When reasonably impressed with David Cameron's latest speech on the EU, I made notes about it which I am later turning into this blog post:
Cameron's astute analysis of the political and historical situation that he finds himself has been greatly to his advantage. His description of British mentality was seemingly accurate: the focus on pragmatism; the paradox between isolationist geography and mentality against openness and multiculturalism. Cameron clearly has a strong understanding of history, which can only be a good thing, rooting the debate in its past.
The speech itself was notably pro-Britain and aiming to improve our
role in Europe. He is very much a Tory, and not a liberal idealist striving for the good of all.
It seems that the main question to ask about Europe and the EU is how attached Britain should be to the rest of the continent.
One way of looking at this is to say that it is necessary to be part of
Europe as a political entity in order to remain relevant. The story of
Britain over the last century is one of a diminishment in influence.
Attaching to Europe might be one way of preventing this. Cameron says
that we have more global influence due to our EU connection. On the
other hand, the last century is also the story of the collapse of
Europe. Europe is failing, and so gluing ourselves to it might actually
be a killing stroke. The failing of Europe is the one historical point he does not acknowledge.
I like his focus on the importance of democracy in the EU. This is what we
are exporting all over the world (for better or worse), so we must have
it ourselves. The purpose of the EU (and UN etc.) is to make nations responsible for their actions, and to create a system of leadership that controls those at the top. The problem of history has always been that nations have had no laws to prevent them acting as they please on the global scale. If we are to have a system that prevents this (as well we should), it must be democratic in style.
In particular, his discussion about letting heretical views be heard and never denouncing new thoughts is
crucial. This is one of the most important ideas in today's society, and boils down to the importance of free speech. Cameron was able to discuss these issues in an intelligent, rather than simply rhetorical way, like we often get from Obama. Diversity of thought amongst nations is good, like he says,
as long as this does not take the form of acceptance of all ideas. It
should be in the form of ideas competing with each other, for progress.
I was glad to hear him state strongly that we're not joining the Euro. There would be serious problems there and its fortunate that there's no chance that'll happen.
Cameron did make an assumption of the importance of capitalism as an economic structure, discussing ideas such as the single
market and competitiveness without much question. This was weaker intellectually than his talk on democracy, but actually he is probably correct in his conclusion, despite it being arrived at from an assumption. Competition
fuels progress and encourages economic growth across the board.
Co-operation, alongside competition of argument and economics seems like a
reasonable vision. However, is Europe the right force to join with, or are we strapping ourselves to a nation free-falling into chaos and collapse?
It is also in doubt as to whether a true and complete union with Europe is possible, since us Brits will always be somewhat separate and isolated in our geography and mentality.
Cameron made a bold move, stating that there will, in the future, be an in-out referendum. I think he is right to not do this straight away, but it is important to educate the people about the issues involved. This will be fascinating to watch (assuming a Labour government isn't voted in next time!)
17 February 2013
Yann Martel
Life of Pi
This novel had a massive impact on me. I absolutely loved it when I first read it. I was surprised to find that I hadn't written a piece on it before now. I love the use of language, and its apparent simplicity despite deep complexity in themes. I remember being totally gripped when I neared the end of the novel and was presented with the alternative story, forced to reconsider everything I had read until that point. Second and third readings become totally different once you know the ending, and have to grapple with the two-story concept.
This was recently adapted into a wonderful movie. Surprisingly, I was largely optimistic about this, despite it being considered un-filmable by many and always dangerous to adapt great works. This turned out to be one of the best films I have seen in a long time. (Note, whilst 3D has improved as a technology, it is not necessary.)
The film made some of the themes a bit more obvious and directly apparent, as opposed to the more nuanced novel, but this was largely to its advantage
In the movie, it is difficult to believe the animal story once you have heard the second human story. The performance of the actor playing Pi really dove into the character's psyche and forced us to realise that in reality, the wonderful adventure was not everything it seemed to be. The only way one could conceivably continue to believe the first story is through having faith. This, unfortunately, is not something I am programmed to do.
The religious themes were apparent, clearly arguing for any type of religious faith, almost saying that it is OK to believe whatever you want if it makes life happier and more interesting.
The main principle is that faith is a good thing, even if it is faith in something that is untrue. Only one with unprecedented faith could believe the wonderful story of Pi's life with Richard Parker.
The problem is, I do not believe any type of faith is a good thing.
I somehow have found a way to love the book without agreeing with any of its messages. I'm not even a vegetarian, which Life of Pi clearly advocates. How can this be?
The only answers I can think are these:
1) Even if I do not agree with the viewpoints, I am interested in the themes in general. Religion is one of my favourite topics, and when tackled through fiction is all the more interesting. Furthermore, I have always sought a rational explanation for meat-eating, without finding one I am truly happy with.
2) The language. The novel is expertly put together.
This second idea is backed up by the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed another of Yann Martel's novels:
Beatrice and Virgil
Martel's obsession with animals continues, and rather than tackling questions of religion, he decides to tackle the Holocaust.
What is the perspective on the Holocaust that is being presented?
There is some sympathy for the ex-Nazi character, despite the protagonist's disgust. The reader spends a lot of time with this supporting character without discovering his horrible past, thus making it difficult for the reader to abandon previous sympathies in exchange for hatred. Martel seems to be opening up the discussion, asking questions, as opposed to quite strongly presenting a world-view like he did in Life of Pi.
This novel had a massive impact on me. I absolutely loved it when I first read it. I was surprised to find that I hadn't written a piece on it before now. I love the use of language, and its apparent simplicity despite deep complexity in themes. I remember being totally gripped when I neared the end of the novel and was presented with the alternative story, forced to reconsider everything I had read until that point. Second and third readings become totally different once you know the ending, and have to grapple with the two-story concept.
This was recently adapted into a wonderful movie. Surprisingly, I was largely optimistic about this, despite it being considered un-filmable by many and always dangerous to adapt great works. This turned out to be one of the best films I have seen in a long time. (Note, whilst 3D has improved as a technology, it is not necessary.)
The film made some of the themes a bit more obvious and directly apparent, as opposed to the more nuanced novel, but this was largely to its advantage
In the movie, it is difficult to believe the animal story once you have heard the second human story. The performance of the actor playing Pi really dove into the character's psyche and forced us to realise that in reality, the wonderful adventure was not everything it seemed to be. The only way one could conceivably continue to believe the first story is through having faith. This, unfortunately, is not something I am programmed to do.
The religious themes were apparent, clearly arguing for any type of religious faith, almost saying that it is OK to believe whatever you want if it makes life happier and more interesting.
The main principle is that faith is a good thing, even if it is faith in something that is untrue. Only one with unprecedented faith could believe the wonderful story of Pi's life with Richard Parker.
The problem is, I do not believe any type of faith is a good thing.
I somehow have found a way to love the book without agreeing with any of its messages. I'm not even a vegetarian, which Life of Pi clearly advocates. How can this be?
The only answers I can think are these:
1) Even if I do not agree with the viewpoints, I am interested in the themes in general. Religion is one of my favourite topics, and when tackled through fiction is all the more interesting. Furthermore, I have always sought a rational explanation for meat-eating, without finding one I am truly happy with.
2) The language. The novel is expertly put together.
This second idea is backed up by the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed another of Yann Martel's novels:
Beatrice and Virgil
Martel's obsession with animals continues, and rather than tackling questions of religion, he decides to tackle the Holocaust.
What is the perspective on the Holocaust that is being presented?
There is some sympathy for the ex-Nazi character, despite the protagonist's disgust. The reader spends a lot of time with this supporting character without discovering his horrible past, thus making it difficult for the reader to abandon previous sympathies in exchange for hatred. Martel seems to be opening up the discussion, asking questions, as opposed to quite strongly presenting a world-view like he did in Life of Pi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)