NOW READING

I have seen some Lineker match talk with that Scot I couldn't understand. Kidding! ;-)
What are you refering to? Also an English way?
 
It's the way that the BBC discusses the English football team, or "We" in BBC-speak. The BBC is the British Broadcasting Corporation and prides itself in being neutral, but that goes out the window when it comes to their football team. You'd think that since they're broadcasting to the entire UK that there would be some understanding that not everybody watching is English and as a result the bias would be toned down. It reached a new low with Lineker's "Come on England!" rallying call before every match. The BBC was just as guilty of that during the Olympics, as it took until the second week before a foreign athlete was invited onto the sofa for a chat, but at least that's for the whole country and not just part of the population (albeit the majority of it).
 
I hear you.

Still I'd like to play the devil's advocate a bit, because I think a presentor never can do much good in this complex situation of such a broadcast corporaton having to deal with seperate football teams and supporters

People outside England are indeed watching, so it's more than a purely English event. Can't it be seen as a social gesture in the vein of "Today, we're all together in this" ?

Though if he'd said "Come on Britain", he'd offend more people, would he not?

Do you think it will change if Scotland will reach an end tournament again? Will someone do an additional "Come on Scotland", or do you rather think both of such rallyings would become non-existent?
 
Forostar said:
Do you think it will change if Scotland will reach an end tournament again? Will someone do an additional "Come on Scotland", or do you rather think both of such rallyings would become non-existent?
Click to expand...
That kind of thing would happen on BBC Scotland and STV, but as a whole the organization shouldn't focus solely on one of the nations or one group of people. If BBC Midlands or BBC London spout loads of patriotic, biased nonsense during sports tournaments then I don't care because their audience is English and that's what their audience wants to hear. However, the coverage of tournaments is broadcast across the whole network and I would appreciate it if the BBC took note of that.

Another aspect of sport confusing British identity to outsiders is that the English sports teams have hijacked the national anthem. 'God Save the Queen' is supposed to be the British national anthem but the English football and Rugby teams use it as their anthem when other songs would be more appropriate. I guess that must confuse foreigners as well.
 
Got this in the mail today and will start reading it tonight :)

200px-Many_Years_from_Now.jpg


"
Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now is a 1997 biography of Paul McCartney by Barry Miles. It is the "official" biography of McCartney and was written "based on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews undertaken over a period of five years" according to the back cover of the 1998 paperback edition. The title is a phrase from McCartney's song "When I'm Sixty-Four" from the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
The majority of the book covers the Lennon–McCartney relationship, the rise and fall of the Beatles, and Paul McCartney's role in the band "
 
Oh I forgot to post here. I recently (actually not recently, three weeks ago) finished The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. A fantastic and intimate summary of the situations the farmers have gone through in the Great Depression. Liked it but the book is truly a demanding one to read, mainly caused by Steinbeck's long portraitures of the scenes. Adds to the cinematic effect but takes away from the flow even though Steinbeck's pen is pretty fluid. Took me more than a month to finish.

I completed the whole year reading only 6 books (Vanish by Tess Gerritsen, Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, The Iron Heel by Jack London, Lord of the Flies by William Golding and The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck) , what a shame. My averages are around 20-25 a year, it was 38 in 2009.
 
I read Of Mice and Men when I was in school. I haven't read very many books that really put you into it the way it did. I don't know why I never read anything else by him.
 
So I've made my way through 7 chapters of The Hobbit (damn you peter jackson!) and no surprise I hate the movie even more now. Not that the Hobbit is that great. I'm surprised at how minimalistic it is in description and action. They've spent the better part of the book walking and resting. I also forgot how... childish, no, that's not the right word... ah fuck it, it's meant for a younger audience. The way he continuously talks to the reader is very annoying. Gripes aside I have to say I am enjoying it, more than I thought I was. Riddles in the Dark is a phenomenal chapter.
 
Currently reading 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami.

Recently read the Swedish translation of Kafka On The Shore (Kafka på stranden). Loved that book, and immediately started another by Murakami. This one in English because that was the only single-volume of all three books that I could find. I always opt for orginal language, but that is of course not an option here.
 
Finally Finished the Hobbit. I know it's a quick read, but I only read it at work when it got slow enough to read a few pages here and there. At any rate, I'm impressed. In doing a little research turns out Tolkien was working on further changes to The Hobbit besides "Riddles in the Dark." But he abandoned the idea after editors and friends told him it just wasn't the whimsical Hobbit anymore. The change in mood is noticeable and I for one would have liked a darker Hobbit. I can also see how they're milking 3 movies out of it. Were they needed? Oh god no. But I can see where Peter Jackson, lover of every detail and 3 hour movies, is going with this. There is a lot in the Hobbit we don't see and are only told about, like the Necromancer, but it is taking an important place in the plot of the movies.

I, like EVERYBODY have heard the, "Why don't they just use the Eagles for everything?" argument and after reading the book it makes perfect since why they don't. It was none of the Eagles' business really. Just like it was Frodo's quest in LOTR, here it is the Dwarves quest. People are polite, but are almost always reluctant to help until something bonds them, either enemy, gift or proof of valor.I think a lot of this has to do with Tolkien's experience in WWI and WWII and the relationship between nations. Even allies don't help each other all the time. Great examples are the U.S and the U.K, who only get involved when their business interests are threatened.

While written just briefly before WWII I see the Eagles participation in the Final Battle against the Goblins in the Lonely Mountain very similar to the U.S's participation in the last leg of WWII.

He's war experience was easier to see in the book than his Christian influence. Tolkien, like C.S Lewis, is considered a "Christian writer," and in both author's cases their works are supposed to be filled with Christian teachings and philosophy. C.S Lewis was more obvious about it, I had a hard time picking at it in the Hobbit aside from Greed is bad, which you don't have to be a Christian to know that. In LOFTR The fact that 33 is "their coming of age" is slap you in the face Christianity as there is no doubt it is a reference to the age at which we believe Christ died (He started his ministry at 30, preached for 3 years... IF we take it he was born on year 1 AD. It is now believed he was actually born between 6-4 BCE so he was closer to 40).

A more important one, I thought, was Thorin's death and his reconciliation with Bilbo and his repentence for letting wealth taking over him. The teaching that it is never to late to make things right.

In short, the relationship between Elves, Dwarves, Eagles and Men is very easy to understand and why they do or do not help each other out in varying quests. Better read than I remember and expected.
 
Finished 1Q84 and found it absolutely fantastic, though flawed. A new favourite perhaps, altough it is of course hard to say right now. I will continue with more Murakami, having started Wind-up Bird Chronicle and ordered Norwegian Wood and Sputnik Sweetheart. Swedish translations, this time.
 
Onhell said:
In LOFTR The fact that 33 is "their coming of age" is slap you in the face Christianity as there is no doubt it is a reference to the age at which we believe Christ died (He started his ministry at 30, preached for 3 years... IF we take it he was born on year 1 AD. It is now believed he was actually born between 6-4 BCE so he was closer to 40).
Click to expand...

It's quite an old belief. I know that Jesus was born in 4 BCE more than 30 years and the Encyclopaedia that it was mentioned was already old. Some guy with the name of Dionysus the Small screwed once with the dates..

Yet he could have lived 33 years in deed and died earlier than 34 AD.. What makes you think that he lived 40, Tacitus??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top