I know... I can hear you crying out in justified union. “What right does he have to write about writing? He's never been published!” Well, let me explain. Here and there between other books, I have been reading 'On Writing' by Stephen King. Despite being a fan of horror (amongst numerous other genres), it may surprise you to learn that I'm not a huge King fan. I find him to be an author I respect more than enjoy. Most likely that is my loss, and perhaps one day I shall pick up more of his novels and find a new host of gold to add to my treasured halls of mental book shelves. Until that time, however, I will note that I find his observations on writing quite insightful and fascinating. His stories themselves may rarely have appealed to my reading desires, but there is no denying he is a master of the craft and a compelling personality.
In the process of reading King's various anecdotes about his early experiences, I found my own memories triggering and firing. Memories of the things I have written over the years, or the experiences that have built-up to those pages of cramped black lettering. It got me thinking. I need to write down these snippets of my past, at the times I remember them. Put them into words on the page, lest they be forgotten one day.
So really, at this point in time, I am writing this more for myself than for you, my readers (If I have any). So stop complaining about my lack of credentials (You never know, one day some of you may be reading this after I actually have some!). Just let me ramble on for my own sake, and either enjoy or ignore at your own behest.
My first memory of writing, was a short science fiction story called “Richerd and the Alien Prince” (Obviously the character's name was Richard, but my typing or my spelling left something to be desired. I'm not sure which, probably both). If my maths is correct, it was probably 1985. I was about nine, my father was still alive, and we had been in the UK for perhaps less than a year since returning from the Bahamas (Job, not holiday). Being a Church of England Priest, my father had various tasks requiring the use of a typewriter, one of which was the church magazine.
I have little doubt that his creation of these monthly releases was an influence on me. Most likely at its greatest influence when I published the Rebel Review, but I shall go into that on another occasion. At this point, the primary factor was a typewriter, and my love of science fiction and adventure.
From here on in, I shall refer to my father as 'Dad', being the term by which I remember him. Dad had been given or loaned (I can't remember which) an old blue typewriter upon starting his new position. He was ever the gadget fan, a habit and addiction which I have most certainly inherited, be it genetically or by influence. Finding aforementioned typewriter functional at best, he soon purchased a wonderful new electric typewriter (This was just before the days of word-processing computers, which themselves will garner a few paragraphs in a later article). This typewriter was quite the marvel of modern technology, with gleaming white plastic sides, at least one or two glowing LEDs, and magical buttons that seemingly required little-to-no pressure before a letter was suddenly printed on the page with all the speed and power of a nail-gun on maximum. However, I digress. This typewriter had little influence on me apart from its untouchable wonder, and one other small factor. It freed up the little blue typewriter until such time as it was eventually returned to its original owner (So it must have been borrowed).
I metaphorically (perhaps even literally) rubbed my hands together in glee. Here was my chance! And so was spawned 'Richerd and the Alien Prince'. My ability for thinking up original character names must have been somewhat lacking (And may still be, depending on the opinion of my readers) because Richard was the name of my best friend of the time (Then again, if memory serves me correctly, he was only an acquaintance through church at that point, and yet to become my friend).
Richard is a local guy living a quiet and seemingly solitary life, who then witnesses the crashing arrival of something in the local woods. Of course he investigates, only to discover it contains an alien. Somewhat pathetically (Especially considering the alien prince looks human), Richard faints from shock twice in a row. What can I say, I was convinced that meeting an alien for the first time was so shocking that one's brain ceases to function momentarily, even when they look no different than someone you would pass in the street (Yes, this foolish story element embarrasses and bugs me even to this day). Anyway, despite having different languages, they make swift friends. However, all is not well. The enemies of the alien prince are hunting him in order to stop his ascension to the throne and removal of their power. A car chase ensues, and soon our heroes rather easily steal a jet from the local RAF base, and manage to shoot down the dastardly alien spaceship, saving the day. Not only that, they go back to Richard's house to celebrate by having a meal of chicken and chips. Believe me, I'm not kidding. It was my favourite meal as a kid, so that's what my heroes ate to celebrate. If you don't like it, tough.
I sat on the floor with the little typewriter, that in complete opposition to my Dad's electric counterpart, required fingers to be used like mini-hammers to ensure the letters were typed on the page with legible pressure. No doubt many hours later, a two-page short story was completed with plenty of errors, lots of words stricken through, and unusual grammar that will probably puzzle alien scientists in a post-apocalyptic world when it is the only surviving manuscript they discover, and (probably correctly) lead them to conclude that we were all insane.
The main point, is that I started writing. Adventures, stories, ideas and characters have always been bubbling over in the back of my mind, whether I have taken the effort to write them down, or they occurred to action figures in numerous miniature adventures.
Of all the things that story achieved, one shall never be forgotten. The immortal words of an alien language that meant something along the lines of: “I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're saying.” Words that shall be remembered in my family alongside immortal movie terms such as “Gort Klaatu Barada Nikto.” Those words were...
“Baggy La Nifnook.”
Monday, 24 May 2010
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
The General Election looms near, and those of us who intend to vote are left with the choice of who to cast our lot with. Undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to politics at the moment, is the seeming similarity of the major parties and their policies. On top of that, is a terribly flawed voting system. Apathy has set in because of these and other reasons, to the extent that many feel their vote will not count or matter.
The Voting System
Why is this flawed? Quite simply, because it does not give the majority of people an equal voice. In simplified terms, let us take three fictional counties, 'A', 'B' and 'C', each of which counts for a single seat. County 'A' has 200 voters. County 'B' has 50, and county 'C' has 50. Now let us take two major parties, 'Party 1' and 'Party 2'. The people in County 'A' all vote for 'Party 1'. The people in Counties 'B' and 'C' both vote for 'Party 2'. What does this mean? That 'Party 2' gets 2 seats in government, to 'Party 1's single seat. The result being that 'Party 2' get into power, despite the fact that twice as many people voted for 'Party 1'.
Doesn't something strike you as unfair about it all? Yet that is how our current electoral system works. At the last election, the Conservatives in fact had more votes than Labour. Yet Labour gained more seats (think of them as 'Party 2' above), and as a result are in power. Irrespective of party affiliations, is it fair that a party which is quite literally less representative of the people gets into power, over one that gained more support than any other on an individual voter basis? It also means that the Conservatives have to be ultra-successful to even stand a chance of getting in, while Labour only have to be moderately successful to stay in power.
For the individual voter, it also means that their vote can count for shockingly little, or far more than they represent by themselves. For example, if a person lives in an area with a high population that has always leant one way, then their vote counts for little. Meanwhile an individual in an area with a small population that could swing either way counts for an incredible amount. Surely, logic tells us, the vote of each individual in each area, should count for every bit as much as the other?
So for starters, you can understand the apathy for voting, most especially in areas that are foregone conclusions. After all, if you live in an area that is a foregone conclusion, you know that if you want to vote for a party other than the leading one, you may as well not vote. Because nationally, your vote has no impact whatsoever. Put it this way, pretend you are in a group of 100 people and 70 of them vote for 'Party 1'. You vote for 'Party 2', along with the other 29 people. If the next group of 100 people all vote for 'Party 2', it would still only class as a draw. Why? Because each group only represents one seat. Meanwhile 130 people overall voted for 'Party 2', while only 70 voted for 'Party 1'. It is understandable if a person in the first group feels as though their vote means nothing.
The other core problem seems to be one of similarity. In the old days, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour, all had very different attitudes on how society should progress. Now, many of their policies appear to blur into one another. The alterations can all seem equally valid on the surface. Who knows which policy will work, and which won't? Quite often whether they are good or bad, has more to do with how well they are presented rather than the sense of the policy itself.
All too often they shy away from definitive answers on things, because they know that every voter has an individual perspective. As such, they don't wish to alienate those voters by saying anything too specific that they may happen to disagree with. The drawback? That having nothing specific gives people nothing to grab onto or choose to vote for.
Then, even if you do vote, you have to decide who to vote for.
Let's divide things into three hypothetical parties.
Party 1 – They represent most closely what you believe in, but don't stand a chance of getting into power.
Party 2 – They represent some of the things you believe in, and stand a chance of getting into power.
Party 3 – Stand for few of the things you believe in, but stands the most chance of getting into power.
Do you vote for a Party 1 that represents what you believe in, but in the knowledge that the vote is going to have little effect? Or do you vote for Party 2 that actually stands a chance of getting into power, and at least stands for some of the things you agree with? If you vote for Party 1, is it in fact more of a vote for Party 3, simply because it gives them more chance of winning against Party 2?
Now take that into the real world. Realistically, it is a competition between Labour and the Conservatives. Possibly, as a remote outsider, the Liberal Democrats. Then there are the other fringe parties, from Green to UKIP.
Given the current voting system and its geographical layout, on average a vote for Labour probably counts for greater than 1 vote in their favour. A vote Conservative probably counts for slightly less than 1 vote in their favour. A vote for the Liberal Democrats will count toward either a hung parliament, or given the political landscape, it will divide the vote in swing areas sufficiently to increase Labour's chance, and decrease the Conservatives. A vote for any of the other parties effectively(on average) splits the vote slightly in favour of labour and/or slightly against the Conservatives.
So in all probability, if you want the Conservatives in power, vote for them. If you want Labour in power, vote for them. If you don't really like Labour, but would still rather see them in power again rather than the Conservatives, vote for any of the others. And all of that is before we even get into the inequalities and unfairness of the separated powers of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, with their associated money expenditures and parliamentary seats that heavily affect England with less effect on themselves.
My personal opinion is that we need to vote, regardless of the problems with the system, to make use of what little control we have. That right to vote, flawed as it is, has been fought for over decades if not centuries, with countless lives. At least if we vote, we can give our views with the authority that we made our decision and stood for it. If we don't vote, what right have we to complain?
I've decided who I'll vote for, but given the political world, I must admit it is by no means a decision of significant conviction. Who will you vote for?