault; I do not step forward fast enough or enthusiastically enough to take the blame off their shoulders and as a result it is open season to criticise me as ‘inappropriate’ or rude or incompetent. The censorship and self-censorship that develops can harm companies, see: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/i-dont-want-to-hear-that-censoring-in.html
Now, I know from people who have written to me, that I am not alone in suffering such problems and that schools should teach young people that in any job, no matter how competent they might, they must always expect to be the ‘fall guy’ for any errors made around them even if they are not connected to them. My mistake has been not been ready to do that. Ironically as a consequence I am portrayed as the one creating a ‘blame culture’ simply because I am not able to absorb the blame into myself quickly enough. In this I am hampered further as it seems I have Asperger’s Syndrome. Whilst I doubt it has worsened in recent years, the clear changes in UK society and in working culture mean that there are more pitfalls that I may be missing with heavy consequences for my job and thus for the rest of my life which has been largely wrecked this year.
I began a new job in September and was relieved that a lot of the behaviour I have noted above was absent. This was both relaxing and also reminded me how abnormal the previous places actually were. Workers should behave as adults not primary school children and certainly it seemed as if that was more the case where I am now working, despite the fact that the company, like most in the UK is facing hard economic times and so instability. However, the seemingly warm reception I received in this job clearly led me into a false sense of security. I had originally gone there, scared from my previous jobs to mention anything about my life outside work or my past. However, with people confiding in me about their cancer treatment, medical conditions, marital problems, etc., I too opened up especially about some of the things that have hit me this year. Partly this was also because I have had to speak with people so much about losing my job, my house and household that they have now become mundane; they are the ache that has become dull so to me these things are no longer a big issue. To start viewing this way and even letting down my guard a little has proven to be a big mistake.
On Friday I was summoned to see my line manager who outlined the complaints against me. Now, these differ in nature to the problems I have had before. These days I avoid making statements unprompted even to people I think will not distort them. However, when people ask me questions I respond truthfully. Given that the workplace has an atmosphere of being open, people have asked direct personal questions that they might not have done elsewhere. The first was that I had been asked why I was eating biscuits during a training session. I explained briefly that this was because as a diabetic I tend to have a low blood sugar in the late afternoon especially when I have been on a day’s training as had been the case that day and so ran the risk of hypoglaecemia. I know I should not have used the word ‘hypoglaecemia’ but when you have had a condition 24 years as I have done, you tend to slip into these things. I have explained my diabetes to hundreds of people, so think nothing of it.
The second one was I was asked why I had left the lovely town on the south coast that I have recently moved from, by someone who still lives close by but is also employed now by the same company as me. I responded, ‘because I lost my house’. Now that is the truthful answer, it is the only reason why I left, but again that was an unacceptable answer. A similar situation came when waiting for a meeting to start there were comments at how the set-up of the room resembled that for an interview. I was asked as a newly appointed member of staff, how many interviews I had had. Again I told the truth: ‘67 in the past 4 years’.
I have noted before how people feel somehow contaminated by reference to redundancy and unemployment: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/how-redundancy-became-dirty-word-once.html However, when asked a direct question, and this may be as a result of Asperger’s, I have the tendency to give the truth. Yet, me describing what has happened to me or my medical condition, not in an unprompted way, but in response to a question, is these days seen as ‘inappropriate’ and even verging on the offensive. Clearly I cannot read the mind of the person asking me the question. I have been alerted to the fact by one company that has interviewed me three times, that I give an answer without first having ascertaining the type of answer the questioner is looking for. I missed out on the training on this approach to answering at school, university and in work. In fact, I received the opposite: answer a question as directly and truthfully as you can. I know I am enthusiastic when talking with people and these days they will not tolerate an answer which is shorter than the question asked. I thought I had cracked that with the answers given above. However, now I have to also quickly judge whether the truthful answer is what they are seeking.
I am in no position to say ‘well that is my business’ as I could clearly have done with these three personal questions or even ‘why are you asking that?’ as that would clearly been seen as rude. You cannot be defensive as that rouses suspicion. The truth, if it encompasses failure or illness or simply bad luck is also unacceptable whether given briefly or explained in full. Thus, my line manager has now advised me to come up with what I call a ‘legend’. This is the term used by spies and undercover police to describe the false identity they establish. It is a fiction, weaving in elements of the truth, but in general appealing to the assumptions of the people that the agent will be working with whilst distancing this fictional personality from the agent’s genuine one. I need to learn this legend well and be able to respond with aspects of it whenever I am asked a personal question again. I have to be careful, as, unfortunately, I have already revealed the truth about my life to quite a few people. I also have to avoid slip-ups that contradict or differ from what I have said before.
Now, from the troublesome questions I have faced recently, I have to come up with an explanation for why I might eat carbohydrates in the afternoon, which does not reference any medical condition nor makes me appear a glutton. I suppose in future I must sneak off to the toilet to eat them. This presents an ideological challenge for me. Back in 2005 when the UK law put diabetics into the disabled category, I took the decision to ‘come out’ as a diabetic. Now it appears I have to go back into the medical closet and conceal my condition as best I can. In terms of why I left the town, I am rather stumped what to say. All the suggestions about house prices seem to be equally as negative and something along the lines that the area was going down clearly are not true to people who know the town. If I say it is simply because I tired of the place, that might make me look feckless. Even saying that I moved to be closer to family would sound like there was bad luck if not for me then for them, so that is out. With the interviews, clearly I have to severely reduce the number. I cannot really guess what the tolerable number of interviews would be over a 4-year period, do readers think 10 still sounds excessive?
The one thing that I must bury even deeper in my legend, is a sense of indignation. People accuse me of self-pity, however, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself that things will get better or to take all the blame on to yourself for how you have been mistreated; as it is, I cannot shake the sense of guilt at what I may have done wrong, not helped by people telling me that I am a 'natural victim', something which I reject entirely as that is the path to racism and disability discrimination, things I will have no truck with. As the government tells us that we need to suffer for the sake of the country, people in many workplaces see it as wrong to even indicate that you are suffering as a consequence. I cannot reveal how badly I have been treated in previous jobs, the social class discrimination, the disability discrimination and the simple maliciousness I have encountered. I cannot express my dismay at the fact that in 2009 I earned £42,000 per year and had 35 days leave and now earn £26,000 (what I was earning in 2002) and get 19 days and 2 hours leave (what is the point of 2 hours’ leave?). I have to pretend that my life has not gone down the drain in so many ways and that my chances of ever owning even a flat, let alone a house, are now zero. I have to conceal how the pressure from the bad treatment I have received has worsened my blood pressure and consequently my eye sight. My legend has to show me as a successful man, going places despite the worst economic depression in 80 years. It has to pander to the assumptions of the people who ask me questions. It has to provide the answers that they find acceptable, because it has been made very clear to me that in fact, they cannot handle the truth.
Now, I know from people who have written to me, that I am not alone in suffering such problems and that schools should teach young people that in any job, no matter how competent they might, they must always expect to be the ‘fall guy’ for any errors made around them even if they are not connected to them. My mistake has been not been ready to do that. Ironically as a consequence I am portrayed as the one creating a ‘blame culture’ simply because I am not able to absorb the blame into myself quickly enough. In this I am hampered further as it seems I have Asperger’s Syndrome. Whilst I doubt it has worsened in recent years, the clear changes in UK society and in working culture mean that there are more pitfalls that I may be missing with heavy consequences for my job and thus for the rest of my life which has been largely wrecked this year.
I began a new job in September and was relieved that a lot of the behaviour I have noted above was absent. This was both relaxing and also reminded me how abnormal the previous places actually were. Workers should behave as adults not primary school children and certainly it seemed as if that was more the case where I am now working, despite the fact that the company, like most in the UK is facing hard economic times and so instability. However, the seemingly warm reception I received in this job clearly led me into a false sense of security. I had originally gone there, scared from my previous jobs to mention anything about my life outside work or my past. However, with people confiding in me about their cancer treatment, medical conditions, marital problems, etc., I too opened up especially about some of the things that have hit me this year. Partly this was also because I have had to speak with people so much about losing my job, my house and household that they have now become mundane; they are the ache that has become dull so to me these things are no longer a big issue. To start viewing this way and even letting down my guard a little has proven to be a big mistake.
On Friday I was summoned to see my line manager who outlined the complaints against me. Now, these differ in nature to the problems I have had before. These days I avoid making statements unprompted even to people I think will not distort them. However, when people ask me questions I respond truthfully. Given that the workplace has an atmosphere of being open, people have asked direct personal questions that they might not have done elsewhere. The first was that I had been asked why I was eating biscuits during a training session. I explained briefly that this was because as a diabetic I tend to have a low blood sugar in the late afternoon especially when I have been on a day’s training as had been the case that day and so ran the risk of hypoglaecemia. I know I should not have used the word ‘hypoglaecemia’ but when you have had a condition 24 years as I have done, you tend to slip into these things. I have explained my diabetes to hundreds of people, so think nothing of it.
The second one was I was asked why I had left the lovely town on the south coast that I have recently moved from, by someone who still lives close by but is also employed now by the same company as me. I responded, ‘because I lost my house’. Now that is the truthful answer, it is the only reason why I left, but again that was an unacceptable answer. A similar situation came when waiting for a meeting to start there were comments at how the set-up of the room resembled that for an interview. I was asked as a newly appointed member of staff, how many interviews I had had. Again I told the truth: ‘67 in the past 4 years’.
I have noted before how people feel somehow contaminated by reference to redundancy and unemployment: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/how-redundancy-became-dirty-word-once.html However, when asked a direct question, and this may be as a result of Asperger’s, I have the tendency to give the truth. Yet, me describing what has happened to me or my medical condition, not in an unprompted way, but in response to a question, is these days seen as ‘inappropriate’ and even verging on the offensive. Clearly I cannot read the mind of the person asking me the question. I have been alerted to the fact by one company that has interviewed me three times, that I give an answer without first having ascertaining the type of answer the questioner is looking for. I missed out on the training on this approach to answering at school, university and in work. In fact, I received the opposite: answer a question as directly and truthfully as you can. I know I am enthusiastic when talking with people and these days they will not tolerate an answer which is shorter than the question asked. I thought I had cracked that with the answers given above. However, now I have to also quickly judge whether the truthful answer is what they are seeking.
I am in no position to say ‘well that is my business’ as I could clearly have done with these three personal questions or even ‘why are you asking that?’ as that would clearly been seen as rude. You cannot be defensive as that rouses suspicion. The truth, if it encompasses failure or illness or simply bad luck is also unacceptable whether given briefly or explained in full. Thus, my line manager has now advised me to come up with what I call a ‘legend’. This is the term used by spies and undercover police to describe the false identity they establish. It is a fiction, weaving in elements of the truth, but in general appealing to the assumptions of the people that the agent will be working with whilst distancing this fictional personality from the agent’s genuine one. I need to learn this legend well and be able to respond with aspects of it whenever I am asked a personal question again. I have to be careful, as, unfortunately, I have already revealed the truth about my life to quite a few people. I also have to avoid slip-ups that contradict or differ from what I have said before.
Now, from the troublesome questions I have faced recently, I have to come up with an explanation for why I might eat carbohydrates in the afternoon, which does not reference any medical condition nor makes me appear a glutton. I suppose in future I must sneak off to the toilet to eat them. This presents an ideological challenge for me. Back in 2005 when the UK law put diabetics into the disabled category, I took the decision to ‘come out’ as a diabetic. Now it appears I have to go back into the medical closet and conceal my condition as best I can. In terms of why I left the town, I am rather stumped what to say. All the suggestions about house prices seem to be equally as negative and something along the lines that the area was going down clearly are not true to people who know the town. If I say it is simply because I tired of the place, that might make me look feckless. Even saying that I moved to be closer to family would sound like there was bad luck if not for me then for them, so that is out. With the interviews, clearly I have to severely reduce the number. I cannot really guess what the tolerable number of interviews would be over a 4-year period, do readers think 10 still sounds excessive?
The one thing that I must bury even deeper in my legend, is a sense of indignation. People accuse me of self-pity, however, it is impossible to keep lying to yourself that things will get better or to take all the blame on to yourself for how you have been mistreated; as it is, I cannot shake the sense of guilt at what I may have done wrong, not helped by people telling me that I am a 'natural victim', something which I reject entirely as that is the path to racism and disability discrimination, things I will have no truck with. As the government tells us that we need to suffer for the sake of the country, people in many workplaces see it as wrong to even indicate that you are suffering as a consequence. I cannot reveal how badly I have been treated in previous jobs, the social class discrimination, the disability discrimination and the simple maliciousness I have encountered. I cannot express my dismay at the fact that in 2009 I earned £42,000 per year and had 35 days leave and now earn £26,000 (what I was earning in 2002) and get 19 days and 2 hours leave (what is the point of 2 hours’ leave?). I have to pretend that my life has not gone down the drain in so many ways and that my chances of ever owning even a flat, let alone a house, are now zero. I have to conceal how the pressure from the bad treatment I have received has worsened my blood pressure and consequently my eye sight. My legend has to show me as a successful man, going places despite the worst economic depression in 80 years. It has to pander to the assumptions of the people who ask me questions. It has to provide the answers that they find acceptable, because it has been made very clear to me that in fact, they cannot handle the truth.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
No Browser Choice
As you can see from the extended discussion following my posting in April many of us are battling to use the new Blogger interface. It was introduced in April but then taken down again because so many users had problems with it. Now it is back and for me it is worse than ever. I struggle to get into the dashboard of my blog and edit or post without the whole system crashing time after time. I have gone through three crashes to simply get this post up.
It appears that Blogger, in line with many companies, assumes that all users have the fastest and the best systems on the market. Yes, I am sure some of them do, but the bulk of us cannot afford to keep updating, especially with such a high level of unemployment and rising living costs, it is even less feasible than five years ago. I am now in a position where I cannot even connect my computer to the internet. I am living in a house now with no wireless connection and a single PC connected to the internet. This PC has a heavy firewall so I cannot download new software. This means I can only use Internet Explorer as the browser, rather than Google Chrome or any other browser that so many companies feel they should bully us into using by shutting off so many webpages to the browser that so many of us choose or are compelled to use. The same applies to my work computer. IE is the browser for the company which employs over 1000 staff as it was from the company that I have just left which employed over 3700. These are not obscure organisations, so if they still believe in IE, why is it that so many providers now effectively block IE users from accessing their content?
A lot of us adhere to the credo 'if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it'. We see no point for the constant upgrades of every piece of software on our computers which keep on interrupting things that we actually want to do. Companies get exasperated that we are not as ecstatically excited by the tiny change in the new version which they are pressing on us. For many of us there is no noticeable difference and in cases such as the interface for this blog, the new version is far worse than the old one. Remember Vista and what that promise only to blow up in the face of so many users? Since moving to the new interface I have had to fight off automated spam being sent to this blog, day after day, something I never had a problem with using the old interface.
Companies need to realise that the bulk of users are not at the cutting edge. Firefox has not yet ousted IE as the prime way the majority of people access the internet, just as shops have been compelled to continue selling DVDs alongside BluRay versions. Not only do we lack the money to chase after every new version of everything, we see absolutely no need. Realise that if something works, we do not feel the compulsion to change it, certainly not every six months. I know I am not unusual in have a mobile phone which is 6 years old and a car which is 14 years old. They both work to do the jobs that I bought them for. When they stop doing that then I will replace them.
Maybe this is me getting older. You may say that a man in his forties is likely to be a 'stick in the mud'. However, especially when it comes to bloggers, by definition you are going to get someone who puts in the time and the effort with things. This is in fact the case even with those young bloggers who cover the latest fashions. They take their time and analyse what the new trends are. Newness does not inherently equal quality. If you look at the growing number of 'classic' games let alone the number of remake movies, you see that in a previous time when there was not the constant drizzle of updates, actually things that are still seen as being of high quality remain popular and engaging. In fact with the movie remakes, we are often simply reminded how much better the original was.
I am tired of being bullied by services which should be serving me, rather than me being their lapdog to be dragged from new application to new application when I simply want to get one with scratching and sniffing around where I am. Companies do not seem to understand that we will be more loyal to those who do not use bullying tactics and let us make our own choices, especially those of us who are thoughtful adults. Blogger does not seem to understand the reason why I have a blog here after five years, when I could have easily gone somewhere else, is because I once liked the service I was getting.
It appears that Blogger, in line with many companies, assumes that all users have the fastest and the best systems on the market. Yes, I am sure some of them do, but the bulk of us cannot afford to keep updating, especially with such a high level of unemployment and rising living costs, it is even less feasible than five years ago. I am now in a position where I cannot even connect my computer to the internet. I am living in a house now with no wireless connection and a single PC connected to the internet. This PC has a heavy firewall so I cannot download new software. This means I can only use Internet Explorer as the browser, rather than Google Chrome or any other browser that so many companies feel they should bully us into using by shutting off so many webpages to the browser that so many of us choose or are compelled to use. The same applies to my work computer. IE is the browser for the company which employs over 1000 staff as it was from the company that I have just left which employed over 3700. These are not obscure organisations, so if they still believe in IE, why is it that so many providers now effectively block IE users from accessing their content?
A lot of us adhere to the credo 'if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it'. We see no point for the constant upgrades of every piece of software on our computers which keep on interrupting things that we actually want to do. Companies get exasperated that we are not as ecstatically excited by the tiny change in the new version which they are pressing on us. For many of us there is no noticeable difference and in cases such as the interface for this blog, the new version is far worse than the old one. Remember Vista and what that promise only to blow up in the face of so many users? Since moving to the new interface I have had to fight off automated spam being sent to this blog, day after day, something I never had a problem with using the old interface.
Companies need to realise that the bulk of users are not at the cutting edge. Firefox has not yet ousted IE as the prime way the majority of people access the internet, just as shops have been compelled to continue selling DVDs alongside BluRay versions. Not only do we lack the money to chase after every new version of everything, we see absolutely no need. Realise that if something works, we do not feel the compulsion to change it, certainly not every six months. I know I am not unusual in have a mobile phone which is 6 years old and a car which is 14 years old. They both work to do the jobs that I bought them for. When they stop doing that then I will replace them.
Maybe this is me getting older. You may say that a man in his forties is likely to be a 'stick in the mud'. However, especially when it comes to bloggers, by definition you are going to get someone who puts in the time and the effort with things. This is in fact the case even with those young bloggers who cover the latest fashions. They take their time and analyse what the new trends are. Newness does not inherently equal quality. If you look at the growing number of 'classic' games let alone the number of remake movies, you see that in a previous time when there was not the constant drizzle of updates, actually things that are still seen as being of high quality remain popular and engaging. In fact with the movie remakes, we are often simply reminded how much better the original was.
I am tired of being bullied by services which should be serving me, rather than me being their lapdog to be dragged from new application to new application when I simply want to get one with scratching and sniffing around where I am. Companies do not seem to understand that we will be more loyal to those who do not use bullying tactics and let us make our own choices, especially those of us who are thoughtful adults. Blogger does not seem to understand the reason why I have a blog here after five years, when I could have easily gone somewhere else, is because I once liked the service I was getting.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
The Book I Read In September
Fiction
'Steampunk' ed. by Ann and Jeff Vandermeer
This review does contain spoilers because there are a couple of stories in this collection which I feel are inappropriate and may offend readers, so I feel it is important to alert readers to them. Having begun work in the middle of this month I thought I would be reading more. However, deliberately socialising with colleagues has meant me sitting in the works canteen, it is not called that but it is effectively what it is, rather than spending an hour reading each lunchtime. In addition, in the evening I have been watching the two John Le Carre television series and now the entire 'Van Der Valk' series of DVDs on my laptop rather than reading.
This book is a collection of essays, short stories and novel extracts. It does rather pin the Steampunk genre to American attitudes though there is some reference to British and Japanese work in this field. One of the problems is the evangelist Jess Nevins who I have had problems with before: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/jess-nevinss-steampunk-generations.html and continues to wheel out a similar attempt to nail Steampunk to US culture that he has done before.
Before moving on to a broader survey of the book, I must address the two chapters which concerned me most. The first is 'The Steam Man of the Prairie and the Dark Rider Get Down: A Dime Novel' by Joe R. Lansdale. The concept is fair: the time traveller from H.G. Wells' novel has torn the fabric of time and space by his travels, something also considered in 'The Time Ships' by Stephen Baxter (1995). In doing so the traveller has been turned into a vampire and has returned to 19th century Mid West America where he feeds on people, aided by an army of Moorlocks [sic - in the original book they are 'Morlocks'; this may be a reference to Michael Moorcock often termed the 'godfather of steampunk'; it may simply be laziness]. A group of adventurers travel to do battle with him in a man-shaped walking vehicle which he counters with one made of wood. The key trouble is simply how nasty the story is. It quickly turns into a sequence of descriptions in too much detail of torture. It turns out like a sadist text and any of the plot just disappears as Lansdale indulges his clear delight in describing torture. The warning given by the editors at the start of the story is far too mild and I really believe that they should have thought twice before including this story in the collection as all it is, is a perverse torture story given Steampunk elements.
The other story that jars with the collection is 'Victoria' by Paul Di Filippo which is set in 1838 and envisages Queen Victoria newly on the throne being installed in a brothel by Lord Melbourne, her prime minister, so that she may learn more of her kingdom. Her place is taken by a newt named Victoria that has been impregnated by human genes to grow to the size of a small woman of Queen Victoria's stature and who serves as a bestial prostitute in the brothel until the two have their roles reversed. The clear descriptions of bestiality in themselves are distasteful. Again this seems to be some perverse sexual story which has been wrapped up in steampunk trappings to get it a wider readership and yet completely brings the genre into disrepute.
If I had been the author of any of the other stories in this collection I would have been offended to see my work included alongside these others. There are extracts from 'The Warlord of the Air' by Michael Moorcock which despite being over forty years old stands out as an engaging novel. An excerpt from 'Tribes of the Pacific Coast' by Neal Stephenson is a decent post-apocalyptic story, though to me seeming more mainstream science fiction than steampunk.
'Lord Kelvin's Machine' by James P. Blaycock is a decent steampunk story about averting a meteorite crash into Earth and I liked the internecine battles between different scientists. 'The Giving Mouth' by Ian R. Macleod, is more like standard fantasy than steampunk, but for that, is pretty well written and I like the idea of living metal. Like a couple of the stories it takes viewpoints from the workers of a steampunk world as much as from the rulers who tend to feature in these stories. 'A Sun in the Attic' by Mary Gentle is very much in the clockworkpunk style of Gentle and does its job pretty well, looking at why technology might be stopped from developing. It also has the counter-factual element of a continent in the South Pacific which I liked. 'The God Clown is Near' by Jay Lake shows how you can write unnerving steampunk with genetic elements without sliding into obscenity of Lansdale. The creation of a powerful being in a city which sits parallel to 19th century North America in the uncharted areas of the map is an interesting one and Lake conjures up this setting with its own dynamics, quickly and effectively. 'The Selene Gardening Society' by Molly Brown about bombarding the Moon with compost in order to develop and atmosphere on it, is interesting, but Brown seems undeveloped in short story writing skills, as unlike these other authors, she does not create a world in miniature and really very little happens in the story and we learn little of its context.
'Seventy Two Letters' by Ted Chiang is the second story after 'The God Clown is Near' to feature golems. This story is set in a more standard 19th century Britain but in a short time shows a completely different society though with concerns of our own; it even envisages a different form of human reproduction. In my view this is probably the best story of the collection. 'The Martian Agent, A Planetary Romance' by Michael Chabon, one of the more broadly better known authors in this collection, is very different from the title and features two boys whose parents were involved in the Ohio Uprising against British rule of North America in a steampunk world and what happens to them before they are liberated from a children's home by their airship flying uncle. This felt like proper steampunk with some counter-factual politics thrown in for good measure. 'Reflected Light' by Rachel E. Pollock is a little frustrating. It is features steampunk wax recordings of the friend of a woman who went on to be a revolutionary in the world Pollock creates. She does very well in quickly creating this world, but leaves the rest of the story to the reader's own imagination. I guess I like a little bit more in my short stories in the way that Blaycock, Chiang, Gentle, etc. do. 'Minutes of the Last Meeting' by Stepan Chapman almost goes to the other extreme featuring a cyber/steampunk Russia in 1917 where there are nanobots alongside steam trains. It features many historical characters and a whole host of scenes which rather overload the short story. However, the set-up and the ideas are refreshing. This one with Blaycock's have effectively encouraged me to abandon a steampunk short story I was to set in Russia on the grounds it would now appear derivative.
There are a couple of essays, 'The Steam-Driven Time Machine' by Rick Klaw and 'The Essential Sequential Steampunk: A Modest Survey of the Genre within the Comic Book Medium' by Bill Baker. The former is better than the latter, though the limited space means they are naturally restricted. I think the editors envisaged this collection being bought by people who have not encountered steampunk before because the content of those essays will not be news to anyone who has followed the genre to any degree. I do worry because of the Lansdale and Di Filippo stories, this collection will drive general readers away from steampunk. Reading online reviews of new books in the genre it is noticeable that some are being dismissed as 'airships and lesbians' and the straying into unnecessary perverse sexual contexts (I am not saying lesbians are perverse, this is referring the torture and bestiality of Lansdale and Di Filippo which are perverse) is liable to damage the genre. Including such work in a book which is supposed to encourage general readers into the genre was a grave error on the part of the Vandermeers which steampunk authors should condemn.
'Steampunk' ed. by Ann and Jeff Vandermeer
This review does contain spoilers because there are a couple of stories in this collection which I feel are inappropriate and may offend readers, so I feel it is important to alert readers to them. Having begun work in the middle of this month I thought I would be reading more. However, deliberately socialising with colleagues has meant me sitting in the works canteen, it is not called that but it is effectively what it is, rather than spending an hour reading each lunchtime. In addition, in the evening I have been watching the two John Le Carre television series and now the entire 'Van Der Valk' series of DVDs on my laptop rather than reading.
This book is a collection of essays, short stories and novel extracts. It does rather pin the Steampunk genre to American attitudes though there is some reference to British and Japanese work in this field. One of the problems is the evangelist Jess Nevins who I have had problems with before: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/jess-nevinss-steampunk-generations.html and continues to wheel out a similar attempt to nail Steampunk to US culture that he has done before.
Before moving on to a broader survey of the book, I must address the two chapters which concerned me most. The first is 'The Steam Man of the Prairie and the Dark Rider Get Down: A Dime Novel' by Joe R. Lansdale. The concept is fair: the time traveller from H.G. Wells' novel has torn the fabric of time and space by his travels, something also considered in 'The Time Ships' by Stephen Baxter (1995). In doing so the traveller has been turned into a vampire and has returned to 19th century Mid West America where he feeds on people, aided by an army of Moorlocks [sic - in the original book they are 'Morlocks'; this may be a reference to Michael Moorcock often termed the 'godfather of steampunk'; it may simply be laziness]. A group of adventurers travel to do battle with him in a man-shaped walking vehicle which he counters with one made of wood. The key trouble is simply how nasty the story is. It quickly turns into a sequence of descriptions in too much detail of torture. It turns out like a sadist text and any of the plot just disappears as Lansdale indulges his clear delight in describing torture. The warning given by the editors at the start of the story is far too mild and I really believe that they should have thought twice before including this story in the collection as all it is, is a perverse torture story given Steampunk elements.
The other story that jars with the collection is 'Victoria' by Paul Di Filippo which is set in 1838 and envisages Queen Victoria newly on the throne being installed in a brothel by Lord Melbourne, her prime minister, so that she may learn more of her kingdom. Her place is taken by a newt named Victoria that has been impregnated by human genes to grow to the size of a small woman of Queen Victoria's stature and who serves as a bestial prostitute in the brothel until the two have their roles reversed. The clear descriptions of bestiality in themselves are distasteful. Again this seems to be some perverse sexual story which has been wrapped up in steampunk trappings to get it a wider readership and yet completely brings the genre into disrepute.
If I had been the author of any of the other stories in this collection I would have been offended to see my work included alongside these others. There are extracts from 'The Warlord of the Air' by Michael Moorcock which despite being over forty years old stands out as an engaging novel. An excerpt from 'Tribes of the Pacific Coast' by Neal Stephenson is a decent post-apocalyptic story, though to me seeming more mainstream science fiction than steampunk.
'Lord Kelvin's Machine' by James P. Blaycock is a decent steampunk story about averting a meteorite crash into Earth and I liked the internecine battles between different scientists. 'The Giving Mouth' by Ian R. Macleod, is more like standard fantasy than steampunk, but for that, is pretty well written and I like the idea of living metal. Like a couple of the stories it takes viewpoints from the workers of a steampunk world as much as from the rulers who tend to feature in these stories. 'A Sun in the Attic' by Mary Gentle is very much in the clockworkpunk style of Gentle and does its job pretty well, looking at why technology might be stopped from developing. It also has the counter-factual element of a continent in the South Pacific which I liked. 'The God Clown is Near' by Jay Lake shows how you can write unnerving steampunk with genetic elements without sliding into obscenity of Lansdale. The creation of a powerful being in a city which sits parallel to 19th century North America in the uncharted areas of the map is an interesting one and Lake conjures up this setting with its own dynamics, quickly and effectively. 'The Selene Gardening Society' by Molly Brown about bombarding the Moon with compost in order to develop and atmosphere on it, is interesting, but Brown seems undeveloped in short story writing skills, as unlike these other authors, she does not create a world in miniature and really very little happens in the story and we learn little of its context.
'Seventy Two Letters' by Ted Chiang is the second story after 'The God Clown is Near' to feature golems. This story is set in a more standard 19th century Britain but in a short time shows a completely different society though with concerns of our own; it even envisages a different form of human reproduction. In my view this is probably the best story of the collection. 'The Martian Agent, A Planetary Romance' by Michael Chabon, one of the more broadly better known authors in this collection, is very different from the title and features two boys whose parents were involved in the Ohio Uprising against British rule of North America in a steampunk world and what happens to them before they are liberated from a children's home by their airship flying uncle. This felt like proper steampunk with some counter-factual politics thrown in for good measure. 'Reflected Light' by Rachel E. Pollock is a little frustrating. It is features steampunk wax recordings of the friend of a woman who went on to be a revolutionary in the world Pollock creates. She does very well in quickly creating this world, but leaves the rest of the story to the reader's own imagination. I guess I like a little bit more in my short stories in the way that Blaycock, Chiang, Gentle, etc. do. 'Minutes of the Last Meeting' by Stepan Chapman almost goes to the other extreme featuring a cyber/steampunk Russia in 1917 where there are nanobots alongside steam trains. It features many historical characters and a whole host of scenes which rather overload the short story. However, the set-up and the ideas are refreshing. This one with Blaycock's have effectively encouraged me to abandon a steampunk short story I was to set in Russia on the grounds it would now appear derivative.
There are a couple of essays, 'The Steam-Driven Time Machine' by Rick Klaw and 'The Essential Sequential Steampunk: A Modest Survey of the Genre within the Comic Book Medium' by Bill Baker. The former is better than the latter, though the limited space means they are naturally restricted. I think the editors envisaged this collection being bought by people who have not encountered steampunk before because the content of those essays will not be news to anyone who has followed the genre to any degree. I do worry because of the Lansdale and Di Filippo stories, this collection will drive general readers away from steampunk. Reading online reviews of new books in the genre it is noticeable that some are being dismissed as 'airships and lesbians' and the straying into unnecessary perverse sexual contexts (I am not saying lesbians are perverse, this is referring the torture and bestiality of Lansdale and Di Filippo which are perverse) is liable to damage the genre. Including such work in a book which is supposed to encourage general readers into the genre was a grave error on the part of the Vandermeers which steampunk authors should condemn.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Current Fashions In Interviews
I have commented before about how there are fashions in interviews:
http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/in-interviews-say-as-little-as-possible.html
http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/interviews-you-are-weakest-link-goodbye.html and my recommendations for running interviews effectively: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/rooksmoors-guide-to-conducting-job.html Looking back over these old postings has reminded me of how much fashions in interviewing have changed over the past 3 years. Who changes these fashions and where you can find out about them, remains a mystery to me. I guess you need to subscribe to some human resources journal to find out what is now required. The woman who lived in my house used to be sent the latest style of CV by her sister who appears to have had a supplier of these. I wonder why there are so many changes so frequently. To some degree I guess it is to keep human resources people in work or to make sifting out applicants easier. As yet I have to encounter a human resources department which is not over-staffed or one that is busy. Given that entire departments at two companies I have worked for take a whole day off not leaving even one person to answer the phones and that at least one had enough time to specifically write to the Department of Work and Pensions to try to get my benefits stopped, they clearly have a lot of time on their hands.
Certainly one thing they do not do is communicate what they have changed to other departments. The most disheartening thing, when you have followed every instruction to the letter to be told by the interviewers ‘well that’s not how we used to do it’ and ‘you must have got it wrong’. You are blamed for them not being updated that now applications come on this form or are sent to this person. I know blame-shifting is second nature these days, but to blame the poor applicant for a lack of communication within your company is terribly mean spirited.
Thus, having applied for 39 jobs since the start of June and having attended 14 interviews, with 2 more scheduled, I thought I would alert you to new trends in recruitment for the Autumn 2012 employment season in case you are out there trying to get a job.
The first thing is the deterioration of online application systems. About 90% of the jobs I apply for, I apply through an online system. This means I have to set up an account with them. I must be on fifty different companies systems now even if I have just applied for one job. In some cases this can be an advantage as I do not have to type in how many ‘O’ levels I got in 1983 again and again. I am always astounded how much information they want which is utterly irrelevant to the job. Does it really matter if I got an ‘A’ or a ‘B’ for O Level Chemistry in 1983? I am not applying to be a chemist. I suppose it helps with the filtering. I guess this is the reason why you have to list what school you attended and where, so they can simply bin those who did not go to Eton or one of its equivalents.
The problem is that these systems are unstable. They can lose everything you have written in an instant. They can suddenly deny you access to certain pages. Contacting the company whose website you are applying through is useless. They only see it from their side and so do not see the buttons missing for people coming from the public side. I had to abandon one application because there was no way I could register for an account, only people who already registered could get in. I emailed the company which sent me a link back to the page which was missing the registration button, telling me it was there. Again I am portrayed as the stupid one. Of course, a lot of companies simply buy in these systems without checking if they work or are suitable. I have mentioned before how you get 2000 characters to respond to 25 job requirements, working out at something like only 380 words. For one company I could not fit my response in the box they provided and asked what the character limit was for it and they said they did not know. Conversely, I have been given 5000 characters to write my nine character national insurance number into and 2000 characters to write ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question about whether I had a right to work in the UK. Some employees are aware how bad their systems are to the extent that I have now learnt their names and simply email my application to them rather than trying to wrestle with the system.
One element which has certainly been around for the last five years if not longer is the fact that if you cannot match every single one of the characteristics listed on the job specification, do not bother applying for the job. Often if you say you have not used Software Package X but are very experienced in Software Package Y, which in my sector tends to be far more up-to-date than X, your application is often rejected even before it is seen by a human. The trouble with this matching every requirement, typically 20-30, is that you can never progress. You are only interviewed for jobs that you have entirely done before. There is no ability to step up a level. This is contrary to the long standing trend in the UK going back probably two centuries, that you moved job to climb to a higher position, something in contrast to Japan for example. To progress you must pay to go on training courses and get certification yourself and in your own time, without support from your company even if they benefit from you doing this. Being unemployed I do have the time but not the money to go on such training. As a consequence my career having peaked in 2010 is now on a downward trajectory as some of the skills I have become obsolete, I cannot apply for as wide a range of jobs as I could have done two years ago. People tell you that it is your job that becomes redundant not you as a person, but actually in the UK today, that is not the case.
Both salaries and leave are falling. Jobs I held back in 2005 are now paying £5,000 per year less now than then, despite the sharp rise in the cost of living since then; petrol is twice the price per litre that it was in 2005. Interestingly pay rates for the same jobs at different companies have now become incredibly varied. I have seen everything from £27,000 to £44,000 per year for an identical post in different companies. The most leave I have ever had in a job was 38 days and the average has been 33, but many jobs are now offering only 20 days. The number of job specifications which state 'must be flexible as to hours' which in its poorly phrased way suggests that you will be expected often to come in early and work late or at weekends. Clearly despite falling salaries companies want to squeeze more work out of each worker. As discussed below, this is aided by new technologies which mean you are expected never to be free of the office. The other thing is 'must be able to work under pressure and to tight deadlines'. To me, any office especially one which is not associated with the media, where there is constant pressure and tight deadlines is a highly disorganised and inefficient office. In addition, this requirement contradicts the many others about you being able to organise well, manage your time and prioritise effectively. Consequently it suggests that the company expects bosses to suddenly spring work on you and expect you to do it for them. I suppose that with so many attitudes in the UK returning to the 1950s we should not be surprised at this. However, it hardly suggests working practices that are going to make British industry competitive. The 1950s were the time when efficiency in British business slid fastest despite the growing prosperity not only in Britain but across Europe and in Japan and North America.
The length of time vacancies are advertised has been reduced with some being taken down within a few days of being advertised. I imagine that is to reduce the number of applicants. On a number of occasions jobs I have applied for have got back to me to say that the decision has been delayed by some weeks or the interview arranged for a date two months into the future. Also vacancies have disappeared usually because the funding has been withdrawn. I have found that there is absolutely no point in asking about these vacancies and certainly not to point out that you spent a lot of time applying for the post. In my field it generally takes 8 hours and 5000 words to apply for a position. The Job Centre presses you to chase up employers you have not heard from. However, these vacancies which ultimately never have an interview and effectively, disappear, are treated by companies as a particular case. Often their disappearance is the result of funding changes or difficulties or changes in policy so to respond to queries about the vacancies going is embarrassing to companies to the extent that they can be hostile to queries about them. This is added to the fact that they know they have wasted money in advertising the post and even beginning to analyse applications. I have learnt it is better to fob off the Job Centre with an excuse which is probably close to what actually happened even if the company would not say it, e.g. that the funding for the post was reallocated and they decided not proceed with the vacancy and hope that the Job Centre staff do not insist on written proof of that supposition.
The other thing that has been reduced is the length of time in which you are notified of an interview. Back in 2009 when I was invited to an interview 2 days later I was quite surprised but this is now the norm. I rarely get even a week's notice. The shortest notification was at 15.15 for an interview at 14.30 the following day, so less than 24 hours. What made it worse was that the email giving me this information did not actually arrive in my In-box until 22.30, leading to me going to bed immediately. Fortunately it turned out that the administrator has her work emails going to her smartphone day and night and she texted me back that night to say she had received my message. I have not been able to afford a smartphone, but it is clear employers are now expecting you to be accessible via email even well outside office hours. The thing about such short notice of interviews is that it discriminates against anyone with caring commitments. In addition, it discriminates against people already in a job but looking to move. Employers still prefer to employ someone currently working rather than someone unemployed, yet there is no way that you can book leave for the following day. Thus, this approach clearly contradicts the actual attitudes of the companies with no real benefit in my view and in fact preventing many good candidates from attending the interview.
One thing which has certainly appeared in the past year is the need to prove your identity when you arrive at an interview. The UK has stepped away from identity cards more than once in recent years, but these days to get a job, because of the immigration regulations, you have to constantly prove your identity. All the markings on my passport have worn off as I have had to use it so often. I cannot remember when I last travelled abroad, perhaps four years ago, so effectively my passport is no longer used for foreign travel, it is simply my UK identity card. Mine has expired but I lack the funds to renew it and do not know anyone suitable to sign the photographs. As yet I have not been challenged for using an out-of-date passport, but I know soon someone will say that they cannot be certain whether I am still British and will bar me from a job on that basis. I do not know how anyone can claim that immigrants are taking British jobs because the nationality proof requirements are so stringent even if you want to attend an interview let alone actually get the job. Of course, bigots exclaim loudest from positions of ignorance.
There are some interview trends that I am happy to see have apparently died. From about 2003 up until last year 95% of the interviews I attended, somewhere around 80, insisted that you did a PowerPoint presentation. Now, I became very adept at these. Though some people complained my slides were too plain and lacked decoration, most welcomed their clarity. The key problem was that in so many cases the interview panel could not operate the equipment. On a number of occasions the interview was postponed by 1 hour whilst the technical staff were fetched. On other occasions, I simply had to hold up print-outs of the slides I had produced. This year interviewers have turned right around and say there will be no facilities for such presentations and you should not bring them. The new fashion is 'initiating a discussion' on a particular theme. I quite enjoy this approach. The key difficulty is not being able to gauge how long to speak for. This is the same with the responses to questions, you want to appear knowledgeable but not exceed the time the questioner has in their head for what is an appropriate answer. The tolerated duration varies between the different members of the panel and bears no relevance to the length or complexity of the question asked nor to whether one question was asked or four were asked wrapped up to appear as a single question.
Another trend that I am glad to have seen the death of, is the requirement to bring along a copy of every single qualification you have ever received. This never seemed to have any point for me as you cannot get 'A' Levels unless you have done GCSEs (or if you are as old as me, 'O' Levels) and you cannot get a degree unless you have 'A' Levels or some equivalent. So each level effectively renders the previous one obsolete. In the case of specific skills, such as have you studied French to 'A' Level when you did a degree in Financial Management is a fair thing to ask if appropriate for the job, but up until last year it was every single scrap of paper accumulated since I was aged 13. Now about 20% of the interviews I have attended ask for qualification certificates and in every case only the highest. However, you do still get asked about your competency in English, in fact, this is asked more than before, I think as adjunct to the immigration scrutiny. I suppose also given how poor spelling and grammar is among young people today it is a fair point even for those with a degree, but to someone of my age it seems a bit silly.
A less common fashion is a revival of what I call the 'civil service' style. I have had tens of appalling interviews in my career but one that sticks out in my mind was with what was then the Department of Employment in 1993 for a job in a Job Centre. The lead interviewer held up a piece of paper in front of her face and simply read in a very mechanical tone a list of questions that all started with 'give us an example of ...' I suppose you could say it was a very fair process, it was pretty much like being interviewed by a computer. Two interviews I have had recently have used this style. They have a list of 'competencies' and expect you to give an example which shows that you can do all of them. They do this in addition to a normal interview. Now, such requirements are standard on job specifications but they are not often checked in this mechanical way. A challenge is that they often include a range of different aspects. The classic one which I see on about 80% of job specifications is 'must be a team worker but also be able to work on your own initiative'. Now this is one requirement yet responding to it you have to show skills that are in fact in the opposite direction. Unsurprisingly the interviews at such companies using this competency approach constantly over-run as it is difficult to get through 20 competencies, a typical number in 30 minutes. The last one I attended started 45 minutes late and rather than the 30 minutes I had been assigned mine ran to 45 minutes, adding a further 15 minutes to the delay for the next candidate. Many interview panels simply pick a duration at random and do not make any effort to judge whether the number of questions and reasonable answers to these will fit into the time they have assigned. It happens both ways. At an interview due to last 1 hour we found it was all over after 40 minutes with all the questions thoroughly answered.
Two interviews on the same day with different panels is a fashion which, whilst not common, still seems to be around. I have no real problem with this approach though often you find yourself repeating things to the second panel you said just moments before to the first panel. The first panel is often in a rush as they are conscious of over-running, first because in two-panel interviews each session is shorter than a standard single panel interview and second because they are conscious that any delay at their end with impact on the scheduling for the second panel.
In my sector, something which has gone through a big revival is the activity test. Sometimes these are cognitive analysis exercises. However, they are generally purchased from generic business suppliers and in my position are not always suited to the jobs I do, particularly in the case of the level of proof which is required to make a judgement. Most, however, consist of summarising a document or producing a policy briefing based on it. Generally these are fine, though you need to learn to move fast to set up a strange computer to how you do things, especially if you are left-handed. Some companies give you all the company documentation relevant to the task as if you had time to read it. These are internal handbooks and guidelines not accessible outside the company. Thus, whenever I am given so much documentation which could not be processed in the 30 minutes always assigned for the task, I know an internal candidate is favoured or in fact, as with so many aspects of interviewing, the panel have thought it a good idea to set a test but have not thought through how long it will take or what in fact it is supposed to be demonstrating.
I must say that employers are getting better at letting you know if you have not got the job. A couple of years ago you simply heard nothing, but these days they send an email, sometimes telephone and in one case actually sent me a rejection letter. I think they have realised that in a time of high unemployment, they get people ringing and ringing to find out what has happened, something we are strongly encouraged to do by the Job Centre. Though they loath having to send out rejection messages, companies have learnt that it ultimately saves time fielding calls from concerned applicants. Only two of the 14 companies have offered feedback on my interviews. About a third have either ignored requests for it or have refused to give it citing confidentiality of the interview process. Some of the feedback is useless, wheeling out the set phrase 'another candidate better matched the job description' which suggests they cannot really articulate what I did right or wrong because that judgement could easily have been made from the application form alone. The number of companies paying interview expenses has fallen to about 1 in 3. The rates have remained the same which means you are worse off with rising petrol prices. The level varies quite considerably. Having attended interviews at companies which lie less than 7 Km apart I received £35 to drive to one but £90 to drive to the other. Of course, even with the rise in petrol costs, driving can be up to four times cheaper than travelling by train to the interview and as companies often do not pay beyond the main journey you are often stuck walking kilometres from the station or having to ride the back streets and housing estates on a local bus, assuming you can find the right one.
My concern in all of this is that British companies have still not found interview methods which provide them with the staff they actually need rather than what they think they need. I am hearing of too many companies not being able to fill vacancies which in a time of high unemployment is very strange. It seems to come from them setting job specifications that cover so many different skills that you need an individual who has had three or four different careers to be able to fulfil them. In addition, the interview process is often so poor that the company does not know whether they have got a suitable person or not so err on the side of caution. They have no willingness, however, to train or develop staff, so when they cannot find the people with 100% of the skills they want down to a very specific level, they would rather go without. This leaves more work to fall on the existing staff increasing inefficiency. You can do well with someone who has 90% or even 80% of the skills and they will like being able to expand into new areas rather than feeling they are trapped in a job which is identical to all the ones they have done before. Companies also really need to reflect on what they actually need the person to do in the job rather than pile up a whole list of dream requirements that apparently make the company seem dynamic but actually make it appear poorly run. They also need to give people time to apply for jobs and to arrange to attend interviews. By using a 'just in time' approach to interviewing they actually exclude a lot of candidates who in fact may be the best they would get. As with so much in British business, we need to move away from 'seems' being the driver for so much behaviour to approaches based on the actuality.
http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/in-interviews-say-as-little-as-possible.html
http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/interviews-you-are-weakest-link-goodbye.html and my recommendations for running interviews effectively: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/rooksmoors-guide-to-conducting-job.html Looking back over these old postings has reminded me of how much fashions in interviewing have changed over the past 3 years. Who changes these fashions and where you can find out about them, remains a mystery to me. I guess you need to subscribe to some human resources journal to find out what is now required. The woman who lived in my house used to be sent the latest style of CV by her sister who appears to have had a supplier of these. I wonder why there are so many changes so frequently. To some degree I guess it is to keep human resources people in work or to make sifting out applicants easier. As yet I have to encounter a human resources department which is not over-staffed or one that is busy. Given that entire departments at two companies I have worked for take a whole day off not leaving even one person to answer the phones and that at least one had enough time to specifically write to the Department of Work and Pensions to try to get my benefits stopped, they clearly have a lot of time on their hands.
Certainly one thing they do not do is communicate what they have changed to other departments. The most disheartening thing, when you have followed every instruction to the letter to be told by the interviewers ‘well that’s not how we used to do it’ and ‘you must have got it wrong’. You are blamed for them not being updated that now applications come on this form or are sent to this person. I know blame-shifting is second nature these days, but to blame the poor applicant for a lack of communication within your company is terribly mean spirited.
Thus, having applied for 39 jobs since the start of June and having attended 14 interviews, with 2 more scheduled, I thought I would alert you to new trends in recruitment for the Autumn 2012 employment season in case you are out there trying to get a job.
The first thing is the deterioration of online application systems. About 90% of the jobs I apply for, I apply through an online system. This means I have to set up an account with them. I must be on fifty different companies systems now even if I have just applied for one job. In some cases this can be an advantage as I do not have to type in how many ‘O’ levels I got in 1983 again and again. I am always astounded how much information they want which is utterly irrelevant to the job. Does it really matter if I got an ‘A’ or a ‘B’ for O Level Chemistry in 1983? I am not applying to be a chemist. I suppose it helps with the filtering. I guess this is the reason why you have to list what school you attended and where, so they can simply bin those who did not go to Eton or one of its equivalents.
The problem is that these systems are unstable. They can lose everything you have written in an instant. They can suddenly deny you access to certain pages. Contacting the company whose website you are applying through is useless. They only see it from their side and so do not see the buttons missing for people coming from the public side. I had to abandon one application because there was no way I could register for an account, only people who already registered could get in. I emailed the company which sent me a link back to the page which was missing the registration button, telling me it was there. Again I am portrayed as the stupid one. Of course, a lot of companies simply buy in these systems without checking if they work or are suitable. I have mentioned before how you get 2000 characters to respond to 25 job requirements, working out at something like only 380 words. For one company I could not fit my response in the box they provided and asked what the character limit was for it and they said they did not know. Conversely, I have been given 5000 characters to write my nine character national insurance number into and 2000 characters to write ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question about whether I had a right to work in the UK. Some employees are aware how bad their systems are to the extent that I have now learnt their names and simply email my application to them rather than trying to wrestle with the system.
One element which has certainly been around for the last five years if not longer is the fact that if you cannot match every single one of the characteristics listed on the job specification, do not bother applying for the job. Often if you say you have not used Software Package X but are very experienced in Software Package Y, which in my sector tends to be far more up-to-date than X, your application is often rejected even before it is seen by a human. The trouble with this matching every requirement, typically 20-30, is that you can never progress. You are only interviewed for jobs that you have entirely done before. There is no ability to step up a level. This is contrary to the long standing trend in the UK going back probably two centuries, that you moved job to climb to a higher position, something in contrast to Japan for example. To progress you must pay to go on training courses and get certification yourself and in your own time, without support from your company even if they benefit from you doing this. Being unemployed I do have the time but not the money to go on such training. As a consequence my career having peaked in 2010 is now on a downward trajectory as some of the skills I have become obsolete, I cannot apply for as wide a range of jobs as I could have done two years ago. People tell you that it is your job that becomes redundant not you as a person, but actually in the UK today, that is not the case.
Both salaries and leave are falling. Jobs I held back in 2005 are now paying £5,000 per year less now than then, despite the sharp rise in the cost of living since then; petrol is twice the price per litre that it was in 2005. Interestingly pay rates for the same jobs at different companies have now become incredibly varied. I have seen everything from £27,000 to £44,000 per year for an identical post in different companies. The most leave I have ever had in a job was 38 days and the average has been 33, but many jobs are now offering only 20 days. The number of job specifications which state 'must be flexible as to hours' which in its poorly phrased way suggests that you will be expected often to come in early and work late or at weekends. Clearly despite falling salaries companies want to squeeze more work out of each worker. As discussed below, this is aided by new technologies which mean you are expected never to be free of the office. The other thing is 'must be able to work under pressure and to tight deadlines'. To me, any office especially one which is not associated with the media, where there is constant pressure and tight deadlines is a highly disorganised and inefficient office. In addition, this requirement contradicts the many others about you being able to organise well, manage your time and prioritise effectively. Consequently it suggests that the company expects bosses to suddenly spring work on you and expect you to do it for them. I suppose that with so many attitudes in the UK returning to the 1950s we should not be surprised at this. However, it hardly suggests working practices that are going to make British industry competitive. The 1950s were the time when efficiency in British business slid fastest despite the growing prosperity not only in Britain but across Europe and in Japan and North America.
The length of time vacancies are advertised has been reduced with some being taken down within a few days of being advertised. I imagine that is to reduce the number of applicants. On a number of occasions jobs I have applied for have got back to me to say that the decision has been delayed by some weeks or the interview arranged for a date two months into the future. Also vacancies have disappeared usually because the funding has been withdrawn. I have found that there is absolutely no point in asking about these vacancies and certainly not to point out that you spent a lot of time applying for the post. In my field it generally takes 8 hours and 5000 words to apply for a position. The Job Centre presses you to chase up employers you have not heard from. However, these vacancies which ultimately never have an interview and effectively, disappear, are treated by companies as a particular case. Often their disappearance is the result of funding changes or difficulties or changes in policy so to respond to queries about the vacancies going is embarrassing to companies to the extent that they can be hostile to queries about them. This is added to the fact that they know they have wasted money in advertising the post and even beginning to analyse applications. I have learnt it is better to fob off the Job Centre with an excuse which is probably close to what actually happened even if the company would not say it, e.g. that the funding for the post was reallocated and they decided not proceed with the vacancy and hope that the Job Centre staff do not insist on written proof of that supposition.
The other thing that has been reduced is the length of time in which you are notified of an interview. Back in 2009 when I was invited to an interview 2 days later I was quite surprised but this is now the norm. I rarely get even a week's notice. The shortest notification was at 15.15 for an interview at 14.30 the following day, so less than 24 hours. What made it worse was that the email giving me this information did not actually arrive in my In-box until 22.30, leading to me going to bed immediately. Fortunately it turned out that the administrator has her work emails going to her smartphone day and night and she texted me back that night to say she had received my message. I have not been able to afford a smartphone, but it is clear employers are now expecting you to be accessible via email even well outside office hours. The thing about such short notice of interviews is that it discriminates against anyone with caring commitments. In addition, it discriminates against people already in a job but looking to move. Employers still prefer to employ someone currently working rather than someone unemployed, yet there is no way that you can book leave for the following day. Thus, this approach clearly contradicts the actual attitudes of the companies with no real benefit in my view and in fact preventing many good candidates from attending the interview.
One thing which has certainly appeared in the past year is the need to prove your identity when you arrive at an interview. The UK has stepped away from identity cards more than once in recent years, but these days to get a job, because of the immigration regulations, you have to constantly prove your identity. All the markings on my passport have worn off as I have had to use it so often. I cannot remember when I last travelled abroad, perhaps four years ago, so effectively my passport is no longer used for foreign travel, it is simply my UK identity card. Mine has expired but I lack the funds to renew it and do not know anyone suitable to sign the photographs. As yet I have not been challenged for using an out-of-date passport, but I know soon someone will say that they cannot be certain whether I am still British and will bar me from a job on that basis. I do not know how anyone can claim that immigrants are taking British jobs because the nationality proof requirements are so stringent even if you want to attend an interview let alone actually get the job. Of course, bigots exclaim loudest from positions of ignorance.
There are some interview trends that I am happy to see have apparently died. From about 2003 up until last year 95% of the interviews I attended, somewhere around 80, insisted that you did a PowerPoint presentation. Now, I became very adept at these. Though some people complained my slides were too plain and lacked decoration, most welcomed their clarity. The key problem was that in so many cases the interview panel could not operate the equipment. On a number of occasions the interview was postponed by 1 hour whilst the technical staff were fetched. On other occasions, I simply had to hold up print-outs of the slides I had produced. This year interviewers have turned right around and say there will be no facilities for such presentations and you should not bring them. The new fashion is 'initiating a discussion' on a particular theme. I quite enjoy this approach. The key difficulty is not being able to gauge how long to speak for. This is the same with the responses to questions, you want to appear knowledgeable but not exceed the time the questioner has in their head for what is an appropriate answer. The tolerated duration varies between the different members of the panel and bears no relevance to the length or complexity of the question asked nor to whether one question was asked or four were asked wrapped up to appear as a single question.
Another trend that I am glad to have seen the death of, is the requirement to bring along a copy of every single qualification you have ever received. This never seemed to have any point for me as you cannot get 'A' Levels unless you have done GCSEs (or if you are as old as me, 'O' Levels) and you cannot get a degree unless you have 'A' Levels or some equivalent. So each level effectively renders the previous one obsolete. In the case of specific skills, such as have you studied French to 'A' Level when you did a degree in Financial Management is a fair thing to ask if appropriate for the job, but up until last year it was every single scrap of paper accumulated since I was aged 13. Now about 20% of the interviews I have attended ask for qualification certificates and in every case only the highest. However, you do still get asked about your competency in English, in fact, this is asked more than before, I think as adjunct to the immigration scrutiny. I suppose also given how poor spelling and grammar is among young people today it is a fair point even for those with a degree, but to someone of my age it seems a bit silly.
A less common fashion is a revival of what I call the 'civil service' style. I have had tens of appalling interviews in my career but one that sticks out in my mind was with what was then the Department of Employment in 1993 for a job in a Job Centre. The lead interviewer held up a piece of paper in front of her face and simply read in a very mechanical tone a list of questions that all started with 'give us an example of ...' I suppose you could say it was a very fair process, it was pretty much like being interviewed by a computer. Two interviews I have had recently have used this style. They have a list of 'competencies' and expect you to give an example which shows that you can do all of them. They do this in addition to a normal interview. Now, such requirements are standard on job specifications but they are not often checked in this mechanical way. A challenge is that they often include a range of different aspects. The classic one which I see on about 80% of job specifications is 'must be a team worker but also be able to work on your own initiative'. Now this is one requirement yet responding to it you have to show skills that are in fact in the opposite direction. Unsurprisingly the interviews at such companies using this competency approach constantly over-run as it is difficult to get through 20 competencies, a typical number in 30 minutes. The last one I attended started 45 minutes late and rather than the 30 minutes I had been assigned mine ran to 45 minutes, adding a further 15 minutes to the delay for the next candidate. Many interview panels simply pick a duration at random and do not make any effort to judge whether the number of questions and reasonable answers to these will fit into the time they have assigned. It happens both ways. At an interview due to last 1 hour we found it was all over after 40 minutes with all the questions thoroughly answered.
Two interviews on the same day with different panels is a fashion which, whilst not common, still seems to be around. I have no real problem with this approach though often you find yourself repeating things to the second panel you said just moments before to the first panel. The first panel is often in a rush as they are conscious of over-running, first because in two-panel interviews each session is shorter than a standard single panel interview and second because they are conscious that any delay at their end with impact on the scheduling for the second panel.
In my sector, something which has gone through a big revival is the activity test. Sometimes these are cognitive analysis exercises. However, they are generally purchased from generic business suppliers and in my position are not always suited to the jobs I do, particularly in the case of the level of proof which is required to make a judgement. Most, however, consist of summarising a document or producing a policy briefing based on it. Generally these are fine, though you need to learn to move fast to set up a strange computer to how you do things, especially if you are left-handed. Some companies give you all the company documentation relevant to the task as if you had time to read it. These are internal handbooks and guidelines not accessible outside the company. Thus, whenever I am given so much documentation which could not be processed in the 30 minutes always assigned for the task, I know an internal candidate is favoured or in fact, as with so many aspects of interviewing, the panel have thought it a good idea to set a test but have not thought through how long it will take or what in fact it is supposed to be demonstrating.
I must say that employers are getting better at letting you know if you have not got the job. A couple of years ago you simply heard nothing, but these days they send an email, sometimes telephone and in one case actually sent me a rejection letter. I think they have realised that in a time of high unemployment, they get people ringing and ringing to find out what has happened, something we are strongly encouraged to do by the Job Centre. Though they loath having to send out rejection messages, companies have learnt that it ultimately saves time fielding calls from concerned applicants. Only two of the 14 companies have offered feedback on my interviews. About a third have either ignored requests for it or have refused to give it citing confidentiality of the interview process. Some of the feedback is useless, wheeling out the set phrase 'another candidate better matched the job description' which suggests they cannot really articulate what I did right or wrong because that judgement could easily have been made from the application form alone. The number of companies paying interview expenses has fallen to about 1 in 3. The rates have remained the same which means you are worse off with rising petrol prices. The level varies quite considerably. Having attended interviews at companies which lie less than 7 Km apart I received £35 to drive to one but £90 to drive to the other. Of course, even with the rise in petrol costs, driving can be up to four times cheaper than travelling by train to the interview and as companies often do not pay beyond the main journey you are often stuck walking kilometres from the station or having to ride the back streets and housing estates on a local bus, assuming you can find the right one.
My concern in all of this is that British companies have still not found interview methods which provide them with the staff they actually need rather than what they think they need. I am hearing of too many companies not being able to fill vacancies which in a time of high unemployment is very strange. It seems to come from them setting job specifications that cover so many different skills that you need an individual who has had three or four different careers to be able to fulfil them. In addition, the interview process is often so poor that the company does not know whether they have got a suitable person or not so err on the side of caution. They have no willingness, however, to train or develop staff, so when they cannot find the people with 100% of the skills they want down to a very specific level, they would rather go without. This leaves more work to fall on the existing staff increasing inefficiency. You can do well with someone who has 90% or even 80% of the skills and they will like being able to expand into new areas rather than feeling they are trapped in a job which is identical to all the ones they have done before. Companies also really need to reflect on what they actually need the person to do in the job rather than pile up a whole list of dream requirements that apparently make the company seem dynamic but actually make it appear poorly run. They also need to give people time to apply for jobs and to arrange to attend interviews. By using a 'just in time' approach to interviewing they actually exclude a lot of candidates who in fact may be the best they would get. As with so much in British business, we need to move away from 'seems' being the driver for so much behaviour to approaches based on the actuality.
Friday, 7 September 2012
Facing Pride And Prejudice
Facing the repossession of our house, myself and the woman who lived there plus her ten-year old son initially sought to move to rent another house nearby, partially so that we did not have to have the chickens slaughtered and the boy could go to the same secondary school next year as he had intended to attend; the end of September being the deadline for applications to enter the competition for secondary schools. As I have noted before, in our town there are ten secondary schools, but five of them he could not apply for being either the wrong gender, the wrong religion or he had already been ruled out from attending on the grounds his teacher’s felt he would not pass the 11+ Examination. However, we soon found that because we had defaulted on paying our mortgage, we now have a black mark on our credit rating for the next six years, by which time I will be 50, so barring us from renting a house or in fact any other property, via a letting agency. We must now only rent property from a private landlord/lady who does not do a credit check.
With a seven-year waiting list for social housing in our town even for a woman with a primary school aged child, the options seemed to be living on the street or going to live with our families. Of our relatives only my parents and the woman’s sister live in this country. If my parents or her sister had managed to emigrate to Australia as they planned, then I would now be living in a tent illegally camped on common land and the woman and boy, I have no idea where. It is incredible how quickly in the UK you can go from having a house and a job, to having nothing and either being homeless or begging people for a bed. Hence the title of this posting. I have mentioned before how people now see the period of the British welfare state, of approximately 1948-82 as being anomalous. The ‘norm’ is what we are experiencing now. If you have work you may still need to ask for charity, just look at the number of people in employment getting food parcels from the Trussell Trust and other such charities. If you lose your job, depending on where you live, you may become homeless or be put up in a bed and breakfast room. There are apparently some council houses and flats left but personally I only know one couple who have managed to get one and they did that over a decade ago now.
Thus, people end up living with their families. The number of middle-aged people who, like me, with no other option, have gone to live with their parents once more is so much that it was warranted a feature in ‘The Guardian’. I have gone from being a renter and then an owner of a three-bedroomed house to living in a square room which is only 10cm longer along any wall than I am tall. Since the start of June alone, I have applied for 39 posts and have attended 13 interviews. I was offered a job which I accepted 8 weeks ago. Unfortunately I picked on someone to write a reference who went on holiday for 5 weeks so delaying the start date of my job which is still ten days away. I have been told that the work for me is piling up, but because of the precision required around references I am not able to start the job and begin reducing it. Apparently two of the three referees I had to provide have not been able to give the exact dates on which I started and left my employment, in one case going back to 2005; there is an issue about whether I started one job on the 1st or the 10th of a particular month. Due to this need for precision I am in this weird limbo of ‘having a job’ but not actually being employed. I guess people on zero-hour contract, i.e. with no assigned hours each week but required to be constantly available on call, can understand that previously anomalous, but now entirely acceptable position. I am still signing on unemployed while I wait for this situation to be resolved.
So I am living with my parents. Naturally I feel as if the last 26 years have been an utter failure. I am in fact worse off than when I left home to go to university at the age of 18. It is as if nothing that happened in the meantime ever amounted to anything. Mentally this is hard to deal with, but I am repeatedly told that I should not mention feeling down or confused, or any of the natural emotions losing your house and job throw up. The other thing I have stepped into a play of manners. The woman from my house is suffering it even more. When you are unemployed let alone when you are homeless, people feel that they are obliged to tell you how to live your life. Clearly everything you have ever decided to do, every decision or effort you made was wrong, it has been proven to be the case. This means that any opinion you hold is wrong and must not be expressed as it is illegitimate. Family members keep telling us how wrong we are. Any suggestions about improving our situations are dismissed as wrong or delusional and yet we are told that we are feckless, lazy, not applying ourselves. We are illegitimate and even if we accept that, it does not stop us being told many times per day that we are ‘wrong’. The criticism does not just stretch to work or economic issues but to everything. The woman from my house was questioned at length because she happened to kiss her former boyfriend when she met him, something her sister happened to witness. She was harangued when she mentioned in passing that she would like to buy a DVD of a particular series in the future. There is a sense that we should not even discuss or think about these things, these are not for the likes of us.
As you see in dramatisations of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens novels the family members seem to take delight in correcting us. On one hand they feel a very heavy duty to correct us but also appear to get a pleasure or at least some contentment from doing it. It is as if, because we failed to remain in work and keep our house, we must be doing things wrong right through our lives down to where we sit in the house, where we put glasses, how we communicate with other people and even how happy we are. I am constantly being told off for looking 'too sad' as if given that after months of bullying and the collapse of the life I had I must be able to put all that behind me immediately and march boldly forwards without any feelings if something reminds me of better times, typically something I did with the woman and boy from my house. Seeing 'Dr. Who' listed in the newspaper was painful as it was a programme that I would watch and discuss with the 10-year old and now I will never do that again. It is not a bereavement or even a divorce but it feels incredibly close to those things and yet I have to keep on apologising for those feelings as they are 'inappropriate' in my current setting.
Since I lost my last job, I have increasingly felt as if I have become a species apart from other people. They can go into shops, they can think about a new car or a holiday even. I am not even allowed to discuss buying a DVD. Advertising now seems like something in an alien language. There is no point watching any of it, because even if there is something I can afford, if I bought it, it would be ‘wrong’. It is as if I have slipped through a membrane and whilst I slide through consumer society, I cannot touch or interact with it. Given my age, it is apparent that I will never likely touch it again. No house means no way to fund my care when I am elderly. For the first time I have begun to understand the rioters of last summer. You feel no qualms about damaging things from this other world that you are barred from. To think otherwise is equivalent to those who ran the Apollo space missions suddenly feeling guilty about damaging the Moon by landing men on it. It is that removed from my life now. This is why politicians fumble around for some explanation of what went on and simply blame whatever they want to criticise. If you can alienate a 44-year old, well-educated man from society, how are you going to hold on for those who had a lot less going for them and would envy the kind of life I have led up until now.
My father has not policed who I might kiss, but he has opinions on everything and seeks to put his nose into every corner. I was trying to speed up the references I was waiting for. My approach to writing an email to one of the referees actually worked out better than I had anticipated. However, it was not the way my father would have written it so I had to stand there why he shouted at me how much of an idiot I was and how naïve and foolish I was to think that was the right way to do things. My way succeeded, but because I am now categorised as being ‘wrong’ it still needed me to be abused. Talking to the Job Centre, he stands nearby tsking and criticising every response I give. I am caught between answering the demanding questions in a way that I think my father will approve of. I can never be ‘right’ even when my decisions are shown to be correct.
The fact that we are receiving charity means that every aspect of our behaviour can be policed. We have to be seen to be deserving of help. This is achieved by looking for jobs, not just any jobs, but the ones which our family feel we must get. If we do not get them, or in my case, not start them soon enough, then it is our fault. It is not because unemployment is too high or I am too old or too qualified or all the other excuses companies give me for not employing me. Whatever stops me and even more the woman from my house, in getting back into work is purely and simply our fault and we need to be lectured at length about it. We are incredibly grateful for the help we received knowing we would be on the streets otherwise, but the price demanded is impossible to pay, it is a thirst for indignation directed at us that can never be sated. It is not helped by the myths that these people believe in which I have highlighted before, the most common, ‘how come you cannot get council housing, all these immigrants turn up in Britain and get given a three-bedroomed house for nothing’. This is not true but they would rather believe the ‘Daily Mail’ than the actual responses you have got from councils and benefit bodies.
Another aspect is the house rules. I have mentioned before, the challenge of being a lodger. You will always fail unless you can precisely read the mind of the homeowner. The rules are immense, down to where you can put a glass, the amount of food you can eat, when even down to what demeanour you must have and what you can talk about in the house. Any violation leads to another round of haranguing, because if you have put a cup out of place then it shows once more how useless, feckless, lazy you are and you must be alerted to and lectured about that. It is exhausting but clearly satisfies some need in the charity-givers psyche. This has shown me why, as Francis Beckett highlighted in ‘Clem Attlee’ (1994), Attlee disliked charity and insisted that the state should dispassionately give assistance to those in need. The direct giving of charity, unmoderated by organisations, is acidic to the souls of both the giver and the receiver. Of course, this is something that Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and those other writers who so effectively wrote about our times feature in their novels. The mid-20th century anomaly is over and I suppose as I find myself facing ‘Hard Times’ I guess tolerate a lack of ‘Sense and Sensibility’ and simply cope with the ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and pray that I can get a job and rent somewhere to be away from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
