A New Place to Go: Crockatt and Powell (Mark II)

WOW. I mean, it looks gorgeous...

A short Rullsenberg Rant: Abortion amendments - now I can go to bed

I have to say that the debates over recent weeks and days about reducing the abortion time limit from 24 weeks have disturbed me greatly. I don't often watch Parliamentary votes, but this was one I felt I had to know before I could begin to try and rest in my bed.

No-one has an abortion lightly. The reasons for doing so are always hard and complex and have social ramifications. Frankly, I don't care how much science can advance the survival rates for a foetus; the limit is now 24 weeks and I want it to remain that and not to be reduced. Taking and thinking through the decision to have an abortion takes time; some, already vulnerable women - exactly the women that the self-same MPs voting to cut the abortion limit would prefer not to have children at all - need more time and support to get to the position to have an abortion even when it is clearly the right thing for all concerned. Making that decision harder, more rushed and more complicated does no-one in society any favours.

I'm glad that the limit is staying at 24 weeks...

Bye, bye Russell T Davies - hello, hello Steven Moffat

It was many a fan's fervent hope even as they fretted it would never be. Should have trusted Stu_n really...

Stephen Moffat told them that that was a very dumb idea indeed

coughcoughnewshowrunnercoughcough

Anyway, the news is out - hell, it's the breaking news on MediumRob's page as I get home - and I have to say I'm pleased. It will be a VERY tough act to follow the impetus and verve that RTD brought to the regeneration of Doctor Who, however much he has been (rightly) criticised at times.

How much will SM want to (will even be expected to?) take over the organisation of Torchwood or Sarah Jane Adventures? What's happening to Torchwood anyway? How often will SM write for the show (there is a big difference from dropping in the odd one or two episodes to getting three to six of the buggers off the ground, let alone the overall management of the whole season)?

Whatever else anvillicious RTD may be accused of (kitchen sink writing, the 'gay agenda', too many pop culture references, pretty much screwing up the whole Martha arc...), would the show even BE back without him? I doubt it. You can say the moment was right for DW to come back to TV, but without the passion of RTD to drive it forward, it would never have happened and could never have sustained its presence and attraction of a new audience.

So, with qualified boo-hoo's, it's a bye-bye to RTD. We'll probably miss you more than we would like to admit it; and Mr Moffat, you have a lot to do... I hope that everyone will cheer you on as much as I hope they will.

Finally, that Primeval Book review: Shadow of the Jaguar

Way back when, the lovely MediumRob gave me a prize of a copy of Steven Saville's primeval novel 'Shadow of the Jaguar' for... well, it was supposed to be for making an 'amusing' comment and then just turned into a 'why you should give it to me' comment (which, funnily, despite the fact I should have bought it anyway, I won...)

[I've long since been wondering in the back of my mind 'what happened to my book review?' That lack of comment would be because you have not yet posted said book review duh-brain. Still stuck, not even in draft, but on a bloody memory stick at the office. Double-duh.]

ANYWAY. The book. I really enjoyed it. I avidly turned the pages and relished visualising a hot, sweaty Nick Cutter in the heat of the night the Peruvian jungles and Team Cutter making their usual mistakes on a grander scale than the TV show will allow (with added cursing!). And this was despite not being the mid-teenage boy it was probably aimed it: plenty of military activity; significant amounts of violence and gore - more than in the TV show for sure; plenty of identification of the virtues of heroism in the modern world - intellect, emotional courage and social conscience being as prized as skills in violence. The only thing missing was any gratuitous descriptions of Abby in her panties [though on reflection that demographic is probably said teenage boy's father - or mother should she have such inclination to appreciate].

It's certainly an odd beast of a book, being exceptionally well-produced - quality paper in a quality hardback - and with an experienced writer (Steven Saville).

The plot isn't a great deal more complicated than your average Primeval TV episode, whatever that means (simplistically complex??). As mentioned, one of the joys of the literary form is that writers can work with the reader to create far more expansive vistas than the ITV budget will allow the TV programme*. In this respect, the writing is far better than I could have hoped for, even though, as MediumRob pointed out, the initial 'how many adjectives can we throw at this paragraph?' is a tad wearing. That thankfully settles down fairly quickly and though some of Saville's 'purple prose' made MediumRob wince, I actually found the character dialogue and interior thoughts rather well put together. They certainly sounded like the characters as they are written/performed on the TV show even if this did sometimes mean they still failed to be fully rounded human beings. [Almost nothing convinces me that the actor, director, or writers could do anything to make Stephen more than a cipher-esque character for endless online slash-fiction... Stoic to the point of solidifying, static to the point of being inert [even if he is busy being 'heroic'], I never quite got the point of Stephen providing some het girl eye-candy for those who failed to recognise the loveliness of Professor Nick Cutter/Douglas Henshall [fools!]. Frankly, brooding Stephen only makes sense as the central focus for slash-merchants...]

ANYWAY.

As MediumRob said, the author does seem far happier detailing the SAS soldiers protecting the dinosaur hunting team in Peru than getting to the crux of any dino scare story. That said, Saville does this so well as to not make the SAS action completely jar with the hardly-action-hero-actions of the dino crew, and given the popularity of Tom Ryan from S1 it seems well placed to have such character(s). Undoubtedly, it created a slightly odd mixture of genres, but it was enjoyable anyway. I also wasn't too bothered by the "author's over-research syndrome" - partly because it meant you did actually believe in the characters having brains that engaged with history, geography, philosophy, archaeology and all those other -ologies that aren't really science. Okay, so I've limited use for knowing what Connor et al found from all their Internet searches, but you take it in your stride. And I rather liked the extended diatribes Saville sometimes presents in the guise of character/narrative progression. Some are clearly wider-ranging social conscience issues - as in de-forestation and tourism; others more character-driven (I chuckled heartily at Cutter's frustrated anti-globalisation rant when hearing Pavarotti playing in the Peruvian restaurant. It seemed very in keeping with Cutter's general loathing of certain aspects of the modern world).

Ostensibly the boy(s) lost in Peru get a hefty share of the narrative, and the tale is book-ended, and a few times interrupted, by Lester's sneering engagement/necessary obsequiousness with aristocratic authority. However, it is - thankfully for me - most often Cutter's story. That suits me fine, as I have no objection to imagining the delivery of the dialogue and visualising his heated mannerisms and action. There are several nice little touches in Saville's writing on such matters. There's an early recognition that Cutter's "mild Scottish burr" becomes more pronounced when he's passionately discussing his work or an idea. And Cutter's ambivalent feelings about Jenny/Claudia/the timeline are nicely dealt with (though I suspect the afore-mentioned teenage boy is less than bothered about all that). Certainly, it's Cutter's emotions and attitudes that drive the other characters' behaviour and responses: everyone seems to move in accordance with his gravitational power, his moods, his heart. In this novel Jenny probably comes off next best in developing her character, but as in the series, it's hard not to feel that the construction of every character beyond Cutter is less developed on a scale of diminishing returns. Connor - as much as he initially annoyed me on TV - at least seems to have a character. But Abby seems to have less and less of one (she mostly spends the novel trying to be resilient in the face of death and destruction), and my feelings on Stephen are already recorded. The plot made the sort of sense you would expect a Primeval story to make: from the future into the past goes one more dodgy creature...

So, my overall response on this book: a solid 6.9 out of 10. I can't quite push myself to make it the round 7/10 (I'm not the teenage boy reader) but I loved the Cutter portrayal enough to go beyond MediumRob's 6/10. A happy reader!



* For those who've read Shadow of the Jaguar, I'd also venture that Henshall's vertigo, even with his frequent desire to do his bit with stunt filming, would preclude any filming of the high-rise rope-bridge scene. Not least for protecting him/stunt double from personal damage...

The Unicorn (who was scarcely there) and the Wasp with the Lead Piping (and other improbable tales of Doctor Who)

My word. There HAS been some exercising of minds hasn't there over the just-over-half-way-point-Who episode. Comments got very excitable about wasps using lead piping. Paul Fuzz duly - and wittily - slapped 'em down a tad for kinda losing the point [even if MediumRob advised him that way danger lies].

Anna loved it. Marie loved it. (Though both with qualifications).

MediumRob was more qualified still - perhaps not helped by his antipathy to Agatha Christie.

There's been criticism that it was lightweight and dull, plenty that it wasn't a Doctor Who episode at all (really? I won't be the first to cite episodes from earlier DW incarnations that do similar cross-genere things).

What I thought:
Fenella Woolgar - gah, she's divine in this. Perhaps the most perfect bit of casting they could have managed (and even if Felicity Kendall WAS revealed to have been shagging a wasp, she too was beautifully selected for the role.)

Donna - with the magnifying glass. BRILLIANT. She was just fabulous in this episode and is proving the best challenge to many new Who critics in confounding their expectations.

Comedy - you didn't laugh? Shame on you! Okay, so I doubt I would go so far as to quip you being a 'humourless muppet' (for fear of offending Muppets - when DID 'Muppet' become a term of ridicule and abuse? I digress....), but it was funny! Yes, all those cross references to Christie stories were a tad wearing - just as they were in The Shakespeare Code - but there are worse traits to keep re-using [I may slap someone if they keep doing the 'talking in exaggerated way: the Doctor tells them 'no, don't do that''] Personally, I loved the 'Ginger Beer' request from the Doctor in his poisoned state to the hapless footman. An obvious gay reference joke? of course, but it was still pretty witty.

Gratuitous Marie-pleasing action - Lord knows after her recent criticism of him, I'm not entirely sure she deserved it, but there was some seriously lovely waspy-honey-stuff licking with glasses on. In a comedy Who episode. I don't think you can complain about that.

The Wasp - the only thing that hacked me off about the Vespiform was the utterly pointless (except for episode padding) death/not-death of Agatha when the Vespiform was about to die. Wasn't Gareth Roberts under on his Shakespeare episode as well? Didn't notice as much padding there as here - all the swirly fade-outs aside - but the moment when the pink bubbling light of the Vespiform seemed to be taking the life of Agatha with him as he drowned only for LITERALLY TWO SECONDS LATER it to change it's mind... meh. Seriously weak moment.

The Unicorn - apart from lending itself to the title, there really was no point to the thief was there? She was pretty though. Not much of a mystery.

The buzzing vicar - Don't know why I didn't guess it was him earlier really...

ANYWAY.

I liked it so much that - albeit by force of timing - I watched it twice. First by iPlayer and then (because it was bang on the start time on BBC3 when we'd finished doing that) on the TV screen. Thoroughly good fun followed by the end of Indiana Jones.

Lovely stuff.

Shame we have the Euro delay after this, but I'm already freaking over the forthcoming Moffat-fest. Anyone NOT already afraid of shadows.... you will be.

Lithium with sock puppets

Courtesy of Rachel, this is infectiously wonderful and charming.



Cross-posted at Music is Our Hot, Hot Sex.

BTW apologies for lack of online presence

I've been off work much of this week with a bad back. I finally feel old. I'm not happy about this.

Val Seddon's next knitting activity is David Tennant

Could someone please send me the pattern for David Tennant (Hands off the Doctor Who knitting circle, G2, May 15)?
Val Seddon

Hee. Anyone else as charmed as they are disturbed by such a request?!

Blink BAFTA win...

Woo! Okay, so these things are in the somewhat sidelined behind the scenes/Craft categories rather than being part of the main BAFTA award ceremony, but nice to see Blink boy Steven Moffat getting the nod - especially over such illustrious nominees. Second time in as many weeks since he also got the Welsh BAFTA as well...

The Doctor's Daughter - dividing opinions across the interweb thang

Ouch! MediumRob really REALLY didn't like it. You can tell this because... well, the review is lacerating throughout but mostly the clue is in him alikening it to 'Evolution of the Daleks'.

That is beyond harsh! (And I speak again as one who did not throw all my toys out the pram on watching that episode).

Anyway, I said most of what I wanted to in MediumRob's comments so I will hold off giving a recap here. If I had been thinking straight I would have done my review here instead of there. What can I say? I was mostly distracted by listening to the Doctor Who podcast commentary and then the lovely Colin Meloy of The Decemberists on my iTunes.

It's at times like this I'm glad I only read 'Behind the Sofa' as a kind of Outpost Gallifrey-lite rather than the full-on fanbase yarling at full fevered pitch about whether they wanted to know if timelords reproduced by the loom or by actual, you know, S-E-X (*shudder*). Get over yourselves boys: you just knew RTD was gonna being yanking ya with a title as obvious as 'The Doctor's Daughter'....


I will say something though: wasn't David Tennant just bloody MARVELLOUS in his performance this week?

Lynsey Hanley's "Estates" - a personal review

I wanted to write something in praise of Lynsey Hanley's incredible book 'Estates' which I have belatedly just finished reading (having started it earlier in the year).

I wanted to praise her eloquence in articulating such an excellent analysis and history of council and social housing in the UK (and to some extent placing it in a broader global context).

I wanted to praise her wit and dark turn of phrase for describing the utterly soul destroying poverty of body and spirit that encompasses the lives of 'estates': those visibly different worlds on the edge (even when they're in the centre).

I wanted to acknowledge how she doesn't just rail against the iniquities established and reinforced almost from the very start of the concept of 'estates', but also manages to offer inspired hope and vision for the future.

I wanted to say so much.

On finishing one particular chapter - "The Wall in the Head" - I tried to read some passages aloud to Neil. Even as he unwittingly said aloud 'that sounds like you' I was already breaking into tears and before reaching the end of the passage I was choking and had to put the book into his hands instead.

I know that my education, my experiences, my cultural and economic status no longer keep me 'working class'. But the rawness remains with me of my early education (till at least 20+), my early experiences (at least till I left home aged 25), and my early cultural and economic status (both personal and familial household status till at best a decade ago and probably till just half that).

And so in reading her words I was transported back to feeling the same emotions that she captures so well.

Will Hutton cited the following extract:

'If you attend a school on a council estate,' writes Hanley, 'having come from a housing estate, you get a council estate education. It's not so much that you get told kids like you can't ever hope to achieve their full potential: it's just that the very idea of having lots of potential to fulfil isn't presented... inculcated into every child at a council estate school is the idea that you shouldn't hope for too much.'

But it was this from the follow up passage that broke me:

Unless you show extraordinary levels of ability, initiative and maturity - in a school context where 'extraordinary' can mean anything from merely turning up, to showing an interest and then applying yourself - you are unlikely to be let in on the little secret that is the World Beyond The Wall. I am a child of the little secret, which is not to say that I showed extraordinary levels of ability, unitiative and maturity. Indeed, I showed the sort of qualities that most middle-class parents would regard in their children as deeply average, which is to say that I was quiet, conscientious, anxious to please, anxious full stop [my emphasis added]. My teachers - the only middle-class people I knew - let me in on the whole thing purely because I stuck out. I showed signs of knowing, or suspecting, what was possible if I put my mind to it: signs that the wall in my head was lower than can usually be expected in a place like ours.

I couldn't help my reaction. Sure, generationally, Hanley comes from the GCSEs era rather than my own CSE/O level life. But the sentiments she expressed when she wrote she "was told by some that, 'Oh, but you were the sort of kid who would have done well anyway'..." rang very true for me. When I first started reading the book, I kept marking passages in pencil, highlighting lines that dug deep into my psyche and my history. I had to stop by the end of the introduction: I was picking out almost every other line.

So, Lynsey, thank you for writing the book I wish and probably could have written (though I doubt half as well as you did). And if you haven't already read it, then buy a copy now and read it. It is a brilliant piece of smart historically rooted and personal analysis of housing today.

Fragile! - a radio 4 play

I can't urge you enough to listen to Tena Stivicic's excellent play, Fragile! which was reproduced for Radio 4 this evening.

It will be available for the next 7 days on listen again (so until next Friday 16 May 2008). Catch it while you can.

It is an endless source of frustration to me that not all plays get a second life on CD recordings: there have been so many excellent plays over the years broadcast through such slots as Radio 4's Friday Play.

And yeah, Douglas Henshall stars in this one. It's damn good: he is damn good. Get over it.

Sontar-ha!

Confession: as you may know I got to part 2 of this two-part Helen Raynor story a little late: what can I say? If my boys will have a scrap about who gets my attention on a Saturday night, I have to work around it (for the record it was Cloud's interest in seeing 'The Last Days of Judas Iscariot' at the Almeida theatre that got me down there for a second visit... it was a real hardship to spend three hours in the theatre again.... mind, I could have done without the predictable nudges and grins from Cloud when Dougie came on stage... ah, what do I mean: I know that I love the teasing...Sorry, got distracted then!)

ANYWAY. Doctor Who. Thank heavens for the iPlayer is what I say, since even with Premier Travel Inn now having full Freeview availability with our other commitments during our visit I couldn't quite manage any of the weekend repeats. So it was Monday night before we caught the episode.

I have to admit, even as someone who was more positive than most about the last Helen Raynor 2-parter, I did wonder how this would pan out. There were a few bits in last week's ep that could have led to a disappointing conclusion [e.g. there were some worrying signs, mostly with the music, of how Donna's character is being played out - Murray Gold, STOP IT!] but I have to say that - again - the episode worked really well for me.

It's interesting that MediumRob thought the continuity refs would have confused many NuWho fans (though he was pretty on the money about the OldSkool having orgasms - even the Behind the Sofa reviews only capture half of that... if I ever got on Outpost Gallifrey I dread to think what they're saying there). I'd actually say that maybe doesn't give them due credit since one of the things that has come out of the relaunch is an extended amount of rediscovery of ClassicWho for a new generation. Sure, some are getting the back catalogue DVDs, but many more are at least brushing up via the BBC website etc on the history of the Doctor and his companions/foes. Sarah Jane has helped with that as well. It may not be fairly indicative but Anna for one was way more impressed than I anticipated she might be (given it was a Helen Raynor story) and she seemed to get plenty out of the cross-references.

So how did things work in this episode?

UNIT and the military thing - Raynor seemed less prone to bang quite as loudly as last week about the Doctor and guns and the military. Either that or I was too excited to pay it much attention. Loved the use of The Valiant; squealed about the Brig.

Martha and CloneMartha - bless her: writers, directors, even the actor herself just can't quite seem to enliven this character in the way that we would all wish her to be. Nevertheless, as CloneMartha (just the right side of hard but still way too un-Martha-like to fool the Doctor) she turned in a pretty convincing performance. She even managed a touching exchange with her (real) self before croaking. I best liked that Martha couldn't help herself when she snuggled up to the Doctor when he came back from the Sontaran ship. Tom is always gonna be a little second best isn't he poor lad?

Donna - shame that they don't always know what to do with her (Tate doesn't have to emote every episode to prove she can act: we get this) but aside from the somewhat pointless abandonment scenes in the TARDIS she's proving to be a very enjoyable companion. Right down to the thump on the arm before she too sits next to the Doctor with Martha, she continues to be a much more adult companion albeit with endearingly 'wow-ed' responses to the experiences she is now having ["back of the neck!"].

Sontarans - not given a lot to do but these potato-heads were never really scary were they? - just weird and potato-like. Anyway, what they did was well done and to give credit where it's due the Clone Feed gas thing was about the most convincing plot element Raynor has written in Doctor Who. It also reasonably explained why they were behaving in an un-Warlike way [plus, without being heavy handed, why do they want/need a new planet's worth of Sontarans? A lost planet anyone? That's four for four if you take it that the Ood had been separated from their planet by slavery].

Supporting cast - twatty 'genius' (read: moron) Rattigan redeemed himself with a glorious "Sontar-ha!" which just about justified the war-cries repetition through these two episodes. Bugger that they killed off Ross though: there's a real tendency in NuWho to bring in minor characters, make you like them, and then kill them off (Lynda with a Y anyone?).

Uncle Wilf - Bernard Cribbins is a god. Bless him still encouraging Donna and trusting in the Doctor despite everything.

The Doctor - ah, the Doctor. Although Doctor Who fans have coped (by and large) with the diversity of Doctors who have inhabited the role, it has to be admitted that for all his acting chops Tennant has divided some opinions about his Doctor. Too emo, too Essex, too pop culture, too wild, too ranty, too 'sorry' ... Well, I'm sorry, because I think that criticism is pretty much wrong. I'm not saying he's note perfect all the time, but he is so the right Doctor for right now ('course, it does no harm that, you know, he's perty with gangling height and rufflesome hair...). In this episode alone we had witty self-referential Doctor ("Are you my Mummy?" - okay, only witty for the audience but still), impressed Doctor (with UNIT), not entirely convinced he is always right Doctor (crossing his fingers at blowing up the gas), self-sacrificing Doctor (with the goodbye to the gang and transporting to the Sontaran ship). All delivered with conviction and charm. More please.

The 'Rose' arc - yes, Rose was there again in her one blink vid screen yell. I think the amount of attention this is getting (after the frankly-took-us-all-by-surprise first ep appearance as Bin Girl) probably negates us still being able to call these appearances 'subtle'. Nevertheless, it does given a certain frisson to spot and anticipate the weekly Rose reference whether in person/image/sound. She just can't quite get through can she? And will the Doctor still feel the same way - if indeed it was ever fully as so many read it - if she returns [those of you with spoiler awareness of what's to come can just Fuck Right Off. Sorry, but as much as I can I want to relish the series as it happens.] Don't get me wrong, I still choke at Doomsday's ending and the Rose references in The Runaway Bride. But after the debacle that was how the Doctor treated Martha (only just about recuperated in the new series in acknowledging how badly that worked out) I'm not sure they can go back to a great romance rekindled or separated again...

So, overall, good. As Rob says so far so good. Remarkably consistent and with The Doctor's Daughter ahead AND the Library story still to come... woo-hoo!

What is Justice? What is punishment for?

Swiss Toni has provided a very pertinent commentary on how the hell we should react to the grotesque case in Austria currently occupying news headlines.

He makes some powerful points, not least around how we decide and evaluate 'just' punishments for such crimes.

I have to admit that I have felt terribly conflicted over the last two days regarding how, or even whether, to publicly articulate the emotions stirred in me by the horrific uncovered events in Austria. The subject seems so utterly awful, so distressing to even begin to comprehend, that I wondered how - if - it was appropriate to try and do so amidst the frivolity that usually occupies my mind.

But this sort of uncovered event, this history, surely deserves acknowledgement even here. Perhaps precisely because to ignore it is to treat it with the no-questions-asked-acceptance-of-what-is-said mentality that led to a community, a family, being unable to challenge the lies it was fed and turning away from the horror in its midst.

Swiss Toni is certainly right to be firm that any 15 year sentence feels far too short, too inadequate in comparison to the 24 years of grief and suffering already inflicted on his family members. (Plus the rest, since it appears he was brutalising and raping the daughter from around 11). And that's before considering that the family are likely to require intensive support for some time to come, if not the remainder of their lives. Could any sentence be enough for the systematic rape, torture, imprisonment and brutality he inflicted on his family?

Because we surely have to question what is the basis for our sense of 'justice': is it about inflicting some comparable suffering on another human being, dependent on how vile was their crime? Surely it cannot be that, or just that: can there ever be restitution of what was lost? Can there ever be suitable recompense? Should it be about revenge or equivalence of the pain caused?

In this instance one does wonder, even with the confession, how much this man comprehended what he was doing as being 'wrong'... The skewed mindset of the rapist, the manipulator, the exploiter, the controller, the brutaliser is potentially one that does not identify the actions as anything other than reasonable - for them - much as the child abuser, which he also was in this case, sees their actions as understandable and appropriate...

The options available as to how we, how society should respond are inevitably limited: of course they are, and that is probably the most valid marker of a civilised society. In some ways, that is kind of the point because to imagine that there is some way of creating a 'reasonable punishment' is in itself problematic. For where would one draw the line? As much as an individual may want revenge, the ultimate revenge for a life taken, destroyed utterly, would surely always be death - but how can the taking of another life obliterate the hole, the emptiness, created by the original damage done?

Swiss Toni mused that even when society finds its own system of punishments inadequate, if it is to remain civilised "what choice does [it] have but to obey its own laws?" To do otherwise would surely lead to extension after extension into ever-more violent responses and punishments, diminishing our own humanity and civility in the process. But events like those currently dominating the news media do lead to uncomfortable feelings and encounters with the personal - and perhaps instinctive - desire for vengeful action. That is why calls for capital punishment are best overruled by parliament, whatever opinion polls may say because as individuals we probably do need protection from our worst instinctive responses to violence and harm. Maybe all we can do is wring our hands and have the internal debate about what can be done about providing 'justice' for the most heinous of crimes.

Such debates, the ability to pose such questions, are surely the best marker of our efforts to maintain belief in humanity regardless of such aberrant examples of inhumanity as this. We have to keep asking in cases like this: Is prison the best place for this man, this father/grandfather? What would any sentence served in such an environment achieve? Would incarceration at a more suitable institution be more appropriate? Can he be 'treated', or merely 'cared for'? Can he be rehabilitated,; should we even try? What would ever be 'enough' as a punishment?

If we cannot keep asking ourselves these difficult questions, then we shall surely have lost sight of the balance between trust and vigilance necessary to retain our society, however unnerving such debates are -- and however impossible defining answers may be.

5th line meme

Before anyone else tags me (ta Paul by the way):

Pick up the nearest book.
Open to page 123
Find the fifth sentence.
Post the next three sentences.
Tag five people, and acknowledge who tagged you.

Nearest book for me was Getting Things Done: How to Achieve Stress-Free Productivity by David Allen. Please don't laugh.

p.123 is from Chapter 6 and the fifth sentence is actually the first in a section entitled 'One Item At A Time':

You may find you have a tendency, while processing your in-basket, to pick something up, not know exactly what to do about it, and then let your eyes wander onto another item farther down the stack and get engaged with it.

The passage continues:

That item may be more attractive to your psyche because you know right away what to do with it - and you don't feel like thinking about what's in your hand. This is dangerous territory. What's in your hand is likley to land on a 'hmppphhh' stack on the side of your deak because you become distracted by something easier, more important, or more interesting below it.

Oh dear: I should probably acknowledge and counter some of my own tendency to behave that way in processing my own non-in-tray-piles of paperwork. *shudder*

Who to tag? Help yourself hapless bloggers...