A Thought of One's Own

I know I already mentioned this book but I wanted to do it full justice. It was recommended to me by a tutor, and since I wasn't reading anything I thought I'd give it a go. I think it's rather strangely written. 


The author is very good at setting up the characters, through glimpses of their everyday lives we get to know various people from various walks of life in varying degrees. Some people get only one paragraph in the whole book, others get whole chapters, but it's clear throughout that they are all interconnected. 


The book's official description says it's about the time just before Tienanmen Square and the democratic wall, and that's true, that's when it's set, but I think if you want to know more about this time in China from a historical viewpoint it's the wrong book to read. It's very much grassroots, and you see the effects of the revolution and change without seeing any of the change itself. 


I struggled a bit with the end, because having set up all these characters and this tense position of plot, the story ends very suddenly, and not very satisfyingly. She does bring it all together very well,  but you feel that it was all a bit of a waste of time instead of feeling the turmoil and perhaps hope that I would have expected from that era. But then I suppose that's how the normal everyday people would have felt. 


I also found it hard in places to really connect with the characters and their motives. Sometimes you could completely understand their fears and passions, but at other points what a character is doing and why just doesn't seem to make much sense and it's not really resolved by the end of the book. 


But all in all it was a reasonably thought provoking and well written story, although I would have liked the character development to be a bit more sturdy and perhaps a bit more story past the point where the novel ends. 

I think everybody has at least one friend who they stay friends with just out of a sense of duty and not because they genuinely like them anymore. As an aspiring lawyer that takes on a new level in many ways because friends aren't just there for fun. Friends can be the key to meeting the right people, having the right connections. So although you're not going to miss them, you might miss their contacts. 


That might seem like a cynical view, but remember that the bar in particular is made up overwhelmingly of Etonian types with plenty of money, and plenty of friends. Getting in there is still about the friends, even if we wish it wasn't. 


Of course, you can do it without, but you don't want to do anything that might make things harder, so you want to do it with. Plus, if you make an enemy or end up with an unpleasant relationship with someone important then that could really screw up your prospects. 


My university has a bar society, and the people that run it are the slimiest one-upping type folk. They ooze trying too hard. They're charming when they need to be, and love to shoulder rub with anyone mildly important. And of course they're hopelessly rude to everyone else. That's not what I wanted law to be like. I had hoped it would be an intellectual environment where everyone was dedicated to their studies and hardworking and everyone would sort of get along because we're all in it together. 


But you're never allowed to forget about class and money. 

I think I'm going in a new direction as a reader at the moment. Over the last couple of years I've mainly been working my way through the classics and non-fiction, with the occasional bit of modern work from an author I know to be good or as new bits of series come out. But lately I've been more inclined towards Asian writing. 


At school I studied Chinese Cinderella, which I sort of liked at the time but wasn't a massive fan of. More recently I've been reading The Vagrants, which is again about China, and really quite disturbing. It follows various characters about one generation after the Communist revolution. Some of them like it, some of them don't but won't say anything, some of them have said something and are punished for it, and others don't even seem aware that it happened. But the characters are all connected; they all live in the one small town, and their lives are all intertwined whether they know it or not. It's quite good thus far, although I haven't finished it yet. 


On a slightly odder note I've also been rereading Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis, which is just weird. Everyone knows that one morning Gregor Sansa woke up to find he'd been turned into a  cockroach, many of them because it made its way onto the SATs syllabus a few years ago. But what I find most odd is that nobody seems to ask why. They just hope it'll go back and carry on, but then that is the point, because it highlights the absurdity of life. You get the feeling quite strongly that it demonstrates that the working class don't really have any other choice but to just carry on regardless. 


But anyway, as to the Asian side, I think it's because I got bored of European literature (and I haven't yet found it in me to like American stuff really) because it's too familiar. So I'm heading to other cultures to try and find something a bit more new. Because that's really why you read, isn't it, to broaden your own experience into things you've never encountered through fiction. 


Or maybe you just like stories. But that seems a bit mundane. 

It's difficult to feel creative when you're massively overworked. You expect uni to be challenging, that's part of the appeal, but I'm currently suffering under the burden of an overzealous tutor who sets three times more work than a normal tutor would and, furthermore, expects that you will never argue with their opinion, ever. Because of course they're always right. Which is frustrating, because it means there's absolutely no possibility of any sort of theoretical discussion because it's just: this is how it is, and we're not going to discuss how it could be. 


Because there are two main ways of looking at law, it seems. You can look at it as some strange body of a thing that we don't make but instead decode from cryptic revelations of logic, or as a man made structure that can be altered and adjusted according to theoretical and practical needs. Mostly this tutor of mine is in the former camp, and I'm in the latter. So when I suggest a theoretical basis for a change, I get shut down with 'there's no precedent for that' and we carry on talking about what she thinks. Which annoys me. 


I was under the impression that law was about facilitating justice and the right outcomes. You only have to look at administrative law or criminal law to see that judges will bend over backwards to make the law do what is morally or 'naturally' just. So if something is clearly producing unfair results (take, for example the law in contract that some modifications are enforceable and others aren't) surely you should engage with ways of changing it so it produces the right result. Then you can worry about the case law later, because if the judges want it to happen, the Supreme Court will make it so one way or another, in the interests of 'natural justice' and so forth. 


Open your minds! Engage with the issues! You'll never get a first if you don't.
But don't engage with them if it means disagreeing with me. 
Because I am God. 

Contrary to what one of my lecturers said the other day some lawyers do have poetry in their souls. Thus I recently took it upon myself to make the long journey to Stratford-Upon-Avon to participate in the World Shakespeare Festival. 


The play in question was Twelfth Night, which isn't exactly my favourite Shakespeare, I tend to prefer the tragedies to the comedies, but it was what they were showing so I duly paid for my ticket, grabbed a dinner on the go to avoid extortionate theatre cafe prices, and settled in to a rather poor upper circle seat. 


The first thing that catches your eye when you enter is that there's a swimming pool under the stage. It's really quite odd, since the first thing on stage is a character flopping out of it, having just been shipwrecked. Then of course the play gets going and you have other things to worry about. The set was very elaborate, as you would expect for the RSC, and the actors all of a decent class. The drunks were roudy and silly, the lovers were passionate and threw themselves around the stage like mad people, and the fool was a fool. 


But the character, and indeed the actor, that really stole the show was the manservant, Malvolio, portrayed by Jonathon Slinger who you may remember as the leery chap 'Peter the Pardoner' who steals all of Jeff's clothes in a Knight's Tale. He's still leery, but the costume interpretation of the classic yellow socks and cross garters that Malvolio is tricked into wearing takes on a whole new level with him, as he wears very little else. His performance was excellent, and he received a well deserved ovation at the end of his incredible appearance in said outfit. It takes a lot of courage to go out dressed like that on stage in front of an audience, and to do it every night for the whole run is amazing. 


Other amusements included the traditional theatre ice cream which I cannot resist despite the price, and a quite good souvenir shop where one can purchase a magnet telling you to 'Kill all the lawyers' from Henry VI. 

So the Parliamentary timetable for this session has been announced (woo!) and they're introducing a bill to reform the House of Lords. It won't get through (probably, most likely, on the balance of probabilities), but it's worth looking at anyway. From the Guardian Newspaper:


'The government on Wednesday set out areas of agreement between it and the joint committee: a mainly elected chamber, elected members voted on a system of single transferable vote, staggered elections with one third coming up for renewal at a time, peers to serve 15-year terms, current peers to leave in stages, a reduced number of peers, and powers to expel peers.' 
...
'Ministers are concerned that any statute or memorandum setting out mutual powers will then make the relationship between Commons and Lords justiciable in English courts, so reducing the much prized autonomy of parliament.'


You may have a feeling that I don't like it. 
You'd be right. 
Single transferable vote? Great. Just like the country ought to be and in that move justify never changing the main voting system because Commons and Lords need to be elected on a different basis or there's just no point. 


The other problem I have is that the House of Lords would be elected. Yes, I have a problem with giving Lords a democratic mandate, despite my firmly held believe that not everybody should have a democratic mandate because the proletariat/voters/common people/homies just don't have a clue what they're doing when they vote for the most part. We already have one House elected by people who haven't got a clue what they're voting for, the value in Lords is that it is comprised, at least in part, of experts. If I were in charge (and I should be, let's face it) Lords reform would involve the House of Lords being entirely unelected, nominated experts in various fields, with no more bishops (totally inappropriate to have bishops in politics...or at all) and nobody in there who didn't get in on merit. 

I've been thinking quite hard today on Contract Law but I don't want to post my fruits just yet because the idea needs a bit more ironing out. If it comes out well, it'll be pretty nifty. 


So in the meantime, how about idols? 


I think a lot of people tend to idolise the wrong kind of person in today's culture; people like Paris Hilton that seemingly have no self respect and eat way too little whilst projecting the image that that's the ideal and have achieved nothing with their lives and don't need to. Admittedly that's an extreme example. 


My point is, there are some really incredible people alive today, not to mention all the people that have done something spectacular in the past.


My favourites are quite varied really. I quite like Nelson Mandela although I suspect 'Long Walk to Freedom' was rather heavily edited to paint him in the most positive light. Nevertheless, it's pretty impressive to overturn an oppressive regime like that. Which I suppose means I ought to be fond of the people in the Arab Spring. And I am glad that people have finally stood up against their oppressors in that part of the world and that dictators have been overthrown, but I worry about the consequences. The Muslim Brotherhood gaining influence in Egypt, for example. That's just trading one extreme regime for another, albeit with a religious rather than a selfish justification (allegedly). I suppose we'll just have to wait and see for now, but until then, check out Srdja Popovic and CANVAS: the people that train protesters. 


I really enjoyed reading Aung San Su Kyi's 'Letters from Burma' too, but I think I find it harder to connect with her ideas than with Mandela's because she's just so gentle. Which is great, but I'm not sure I agree that it's the most effective method. At present things seem to be looking up for her at last. 


In terms of slightly less serious idols, Margaret Atwood is a stunningly good author. She writes books from historical fiction to fantasy and dystopia and I particularly like her 'The Penelopiad' because of the feminist, realist angle. 


Thinking about people that have achieved something with their lives makes me incredibly anxious to do something with mine. 

Being a student is, generally speaking, a pretty high stress experience. A lot of students use drinking and partying as a relief, and your author does too, it's true, but I find a cheaper method of relaxation is a bit of good comedy. 


Thus, I was rather pleased when Russell Howard's Good News started up again a couple of weeks ago. I think the talent in his show is the combination of the speed at which he makes the jokes and the fact that he never goes back over the same ground (which would be pretty pointless on a  news show) save for a couple of his own 'meme' type things. It's also great that you can see he enjoys his own jokes; sometimes he has to stop talking just to laugh. Plus he showcases lesser known comedic talent on his 'Extra' show which means you get to see a lot more of British Comedy than just your standard Lee Mack and Dara O'Brien. 


But of course, I am a law student and I think one of my favourite shows of all time is the little known Fox show Boston Legal. Running for just five seasons as a spin-off of another American legal drama, the show stars William Shatner (Cptn James Tiberius Kirk, to most, although a bit chubbier these days) and James Spader (the evil best friend in Pretty in Pink, now also known for the American version of The Office) as a pair of ageing, shameless lawyers in a Boston law firm. The show has some great characters, and the perfect moment in season 2 where William Shatner makes a joke about 'cling-ons' is precious. Definitely worth checking out, and even though it's American it's not too bad for Criminal Law revision. 


Then there's always live comedy. I have to admit, I don't get out much to live shows, and when I do they're usually book signings and occasionally plays (review of RSC's Twelfth Night coming up soon) but there's something quite nice about actually being in the room with your comedian, especially if you're in the front row and have the chance to actually interact with them, assuming you don't get embarrassed too easily.