More voices! More words! The Southbank International School in London is hosting a community learning Salon: an exclusive opportunity for members of this lively educational community to join together in the exploration of ideas.
Community Learning Salon
Program description: The Community Learning Salon offers members of the Southbank community (parents, students in G9-12, staff, faculty, administrators…) an opportunity for a playful exchange of ideas beyond the classroom. In our weekly hour-long after-school meetings, we will use a short work of literature to consider the human experience and sharpen our critical learning skills through the discussion. The nature of the Salon conversation allows for a bridge across age and life experience to find shared ground in discovery and knowledge. The study is facilitated by Toby Brothers, a dynamic literature instructor with experience conducting seminars for adults and students in English and world literature, poetry and creative writing in London, Paris and San Francisco. For history and more details about the Salon, see http://clone.checkyourtestsite.co.uk/
“To think that we have at our disposal the biggest thing in the universe and that it is language. What one can do with language is infinite.” Helene Cixous, French Philosopher
Week OneIntroduction, poem study: Elizabeth Bishop’s ‘Sestina’ Bishop uses a demanding form to explore the uncontrollable nature of grief; this sharp and tender poem is a good starting place for a close consideration of language. No pre-reading is necessary for the first meeting.
Week Two: September 29th Short Story: ‘The Liar’ by Tobias Wolff offers a protagonist caught in his own world, using language to separate and shield himself from those he loves- and fears. Email Toby for copies of the story at litsalon@gmail.com.
Week Three October 6th Short Story:‘The Yellow Wallpaper‘ by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Often disappears into the category of a feminist work, this subversive first person narration gives a glimpse to the dangers of an artistic temperament smothered by care- loving, oppressive care. I will provide readers with notes on the world of late 19th ct. women, particularly in regards to medically care and psychiatric treatment. This is a haunting and riveting read.
Week Four Poetry study: Emily Dickinson: poetess of playful subversion… ‘I Started Early, Took My Dog’ and ‘Tell all the Truth But tell it slant’ Dickinson is considered one of the great American poets but many find her work elusive. We will use these two sample works to discover howDickinson uses language to enter profound questions about meaning, purpose and belief in short, tightly structured bursts of sparkling language.
Week Five ‘Sonny’s Blues‘ by James Baldwin Set in racially-divided Harlem in the 1950s, Baldwin’s long short story tells of a lost brother, mean streets, inheritance, nobility and cowardice, and ultimately of the transcendence available in art. This piece- with its riffs, swoops and echoes comes as close as almost any text I have read to the experience of musicality in writing.
The remaining five sessions will be determined by participant interest. Choices include a longer work (Rushdie, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Faulkner are just a few of the possibilities) or continued consideration of short stories and poetry with an opportunity for creative writing in response to the ideas generated by the Community Learning Salon.
DETAILS Thursdays 3:45 to 4:45 pm, starting 15 September…Study continues for 10 weeks (recommended participation: minimum 6 sessions). Free of charge to members of the Southbank Community.
Although Frankenstein usually falls into other categories before it is considered a story of childbirth, those who read this work recognize an infants wail for its absent creator in the voice of the monster. We will be exploring this issue–and many other questions that the book drives to the surface–as we follow Victor Frankenstein across the frozen ice in his relentless pursuit of his progeny. Who says men can’t give birth?
The content previously published here has been withdrawn. We apologise for any inconvenience.
“Parents are fearful about how they chastise their children,” Clasford Stirling, a veteran youth worker, who runs the football club at Broadwater Farm community centre in Tottenham, said. “There’s been an erosion of authority for a long time. Parents move very gingerly not to upset their own kids – that’s the reality.”
Broadwater Farm estate is again at the centre of the unrest in London. Mark Duggan, whose death last week sparked London’s riots, was brought up here, and sent one of his sons to Stirling’s football classes. On Wednesday, Stirling was making arrangements for his wake.
Struggling to make sense of the violence that has turned buildings on Tottenham High Road into smouldering piles of rubble, Stirling wondered whether weakened parental authority might have something to do with it.
A chorus of establishment voices responded to pictures of school-age children looting late at night by reaching to blame the parents. MPs were urging them to make sure they knew where their children were, David Cameron was talking again about a broken Britain, and London’s mayor said adults and teachers needed to be given back the right to impose authority.
Stirling’s analysis is more nuanced – citing poverty, unemployment, failings of the education system, police harassment, among other triggers – but he believes parents have become afraid to discipline their own children, and warns this is at least part of the problem that has erupted across cities this week.
Forget Boris Karloff with a bolt through his neck. Forget even Peter Boyle as the new, improved monster singing Puttin’ On The Ritz in the Mel Brooks pastiche. What you get in Danny Boyle’s production and Nick Dear’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s mythic fable, with Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller alternating as Victor Frankenstein and the Creature, is neither shlock nor satire. Instead it’s a humane, intelligent retelling of the original story in which much of the focus is on the plight of the obsessive scientist’s sad creation, who becomes his alter ego and his nemesis: it’s rather like seeing The Tempest rewritten from Caliban’s point of view.
As a piece of staging, it is brilliant. But, before listing its virtues, one has to concede that Boyle and Dear, in focusing more on the victim than on Victor, downplay some of Shelley’s themes. Because Victor himself hardly figures until halfway through the action, his initial hubris in animating lifeless matter is minimised. Mary Shelley’s story also throbs with a fierce sense of injustice: a cultivated French family is ruined by its defiance of government, the innocent suffer through Victor’s divine presumption. The echoes are still there in Dear’s two-hour version but Shelley’s rage against existing social structures is muted.
If there are losses, there are also huge gains. We follow the painful progress of the Creature from his first sensational, stuttering steps as he bursts stark naked out of a vertical frame to his education in language and feeling by Karl Johnson’s blind, political exile. We also see the Creature’s yearning for companionship, his longing for love, his aching need for a female counterpart. Even when he is driven to murder, the guilt ultimately belongs to Victor. And when the Creature rapes Victor’s bride before killing her, it is as if he is expressing his creator’s own dark, suppressed desires.
In performance, it is also fascinating to compare the two actors. Cumberbatch’s Creature is unforgettable. “Tall as a pine tree,” as the text insists, he has humour as well as pathos: his naked entry into the world is marked by a totter on splayed feet and, when he moves, it is with a forward-thrusting, angular, almost Hulotesque curiosity. But there is also an epic grandeur about Cumberbatch. As he quotes Paradise Lost, his voice savours every syllable of Milton’s words and when, in outrage at his rejection by the exile’s family, he burns their cottage, he utters a Hamletesque cry of “I sweep to my revenge.” It is an astonishing performance.
Miller’s strength, in contrast, lies in his menace. Stockier than Cumberbatch, his Creature makes you believe in the character’s Satanic impulse and in his capacity for murder: when he hoists Victor’s brother on to his shoulders you instantly fear for the boy’s life. You feel Miller exults in the ultimate role-reversal in which the servant becomes the master. But when it comes to Frankenstein, I felt Cumberbatch had the edge in that he offered clearer hints of the scientist’s cold-hearted single-mindedness.
The actors complement each other perfectly rather than provide a contest and Boyle’s production is a bravura triumph in which Mark Tildesley’s design provides a whole series of visual coups. A candle-filled canopy overhangs the auditorium and blazes into light to evoke Victor’s galvanizing experiments. A steam-belching train surges ominously forward to summon up early 19th-century industrialisation. And the Creature’s rhapsodic discovery of nature is beautifully suggested through birds shooting forth from treetops and rain saturating a narrow strip of turf.
Once or twice the language lapses into bathos: you feel Victor’s bride might come up with something less prim than “We’ll have none of that” when the Creature paws her breast. But, on the whole, this a stunning evening. Dear and Boyle highlight the feminist critique of male usurpation of divinity that lurks in Shelley’s text. Above all, they constantly make us ask which of the two main characters is the real monster. Is it the disfigured, repulsive Creature or Frankenstein himself with his subordination of love and friendship to the idea of creative perfection? The issue is not so much resolved as left hanging as the two figures memorably depart into an eternal icy wilderness.
David Cameron said Thursday was “not a big day for politics”, but this week’s riots have shaped a new political battleground on which the prime minister and Ed Miliband have begun to offer their competing personal versions of social responsibility and how the state can promote community cohesion.
Indeed, the whole nexus of issues surrounding an amoral underclass – parenting, families, gangs, work opportunities, community – is likely to be the dominant issue of the party conference season and the two leaders’ speeches, the first drafts of which are even now being drafted in various European villas.
Both Cameron and Miliband have an existing template of responsibility on which to build their case.
In opposition, Cameron delivered a stream of powerful speeches on the need for civility, better behaviour and a responsibility revolution. Thus he told the Royal Society in 2007: “What builds society, what encourages civility, is people taking responsibility. Putting each other before themselves. Parents understanding that it is their responsibility, not the school’s responsibility, to bring their kids up with the right values.
“Neighbours understanding that it is their responsibility, not just the council’s responsibility, to look out for each other. Business people understanding that it is their responsibility, not just the government’s responsibility, to think about the social and environmental consequences of what they do.”
But his argument was that the state had to recognise that collectively its solutions “add up to a growing burden of state intervention that simply creates a more irresponsible society”. He said: “Politicians must have the courage to take a long-term view. They cannot directly and mechanically ‘do something’ about the way people behave, and it is only politicians’ vanity that makes them think they can.”
But faced by what he called “a sick society”, Cameron in government felt forced to adjust that view, announcing a raft of initiatives precisely designed to alter individual behaviour, many of them drawn from Tony Blair’s arsenal – gang orders, parenting orders, family intervention partnerships, and bans on hoods, a Labour proposal once denounced by the current attorney general, Dominic Grieve, in opposition as an unworkable gimmick.
Ed Miliband, in a speech in June, made his own call for responsibility at the top and the bottom, saying he wanted to mark a break from the “take what you can” ways of the past.
Compassion
He wanted his children to live in a country where “compassion and responsibility to one another are valued”. But, unlike Cameron, he identified inequality as a barrier to a responsible society. “When people lead parallel lives, living in the same town but different worlds, we should not be surprised that it’s hard to nurture a sense of responsibility and solidarity.”
He has asked all his staff to read The Spirit Level this summer, the book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett that has become the bible of those who argue greater equality nourishes community.
Beyond these competing high level views of a responsible society, the two parties will also compete on specifics.
Miliband astutely gave himself political cover to talk not just about individual moral failing but also the context of social malaise, by borrowing Cameron’s words in 2006 – “understanding the background, the reasons, the causes. It doesn’t mean excusing crime but it will help us tackle it.”
But he ordered his colleagues at a shadow cabinet on Thursday morning not to follow Harriet Harman, the deputy leader, in hinting that cuts in Education Maintenance Allowance might be behind the riots. Labour officials said the party would retain its right to discuss the impact of spending cuts on community, but sequence its discussions of these issues.
Governments, Miliband will also argue, have a duty to offer the poor opportunity, and too many Tories end up sounding like they just want to hammer the powerless.
Labour hopes to drive a stake into the Tory claim that it is the party of order, criticising not just the police cuts, but restrictions on the use of CCTV.
Cameron’s aides know he is vulnerable on police budget cuts, even though they were relieved Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, spoke strongly in defence of the police cuts in cabinet. The argument that the police is the last unreformed public service is easier to make in a seminar than on the street after the events of this week.
Cameron contended he is only asking for a 6%-a-year cash cut once the police precept [its share of council tax] is taken into account. Moreover, if cuts in police pay, pensions and greater efficiency are achieved, Cameron asserts, there will be no cut in “police visibility” and police forces will have the capacity to boost their numbers if needed. But Labour has the police itself and the garrulous London mayor, Boris Johnson, on its side, and will not let the issue rest.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Police has said 16,000 police officers will be cut over the full four-year spending review. The home affairs select committee inquiry, announced on Thursday, will make a forensic analysis of the controversy. It is unlikely to make comfortable reading for Cameron.
The Liberal Democrats will also make trouble by challenging whether elected police commissioners will, in reality, produce a more responsive, robust service.
On the broader issue of liberty, Labour is unlikely to be a brake. Miliband has long attacked the way in which use of CCTV is being constrained under Clegg’s freedom bill. Labour is also unlikely to oppose specific restrictions on BlackBerry Messenger service, so long as it does not trip into a wider censorship of social media.
Similarly, there is not much dispute between Labour and Tory over punishing rioters in social housing. Indeed it has been Labour councils, such as Greenwich and Manchester, that have in recent days said they will evict convicted rioters.
At present, if a tenant or a member of their family is involved in antisocial behaviour or criminal activity in their local neighbourhood they can be evicted. The new power, proposed by housing minister Grant Shapps on Thursday, would allow a council to evict a tenant for wrongdoing outside their neighbourhood.
Similarly, rioters that go to jail lose their benefits under existing law. In practice, Labour does not expect curfew powers to be extended and the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said she would support use of water cannons so long as the police, not elected police commissioners, said they were operationally necessary.
There is concern about where Cameron’s talk of the police manual on public order being torn up might end. But it is possibly the softer less tangible issues that may yet become the contested terrain.
“This is not about poverty, this is about culture,” Cameron said. He drew cheers from his side by saying “in too many cases, the parents of these children – if they are still around – don’t care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing.
Consequences
“The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken.”
Yet he did not spell out what action should be taken. Instead, figures such as Iain Duncan-Smith, the work and pensions secretary, are now going to be even more influential inside the cabinet. Gang culture, welfare dependency, absentee dads, early intervention to make children school ready, even compulsory national citizen’s service, are all going to be on the agenda.
Cameron also revived some old ideas when he said: “Every single tax and benefit is pro-family, pro-commitment and pro-fathers who stick around. Part of the problem is that fathers have left too many of these communities, and that is why young people look towards the gang.”
Labour may find some of this hard to swallow, but on other issues, bipartisanship can prevail. Duncan Smith, for instance, has worked with Labour MP Graham Allen on early intervention for five years, even if they have yet to persuade the Treasury to allow innovative funding.
A form of gang asbos were introduced by Labour in 2009 and brought into force by the home secretary, Theresa May, in January. David Lammy and Diane Abbott, two black Labour MPs, have both long spoken clearly about disengaged dads in black families. In perhaps the most powerful speech of Thursday, Lammy attacked the moral vacuum created by the Grand Theft Auto culture, but he also urged Cameron to recognise that a generation of people have been bred apart.
He warned: “Those lashing out – randomly, cruelly and violently – feel they have nothing to lose. They do not feel bound by the moral code of the rest of society because they do not feel part of the rest of society. We cannot live in a society where the banks are ‘too big to fail’ but whole neighbourhoods are allowed to sink without a trace. The polarisation is not between black and white. It is between those who have a stake in society and those who do not.”
The political party that best answers how this has happened, and how to reintegrate them, will secure a huge prize.
“This is not a typical summer for me nor for much of the world. Instead of launching into the bliss of water and sun-filled days, I am confronted with the various ways the world is crumbling and my own efforts to live and work with integrity in a place of fear, struggle and limited resources (and really, I am not just talking about London).”
Yes, these words are coming against the backdrop of the London riots and all the anger these events have unleashed. The anger that can be seen in the actions of the looters who, spurred on by a tragic event, find reason to destroy the working places and homes of others and their own communities in what appears to be a mad grab for…stuff(clothes and TVs).
And the anger against the rioters, protesters and looters (an unfortunate lumping together of what are very different motives and agonies) for their destruction and anarchy. The material and local violence is horrific—but the loss of hope or any sense of future that underscores this rampage must be acknowledged. I have been reading the news and editorials obsessively- with that energy one gets in times of upheaval when you want the events to make sense: to align and explain.
I am reminded of the myth of fiction: proposing an ordered universe where even the character’s dysfunction or psychopathic tendencies are given cause or root—and how a great deal of the current commentary focuses on WHY the ‘thugs’ are behaving so terribly. I realize I even hesitate in this newsletter to give air to these thoughts, afraid I will trigger outrage by seeking some balance to the prevalent opinion.
But what I have celebrated in the Salon is the ability to engage discussion and divergent opinions on issues that consider what it is to be human…and so I welcome response and disagreement or any opening out of these thoughts.
I am struck by how often in the articles and commentaries the point is made that those involved in the rioting lack any connection to their home communities- which makes this kind of destruction imaginable. I hope- and it is a whisper in chaos–that some how these events will lead to greater dialogue and educational opportunities for this incredible disaffected population. People resort to random violence when their own sense of common humanity is violated; I hear the voices in editorial commentaries calling for greater punishment and revenge. I want people to read and talk to each other.
Below are links to some of the best editorials on the riots:
“Literary Salon is having an action packed summer with family, friends and old Salonistas along the east coast of the US …”
… then back to London to work on the upcoming Salons and some exciting collaborative projects – a Salon for volunteers teaching reading to low-skilled students, a community Salon at an international independent school to bring together parents, faculty and students…but at the core is always the work of opening up the wonder of words and ideas, especially when discussed and considered with a variety of perspectives.
And now to support the expanding conversation here is the new WEBSITE thanks to LJ …welcome feedback, ideas and current reads. Summer is not over yet- enjoy the adventures your summer offers.
You are welcome to sign up now—previous Salon members may do so simply with an email registering your participation (please understand this does represent a commitment) and then may pay at the first meeting. First time participants are asked to pay a deposit to guarantee their registration: email me and I will send along details.
Please let me know if you have any questions; also if one of these studies really appeals but the timing is bad for you, send me an email as there may be others in a similar situation.
We are headed for Joyce’s Ulysses in January 2012: in preparation we will study the Odyssey in October followed by a quick Hamlet (can’t you soliliquize a bit faster?) and a dip into A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. That should keep us out of trouble.
I hope where ever you are over the summer holidays you have opportunities for reflection, reading and adventure. I look forward with great excitement to our work in September!
See you in the pages…
—
Toby Brothers
Parisian Literary Salon Director
