Do3 - Wuthering Heights

[Lateralthinking1]

I have read the book so decided not to listen to it. I am disappointed that it hasn't been well-received. That means that we are more rather than less likely to be getting more of the same.

"Gypsy" isn't itself racist but it depends on context. If someone said something you didn't like and you replied "oh well, you're black" then that would be racist whereas "black" in neutral terms, as it were, isn't racist.

The phrase that worries me here is "black bastard". In any other context, this would be a criminal or sacking offence. Ask any hooligan who has been arrested for using that phrase in a football ground. Ask Carol Thatcher who was dismissed for something far less overt.

Much has been said of liberalism's turn to the right fiscally. Obviously, I don't like that much. What concerns me far more is this ongoing trend of liberalism being used as a means to promote ultra right wing concepts. This is a relatively new phenomenon here - the last five years - although its roots might be in the sexism of hip-hop. That has always been more Corporation than ghetto of course.

We know what traditional liberalism is. It is frenchfrank. By contrast, this new strand has something rather dark behind it. Generally brought to us, as here, by producers who sound like Cathy, I suspect that it is their inner Heathcliff coming to the fore. Insisting that they spend a year actually living in Toxteth - to hell with it, let the Arts Council pay - would be a very good way of dealing with it.

[Anna]

I've only seen one review which is in today's Guardian which you may be interested to read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/20...hering-heights

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, sad and pathetic isn't it?

[Lateralthinking1]

....on the artistic interpretation, I actually think that this production misses the central point. It has picked up on the earthiness of the novel - he is right of course to say that it has often been served with sugar in film - but this one is equally awry.

In my humble opinion, part of the brilliance of WH is that it manages to have earth at its core while remaining in tone and spirit full of mystery. In fact, that is the romance of it. Its heart and soul.

So while you can say that the effing and blinding is in line with the original grit, actually it isn't because that grit was never intended in the novel to be bedded down in anything as mundane as reality.

[string]

What concerns me far more is this ongoing trend of liberalism being used as a means to promote ultra right wing concepts.

It's Cameron's "robust liberalism" taking over. (Liberalism = you do what you like; Robust Liberalism = you do what I like where I = the prevailing hegemony.) After reading all of the above I shall definitely give this one a miss. I have no desire to add to the LA figures.

[DracoM]

Astonishingly, in the Grauniad's write-up it assumes that R3 listeners probably need to be shocked out of their feeling that WH is a 'cosy love story'.

EH????????

Nothing like setting up and then stoning a diversionary, speacial pleading Aunt Sally!
I mean, who the heck EVER thought WH was a 'cosy love story'? Have they actually READ it?


Pah!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It certainly is not a cosy love story, though some screen versions have been a little cosier than the book.

[french frank]

Much has been said of liberalism's turn to the right fiscally. Obviously, I don't like that much. What concerns me far more is this ongoing trend of liberalism being used as a means to promote ultra right wing concepts. This is a relatively new phenomenon here - the last five years - although its roots might be in the sexism of hip-hop. That has always been more Corporation than ghetto of course.

Is it really that? The BBC seems to be facing both ways. It comes down like a ton of bricks on expendable nonentities like Thatcher and that Strictly Come Dancing bloke, facing down the 'PC gone mad' brigade. But they let Moyles and Lamb get away with 'right-wing' insults in the name of 'edginess'.

I think this WH is a bit pathetic with its expletives and 'racist terms', but in general wouldn't it be a higher artistic achievement to attack racism effectively by using the actions and language of racists against them?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think this WH is a bit pathetic with its expletives and 'racist terms', but in general wouldn't it be a higher artistic achievement to attack racism effectively by using the actions and language of racists against them?

Could you elaborate, or am I just a bit slow?

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, I don't like Moyles or Lamb at all. The "freedom of speech" thing is interesting because you have one team who will swear like soldiers and go crackers over the slightest hint of racism and another that thinks that swearing on the Beeb is diabolical but sloppy or vindictive comments about minorities is ok. I would prefer neither. Now we often get both from individuals. There was never a time when there was neither unfortunately but I don't recall feeling that the absence of non-pc comment was stifling and I wouldn't feel that either with an absence of swearing.

I am fairly easy-going on lapse and error. I am a firm believer in being tolerant if something is said occasionally that isn't all that pleasant. I also think that there are places where swearing actually adds to the atmosphere and I support its occasional effective use in the arts. Additionally, I believe that there is scope for discussion on race. I don't like the clamping down on debate with the reflex "that is racist, that is." But I think that with rights there should be responsibilities. It is that which represents progress. Overall, I'm with JB - I just don't like the offensiveness brand which, as she says, is now given to us almost dictatorially like it is good for our health in the same way as eating five vegetables a day. As for mucking around in that way with the classics and on Radio 3, no, no, no. It is disrespectful and territorially invasive.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in general wouldn't it be a higher artistic achievement to attack racism effectively by using the actions and language of racists against them?". I wonder if this challenges us to consider how this might be the same or different from the way in which I used language to address the sex and swearing in WH? If so, a good question, but I am not quite sure how it would work. I would find it more difficult to do. To be in the clean-up broadcasting room - and I would shudder that this should sound like the NVLA but there is a happy medium, albeit variable according to context - is to be in the minority. To be in the non-racist room is to be in the majority. I am not sure that you can subvert a minority artistically.

Griffin for example is so obviously fringe and Roy Chubby Brown likewise. I am actually slightly controversial on the former. It seems to me that if he ditched all the anti black stuff and focussed solely on the ordinary citizen, he might just have some point in reflecting a few constructive sentiments not represented in the mainstream. As it is, he is who he is, and rather sad it often seems to be too. What do you do? Call him "paleface", a "loner", a "loser"? I've lost this a bit, frenchfrank. What did you mean exactly?