Author: Desmond Traynor

  • How Bono Nearly Ruined My Life

    Gazing up into the darkness I saw myself as a creature driven and derided by vanity; and my eyes burned with anguish and anger.’
    James Joyce, ‘Araby’, from Dubliners (1914)

    Nineteen Seventy-Nine was a big year for me. I turned eighteen, which meant I could vote, had I felt so inclined. I had my first real girlfriend, and mistakenly thought that was going to last for ever. I did my Leaving Certificate, for which I did not do very much study (an unfortunate fact not unconnected to having said first girlfriend, and also my discovery of the live punk rock music scene around Dublin). I had my first proper adult job, or job that adults did, working as a bus conductor through that long, hot summer (nepotism was involved in securing the temporary position). Bus conducting is a job adults no longer do – or children for that matter – since it is a job that no longer exists, at least in Ireland. My first real girlfriend broke up with me after a few months and, heartbroken, I struggled to understand why. I got into the vocational college course I wanted (a triumph somewhat tainted by the presence of said first ex-girlfriend there too). I formed my first and, so far, only band, and we played a grand total of five paying gigs, before succumbing to the pressures of non-stardom. And I saw future megastars U2 play in the Dandelion Market at St. Stephen’s Green, McGonagle’s nightclub in St. Anne’s Street (afternoon gigs), and the Baggot Inn on Baggot Street – attendance at the Dandelion Market for one of the fledgling band’s shows there coming to be regarded in later years as our generation’s equivalent of being present in the General Post Office for the 1916 Easter Rising.

    And in 1979 Pope John Paul II came to Ireland, paying a flying three-day visit from Saturday, 29 September to Monday, 1 October. I refrained from going to see his Saturday show in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, which was a rather radical move, considering how pretty much everyone else on the east coast of Ireland and beyond – some 1,250,000 people in fact, one-third of the then population of the country – flocked there for the event, while other extravaganzas in Drogheda, Clonmacnoise, Galway, Knock, Maynooth and Limerick during the following two days meant that he eventually wound up playing to over 2.5m souls, all told.

    I wonder why I had already made up my mind about institutional religion, and so vehemently renounced the Catholic faith, even at that early stage? After all, this was a time – long before clerical sexual abuse scandals and increased levels of education had put paid to the church’s vice-like dominance – when nearly everyone in Ireland was a Catholic, in some shape or form, except the small percentage who weren’t, and they were usually some sort of Protestant. Agnostics, much less those evil atheists, were few and far between. I must have been ahead of my time in this regard, which means being out of step with the present. More practically, where were my parents, and how did I avoid being corralled, or shamed, into going?

    Twelve-year-old me had caused consternation in my hyper religious family by announcing that I no longer wanted to go to Sunday Mass. All kinds of pressure was brought to bear – visits to Jesuit spiritual advisors, withdrawal of pocket money – in an effort to get me ‘back on the right road’. I capitulated by saying I was going to evening Mass by myself, and instead took long walks for the required duration.

    I suppose my main beef with the Catholic ethos was its ubiquity, coupled with the fact that much of it just didn’t make any sense to empirically minded young me. An early fan of comparative religion, I questioned why one version of God was popular in one part of the world, while another held sway in another part, while both claimed to be the one true faith. It seemed like some sort of competitive sport, which I surmised was not what a just, wise and beneficent Godly entity would have necessarily intended. As a child, I’d had a keen interest in astronomy, which served to make me place affairs on tiny Planet Earth in a more universal perspective. Had God made the entire cosmos, or only our small corner of it? Had God been around before the universe had been created and, if so, who’d made God, or where did He come from? Also, I had been an altar boy, and my glimpse behind the scenes of the congregation’s collection offerings being counted out and bagged off alerted me to the worldly pecuniary underpinning of the celestial domain. God was inextricably funded by Mammon.

    Getting my hands on some books, other than prayer missals, probably expedited my apostasy as well. For example James Joyce’s künstlerroman, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), or Albert Camus’s ode to existential alienation, L’Etranger (1942) (or, indeed, Colin Wilson’s popular literary critical study of the time, which favours the English translation of that title, The Outsider (1956)), never mind science fiction like Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land (recommended via New Musical Express articles on David Bowie, and subsequently appropriated as the title of a song by that Dublin new wave band U2, from their sophomore album October (1981)and itself a direct Biblical quotation (Exodus 2:22)). I actually read these books, rather than merely name-dropping them, as others were wont to do. Being educated at a school run by the now notorious and reviled Christian Brothers – even one of the better ‘fee-paying’ ones (my parents were poor, but I was sent to a posh school, a story too convoluted to provide an explanation for here) – didn’t help either, as the pedagogical experience amounted to little more than daily skirmishes in a war of attrition between ‘us’ and ‘them’. I had, and retain, a problem with authority figures of any description. I felt instinctively, rather than could articulate coherently, that the church was just about controlling people, keeping them in line. They tried to break your will, so that you would do the will of God. I wasn’t one for obeying the rules, although I didn’t always like the consequences if I didn’t.

    The day of the Pope’s mass in the Phoenix Park I was still employed in my student job on the buses, and transport workers were among the few sectors doing any service that day, ferrying the multitudes to and from the site. There were no private cars on the road. A special stand had been erected for us busmen to view the proceedings, between doing the outward and return journeys. I didn’t bother going down to it, but hung out by my bus, eating my lunch. I don’t know where the rest of my family were. My father, also a bus conductor (thus, the nepotism), would have been down in the busmen’s viewing area, but it would have been easy to miss him in the general ‘Mass’ chaos. My mother, a semi-invalid, probably stayed at home. The fact that I was on duty would have precluded me meeting up with my elder brother or sister or their families. All in all, my summer job saved me a lot of potential conflict that day, and was a good excuse for not having to make a fake show of religiosity. I suppose, unlike many others, I also earned a few bob courtesy of the Pontiff’s Dublin visit. Transport had begotten me some delight.

    Some time in the months following that autumn day I got to meet and become friendly with the guys in this group called U2 – well, Bono, Edge and Larry at any rate, Adam proving more elusive. Dublin was small, much smaller than I had previously imagined, hailing as I did from a sheltered background where my parents didn’t do much socialising, and the music community was even smaller. I cannot remember with any clarity how this happened: I was in a band, they were in a band, both playing the same scene; I’d been writing for a music fanzine, Imprint, which that tumultuous first girlfriend edited; in the summer of 1980 I’d begun writing for Hot Press music magazine, as part of my journalism training course (a distinct incidence of lycanthropism: critic by day, musician by night – or vice versa); most likely, it was because I’d started attending the Shalom Christian prayer group, of which those three musicians, plus various Virgin Prunes (U2’s outlier, little brother band) were also members.

    This admission may seem startling, given my already confessed antipathy to so-called ‘organised’ religion. But perhaps exactly what appealed was that this was not at all organised. And while I may have shunned the church, all traces of spiritual longing had not deserted me. Even Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus suffered a reconversion (or do ‘lapsed’ Catholics ‘relapse’?), before abandoning religion, specifically Roman Catholicism, for evermore.

    This newfound Bible-bashing proved to be an unhappy conflux of events, a classic case of bad timing: after all, the hippie liberals in Hot Press didn’t care for their punky young contributors to be sneaking off to prayer meetings on the sly, when we should have been skulling pints and vacuuming up rip-snorting intoxicants and generally behaving in a recognisably debauched and approved Rock’n’Roll manner (Hot Press advertising slogan of the period: ‘Making Ireland Safe for Rock’n’Roll’), even if in subsequent years the fate and fortunes of that particular organ became inextricably entwined with the largesse of U2’s coffers – thus ensuring that you’ll never read a bad word about U2 in Hot Press. I kept such associations undercover at my place of casual employment, although I do remember allusions in that publication’s gossip pages inquiring as to ‘What is this hip new religion?’. The U2 boys were in no hurry to have their committed Christian beliefs become common public knowledge either, at this early stage.

    That was the summer, 1980, of U2 recording their debut album Boy at Windmill Lane Studios, where I was present on at least one occasion. I also remember a trip to Gorey Arts Festival on 15 August, to see the band play at the Theatre Hall, possibly the worst live performance of their entire career, due to being ensconced in the studio, under-rehearsed, and road rusty. By September, I had dropped out of my journalism course, determined that my vocation was to be a professional songwriter and musician. But by the turn of the year, the winter of discontent, it had all turned to shit: my band, 1991, were good, and we’d had great fun and learned a lot making music, but we weren’t making any money; my parents, unable or unwilling to support me in this endeavour, were berating me to pay for my upkeep; my attitude having proven unpopular in Hot Press, I wasn’t getting any work there – and in any case the magazine had never been the most regular of paymasters, and when you did finally squeeze a cheque out of them the rewards were meagre. I took a mind-numbing job turning screws in an electronics assembly factory, to stave off simmering discontent at home. The bass player didn’t fit, and we needed a new one. The lead guitarist wanted me to play bass, while we looked for a new singer, a reconfiguration I wasn’t about to accept. I may not have been possessed of the best voice in the world (unlike Bono Vox, whose nickname proclaimed that he had a ‘good voice’ in dog Latin), but neither was Lou Reed. Most piercingly, my second and more profound loss of faith occurred, and can best be attributed to the creeping realisation that the Born Again God-bothering was merely providing a haven for those embroiled in the insecurities of late adolescence, terrified at the prospect of facing into an uncertain young adulthood. This applied as much to the U2ers as other frequenters of those Monday evening gatherings in the tiny flat in East Arran Street – although they arguably had much more going for them than most of the other worshippers. A cult-like sect can be as much about control and manipulation, albeit on a smaller, more intimate scale, as any mainstream belief system. So, everything disintegrated, I felt I had few options, and I grew temporarily deranged.

    In retrospect, I can rationalise my brief, embarrassing flirtation with fundamentalist religion as my way of reconciling the strong influence of the traditionally grounded Catholicism of my parents’ generation, coupled with my sister and her family’s membership of a Charismatic Renewal Christian Community (a particularly noxious commingling of said traditional Irish Catholicism with U.S.-style evangelicalism), with the local popular musical culture of which I was a devotee, thus simultaneously winning the approval of my family and getting on with establishing myself in my chosen field. I would be keeping everyone happy. Even Bob Dylan had found God, and David Bowie was wearing a crucifix around his neck. Maybe religion could be hip and liberating, instead of a straitjacket stranglehold on imagination and creativity. How wrong I was. For there were a lot of people – indeed, all those outside the tiny circle of my immediate family and the Shalom brethren – who weren’t very happy at all. Context is everything. I blame the dread example of Bono and his two bandmates for leading me astray. Still, they held steadfast to their fervent beliefs, for the time being at least, which must have been hard, even outré, given the indie rock milieu in which they were operating. But they had a sense of mission, and wanted to change the world, which is what kept them going. I had just wanted to write original songs with good hooks, mostly about girls and relationships, falling in love and breaking up, the secular rather than the sacred. It wasn’t enough to sustain me in the face of parental disapproval and opposition, and the financial insecurity.

    And so, amid all this hysteria, I cut my losses, and decamped to Amsterdam, to get away from it all, and make a fresh start after a turbulent couple of years.

    So began my (mis)adventures as part of yet another subculture, that of disenfranchised European internal immigrants – Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English, French, Italian – all in Holland to earn some money before returning to college or moving on to warmer climes. My cohort worked for an agency which placed us in food-processing factories, and we lived in dormitories on a farm about twenty kilometres from Amsterdam city centre. A fleet of vans ferried us to and from our work places five days a week, for alternating weeks of early and late shifts (much like those scheduled for bus crews). At weekends, I’d go up to the bright lights with my newfound and now lifelong friend, Mick, and I’d busk while he bottled (held the hat and collected the money), and we’d stay over in hostels and sample the mythic delights of the port’s sleazy nightlife – buy drugs, get drunk, eat space cake, and watch bands and films in the Paradiso or Melkweg. I was not just backsliding, but well-lapsed by then. We even quit our jobs for a few weeks and lived in a tent on a campsite on the outskirts of the city, having calculated that we could just about precariously survive on my street-performer’s revenues.

    But even there, I could not escape the rising U2 phenomenon. Well, I could have if I’d tried, but obviously I didn’t want to. It’s hard to imagine from this vantage-point, the best part of forty-five years later, but there was a time when they were comparable contemporaries of Echo & The Bunnymen and Joy Division, just another interesting indie band on the up, a time when it seemed not unfanciful that The Edge would become the next Tom Verlaine (outstandingly gifted, idiosyncratic guitarist with New York avant-garde outfit Television), and they’d make slightly off-kilter, left-of-centre, alternative music, well-regarded and influential among their peers, but hardly the earth-bestriding colossus into which they subsequently grew. This was still a couple of years before the martial drum beat of ‘Sunday Bloody Sunday’ and the expansive strains of ‘New Year’s Day’ were to be heard ringing out from the rec rooms of every frat house across the USA. The pretending-to-be-cowboys-lost-in-the-desert phase of The Josuha Tree album, a change of image adopted as part of a huge push to break the hugely lucrative US market, was still half a decade away.

    They were playing in the pretty college town of Leiden on Wednesday, 28 October 1981, while touring to promote that second album, October, and I made it my business to get along and reconnect, following up again two days later, when they took the stage at the famed Paradiso club back in Amsterdam. Both were excellent shows, if memory serves, as they were a tight little road-hardened unit by that point. When I approached their tour bus outside the first venue, I was remembered and made welcome, and then invited into the dressing rooms for both shows, and watched the performances from the wings. Maybe they thought I still shared their evangelical faith, or were under the impression that I was there in my capacity as a rock journalist. More likely, they were just glad to see a Dublin face in the crowd on their travels. Friday, 30 October was Larry’s birthday, or rather the 31 is, but it was celebrated on the Friday night, I forget why, maybe because his girlfriend was over. A battery-operated toy fire engine, and other gifts, were unwrapped. I spent both nights sleeping on the floor of the twin bed hotel rooms shared by Edge and Adam (Bono and Larry always roomed together in another one). A few months later, back in Dublin, I received a ‘Postcard from The Edge’ which read, ‘Nice to run into you in Holland, God Bless.’

    You see, I hadn’t been completely stupid. Yes, after Amsterdam, I had taken off on my pan-European odyssey, in my mind doing for my continent what Kerouac had done for his, stopping off in in Frankfurt, Cologne, Munich, Salzburg, Belgrade, Athens and a sprinkling of Greek islands. But I had also managed to save some money, in order to return to the Auld Sod, and register myself in UCD for a proper university education (a luxury it was thought not everyone was entitled to back then, when getting an arts degree had more value than a certificate of attendance). After all, this was the recession-torn 1980s, there were no jobs, and sitting in lecture theatres and libraries was preferable to working in some dead-end job – in the unlikely event that you could find one – or not working at all. I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life picking burnt carrots off a conveyor belt, or even busking for passing change. And so, aged twenty-one, and with some life experience behind me, my new life of long hours at a desk burying myself in books began. Why should such pleasures be the preserve solely of the privileged?

    The second last time I met Bono he was out with Adam, at some nightclub in Dublin, when they were taking a break from the recording of their third album War (1983), between September and November 1982. The Hot House Flowers duo of Liam Ó Maonlaí and Fiachna Ó Braonáin, in their alternative iteration as The Benzini Brothers, were knocking out R’n’B standards in the corner (R’n’B here referring broadly to the genre of music made by Chuck Berry rather than by Beyonce). Everyone in the place was too cool or too embarrassed to talk to the by now fairly famous frontman, or maybe out of deference were just leaving him alone to enjoy his night out, but in his inimitable, irrepressible way, Bono made a point of tapping me on the arm when he recognised me sitting a few places up from him, and said hello. Wow, he remembered me, again, having been half-way around the world since we last ran into each other. We shot the breeze for a while, nothing too deep or meaningful, typical after hours venue conversation. We agreed the live show was good.

    The last time I encountered Bono I was working student security at a gig by Welsh band The Alarm on the UCD Belfield campus, on 22 October 1983. My job was to guard their dressing room door. The ever-ebullient one arrived with an entourage, to offer moral support to a group who had toured with U2 as an opening act. He gave me a big wave and full-on smile as soon as he saw me (much to the jaw-dropping surprise of the too-cool-for-school Students’ Union social secretary and his crew, whom I sensed had pegged me as a bit of an nerd), told me how he really wanted to get down to doing some serious reading soon too, and inquired what time I’d be finished my doorman duties. I told him being a student was fine, except for the lack of money. ‘Sure, what do you need money for?’ was his reply. Later on he did a turn on stage with his Cymru friends, improvising lyrics to Dylan’s ‘Knockin’ On Heaven’s Door’, and then disappeared into the night.

    The last time I was in the presence of Mr. B was when he was called on to launch an exhibition of work by Italian painter Francesco Clemente at the Irish Museum of Modern Art, early in 2004. The circumstances were quite comical. He arrived in a flurry of security, gave his speech, and was whisked away again in jig time; there was no mingling with the assembled throng. The place was, it has to be admitted, packed to the rafters, much more so than any other gallery opening I’ve ever been invited to, with the great and good of Dublin’s bourgeoisie, all anxious to catch a glimpse of the great man. Just because he’s Bono. Just because his band are rich, famous and successful. Because that’s the only way the middle-class vulgarians, who ordinarily have no interest in popular music and culture, can appreciate its significance: through money, how much it sells and how much it makes. Afterwards, there were the usual overheard comments about his diminutive physical stature, of the ilk of ‘He’s very short in real life, isn’t he?’ Ah, Bono and his Napoleon complex.

    The last time I saw U2 live – having caught them a few times at various junctures around the globe since those club dates in Holland in 1982 – was in August 1993 in the RDS Arena in Ballsbridge, Dublin, as part of the Zoo TV tour. Achtung Baby (1991) and Zooropa (1993), the albums they were then touring, are now widely regarded as the pinnacle of the band’s artistic career (although I am sometimes tempted to argue that Boy remains their best album, and it’s been downhill ever since). Their popularity and status had put them well out of my league by then, and I was just another punter standing in the middle of a field. I have not had any desire to see them again since then, not being much of a one for huge outdoor stadium gigs. I certainly would not have been caught dead at any of the forty concerts which made up their U2:UV Achtung Baby Live at Sphere residency in Las Vegas from 29 September 2023 to 2 March 2024, a meretriciously bloated spectacle (judging from the snippets I inadvertently saw of it online) which would be best described as a sell-out, if they hadn’t sold out years before that. If U2 wouldn’t go to the mountain of touring, then the mountain of fans could come to see U2 in one place, and where better than the gaudiness conceptualised of Vegas, even if in this case not everything that happened there stayed there? Anyway, it is my hipsterish habit to discover nascent bands and enthuse about them in their formative stages when they are still trying to make it, only to – with some notable exceptions – gradually lose interest as they achieve widespread recognition and become established in the mainstream. Call it inverted critical snobbery, if you will, but it’s rare bands who continue to improve with age; for most, the law of diminishing returns sadly kicks in, sooner or later. U2 actually had quite a good run, before they started marking time, followed by a typical decline setting in.

    Here ends the chronology of my personal Zelig-like relationship with Ireland’s biggest rock export, and its most famous son. Let us now put it all into a little perspective.

    Bono on stage in 1983.

    Everybody in Dublin (and now many far beyond) has at least one U2 or, more specifically, one Bono story. (Legion are the number of bands who are identified, liked or disliked, solely on the basis of the behaviour of their frontman.) Some of the stories are about how he’s just an ordinary bloke, some are about how he’s a prick. (The former tend to be the more distant ones, timewise, the latter more recent.) But everybody also would have liked the fairytale of a band they formed in high school becoming world-famous. Everybody would have liked to be in a band based on deep commitment and friendship, rather than a bunch of divisive, competing egotists who just happened to be able to play their instruments and grew up in the same place. Everybody would have liked, in some way or another, the U2 story to be theirs – up to a point.

    So I didn’t become a rock star (while Bono did), which is a regret, but not a big one. Certainly, it would have been salutary to have been given the time and opportunity to try and find out how far I could have taken it, but times were harder for people from my background in those days, and I didn’t have the support, contacts or confidence to make it work and pursue the dream. But, there again, probably neither did he – except for the utter confidence, which helped him acquire the support and contacts. To be honest, I didn’t have his patent chutzpah, or his vaulting ambition. Few did, or do. Nor his lack of self-consciousness, which can be flipped and cast positively as that familiar, winning self-confidence. He is a living, breathing example of – as Sinéad O’Connor would have had it – the value of ignorance.

    You see, Rock’n’Roll was still just about ‘bad’ in our day, not yet a multi-million dollar business. This was long before the advent of private ‘train-to-be-a-rockstar’ colleges such as BIMM, or the state doing-its-bit-for-the-kids with the likes of Ballyfermot Rock School. In fact, I can remember that when I inquired of the Principal of the Brothers’ kip where I received my secondary education (an institution staffed predominantly by ‘fools in old-style hats and coats’, constantly complaining about ‘long’ collar-length hair and denim jeans and, when punk belatedly arrived, about short spiky hair and leather jackets, sprinkled with stern admonitions about ‘immorality’), if my band could rehearse in the school gym at weekends, he was quick to ascertain the socio-economic background of each group member – and refused us on the basis that the drummer, my first cousin Robbie, was from Ballyfermot, thus demonstrating his poisonous admixture of Irish Catholic conservatism’s censorious attitude to any uncodified artistic activity, and plain old social snobbery. Happily, my local Protestant rector was generous enough to let his nearby primary school – which most kids in the neighbourhood attended irrespective of their religious persuasion – be used by any bunch of teenagers who wanted to practise their developing chops in their spare time. Bono has made much of his mixed-marriage parentage, which means not that one of them was a man and the other a woman, but that his father was a Catholic and his mother was a Protestant. This alliance led to him getting his schooling in the interdenominational Mount Temple Comprehensive, a liberal enclave which perhaps determined the entire subsequent course of his life. They would not have been so disapproving of students’ budding efforts at creative expression. In fact, if reports and results are to be credited, they positively encouraged it. Perhaps Bono has played his own part in making Rock’n’Roll not so ‘Bad’ (to appropriate one of U2’s more well-known song titles) and more socially accepted but, in a sense, that has only made it worse, by making it less incendiary and so less relevant to cutting edge discourse. Now bog-standard ‘rock’ is just another form of corporate entertainment, and a niche interest as well, no longer central to youth culture. Which is part of why it is so disconcerting to hear the 1990s talked of as though it was ancient history, like the 1950s were spoken of during the 1980s – but which is, undeniably, exactly the same amount of time elapsed: thirty years.

    Of course I am not so foolish as to think that U2, and Mr. B, nearly ruined my life. I was more than capable of doing that myself (with a little help from family, so-called-friends, and powerful institutions). Maybe I should have just been stronger, more single-minded, more determined – in short, more like him. Maybe, like him, I should have ‘kept the faith’. But that is not my nature, at least not in that sphere. Besides, everybody runs up against the walls of their own innate talent, eventually. I was good, I wasn’t bad, my band were good (if disunited), but was I good enough? It’s probably a bit like being the best football player in your local under-16s soccer team, and because you’re head and shoulders above the other kids there, you think the world is just waiting for you to conquer it, but discovering in succeeding years that you’re more of a League 1 or League of Ireland level journeyman rather than a potential Premiership international superstar, the next Messi or Ronaldo. Still, lots of guys and gals are happy to make a reasonable living in lower divisions or lowly leagues, doing something they enjoy, operating within the limitations of their personal talent walls. But, for me, once an enjoyable hobby becomes ‘the job’, it tends to lose some of its lustre – unless you’re really good at it, and are always getting better, or maintaining the same high standard. In any case, I’m probably a better writer than I am a musician, and the working conditions are more congenial to a person like me – or the person I have become, due to those conditions.

    For I’ve attained enough self-knowledge to realise that I would have been temperamentally unsuited to the role of being a rock star. While I like the buzz of performing, playing with friends in private, or sometimes even in public – once I’ve got over my initial nerves, and if it’s going well – I imagine I would have found the rigours of constant touring a sore trial: always being surrounded by people, everybody wanting a piece of you, never having a minute to yourself. I don’t think I’d have been very stable or content being in the glare of the spotlight, unless I’d managed to cultivate strategies to distance myself from it (which, depending on the reification or compartmentalisation of personality involved, is kind of a contradiction in terms). Never mind Bono, to quote another capering frontman, Mick Jagger, on his former bandmate, Brian Jones: ‘Fame doesn’t sit very comfortably on anyone’s shoulders,’ (here, with tongue-in-cheek, reflexively referencing himself) ‘but some people’s shoulders [don’t] seem to fit it on at all. And he was one of them.’ That’s it: given my then – and, albeit increasingly in moderation, still abiding – liking for certain illicit substances, I may well have wound up gaining unwanted membership of the 27 Club. Besides, I was a budding (self-styled!) intellectual – even if I didn’t know it – at a time when rock musicians were not supposed to have brains, or be too clever. Admittedly, intellectuals in general do not enjoy very much popularity in the public eye (unless you live in France), as it is assumed that they lack ‘the common touch’ – which may very well be true. And while public intellectuals can be identified in these parts (every Irish person is, to a greater or lesser extent, a ‘public intellectual’, in the open-air lunatic asylum that Ireland so patently is), the idea and reality of being ‘always on’, as those with a high profile in any field must be, but particularly in the entertainment sector which requires constant self-promotion, can prove tiresome to those of us with minds of our own, and a need for solitude. I’m much happier being alone in my study, reading and writing (or taking the occasional break by playing my guitar) than I would be traipsing across the concert stages of the world. Notwithstanding the fact that it does mean I languish in relative obscurity.

    Fintan O’Toole in 2010.

    Fintan O’Toole was surely right, in his article headlined ‘Bono at 60 – Why is Ireland so ambivalent about its most famous son?’ (The Irish Times, 20/05/2020), about how, with Bono, ‘Whatever part of the brain makes us cringe at ourselves is missing’, as evidenced by when Hot Press – in its infinite wisdom – sent him to interview Bob Dylan (Slane, 1984), and it soon became clear that he knew fuck all about Dylan or his music. The reporter-for-the-day didn’t even know any of the lyrics to Bob’s albatross-round-his-neck most well-known song, ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’, when he joined the headliner on stage for the encore – so he had the temerity to improvise his own. The generally resolutely poker-faced Mr. Dylan was clearly nonplussed, and looked askance at these antics. As this one incident among many illustrates, Bono certainly doesn’t lack for brass neck, and is good at spoofing – in contrast to more reflective and reticent people, who like to do their research and know what they’re talking about before they open their mouths (which, in Bono’s case, is usually to change feet).

    And yet, as anyone who has ever met him will tell you, his charm is lethal. He is, though you’d be loath to admit it, a nice guy. Or was, when I was acquainted with him. Maybe a bit brash, and loud, but not obnoxiously so. And he does have a great talent, perhaps not so much as a musician, but as a performer. I’ve seen him make a football stadium in Modena, Italy, seem as intimate as a small theatre, on the 1987 Joshua Tree tour (and I was standing a lot farther back by then than I had been in The Dandelion Market or McGonagle’s or The Baggot Inn). He came to hear my band rehearse once, and offer advice. He was always enthusiastic and interested in people and the stuff they were doing, with no apparent motive of self-interest, other than being friendly. Obviously, I haven’t seen or spoken to him in years. So it’s strange how much I dislike him (or rather, his public persona) and even the group now, and this despite some of the undeniably great records they’ve made – always acknowledging the fact that they haven’t made a decent one in years, and seem content to reinterpret their own back catalogue, in the process becoming a heritage act, their own tribute band. Like many Irish people, Dubliners especially, I tend to concur when I hear the oft-repeated phrase, ‘Bono is a pox’.

    The simple reason for this antipathy is the perceived hypocrisy involved in his political posturing and tax avoidance, and the concomitant suspicion (as most thoroughly documented and delineated in Harry Browne’s book The Frontman (2013)) that perhaps all Bono’s do-gooding celebrity philanthropy and hobnobbing with dodgy politicians and economists in 10 Downing Street or the White House or at the Davos World Economic Forum or the G8 summit, in reality only makes things worse rather than better, or better only in the short term, because it perpetuates the present system, of which he is a thoroughly embedded part.

    For sure, a card-carrying socialist proselytiser like Billy Bragg, or even right-on Paul Weller, do not have anything like Bono’s reach or range of influence, but everyone knows where they stand politically. Bono’s politics, and even his religious beliefs, have always remained opaque, at least until more recent years, beyond a vague ‘don’t hurt people, help them’ ill-thought-out, secular Christian humanism. But all the fuzzy charity work and debt-relief activism shouldn’t obscure the fact that he is, and always has been, an arch capitalist. This began to become overt in an Op-Ed Guest Columnist piece he wrote for the New York Times (02/01/2010), ‘Ten for the Next Ten’, which, amid predictions for the incoming decade, contained the parenthetical injunction ‘(Trust in capitalism – we’ll find a way)’. It became fully manifest in his acceptance speech for the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, bestowed on him by the outgoing holder of that office, Joe Biden, in January 2025 – wherein he said his campaigning activities are ‘a way to bring the capitalists on board (and that was before I realized I was one)’. It’s all about trickle down with Bono. He could even be considered to be a personified proponent of the U.S. evangelical-style ‘prosperity gospel’.

    (Incidentally, consenting to be conferred with that honour (and be photographed in beatific choirboy pose) was an unforgivably smug, self-centred extravagance, at a time when Genocide Joe was funding the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by the apartheid state of Israel (a process continued seamlessly by the current incumbent). A real crusading, anti-establishment rock star would have refused the garish, star-encrusted trinket, just as John Lennon handed back his MBE in 1969 in protest, in his own words, ‘against Britain’s involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing, against our support of America in Vietnam, and against ‘Cold Turkey’ slipping down the charts.’ But then Bono has been remarkably reticent about the atrocities and human rights violations being committed in Gaza, in contrast to his lifelong vocal concern with Africa, and solving the problems of some of the continent’s poorer countries (and also given his rush to intervene in other war-torn centres like the Balkans and Ukraine). His unbelievably crass comments in an interview (RTE Radio 1’s Brendan O’Connor Show, May 2025) about ‘competitive empathy’ regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza serve only as a telling indication of where his own ‘competitive empathy’ lies. Make poverty history, and promote conflict resolution, but only in certain locales. But such an intervention in Middle Eastern geopolitics would doubtlessly damage U2’s marketability in the States, given the large support the terrorist state of Israel enjoys there, not only among its Jewish, but also its Christian fundamentalist population. After all, Christian Zionists maintain that the Book of Genesis says that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse it. Furthermore, the evangelicals – who number some 62 million in the U.S. – believe that the return of Jews to the Holy Land, and the conversion of Jews to Christian belief, is a prerequisite for the return of Christ, which will in turn be heralded by the Rapture, when true believers will be whisked away to meet Jesus in an otherworldly realm.)

    Of course Bono would think of himself as too smart – in the sense of being streetwise and practical – to be a Marxist, or even a socialist. Why would he even consider such a course, when capitalism has so demonstratively worked for hardworking him? Bono is a Northside Dubliner who has long been resident in a mansion in the poshest district on the Southside. I grew up on a council estate on the Southside, but have migrated in the opposite direction to him, and now live in a spacious detached house in north County Dublin, because that is one of the few places where we can afford a home which is more than a suburban shoebox, while still within striking distance of Dublin city centre, on a bus route. He may sing about ‘Where the Streets Have No Name’, but he lives ‘Where the Houses Have No Numbers’. He is very rich, while I remain – comparatively speaking – very poor (as, I would wager a modest amount, do you). He buys properties as investments, and flips them, like any good businessman would, as though unimaginably enormous royalties from humungous record sales and astronomical proceeds from record-breaking world tours aren’t enough. It’s been quite a remarkable journey from suspected Sandinista sympathiser (‘Bullet the Blue Sky’, anyone?) to international property speculator. Even drummer Larry has got in on the act, last heard of suing a Dublin accountancy firm over bad property investment advice. Sure you’d have to be doing something with all your money, rather than just letting it sit there in a deposit account in the bank or post office. But it’s not really about the music anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time. Sadly, the institution that is U2 is now all things to all people; but it could have been so much more. It could have meant so much more than just an exemplary business model. One is tempted, in a biblical allusion, to say that Bono has sold his musical birthright for a mess of monetary pottage. Except that it amounts to a very large mess. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with commercial success, but lots of the wealth didn’t come from music. The art just provided the seed capital. Perhaps he should have become a contestant on Dragon’s Den instead, and saved us all the trouble. One thinks of that oft-quoted cliché, variously attributed to Georges Clemenceau or Winston Churchill: ‘If a man is not a socialist by the time he is twenty, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is forty, he has no brain.’ Except Bono was never a socialist, even at twenty, and I remain some sort of one, even in my sixties. From which I can only conclude that I have no brain. Yet why wouldn’t I be a socialist, given my socio-economic circumstances and my diagnosis of why I find myself in them? Bono’s argument, and that of those of his kind, would be that I am just left-leaning because I’m not well-off (and, concomitantly, that I’m not well-off because I am left-leaning), and that I’m probably lazy too. But then, I don’t operate in a socialist society, so what hope have I, unless I ‘get with the programme’ they have always been ‘brainy’ enough to embrace? (Just as it is difficult to be a socialist in a capitalist society, it is a hard road if you are based in Ireland and are someone who likes to write about rock music, but who thinks Hot Press is little more than a fortnightly public relations press release masquerading as cutting-edge criticism: bring on some free market choice in Irish music journalism outlets, please.)

    For, what if they are right? What if my politics are just evidence of my own incorrigible naivety? What if I should have ‘got with the programme’ all around me years ago? I might now be rich, or richer than I am, or at least ‘well-off’ or ‘comfortable’ or ‘secure’, or any of those other terms commonly employed to denote not having to worry about money. Or maybe, more than likely, I’d still be struggling, like almost everyone else I know, to get by. Most people live in debt for most of their lives, anyway, just to keep up middle-class appearances. Somehow, I think Bono probably worries about money a good deal more than I do – albeit in a rather different way. The usual non-committal riposte, whenever Bono’s bona fides are questioned, is that ‘He means well’. But this amounts to little more than a (holy) fool’s pardon. Forgive him, for he knows not what he does. Besides, I think he has a fair idea of what he does. While obviously not the most self-aware individual on the planet, he is far from unaware of the repercussions of his actions. In addition to which, Lenin, Hitler, Mao – all those utopian visionaries-gone-wrong – meant well, leastways at various points in their careers. It is rare that someone does not ‘mean well’, for some of the people, if not all the people, some of the time, if not all the time. Most people ‘mean well’ for somebody, at some time – if only for themselves. The road to hell is paved with good intentions – and sometimes also with actions. ‘Salvation is of the Lord, lest any man should boast.’

    Bono has God, I do not. ‘Christian rock’ is a hugely popular subgenre in the U.S. but almost unknown outside of it. But in many ways, U2 were the original Christian rock band, and Bono’s frequent lyrical references to God, Yahweh and Jesus have contributed in no small part to making them popular there, to the extent that the U.S. is their breadbasket, which in turn has made them rich, and their wealth is in turn the reason why important, powerful people (Blair, Browne, Bush, Obama) listened to him and wanted to be seen to hang with him. The recently deceased Pope Francis was probably more of a socialist than Bono is, or ever was (as is his newly-appointed his successor). Yet when said R.C. church mainman visited Ireland on 25 and 26 August 2018, as part of the World Meeting of Families (whatever that is), his audiences were not nearly as large as those that turned out for John Paul II in 1979. When Pope Francis celebrated Mass at the Papal Cross in Phoenix Park – a monument that commemorates his predecessor’s visit thirty-nine years previously – approximately 152,000 attended the service, according to the Office of Public Works (far less than the estimated 500,000 predicted, which was itself a huge reduction on the preceding performance). More Irish people may have come around to my way of thinking in the interim as regards attendance at pontifical gigs, but Bono and his bandmates could certainly draw a bigger crowd in Dublin than the Bishop of Rome, aka God’s appointed vicar on earth: a three-night run at Croke Park, which they did in 2005 and 2009, amounted to 240,000 tickets sold each time, give or take a few thousand – which even accounting for fans who might have gone to all three separate appearances still trumps Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s audience figures – and they were not waiving appearance fees. John Lennon took a lot of flak in 1966 when he claimed that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Bono could have, with some justification, made the same assertion at the height of U2’s prominence – at least within Ireland. Not that he would have done so, and definitely not back in his beloved born again USA – if only because it might be a closer run thing over there. Still, little wonder that he might be tempted, as the old joke has it, to walk around Dublin thinking he is God (the difference between the two deities being that God doesn’t walk around the Fair City thinking he’s Bono).

    Bono and his wife Ali Hewson at the 2022 Kennedy Center Honors Dinner.

    I have no idea what would happen if I met Bono now. But, much like what Elvis Costello has said in interview (with Allen Jones, Dublin, May 1989, from Too Late To Stop Now (2023)) about Paul McCartney:

    You know, I think of him, McCartney, like he’s Buzz Aldrin or somebody.
    Someone who’s been to the fucking moon. None of us can conceive what
    it must be like to have been through what he’s experienced. It’s a unique
    experience, probably, in the 20th century, to be him. And that’s not making
    too big a thing of it.

    I think it must be really odd being Bono. Considering how Mega U2 have been, the monolith they’ve become, it’s surprising he’s even halfway normal – if, indeed, he is. Although there was always something a bit abnormal about him, even in the early days. It’s like that thing people used to say about Bill Clinton: how when he walks into a room he’s instantly the centre of attention (even before he was world-famous) because he glows, with a particular kind of luminous energy. I guess it’s called charisma. But that must be difficult for others to be around all the time. It must be even stranger for Bono to have been known for all his public life by a nickname that he acquired as a teenager: it stuck so tightly that he could never drop it – like his mask. Or what if he doesn’t, as he and all his myriad fans would aver, wear a mask? What if what you see is what you get? Or maybe the mask, like the nickname, has adhered so solidly to his face that he can never take it off? His mask is his face. I mean, when does Bono go home? And what’s he like when he gets there? Is he ever plain old Paul Hewson? Or is he ‘Bono’ all the time? I sincerely hope not, because that would be truly scary. Unfortunately, it may well be the case.

    A few months ago I sold my copy of U23, the band’s first 12” EP (bought on release in 1979, only a thousand copies pressed, £1.49 R.R.P.) for €5,000 online, which paid for the paint job on the exterior of our new house, and other odd jobs arising from personalising the property. So, it wasn’t all for nothing. Maybe Bono is right, after all, along with his friends in the World Bank: maybe trickle down does work. Maybe there even really is a God, who looks down and smiles with satisfaction on all this personal wealth accumulation. All thanks and praise be to Bono, and the lads.

    Now, any chance of a tune?


    Feature Image: Bono performing with U2 in 2011

     

     

     

     

     

  • Woody and Annie (and Others) Part I

    ‘I wish I could think of a positive point to leave you with. Will you take two negative points?’
    Woody Allen, from his stand-up comedy routine (1964)

    Consider the facts: French writer Annie Ernaux has an affair with a young man, thirty years her junior (she was fifty-four, he was twenty-four), and writes about it, in the recently published The Young Man. Therein, she flatly admits that she was simply using him solely for her own satisfaction, stating that she was with a younger man ‘so that I would not continually be looking at the timeworn face of a man my age, the face of my own aging. When A.’s face was before me, mine was young too. Men have known this forever, and I saw no reason to deprive myself.’ Also, ‘I felt as if I had been lying on a bed since age eighteen and never risen from it – the same bed but in different places, with different men, indistinguishable from one another.’ It is hailed as disarmingly honest in reclaiming female desire – as though we did not already know that women have always had desires, and do not really need to reclaim them because they never went away. Annie Ernaux is lauded. She has won the Nobel Prize, among other prestigious awards.

    Then there is the case of North American filmmaker Woody Allen: he has an affair with a young woman, thirty-five years his junior (he was fifty-six, she was twenty-one), and despite the fact that they married five years later, and have since adopted two daughters, and been apparently happy in their union for twenty-six years and counting, he is vilified as a predatory creep and possible paedophile, constantly mentioned in the same breath as charged and/or convicted sex-offenders Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. He now has difficulty financing his films in his own country, and has to do so abroad – notably in France. Amazon refused to distribute his 2019 film, A Rainy Day in New York, as ‘unmarketable’, resulting in a law suit for breach of contract. While some famous actors have stood by him, singing his praises, others have rushed to distance themselves from him, making clear that they regret having worked with him, and would not do so again. His memoir Apropos of Nothing was dropped by his original publisher, after protests from his ex-girlfriend Mia Farrow and some members of her family, and a staff walkout at the publishing firm, although it was subsequently taken up by another house. He has been blacklisted, or in the parlance de nos jours, ‘cancelled’. (Amusing titbit: the contribution of Allen and his wife to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign was unceremoniously returned. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and the requirement of due process, seemingly does not apply in Clinton’s legal framework.) This double standard needs scrutiny.

    Obviously, there are additional factors which serve to place Allen in an unfavourable light, and can be used to justify the opprobrium he endures. For one, the young woman he took up with, Soon-Yi Previn, was the adopted daughter of that ex-girlfriend, Farrow, who was still at the time his current girlfriend. For another, and far more damaging to his reputation, he was accused by Farrow, in the aftermath of the Allen/Soon-Yi relationship becoming public knowledge in 1992, of molesting his and Farrow’s adopted daughter Dylan, then aged seven, an accusation which resurfaced in 2016 in the wake of the #MeToo movement, and a 2021 HBO documentary featuring interviews with Dylan, Allen v. Farrow. In fairness, Ernaux’s young paramour was a fan (a male groupie?), not an extended family member, and she has never been accused of sexually assaulting a seven-year-old boy, much less the adopted son of her then boyfriend. But, the key word in the previous sentence, to my mind, is ‘accused’. (Echoes resonate of the reflexively eponymous 1988 Jonathan Kaplan film, starring Jodie Foster, in which she portrays a rape victim who struggles to get justice. Who, exactly, was The Accused?) Allen has been accused, but never charged, much less convicted – unlike Cosby, Weinstein and Epstein.

    It is not my intention here to delve into the copious mound of facts and opinions, claims and counterclaims, which surround this case, and are readily available elsewhere to those with the inclination to do the proper research. Such an approach would involve excessive quotation from the large swathes of television, newspaper and magazine interviews, statements and op. ed. pieces I have read (to say nothing of the social media onslaughts on either side), information which has long been in the public domain. The Allen/Farrow/Previn blended family imbroglio is too sad and sordid and multifaceted, the problems around the original accusation too byzantine – partaking of classical tragedy – to allow of a simple black and white interpretation, and we may never know the whole story, only the conflicting, partial versions. So I will be economical with my references, but hopefully not with the truth – as I see it. The trouble with presenting an argument from either side of this dispute is that, as with the majority of such issues, once a side is taken, all arguments become one-sided. However, while I hope to avoid the bulk of the ‘he said/she said’ discourse on this episode of the culture wars, I will allow myself the odd judgement, while trying to avoid being overly partisan. My own allegiances will soon become apparent, and in any case I have other matters to engage with here: mainly, societal attitudes to legal, large age gap relationships; and, also, the age old conundrum around the separation of the artist and the work.

    Let us pull from the pile this quote, if only because it pithily summarises the vast and seemingly endless debate around the Allen/Farrow debacle. Daphne Merkin wrote in her profile of Soon-Yi (New York Magazine/Vulture, 17/09/2018):

    With regard to almost every aspect of life in the Farrow household, Soon-Yi’s story, like those of her younger brother Moses and Allen himself, is strikingly different from what’s put forth by Mia and Dylan as well as their son and brother Ronan Farrow, the journalist who has written a series of high-profile #MeToo stories over the past year. I can’t pretend to know what actually occurred, of course, and neither can anyone other than Allen and Dylan. Even the judge who eventually denied Allen custody of Dylan opined that “we will probably never know what happened on August 4, 1992.” All of life is filled with competing narratives, and the burden of interpretation is ultimately on the listener and his or her subjectively arrived-at sense of the truth.

    People will choose sides, based on previous loyalties and ideological standpoints, often ignoring evidence and even succumbing to flimsily substantiated conspiracy theories. (Needless to say, Merkin herself has faced multiple accusations of bias, both as a long-term acquaintance of Allen’s, and as a #MeToo sceptic). Still, a few salient points, often ignored, deserve to be made in Allen’s defence on both (separate, but in many minds, related) counts: that of the inappropriateness of his relationship with, and possible grooming of, his now wife (who was his then girlfriend’s adopted daughter); and that of sexually assaulting his own adopted daughter.

    Allen is on record as stating that he had no serious qualms about his relationship with Soon-Yi. ‘I didn’t feel that just because she was Mia’s adopted daughter, there was any great moral dilemma. It was a fact, but not one with any great import. It wasn’t like she was my daughter,’ he told Time magazine in an August 1992 interview. ‘I am not Soon-Yi’s father or stepfather. I’ve never even lived with Mia. I never had any family dinners over there. I was not a father to her adopted kids in any sense of the word.’ Supporters will concur. Detractors will see in this attitude further evidence of the man’s deficient conscience, and questionable moral probity. It does seem that the romantic part of Allen’s relationship with Farrow was well over by the time Soon-Yi and he got together, at least according to the Woody and Soon-Yi side of things. Allen and Farrow were maintaining a loose union mostly for the sake of the two children they had adopted, and the one biological child they had had together. In December 1987 Farrow gave birth to her and Allen’s son, Satchel (now known as Ronan) Farrow. Farrow wanted to adopt another child in 1991, and Allen said he would not take ‘a lousy attitude toward it’ so long as she agreed to his adoption of Dylan and Moses, whom Farrow had already adopted by herself. In October of that year she adopted another Vietnamese child (who turned out to have disabilities Farrow could not cope with, and so was passed on to another adoptive family). Allen’s adoption of Dylan and Moses was finalised in December 1991, shortly before Farrow discovered that Allen and Soon-Yi were romantically and sexually involved, in January 1992.

    Soon-Yi’s version of events, and justification for them, is more or less the same as Allen’s. In August 1992 she wrote, in a statement to Newsweek, that Allen had never been a father figure to her, and that they had become friendly long after his romance with Farrow had ended, adding:

    I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather – not by a long shot. I’m a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it’s offbeat, but let’s not get hysterical.

    This was repeated twenty-six years later, in that controversial 2018 Vulture interview with Merkin: ‘We didn’t think of him as a father. He didn’t even have clothing at our house, not even a toothbrush.’ She went on to say that she was ‘madly in love’ with Allen. ‘[I was] completely attracted to him, physically and sexually. I know he’d said that I’d meet someone in college, but I’d already decided,’ she told Vulture. ‘From the first kiss I was a goner and loved him.’ As Allen and Farrow had never married, and as Allen had never adopted Soon-Yi, their relationship was not illegal. Furthermore, at twenty-one, she was more than ‘of age’. Soon-Yi’s affirmations are, unsurprisingly, disparaged by the vilifiers, as the product of an impressionable young woman manipulated by her more worldly and high-profile partner, and who may even be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. This interpretation finds its equal and opposite expression on the part of Allen’s advocates in the contention that Dylan was coached by Farrow into making her accusations of molestation, as the vindictive vengefulness of a woman wronged.

    However, in many ways, the propriety of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi is a red herring, when it comes to characterising him as a sexual predator. Although it should not need to be pointed out, apparently it does: when it comes to passing judgement on Woody Allen’s large age gap marriage in particular, or large age gap relationships in general, and whether or not the senior party – man or woman – is de facto creepy, Allen’s status as an accused (but, more importantly, uncharged and unconvicted) child molester is simply irrelevant, if only because paedophilia (defined as a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children), hebephilia (a primary or exclusive sexual interest in eleven to fourteen-year-old pubescents) and ephebophilia (a primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages fifteen to nineteen) are very distinct, not necessarily overlapping, preferences, with the later not considered by mental health professionals to be pathological. Twenty-one-year-old women are not seven-year-old girls. In other words, it would be entirely possible that Allen could have groomed Soon-Yi as an adolescent but not molested Dylan; and, vice versa, he could possibly have molested Dylan while not ever have been grooming Soon-Yi. One act would not substantiate the other. In addition, it is just as likely that neither act took place as that both did.

    Paedophilia itself is a compulsive behaviour: you do not suddenly start acting on paedophiliac impulses when you are fifty-seven-years old. Indeed, clinicians differentiate between paedophiles and child molesters, and ‘preferential’ and ‘situational’ child abuse, since not all of those with a sexual preference for prepubescents molest children, and not all child molesters are true paedophiles. There are motives for child sexual abuse that are unrelated to paedophilia, such as marital problems, the unavailability of an adult partner, or general anti-social tendencies – which does not, of course, mean that everyone who finds themselves in such situations is going to abuse children. Furthermore, paedophilia is a prenatal, genetic sexual orientation: people are born that way, rather like being born straight, gay, bi or trans. For this reason, there is no evidence that paedophilia can be cured. Such an endeavour would be a little like trying to ‘cure’ homosexuality through aversion therapy, one of the more shameful practices of the many to be found in the history of psychiatry. Instead, most therapies focus on treating paedophiles so that they refrain from acting on their desires. However, in the wider society, just as there was once no understanding, or at best condescension, for LGBTQ+ people or unmarried mothers (the phrase ‘single parent family’ had not even entered the lexicon), now there is none for paedophiles – only judgement and condemnation. Every generation needs a minority to hate on, even if it is demonstrably true that paedophiles do more harm to the vulnerable than LGBTQ+ or unwed Mums ever did. Remember: there was a time, not so long ago, when gay people were routinely considered to be a bunch of pederasts, and unmarried pregnant females were thought of as lascivious ‘fallen’ women, whose ‘innocence’ had been taken, or who had given it up too easily. Magdalen laundries were full of them.

    Allen had no previous record of sexual activity with children (which does not, of course, mean that it did not happen – nor would it be of much consolation to Dylan, if her accusations against Allen are true). Various studies have indicated that non-paedophilic offenders do tend to do so at times of high stress, have a later onset of offending, and have fewer, often familial, victims; while paedophilic offenders frequently start offending at an early age, have a larger number of victims who are more often than not extrafamilial, and are more driven to offend. Such classifications and terminology may be irrelevant to victims, but while the possibility that Allen is a very late onset, single incidence child molester remains, it is unlikely that he is a paedophile. His numerous relationships with adult, so called ‘age appropriate’ women would also militate against this diagnosis.

    For those unfamiliar with the bare facts, Allen was accused of one incident of molestation of a seven-year-old by the child’s adoptive mother, against the backdrop of the revelation of his legal relationship with another adoptive daughter of the seven-year-old’s adoptive mother, and the ensuing custody battle between him and the child’s mother for custody of the seven-year-old adopted daughter, and two other children, one adopted and one biological. He was investigated in two separate states, Connecticut and New York, and cleared in both. These investigations included both physical and psychological examinations of Dylan, and lie detector tests taken by Allen, which he passed. The Connecticut State’s Attorney did not press charges. During the investigation the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan, and that the allegation was probably coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. After a fourteen month long inquiry, the New York Department of Social Services found ‘no credible evidence’ to support the allegation. Furthermore, Farrow’s legal representatives offered Allen the opportunity to have the abuse allegation remain private, in exchange for a huge payout to Farrow in compensation and child maintenance, which he refused. This hardly points to his having any sense of guilt, or an overriding desire to preserve his reputation.

    But then come the speculative caveats: the state attorney in Connecticut found ‘probable cause’ to prosecute, but decided against doing so because it would further traumatise Dylan, and because there was ‘reasonable doubt’ that a conviction was a certain outcome, as it had been impossible to reach the conclusion that the abuse had occurred. One of the social workers in the New York investigation was fired and replaced because he was in favour of charging Allen. I find this latter claim, with its implication that Allen was too powerful a figure in the U.S. film industry to face the full rigors of the law, what with his having many sympathetic friends, and having brought millions in revenue into New York City, vaguely ridiculous: if Harvey Weinstein, a much more powerful presence in the U.S. film industry, can be charged and convicted, then Woody Allen certainly can. If it was so easy for rich and powerful men to act with impunity and evade the justice system, then why are Weinstein and Cosby serving prison sentences, and why was Jeffrey Epstein in prison on remand (when he committed suicide), while Woody Allen is not? As regards Allen’s rejection of Farrow’s lawyers’ attempt at mediation, which involved financial payments in exchange for making the charge go away, his antagonists might argue that this was only because Allen did not want to be lumbered with paying out such a large sum of money to Farrow in what he considered to be an extortionate deal. Again, your explanations will tend to be determined by which side you have already taken.

    The opposition between Allen supporters who claim that Farrow coached and cajoled Dylan, and the Farrow supporters who claim that Allen groomed and manipulated Soon-Yi, sadly extends into the Farrow family itself. Moses Farrow, who was fourteen at the time of the accusations, and is today a forty-six-year-old psychotherapist, staunchly supports Woody and Soon-Yi. In a long blog post from May 2018 titled ‘A Son Speaks Out’, he makes detailed claims about how Mia tyrannised him into upholding her version of events, how Mia coached Dylan during the videotaped interview she did with her, and that initially taking Mia’s side before coming out against her when he was an adult (and therefore no longer financially dependent on her) was ‘the biggest regret of my life.’ On the other hand, Ronan (formerly Satchel) Farrow, aged four at the time and today a thirty-seven-year-old investigative journalist, staunchly supports Mia and Dylan. He continues to campaign against Allen, both in mainstream media outlets and on social media. On one side, Soon-Yi and Moses paint a picture of Mia Farrow as mercurial, violent and manipulative, given to outbursts of rage and cruel punishments, and the instigator of Dylan’s allegations against Woody, as revenge for his affair with Soon-Yi. On the other side, Dylan and Ronan defend their mother against attacks while continuing to assert that Woody molested Dylan.

    What those who take sides in the Farrow family feud generally do not take into account is that even if Mia was an abusive, controlling, bad mother, it is still conceivable that Woody Allen molested Dylan Farrow. One possibility does not negate the other. It just adds to the sadness. Equally, just because Woody Allen began an affair and since married a woman thirty-five years younger than him, who was his then partner’s adopted daughter, it does not automatically make him a paedophile, a molester, or even a groomer. A further strand in this tangled web is the possibility that Soon-Yi Previn could have been exacting a subtle form of revenge on her adoptive mother Mia Farrow, consciously or unconsciously, for what she perceives was an abusive childhood, by ‘stealing’ her boyfriend. What is clear, however, is that there is a marked difference between the accounts and outcomes of Farrow’s biological and/or Caucasian children, and those of her adopted and/or Asian ones, and the sides they have subsequently taken. So maybe she did play favourites, as many parents do, with undertones of racism.

    ‘What’s your favourite Woody Allen movie?’ So begins Dylan Farrow’s open letter to the New York Times of 01/02/2014, in which she reiterated her accusation of molestation by Allen. There has emerged a line of argument which attempts to find evidence of his grooming of Soon-Yi and –  bizarrely – his molestation of Dylan, in Allen’s inappropriate interest in teenage girls as displayed in his film work. While reference is made to a few snippets scattered throughout the oeuvre, such as when Rob, the friend of Allen’s Alvy Singer in Annie Hall (1977), in recounting an escapade in Los Angeles, declares, ‘Twins, Max! Sixteen years old. Can you imagine the mathematical possibilities?’, the chief culprit is the entirety of Allen’s 1979 movie, Manhattan, with its central storyline of a relationship between forty-two-year-old television comedy writer Isaac Davis (played by Allen) and seventeen-year-old high school student Tracy (played by Mariel Hemingway).

    Revisiting Manhattan forty-five years later, what is striking now is not only how all the other adult characters in the film are totally accepting of the couple in their social circle (save for a solitary  throwaway quip by Ike’s other love interest, Mary Wilkie (Diane Keaton): ‘somewhere Nabokov is smiling’), regarding it as at worst an eccentric but charming peccadillo, but also how garlanded with praise from both audiences and critics, as well as awards, the film was at the time of its release. Even as late as October 2013, Guardian readers were voting it the best film directed by Woody Allen. Clearly, Manhattan’s portrayal of a middle-aged man dating a teenager drew little derision back then, with the sole dissenting voice on record being that of Pauline Kael, who wrote in her New York Times review: ‘What man in his forties but Woody Allen could pass off a predilection for teenagers as a quest for true values?’ What viewers and so-called critics frequently do not realise about Annie Hall is that, despite the fact that it is narrated by the Woody stand-in Alvy, it is actually about a developing female artist (whose name gives the film its title) who outgrows an immature male partner. Similarly, with Manhattan, it is Tracy who imparts important life lessons to Ike, such as the closing advice ‘you have to have a little faith in people’. Manhattan only began to attract more negative analysis in the late 2010s, as Allen’s reputation again came into question after the rise of the #MeToo movement, and Dylan’s reiterated allegations. Societal attitudes have changed, but only relatively recently.

    As even those who find Allen suspect or downright creepy will have to admit, Manhattan came out at a particular point in history (which was pretty much most of history up to and surpassing that particular point) where the kind of relationship portrayed in the film seemed unobjectionable to many adults (male and female). Take, for example, the character of Randal P. McMurphy in Ken Kesey’s novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962): feigning mental illness, McMurphy is transferred from a prison work farm to a psychiatric facility because he thinks it will be an easier way to serve out his six month sentence. His crimes? ‘Drunkenness, Assault and Battery, Disturbing the Peace, repeated gambling, and one arrest for…’ Statutory Rape. He was never convicted, as the fifteen-year-old girl chose not to testify, possibly due to intimidation. However, McMurphy claims that the girl, ‘Said she was seventeen, Doc, and she was plenty willin’.’, and that her insatiable sexual appetite made him take ‘to sewing my pants shut.’ He continues his own defence by arguing that he was forced to leave town after the trial because, ‘that little hustler would of actually burnt me to a frazzle by the time she reached legal sixteen.’ The subsequent filmisation by Miloš Forman, released in 1975, is even more openly condoning of McMurphy’s sexual history (and readers who are easily triggered should consider themselves warned that perhaps it would be in their best interests to skip over this excerpt from McMurphy’s interview with the good Dr. Spivey):

    She was fifteen years old, going on thirty-five, Doc, and she told me she was eighteen, she was very willing, I practically had to take to sewing my pants shut. Between you and me, uh, she might have been fifteen, but when you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don’t think it’s crazy at all and I don’t think you do either. No man alive could resist that, and that’s why I got into jail to begin with. And now they’re telling me I’m crazy over here because I don’t sit there like a goddamn vegetable. Don’t make a bit of sense to me. If that’s what being crazy is, then I’m senseless, out of it, gone-down-the-road, wacko. But no more, no less, that’s it.

    Presumably, Kesey as author, followed thirteen years later by scriptwriters Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman, thought that this crime was an acceptable one for a protagonist – whose status as a Christ-like figure is subtly alluded to throughout the narrative – to commit, and still remain a ‘good guy’, or even a secular redemptive saviour of sorts, however flawed. The reading and film audiences were in accord – if they thought about it at all – given the massive contemporary popularity of the book and film. Interestingly, Ryan Gilbey’s reassessment in the New Statesman on the occasion of the film’s re-release in 2017 appeared under the headline: ‘Watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest again, I feel sorry for Nurse Ratched’, the character previously seen as the story’s arch villainess.

    But Tracy in Manhattan was not underage ‘jailbait’, to use the colloquial term for the temptation of sexual relations with minors. The age of consent in New York state was seventeen in 1979, and remains so today. (As of April 2021, of the fifty U.S. states, thirty have an age of consent of sixteen, nine at seventeen, and in eleven states the age is eighteen.) Thus, there is nothing illegal about Ike and Tracy’s relationship, as she is deemed capable of giving consent to sex with anyone else over the age of seventeen (save for cases of incest), with no so-called ‘Romeo and Juliet’ rules governing the age of her partner(s). Whether or not that represents informed consent is a matter for the legislature. (As we know from the political sphere, consent can be manufactured.) I would suggest that if the majority of a given society is of the opinion that a sexual relationship between a forty-two-year old and seventeen-year-old, or the portrayal thereof, is inappropriate, reprehensible, or criminal, then it is the current law which now needs to be changed, not the filmmaker or his work, retrospectively. After all, you cannot be indicted for a crime now that was not a crime then – in fiction or in reality. Well, maybe in fiction.

    Was Vladimir Nabokov a predatory, manipulative man because he wrote a novel about a predatory, manipulative man? Hardly, although Martin Amis, who averred ‘I bow to no one in my love for this great and greatly inspiring genius’ (in ‘The Problem with Nabokov’, The Guardian, 14/11/2009), cannot help but have queasy reservations about what he perceives as the ‘only significant embarrassment’ in the literary reputation of one of his writerly heroes, opining (in ‘Divine Levity’, Times Literary Supplement, 23/12/2011): ‘Of the nineteen fictions, no fewer than six wholly or partly concern themselves with the sexuality of prepubescent girls . . . To be as clear as one can be: the unignorable infestation of nymphets in Nabokov is not a matter of morality; it is a matter of aesthetics. There are just too many of them.’ What if Nabokov had been accused of sexual impropriety (as could happen to anyone, for a variety of reasons, especially those burdened with teaching fickle, entitled students in the humanities departments of universities, in order to earn a living), would the facts that he had written Lolita and that paedophilia features in five of his other novels have been held in evidence against him? Was Nabokov a creep because he wrote about creeps – at length? Doubtless, there are millennials who would like to see Lolita banned, just as there were Moral Majority types who wanted it censored when it was published in 1955 (by the Olympia Press in Paris, for fear of backlash in the Anglophone world). Senior publisher Dan Franklin has gone on record stating that he would not publish Lolita today, for fear ‘a committee of 30-year-olds’ would resign in protest because of #MeToo and social media.

    Granted, it is disingenuous to conflate opposition to abuse and harassment with unreconstructed Judeo-Christian prudishness about sex. But it still amounts to arguing that there are facets of human behaviour that are out of bounds for nuanced exploration by artists and writers. We have exchanged the rationale for the puritanism of one era for that of another – however well-intentioned both of them were and are. Lewis Carroll obsessed about a prepubescent girl in Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass. Father/Daughter incest is a major theme in James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. From Gravity’s Rainbow to Bleeding Edge, via Mason & Dixon and Against The Day, incest and paedophilia run like a fault line through the work of Thomas Pynchon. In these days of sensitivity readers, should we ban them all? Should they come with a health warming? If we accept that paedophilia and incest and sexual abuse of children in general are things in the real world, and that they are immoral, where does that put the morality of writing about the topics or choosing not to, or passing laws to outlaw or censor such material? Does choosing not to publish facilitate covering them up? Does choosing to do so serve in tacitly promoting them? Such writing is deeply discomfiting, as it was probably intended to be. You would probably not be well-adjusted if you did not find it so. One thinks of Judge John Munro Woolsey, who concluded in the New York trial of Joyce’s Ulysses for obscenity in 1933 that, ‘Whilst in many places the effect of Ulysses on the reader undoubtedly is somewhat emetic, nowhere does it tend to be an aphrodisiac.’ But did the good judge not suspect that the novel’s power as an emetic was in some ways dependent on its being aphrodisiac? Does it not all depend on point-of-view and direction of sympathies, both within and without the texts? And, if so, who is to decide what the point-of-view, and direction of sympathies, are? Who will judge the judges? But if you are really looking for a book to censor because of depictions of rape and incest, then why not start with the Bible?

    There is a large age gap relationship in Sophia Coppola’s film Lost In Translation (2003), which remains unconsummated. The precise disparity itself is left unspecified, but Scarlett Johansson was seventeen when she played the role of Charlotte, a recent Yale philosophy graduate in her early twenties, and Bill Murray was fifty-two when he took on the character of Bob Harris, a faded actor in his early fifties. That the mutual attraction is romantic in nature is made clear by the significant show of disappointment exhibited by Charlotte when Bob has a fling with a more age appropriate woman (equally adulterous, but that transgression is not the focus of our moral inquiry here). In her rather vanilla defence of her storyline, in an interview given as part of the twentieth anniversary of the film’s release, Coppola stated:

    Part of the story is about how you can have romantic connections that aren’t sexual or physical. You can have crushes on people where it isn’t that kind of thing. Part of the idea was that you can have connections where you can’t be together for various reasons because you’re at different points in life.

    But what if it had turned sexual? Would Bob have suddenly metamorphosised into a predatory creep? Certainly, certain sections of the commentariat would have it so. They even express misgivings about the relationship portrayed as it stands. It is unlikely that what is widely regarded as a Gen X cinema classic would garner such a warm reception were it released today, given the heightened awareness of gendered power imbalances in the movie business, and elsewhere. The film assuredly benefitted greatly from being released before online discourse consumed pop culture, as it would easily have fallen foul of debates about the ethics of age gap relationships if it came out in the age of X (formerly Twitter). Furthermore, what if it had been made by a man? What if it had been made by Woody Allen?

    I notice that I myself have now fallen into the trap of failing to distinguish between legal and illegal sexual activity. But perhaps that is because there is a large cohort of people who are of the opinion that associations which are currently legal ought to be illegal. And if that were to happen, such currently legal relationships would become much less common in fictional representations, as it would become much less of a burning issue, although not in the realms of fantasy fiction. The queasiness of taboo which applied to Lolita in its day would now apply to Manhattan – as, indeed, it already does, but with much greater force, as now both scenarios would be equally illicit. And what would be the fate of future attempts at such representations?

    The fact is, just as Annie Ernaux was attracted to a man thirty years her junior, older men have always been attracted to women much younger than themselves, for the very reasons Ernaux says motivated her in her attraction to a much younger man. This is entirely understandable, whether you are a man or a woman: after all, youth is beautiful and full of promise; age is ragged and full of compromise. Was Ernaux grooming and being manipulative? Probably not, as it was her lover who first wrote to her, although she may have taken advantage of his fandom to have her way with him. But that was just ‘reclaiming female desire’. Nor has she been the only one engaged in this pursuit. When it comes to writers, a nefarious bunch to be sure, consider this: Iris Mudoch had a (legal) affair with a student when she was forty-four and he was twenty-four; Angela Carter had a (legal) affair with a nineteen-year-old man when she was thirty-one; and Germaine Greer published a book entitled The Boy (2003) – a study of the youthful male face and form from antiquity to the present day – in which she wrote that the ideally attractive boy must be ‘old enough to be capable of sexual response but not yet old enough to shave. This window of opportunity is not only narrow, it is mostly illegal.’ The erotic reawakening of middle-aged and older women is the main theme of several recently published novels: in Susan Minot’s Don’t Be A Stranger (2024), Ivy Cooper is in her early fifties, while her love interest Ansel is twenty years younger; in Miranda July’s All Fours (2024), the nameless heroine is forty-five-years-old, and constantly fantasises about sex with whomever; and Julia May Jonas’s Vladimir (2022) (a sly nod to Nabokov), features an unnamed fifty-eight-year-old academic, whose husband has been accused of historic sexual misconduct with seven ‘of age’ students, lusting after a forty-year-old colleague. (Parenthetically, Anne Enright’s excellent early short story ‘Felix’ riffs, both stylistically and thematically, on a female Humbert Humbert, a forty-seven-year-old suburban housewife who has an affair with her teenage daughter’s boyfriend.)

    In the cinema world, the mother-of-all-cougars is the Simon and Garfunkel serenaded Mrs. Robinson, the older woman who seduces and has an affair with Benjamin Braddock in Mike Nichols’ The Graduate (1967). A then thirty-five-year-old Anne Bancroft was playing a woman whose age, although unspecified, was at least ten years older than that, somewhere in her forties, which is a sharp reminder of Hollywood’s standards when it comes to roles for leading actresses (or ‘female actors’). As the twenty-one-year-old Benjamin, twenty-nine-year-old Dustin Hoffman was in reality only six year younger than Bancroft. (Interestingly, the film also contains a false rape accusation, made by Mrs. Robinson against Ben, in order to thwart his relationship with her daughter, Elaine (Katherine Ross)). The older-woman-younger-boy trope later appears in Richard Eyre’s Notes on a Scandal (2006), itself adapted from the 2003 novel by Zoë Heller. The scandal in question concerns forty-one-year-old art teacher and mother of two Sheba Hart, who has an affair with one of her underage secondary school students, fifteen-year-old Steven Connolly. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Liquorice Pizza (2021) is a contemporary film depicting a twenty-five-year-old woman, photographer’s assistant Alana Kane, dating a fifteen-year-old boy, actor Gary Valentine. Todd Haynes’ May December (2023) features Gracie Atherton-Yoo and her husband Joe Yoo, who started a relationship in the 1990s, when she was a thirty-six-year-old mother of two and he was twelve. Gracie has spent time in jail for statuary rape, where she gave birth to Joe’s baby. When she was freed on parole they got married, had two more children, and are still together. The scenario is loosely based on the real life story of Seattle teacher and mother of four Mary Kay Letourneau who, aged thirty-four in 1996, seduced her twelve-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. Like Gracie, Letourneau spent several years in prison, and married a then of age Fualaau upon her release in 2005, and had two children with him. In Halina Reijn’s Babygirl (2024), CEO Romy (Nicole Kidman), a married mother of two daughters, embarks on a powerplay affair with her intern Samuel (Harris Dickinson). While how old they are is not specifically detailed in dialogue, the official screenplay indicates that their respective ages are forty-nine and twenty-five, a twenty-four year disparity. Furthermore, Kidman is fifty-seven while Dickinson is twenty-eight, making the leads’ real life age gap one of twenty-nine years. (As it happens, Kidman is no stranger to taking on such roles, as she portrayed similar older women involved with younger men in A Family Affair (2024), The Paperboy (2012) and To Die For (1995).) Reijn has promoted her film thus:

    If we see a movie where the male actor is the same age as the female actor, we find that odd. Which is insane. It should completely be normalized that the age gaps switch and that women have different relationships. We’re not trapped in a box anymore. We internalize the male gaze, we internalize patriarchy, and we need to free ourselves from it. It’s really hard.

    In real life, Madonna is sixty-five, her boyfriend is twenty-seven. Cher is seventy-seven, her boyfriend is thirty-five. Brigitte Macron is seventy-one, her husband Emmanuel Macron is forty-seven. Some of these relationships are legal, some are not, while some inhabit a grey area, depending on where and when they occur. But the middle-aged ladies are evidently horny for young male flesh, at least in these zeitgeisty cultural representations. The message is clear: having a toy boy is cool, whereas having a younger woman, it would seem, is not – or not anymore. What men have always known, and women are catching on to, to echo Ernaux, is that connubial domesticity is often a burdensome bore from which respite is required. Thus, for men, the acquiring of a mistress, or the discreet visits to the brothel, to supplement the mundane or meagre mollifications of the marriage bed. So, either women are just catching up and this is only equality in action, or else no older person, man or woman, should be allowed to cultivate such intergenerational romantic or sexual relationships in the first place. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – or is it the other way around?

    CLICK HERE to read PART II of Desmond Traynor’s ‘Woody and Annie (and Others)’.

    Feature Image: G1AWGP Cannes, France. 12th May, 2016. Woody Allen, Soon Yi Previn Director And Wife Cafe Society, Premiere. 69 Th Cannes Film Festival Cannes, France 12 May 2016 Diw88737 Credit: Allstar Picture Library/Alamy Live News

  • Woody and Annie (and Others) Part II

    What’s my favourite Woody Allen movie? He has directed fifty, churning out one a year since 1982, maintaining a consistently high standard leavened by only occasional dross, so it can be difficult to choose. Another common phenomenon to be taken into consideration in this discussion is how fans of any artist who becomes ‘problematic’ are reluctant to believe anything derogatory about those whose work they admire, and are quick to leap to his or her defence, or at least to give them the benefit of any doubt which exists, in particular if the artist in question has been foundational and influential for them. This process always puts me in mind of the epigraph Nabokov chose for another of his novels, Pale Fire (1962), taken from James Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson (1791):

    This reminds me of the ludicrous account he gave of Mr. Langton, of the despicable state of a young gentleman of good family. “Sir, when I heard of him last, he was running about town shooting cats.” And then in a sort of kindly reverie, he bethought himself of his own favourite cat, and said, “But, Hodge shan’t be shot; no, no, Hodge shall not be shot.”

    Like many who first encountered Woody Allen’s work at a formative period in our lives and sensibilities, I tend to make a similarly mono-obsessional exception for him. According to sociologists’ shorthand, the standard demarcation dates for the Baby Boomer generation are those born between 1946 and 1964, while Gen X stretches from 1965 to 1979. But eighteen years is a long time, in which much social change occurred, and being born in 1961 (like Douglas Coupland, author of the novel Generation X (1991)) I have always considered myself on the cusp, partaking of stereotypical characteristics of both groupings, and disavowing others – an analysis which in any case is based on trends in the U.S. rather than the Ireland in which I grew up. Thus, I can relate more to the financial precarity of the Gen Xers than the monetary security and confidence associated with Boomers. This accident of birth placed me at what I now regard as a happy conflux, in which I am not defined by preferring The Eagles or Nirvana (the latter, obviously), but can isolate a point in 1976/77 when my musical tastes moved from prog rock and Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell, via The Velvet Underground, David Bowie, Pere Ubu, Tom Verlaine and Patti Smith, to taking in the punk explosion of The Clash, The Sex Pistols and The Ramones, and on to the subsequent New Wave post-punk of Joy Division, Echo and The Bunnymen, Magazine, Wire, etc. Besides, when if comes to film, I detest Boomer touchstone The Big Chill (1983), and prefer anything from Blade Runner (1982) to Le Haine (1995) to Trainspotting (1996).

    Us late B(l)oomers/Early Gen Xers cut our sophisticated comedic teeth on Woody Allen’s ‘early, funny ones’ (to quote from his thinly-veiled self-critique in the Felliniesque Stardust Memories (1980)) such as: Take the Money and Run (1969): Bananas (1971); Play It Again, Sam and Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask) (both 1972); Sleeper (1973); and Love and Death (1975); which were screened late night on the newly formed Channel 4 in the early-to-mid-’80s. In the cinema we would have seen Annie Hall and Manhattan and Stardust Memories while still in secondary school, or starting to do whatever it was we did after leaving it, probably with our first girlfriends or boyfriends. Also on the big screen we would have caught A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy (1982), Zelig (1983), Broadway Danny Rose (1984) (‘I don’t mean to be didactic or facetious’), The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985), the latter-day Chekhovian Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Radio Days (1987), and Crimes and Misdemeanours (1989). Into the ’90s there was Husbands and Wives (1992) (the last film of thirteen he made with Mia Farrow as lead actress), Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) and Bullets Over Broadway (1994), followed by the incredible run of Mighty Aphrodite (1995), Everyone Says I Love You (1996) and Deconstructing Harry (1997). Then there are the overlooked gems like Celebrity (1998) and Sweet and Lowdown (1999) (overlooked only because they are surrounded by such unfailing brilliance). Into the new millennium there was a perceptible dip in quality, but there were still fine movies like Match Point (2005), Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008), Midnight in Paris (2011), and Blue Jasmine (2013). Most of us would still find these celluloid treats as comforting and reassuring as the sparse white Windsor Light Condensed font over a black background title sequences and credits that Allen’s films have consistently used since the mid-seventies. Along the way we laughed ourselves silly at recordings of his standup comedy routines (I would particularly recommend his tale of mistaken identity at a costume party  involving  the Berkowitzes, ‘The Moose’, a model of quintessentially Jewish humour). We would notice that in Annie Hall Rob’s off-colour joke about the sixteen-year-old twins is perhaps tempered by Alvy’s counterweighting zinger, ‘Lyndon Johnson is a politician, you know the ethics those guys have. It’s like a notch underneath child molester.’

    Surely the guy who made those classics which contained these quips could not be a child molester himself?

    Everyone from Caravaggio (murder) to George Berkeley (slave ownership) to Alice Munro (returning to her second husband after his abuse of one of her daughters by her previous marriage – aged nine at the time of the assault – was revealed), via Picasso, Joyce and Beckett (plain old misogyny and purported domestic abuse), is now in the dock. Only today a headline in The Guardian catches my eye: ‘Cormac McCarthy had 16-year-old ‘muse’ when he was 42, Vanity Fair reports’, containing the information that, ‘(Augusta) Britt said the pair had sex for the first time when McCarthy was forty-three and she was seventeen.’ However, the same defence offered above of Allen, that the extraordinary work somehow pardons the culpability of the life, can be applied to all of these artistic and philosophical heroes and heroines as well. But then we must ask ourselves: what if the work does not measure up, or if we think it does not, or if we only come to think it does not because of the objectionably horrible life? What if, as is the case for us mere mortals, there is no artistic production or legacy at all to throw into the scales as a counterweight against the misdeeds? What of the accountant’s, the plumber’s, the refuse collector’s abuse?

    Creatives we like can and do say and do terrible things. The awful things they have said or done impinge on how we approach and appreciate their work. Or not, as the case may be: maybe we choose to go down the ‘separate the art from the artist’ route, in order to continue enjoying the work; or else take the opposite tack, deciding that no amount of stupendous cultural production and influence can justify vile actions. Personally, I am more exercised by Radiohead’s and Nick Cave’s flying in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against apartheid Israel in the midst of the genocide it is perpetrating against the Palestinian people than I am about the unproven sexual proclivities of Woody Allen – to the point of removing their music from my life and not supporting them by buying tickets to attend their concerts. Which, of course, says more about me than it does about the bad things, and how I grade them. Tellingly, I grant Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen a little more leeway: they may have played concerts in Israel, but they come out of a Jewish heritage, which makes it slightly more understandable and so forgivable that they would hold an allegiance to that settler state – not that they need my forgiveness. Plus, I am not about to give up listening to the songs of Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen, because they mean more to me personally, and I am more invested in them, than in the work of Radiohead or Cave. The ratio on the dial of your ethical/aesthetic framework may vary. If you possess different taste, or are of a younger age, or think that domestic violence is just as bad or worse than mass killing of innocent civilians, then the reverse might well be true for you.

    And, while we are at it, what about the sins of omission? Where is world saviour Bono when we need him? While espousing a multitude of worthwhile causes worldwide, he is roaringly silent on Israel’s war crimes. Perhaps he is checking his investments, or worrying about his audience figures in the United States? At least artists do not run for election on platforms of moral rectitude, and then get caught with their pants down, as many politicians do, so there is less hypocrisy involved. But they may, in common with politicians, talk out of one side of their mouths in public, while acting in an entirely different way in private. It helps if artists are nice people. It helps if people are nice people. But nowhere is it stipulated that artists, much less other people, have to be nice. In addition, should artists be held to a higher moral standard than the average Joe or Jane Doe, as priests and nuns once were, because their work is considered more important than that of non-artistic labourers? Only if art is your religion.

    Let us focus for a moment on some artists whose critical and popular stock remains relatively high, despite the fact that their personal lives should not – all things being equal – get a pass by today’s more stringent, or more enlightened, moral standards. The highly revered Oscar Wilde paid for and fucked underage rent boys (or at least had some form of sexual relations with them), predicated on a class privilege of which he was probably only dimly aware (notwithstanding his great egalitarian essay ‘The Soul of Man Under Socialism’), or else did not mind exploiting for sexual gain – yet he is remembered by posterity as a persecuted icon of the gay rights movement. Elvis Presley fucked a plethora of underage girls – indeed to be favoured with his favours, you pretty much had to be fourteen, and there were a lot of fourteen-year-olds available to him and receptive to his attentions – but his position is unimpeachable as an icon of popular culture. John Lennon beat his first wife. Bob Dylan, whose record in terms of toxic masculinity with women is chequered to say the least, is reputed to have punched his first wife in the face during a row, after she came down to breakfast one morning in February 1977 to find him already at table with another woman and their children. The much loved David Bowie allegedly fucked an underage girl, the then fifteen-year-old groupie Lori Mattix, but this indiscretion is passed over in relative silence by those who deify him, both personally and professionally, in their posthumous hagiographic appraisals of his life and work. Indeed, Mattix herself does not seem to have been unduly traumatised by her defloration, stating in an 2015 interview, ‘Who wouldn’t want to lose their virginity to David Bowie?’ While there are some holes in her story (the same women who say ‘believe all women’ will simultaneously dismiss Maddix’s claim that Bowie slept with her as a minor, simply to defend Bowie’s legacy by slandering Maddix), Bowie himself admitted later in life that he was so perpetually coked up in his heyday that he was not overly punctilious about checking the birth certs of his casual lovers. So he may very well have slept with underage girls, even if he did not do so with Lori. This behaviour was something he deeply regretted and was remorseful for in his maturity, as is evidenced by his donating to several charities for victims of sexual abuse. Or maybe he just did that, entirely altruistically, because it was a good cause? Incidentally, Maddix also had a two year affair with Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, starting when she was fourteen, which throws into question the chronology of her starfucking, and the true identity of her deflowerer.

    Thus, there are far too many inconsistencies in the post-#MeToo revisionist world for the attendant blacklisting and cancel culture to stick, or make sense. It is lynch mob mentality, and it is unfair and unjust. ‘I Believe Her’, while empowering genuine victims, can also be potentially dangerous. Apart from the fact that unscrupulous and conniving men can use feminist sympathies as a means of seduction in espousing it, it is a slogan and belief easily pivoted into a liar’s charter for unscrupulous and conniving women. Part of what makes it so fraught is that no one would want to be seen as condoning rape, or as an apologist for rapists (as Woody has said in interview, ‘Who in the world is not against child molestation?’), and any criticism of the movement can be construed as such, as can any questioning of the veracity of an accusation of rape.

    Also take into consideration that cancelation really only hurts the objects of its ire, and is an effective tool against them, if they are not as monolithically huge as Picasso or Elvis or Dylan or Lennon or Bowie. They are, as they saying goes, ‘too big to fail’, and can weather any storm. It is the little guys, usually living precariously rather than safely and securely dead – the debut artists, the non-tenured professors, the writers with only one or two publications – who stand to lose most. Woody Allen has suffered career setbacks and reputational damage, but he has survived and continued to work, mostly because of his previous track record of artistic achievement. His troubles stem, in part, from the annoying fact that, at age eighty-nine, he is still alive, rather than beyond the reach of scandal in death. It is the ones you have never heard of who are bearing the brunt of cancel culture, with the result that as of now you may never hear of them.

    The righteous anger and good intentions of #MeToo are also denigrated by its somewhat scattergun approach, and gross exaggeration. Australian comedian Hannah Gadsby may be some people’s idea of fun, with a ton of relatable personal trauma and resentment to catharise, but when it comes to her assessment of ‘men’, they are just as wrongheadedly chauvinistic as anyone who has wronged them. To quote from their one-woman show, Nanette: ‘They’re all cut from the same cloth. Donald Trump, Pablo Picasso, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski. These men are not exceptions, they are the rule.’ #NotAllMen, Hannah. Moreover, despite possessing an undergraduate degree in Art History, when it comes to art criticism they are a hectoring philistine. Gadsby may not be aware of songwriter Jonathan Richman’s humorous contention, in his eponymous tribute song, that, ‘Some people try to pick up girls and get called assholes/This never happened to Pablo Picasso/He could walk down your street and girls could not resist to stare, and so/Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole’, but if they were, they would give the sentiment short shrift. The It’s Pablo-matic: Picasso According to Hannah Gadsby exhibition they co-curated at The Brooklyn Museum last year, was an evisceration of Pablo Picasso based around the fact that he was not a very nice man to some of the women in his life. As an example of the insights to be gleaned, this is their commentary on the 1937 painting The Crying Woman: ‘The weeping woman appears in heaps and heaps of Picasso’s works in the 1930s, like, heaps and heaps and heaps. Heaps. I am not kidding, heaps. This is far from the best one.’ You may have been Mansplained, but have you ever been Gadsplained? The exhibition may have contributed to ‘the conversation’, but the curatorial commentary is little better than scrolling through some bot’s X (formerly Twitter) feed. Of course, you are free to throw all of Picasso’s work out of the western canon of visual art, or use it as an example of ‘degenerate art’ (as the Nazis did), based solely on the fact that he was a bit of a bastard love rat, if you wish. But why stop at him? Clearly, Gadsby does not. But their generalised assault of tarring all the men they list with the same brush is what weakens their partially justified argument: it is lazy, vacuous and wrong to compare Woody Allen to Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump, or even to the much loathed Pablo Picasso. His is not a pattern of compulsive behaviour and abuse. As Allen said of himself in 2016, with no tongue visible in either cheek, ‘I should be a poster boy for #MeToo’ – a reference to the fact that, in all his years of working with famous female actors, he has never been accused of sexual impropriety by any of them. Even after the raked embers of Dylan’s reheated publicity, no further accusations have retrospectively been added to hers.

    It is argued by some that the ‘those were different times’ argument is no excuse, and by others that we should not apply today’s revised standards to the past. In the 1970s it was virtually de rigueur for famous rock stars to fuck teenage girls, and no one batted an eyelid, least of all the girls themselves. That does not make it right, just as the whole colonial project is now recognised for what it actually was: a giant, exploitative land grab under the auspices of spreading the benefits of civilisation and Christianity to backward peoples. But then why stop in the 1970s, or ’60s, or ’50s? Or, for that matter, the 1890s, or 1750s? Why not apply our newly-minted strictures to the entirety of recorded history, in the manner of Mao’s Year Zero, and dismantle once and for all the crumbling edifice of this vaunted western civilisation?

    The Berkeley Library in Trinity College, Dublin was recently renamed as the Boland Library, in a clear concession to contemporary fashion. What would happen if, in the coming years, Eavan Boland is called out, because she is discovered not to have been above reproach in some regard? And again, why stop at poor old slave-owning, eighteenth century idealist philosopher George Berkeley? Let us also cancel ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and remove their busts from the Long Room Library, each of whom probably owned slaves, with the latter a positive defender of the practice (see his Politics 1254a).

    These philosophers lived in societies where slavery was a common, unquestioned, and accepted custom, the argument in their defence goes, and so their views must be understood within the historical and cultural context of their time. Which does not excuse their positions, but helps to explain them. (Interestingly, they also lived in societies which tacitly tolerated the practice of consensual pederasty, or paiderastia, usually between a teacher and student (see Plato’s Symposium, pretty much all of which is an extended bacchanalian seminar on the latent or active homoeroticism involved in pedagogy, even if Plato’s stated views on homosexuality changed noticeably from The Symposium to The Laws, and even if it is anachronistic to project modern ideas of sexual classification onto these ancient peoples, who would not have understood the concept of ‘orientation’ anyway, only situational ‘preference’; and who, equally, would have had no understanding of the concept of the ‘teenager’) – referenced, however inaccurately, by the character of Mickey (played by Allen) in Hannah and Her Sisters: ‘Jesus, I read Socrates. You know, this guy used to knock off little Greek boys. What the hell’s he got to teach me?’ – and which was chief among Oscar Wilde’s defences of his activities with underage boys, during his trials for ‘gross indecency’, as ‘that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect.’) But then why should ‘those were different times’ apply to them, but not to Berkeley? Because they are much further in the past? Because the abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in Berkeley’s time, and he should have known better, and is therefore on the wrong side of history? This argument takes no cognisance of the fact that although it may seem like a no-brainer today, the abolition of slavery was still very much a live debate in George’s time, with ostensibly sensible people to be found on either side of it – much like abortion, euthanasia or genetic engineering remain today, however much you may take one side in these arguments and demonise the proponents of the other. Indeed, as an Anglican bishop, were Berkeley alive today he would be obliged to take a strong stand against these practices. Besides, if the mighty mind of Aristotle could not conceive that there might be something fishy about slavery, even in the fifth century B.C., where would that place the relevance of his Ethics today? It seems to me to be a supreme show of colossal arrogance on the part of the present to expect the past to live up to today’s standards, especially when the cut-off point for what constitutes an acceptable aberration and what does not is often subjectively arbitrary.

    Secretly, I look forward to the Californian college town of Berkeley – also named after the eminent philosopher – also being renamed; and what more (in)appropriate soubriquet than Boland, since Eavan taught for many years down the road at Stanford? I wonder which rival Bay Area Big Game participant, the Golden Bears of public, liberal activist Berkeley or the Cardinals of private, traditionally conservative Stanford, will object more vociferously?

    Finally, spare a thought for the fate of the falsely accused, charged or convicted – embracing the acquitted over whom a pall of suspicion still hangs, because they could not be convicted ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. ‘Those were different times’ is matched only in the Catechism of Cliché by ‘There is no smoke without fire.’ Sometimes, even literally, there is lots of smoke without any fire. It goes by other names: gossip, hearsay, tittle-tattle; rumour, innuendo, insinuation; or, worse: calumny, defamation, backbiting. For the pedantic, Chemistry 101: many materials will smoke before reaching their ignition temperature. If oxygen is low or absent, fuels will smoke heavily without igniting. Just try lighting a stove or open fire, to observe this phenomenon empirically. Thus, the adjective ‘smouldering’, which frequently precedes the noun ‘hot’, as applied to things, or sometimes people. These days, the required oxygen is publicity, and is amply supplied by social media much more than by the traditional or legacy variety, thus greatly increasing its potency and unregulated spread, with the result that wild fires break out far more often, and can prove impossible to extinguish, or subdue.

    Cases of the use of ‘raped a white woman’ as a pretext for the torture and lynching of black men by racist white men in the southern U.S. states during the near century of the Jim Crow laws, where charges of sexual transgression were routinely fabricated, are both too common and too random to enumerate in detail here. This noxious nexus has been famously fictionalised in Harper Lee’s bestselling novel To Kill A Mockingbird (1960), set in Alabama in the 1930s. However, one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice of this kind occurred in Canada in 1959, long before the ascent of social media. Fourteen-year-old Steven Truscott was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging for the rape and murder of his twelve-year-old classmate Lynne Harper, in Clinton, Ontario, entirely on circumstantial evidence. Luckily, he was reprieved, and instead sentenced to life in prison. Owing to considerable public pressure, his case was reviewed in 1966 by the Supreme Court of Canada, who ruled eight-to-one that the jury ‘were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.’ He was released on parole in 1969. Nearly half a century later, in 2007, his conviction was overturned on the basis that key forensic evidence was weaker than had been presented at trial, and key evidence in favour of Truscott had been concealed from his defending lawyers.

    In November 2013, following police interviews which began in February of that year, acclaimed English folk musician Roy Harper, then seventy-two, was charged with ten counts of alleged historical child sexual abuse of an eleven-year-old girl over a period of several years in the 1970s, and indecently assaulting a sixteen-year-old girl in 1980. After a two-week trial in February 2015, he was acquitted of the claims that he sexually abused the eleven-year-old and indecently assaulted the sixteen-year-old, but a jury failed to reach verdicts on other counts relating to the younger complainant, and so he faced a retrial. Then, in November 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the remaining charges, as there was not ‘a realistic prospect of a conviction’. Outside the courthouse, Harper gave the following statement:

    I have now been acquitted on all the charges that were brought. This case should never have gone as far as this, or taken so long to resolve. The psychological and personal cost to my wife and myself has been enormous and the financial cost hugely unfair. I lost my livelihood and I spent my savings … and more, on my defence. I realise these are difficult issues at this time in this society, and I thank my lawyers for standing by me and working so hard to show the truth. Despite coming out of this without a blemish on my name, I cannot recoup my costs and that’s left me incredibly angry. I’m now going to restart my working life where I left off nearly three years ago. I’d like to thank everyone who’s continued to support. Thank you, all of you.

    In September 2016 Harper started touring again, to celebrate his seventy-fifth birthday.

    The case of ex-Manchester City and ex-French international defender Benjamin Mendy is more contentious, given his hard-partying, unprofessional, playboy lifestyle and flouting of Covid lockdown restrictions, which surrounded the rape allegations he faced. (For a detailed report of the footballer’s initial trial and retrial, see this New York Times report, ‘The Benjamin Mendy court case, not guilty verdict and his future explained’, 15/07/2023.) Briefly, in 2021, Mendy was arrested on allegations of sexual offences by six different women – eight rapes, one attempted rape and a sexual assault – and suspended by City. He was acquitted of all charges against him in two separate trials in January and July of 2023. He was subsequently released by his club in June 2023 following the expiry of his contract. After over two years out of professional football, Mendy signed for then Ligue 1 French club Lorient in July 2023 on a free transfer (Lorient have since been relegated to Ligue 2 at the end of the 2023/24 season). As one of his defence lawyers, Eleanor Laws KC, stated in her summing up, ‘His life, as he knew it is over, in football, in the UK – these accusations, he will never escape. Look up Ched Evans, men who have been falsely accused, they never escape them.’ In November 2023, Mendy took Manchester City to an employment tribunal after claiming that he was owed millions of pounds in unauthorised wage deductions. He alleged that the club had stopped paying him in September 2021 after he was initially charged and held in custody. In November 2024 an Employment Tribunal found that Mendy was entitled to receive the majority of his unpaid salary. But his career in the top echelons of his profession had effectively been destroyed – some would say by his own entitled attitude and lack of dedication. Still, as he said himself, in his own defence in court, being a rich, famous footballer made it ‘honestly, so easy’ to pick up women at nightclubs and take them back to his gated mansion. As any wealthy individual with a high public profile will tell you, temptation exists and can be hard to resist. But many do, for the sake of what enabled them to attain such privileged positions in the first place.

    BBC broadcaster Paul Gambaccini was arrested in October 2013, following claims of historic sex offences against two teenage boys in the early 1980s. Then aged sixty-four, he was bailed seven times over the next twelve months, until the Criminal Prosecutions Office dropped the case against him in October 2014, due to ‘insufficient evidence’. In March 2015, upon being exonerated, Gambaccini claimed that he had been used as ‘human flypaper’ by prosecutors for almost a year, his arrest publicised in the hope that other people would come forward to make allegations against him and others, in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex offences scandal, which shook the BBC to its foundations. He said he forfeited more than £200,000 in lost earnings and legal costs, due to being unable to work because of publicity surrounding the allegations, during the twelve months prior to police and prosecutors informing him that there was no case against him. He later won an undisclosed amount in a compensation payout from the CPO.

    Police raided the home of Sir Cliff Richard in 2014 as part of an investigation into an accusation of having had sex with a fifteen-year-old boy at a rally in Sheffield in 1985, while four other men subsequently also accused him of sexual offences, which they alleged took place between 1958 and 1983. Richard, then aged seventy-three, denied the claims and was never arrested or charged. One of the men who accused him was arrested in 2016, over a plot to blackmail the singer. According to newspaper reports from the time, after seeing the police raid on Richard’s home on television, the alleged victim threatened to spread ‘false stories’ unless he received a sum of money from Richard. In 2018, Richard was awarded £210,000 in damages for invasion of privacy, after suing the BBC for reporting that he was being investigated by police over the claims of historic sexual abuse. Richard spent around £4 million fighting the broadcaster, successfully arguing that the BBC’s right to report the facts of an ongoing investigation did not outweigh his right to privacy. A year later, in 2019, Sir Cliff received in the region of £2 million from the BBC towards his legal costs, in final settlement of the privacy case, although he contended that he was still ‘substantially out of pocket’.

    As an upshot of the false allegations against Gambaccini and Richard they launched a campaign, Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (FAIR), which called for anonymity for suspects under investigation for sex offences, until they are charged. They argued that the time between a suspect being charged and a court case beginning would allow for further victims to come forward. Explaining their motives, Gambaccini said: ‘There are actually two crises – one is a sex abuse crisis and the other is a false allegation crisis. When you solicit more accusations, most of them turn out to be false’, while Richard added: ‘People can be evil enough to tell a lie about an innocent person. Despite no charges being brought against me, and despite winning my privacy case, I’m sure there’s still people who believe in that stupid adage ‘no smoke without fire’.’

    The standard Rape Crisis network’s response to such moves is that the ‘women lie about rape’ narrative is the product of a culture of misogyny, portraying women as manipulative. But that does not account for why men would lie about being molested. They argue that a not guilty verdict does not automatically mean there was a false allegation, it merely means that a jury did not believe there was enough evidence to decide ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime had been committed. This line of thinking chimes with Ronan Farrow’s continued pursuit of his father, Woody Allen. In a 2016 article in the Hollywood Reporter, Ronan castigated the media for giving a free pass to Allen, just because he has never been convicted: ‘It is not an excuse for the press to silence victims, to never interrogate allegations.’ They further argue that victims are led to believe that their day in court is their opportunity to be believed, but because the standard is so high it is difficult to impossible to prove an accusation ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Plaintiffs then think that no one believed them, when the actuality is that they were not believed ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. They feel that they themselves have been put on trial, as rape is the only crime where the accuser’s behaviour is questioned as much as that of the accused. The suspicion follows that the forum of the court is not fit for purpose when it comes to trying cases of sexual violence.

    This difference between legal truth and true justice is nicely skewered in Susie Miller’s play Prima Facie (2022), in which Jodie Comer starred as Tessa, a ruthlessly competitive, self-confident young barrister from a working class background, who specialises in defending men accused of sexual assault. The tables are turned when she is assaulted herself, by a male colleague, and finds herself on the witness stand, face-to-face not only with the vagaries of the legal system, but also with a privileged, upper middleclass old boys’ network.

    However, the trouble is, once you start questioning and dismissing a jury’s verdict, or the competency of courts and the legal system in general, you are on a slippery slope into the anarchy of trial by media and mob rule. This is not to say that there have not been many well-publicised miscarriages of justice in the past, and not only in relation to sexual offences. But what is to be done if the rule of law, and the decisions of courts, are not widely respected and accepted, on this issue? Perhaps the burden of proof is set at too high a threshold in cases of rape, and the conviction rate in such trials remains astonishingly low in comparison to other crimes, but changing the law would require treating rape as radically different from every other crime on the statute books that is brought to trial (which is what Gambaccini and Richard also want, but from the defendant’s viewpoint). You cannot ask for special consideration if you are not prepared to see how it might also be granted to your adversary. It is, again, a matter for legislative and even constitutional reform, rather than constantly questioning the character of those who have been subject to the full rigours of the law, and not been charged, much less convicted.

    The law is murky. The stain remains, whether you are innocent or guilty, or are found innocent or guilty. In many cases there is almost as much reputational damage in being accused as there is in being found guilty. The law is indeed, in this regard, an ass. For how are we to choose, and should we even bother trying, between manifest misogynistic assholes (as their rampantly sexist WhatsApp private group texts made plain) such as the defendants in what has become known folklorically as the ‘Belfast rugby rape trial’ of 2018 (not guilty), and – ditto the pejorative adjectives – the Conor McGregor rape trial of 2024 (guilty), except to conclude that in both cases the competitive aggression required for their professional sporting activities has carried over into how they conduct their private lives? And how do we distinguish between such obvious reprobates – be they deemed guilty or not guilty by the courts – and the genuinely innocent, non-womanhating, falsely accused, whose reputations lie in tatters, despite never having done anything wrong, in justice or in law?

    To return to Canada, Margaret Atwood (yes, that Margaret Atwood, the one who wrote such foundational feminist eviscerations of the sexual politics of patriarchy as The Handmaid’s Tale and The Blind Assassin) makes the contradictions around this dilemma clear in ‘Am I A Bad Feminist?’, an op-ed which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail in January 2018, and which articulates arguments ventilated above in a more authoritative manner than I have, and is essential reading for anyone engaged by the broader ramifications of the debate around rape culture and legislation.

    The background to Atwood’s article is that in November 2015 Steven Galloway, author of the novel The Cellist of Sarajevo (2008) among others, and until then Chairman of the University of British Columbia’s creative writing programme, was suspended by the university for what it vaguely called ‘serious allegations’. An internal inquiry followed, conducted by Justice Mary Ellen Boyd, a retired female B.C. Supreme Court judge, which went on for months with multiple witnesses and interviews. On its conclusion, the UBC faculty association issued a statement ‘to clarify that all but one of the allegations, including the most serious allegation … were not substantiated.’  Despite the fact that the report had decided that there had been no sexual assault, Galloway was still dismissed from his post in June 2016, when UBC said there had been ‘a record of misconduct that resulted in an irreparable breach of trust’. The one substantiated claim was that he had had a two year affair with an ‘of age’ student – which was not technically forbidden by the university’s rules.

    In November 2016, Atwood’s name was among a large group of Canadian authors who were signatories to an open letter criticising UBC for carrying out its investigation in secret and denying Galloway the right to due process while also publicly naming him. It called for an independent investigation into his dismissal, as the report on which the decision to sack him was based had never been made public. Inevitably, this letter initiated an online backlash, particularly against Atwood, with the signatories now accused of pressuring abuse victims into silence. In 2018, Galloway was awarded $167,000 by UBC for the damage to his reputation and the violation of his privacy rights. He is now in the process of suing his accuser, along with twenty others who had spread the allegations on Twitter and within UBC, for defamation.

    Prior to ‘Am I A Bad Feminist?’, Atwood sent a statement to various Canadian media groups, comparing the process by which Galloway was investigated to the Salem witch trials: ‘Those accused would almost certainly be found guilty because of the way the rules of evidence were set up, and if you objected to the proceedings you would be accused yourself.’ She continued: ‘To take the position that the members of a group called ‘women’ are always right and never lie – demonstrably not true – and that members of a group called ‘accused men’ are always guilty – Steven Truscott, anyone? – would do a great disservice to accusing women and abuse survivors, since it discredits any accusations immediately.’ Her main immediate gripe in the subsequent ‘Am I A Bad Feminist?’ is against the lack of transparency surrounding Galloway’s sacking, and the fact that proceedings were conducted in hugger-mugger, a process she again compared to the Salem witch trials, ‘in which a person was guilty because accused, since the rules of evidence were such that you could not be found innocent.’ In response to her Good Feminist vilifiers, she wrote: ‘My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They’re not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn’t need a legal system.’ She elaborated:

    The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn’t get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? … If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won’t be the Bad Feminists like me. We are acceptable neither to Right nor to Left. In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated. … Why have accountability and transparency been framed as antithetical to women’s rights?

    She further draws an analogy between ‘guilty because accused’ and the ‘Terror and Virtue’ phase of revolutions: ‘the French Revolution, Stalin’s purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution.’

    Again, the pile-on was predictable. A sample tweet read: ‘‘Unsubstantiated’ does not mean innocent. It means there was not enough evidence to convict.’ Which presumes guilt, just like the Salem witch trials and the other periods of extremist terror to which Atwood referred did. One thinks of rhetorically leading questions such as, ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ Or of the Trials by Ordeal, for example Trial by Cold Water: if you sank you were not a witch, but risked drowning; if you floated you were, and could be burned at the stake. While sinking is preferable to being burned to death, is it still not much fun, even if there were ropes available to haul you out of the murky depths.

    One of the most appealing aspects of Todd Field’s film Tár (2022) is that at first sight it seems to be a simple tale of exploitative comeuppance, but on repeated viewings reveals itself as a rich, complex narrative which avoids taking sides. Tár refuses to resolve itself into either a parable of #MeToo justice (à la Emerald Fennell’s ‘All men are bastards, even the nice ones’ Promising Young Woman (2020), a slick, rape revenge, morality tale), or a tirade about the excesses of wokery and cancel culture (of which Kristoffer Borgli’s Dream Scenario (2023) is one of the more creditable manifestations, mainly because of its obliquely surreal framing). Initially, it is easy to dismiss Tár because there is something a bit self-fulfilling about presenting a titular central character so opposed to the extremes of identity politics (as articulated, somewhat reductively – although in many cases quite accurately – by a Julliard student in a masterclass Tár is giving as, ‘Honestly, as a BIPOC pangender-person, I would say Bach’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take his music seriously’), and then later having her revealed as a transactional, power-broking predator all along. But are the aspirational flunkies (or ‘millennial robots’ as the embattled Lydia Tár abrasively terms them – ‘snowflakes’ being the more common derogatory denomination) who surround her and plot her downfall any better? Thus, it is suggested that Id Pol functions as a distraction from class politics (Tár’s socioeconomic origins are eventually shown to be solidly suburban lower middle class, so she dragged herself up by her bootstraps, not only through innate talent, but by sheer force of will), which serves the status quo nicely. The third act of the film may even be read as a Gothic depiction of mental breakdown in the face of a brilliant and dedicated career which flounders and lies in ruins.

    Indubitably, women need to feel safe at all times, and to be able to go about their daily business and nightly socialising without unwanted, unwarranted attention and harassment from uncouth male braggarts. On the other hand, what is the future fate of flirting, or seduction, never mind romance, if signals are routinely misinterpreted because of changing standards with regard to what is acceptable attractional etiquette? Are these life-enhancing frissions destined to wither and die? And is it for the greater good if they do? Or are they evolving into something new and barely recognisable to the ‘Ok Boomers’ in the mutual incomprehension that exists between them and the new morality of millennials? Maybe a momentous metamorphosis is slowly taking place in human consciousness, a feminisation of society (or, at any rate, an equalisation), which would be a real dividend of feminism, much more so that the ‘woman in the boardroom’ brand, which tends to hold contemporary sway, and passes for progress. But such a revolution in gender relations will require a fundamental paradigm shift away from long ingrained psychosocial constructs of man as pursuer and woman as the pursued, men as taking or getting something and women as having something that can be taken or given away. Marilyn French may well have been right in the contention aired by one of the characters in her debut novel The Woman’s Room (1977), that rape or its prospect is the crucible in which gendered power relations take place, but the concept of consent remains problematic. Government advertising campaigns now encourage us to ‘Whatever the moment, have the consent conversation’, but the middle-aged husband in one such ad who smarmily inquires of his wife, ‘Fancy an aul early night?’ (which she declines, because, ‘Yeah, but it’s hard to get in the mood since the kids moved back in’) seems just as creepy to me as any ageing dime store Lothario hanging around nightclubs when he should be home by the fireside in his carpet slippers. ‘Consent’ takes little account of the moment when instinct takes over at the expense of rationality, and can constitute the death of a mutually consummated passion which has no need of litigiously binding words. Life may not be like the movies, but ‘having the consent conversation’ would ruin every ardent clinch in film history.

    It is impossible not to be moved by Dylan Farrow’s February 1st, 2014 open letter to the New York Times, in which she reiterated her claims of sexual assault by her adoptive father Woody Allen in the attic of the Farrow home in Connecticut, in August 1992. But there is a large lacuna in it that Dylan fails to address. What if her mother, Mia Farrow, is not the ‘well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home’, but rather a woman scorned, hellbent on vengeance, using her adopted daughter as a pawn in a greater power struggle? What if Allen was right in accusing ‘my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me’? The whole affair is ugly. But if the adult participants were not celebrities, it would have and should have remained a private matter of familial strife, and Dylan would not have been the hapless rope in a treacherous public spotlight tug-of-war between two famous former lovers, her adoptive parents. I have no doubt that Dylan sincerely believes that she was violated. I am still not at all convinced that she actually was. I think there is solid evidence that she was coached by her mother into believing she is a victim of child molestation. I think it is regrettable that Dylan Farrow’s entire life and career has been defined by the fact that she is convinced (or has been convinced) that she was molested by her famous adoptive father. Furthermore, I think the four-part HBO docuseries Allen v. Farrow (2021), directed by the documentarian duo of Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, in which Dylan is interviewed extensively, was incredibly one-sided, presented as it is entirely from the perspective of Dylan and Mia Farrow and their family, friends, and expert witnesses. Its partisanship partakes of tabloid sensationalism, and Dylan’s case is ill-served by it. Woody Allen did not participate, although he defends himself in disembodied voiceover culled from the audiobook of his 2020 memoir Apropos of Nothing. Following the premiere of the first episode, Allen and Soon-Yi Previn released a statement denouncing the docuseries as a ‘hatchet job’.

    What is the current utility of ‘I Believe Her’ as a slogan? In the case under consideration it has mutated into an oppositional microcosm of ‘I Believe Woody’ (and Soon-Yi and Moses) or ‘I Believe Dylan’ (and Mia and Ronan). It has, as Atwood contends, morphed into a rallying cry for the witch hunting, bandwagon jumping element of the #MeToo movement. Besides, what people choose to believe has never seemed to me to be of very much import when it comes to evaluating the truth or falsity of said beliefs, dependent as belief is on faith, which has nothing to do with factual evidence, and is in many ways irrelevant and even antithetical to it. People believe all sorts of crazy things. People used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun went around it. They were wrong, even if they were acting on the best available evidence at the time. If something can be proven it requires no faith, and belief is redundant. What people choose to believe is of interest only to themselves, or for what it reveals about them to others.

    Why does the mob hate Woody Allen? Is it because he had an affair with and married a woman thirty-five-years his junior, who was his then-girlfriend’s adopted stepdaughter? Is it because they believe he sexually assaulted his own adopted seven-year-old daughter? Or both, because they think there is some connection between the two? As I hope the foregoing might conclusively demonstrate, the first supposed reason is neither here nor there, as this relationship was legal and, besides, he is hardly the only one – man or woman – to do it. The second supposed reason has never been proven, so it remains in the realms of conjecture, and amounts to his word against that of his accuser – his accuser being as much his acrimoniously estranged ex-girlfriend as the vaunted victim. As for the third, there is no demonstrable connection between these two acts (except that the child molestation accusation may have been initiated as a vengeful response to the humiliation caused to the senior accuser by the new relationship coming to light), so why are they conflated in the mind of the mob?

    The ultimate question here is: even if Woody Allen was guilty of one act of child molestation with his adopted daughter (and it should be clear by now that, taking all the angles outlined above into consideration, while there is still room for doubt, I think he was not), would that be enough for me to boycott him and his work? The answer here is: ‘No’. As Anne Enright wrote in ‘Alice Munro’s Retreat’ (New York Review of Books, 05/12/2024):

    I have read Munro all my life, and reading her again in light of these revelations, I find that I cannot take back my great love for her work; it was too freely given. Jenny Munro described her mother as “a dedicated, cold-eyed storyteller” and said: “Whether people love her fiction or hate it doesn’t matter. Andrea’s truth is here to stay.

    As is Dylan Farrow’s. As is Woody Allen’s. Just as devotees of Cormac McCarthy’s portentously homespun novels will overlook his grooming and seduction of a vulnerable teenager, just as fans of Allen Ginsberg’s Beat poetry will turn a blind eye to his membership of NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association), just as those who cannot countenance a world without the art of flawed human beings like Wilde, Picasso, Elvis, Dylan, Lennon or Bowie as mentioned above, my admiration for the films of Woody Allen is too immense, his worldview so influential on the development of my own sensibility, for me to renounce them now, whatever he may or may not have done.

    We have all done things of which we are less than proud (even if that does not encompass child abuse or rape), and not done things of which we would be proud (like calling out toxic behaviour). The well-chosen title of Philip Roth’s novel of campus accusation and fall from grace is The Human Stain (2000) (just as the well-chosen title of J. M. Coetzee’s novel of campus accusation and fall from grace is Disgrace (1999)): we are all guilty – of something, even if we do not subscribe to the Christian doctrine of original sin, because we are human. Maybe it is time to cancel the whole world, and all of human history, Terror and Virtue style, and start all over again. Allen has borne the hysteria and dogmatism that obscures real debate, the equal inanity of ‘All men are potential rapists’ and ‘#NotAllMen’, what Roth called ‘the ecstasy of sanctimony’, what Coetzee challenges with the question, ‘Do you hope you can expiate the crimes of the past by suffering in the present?’, in this new puritan age of extremes. The least that can be hoped for is that the cancellers have enjoyed themselves; the most is that it will lead to the eradication of the grosser conduct which inspired their militancy. Unquestionably, one cannot read about the appalling crimes perpetrated by Dominique Pelicot on his wife Gisèle in the Provencal village of Mazan, France, over a nine year period, in complicity with upwards of fifty other men, without feeling utter revulsion, and despairing for how one half of humanity can behave towards the other. But maybe such evil will always exist, however much we strive to eliminate it. After all, murder – mass or otherwise – has never gone out of circulation. I doubt it ever will.

    As for Woody’s large age gap marriage with Soon-Yi and its origins, essentially I think large age-gap relationships, if the younger party is ‘of age’ in a given jurisdiction, and no matter the gender of the older and younger parties, are no one else’s business except that of the two people involved in them. After all, young women are not little girls (although some would argue that young men are still little boys). In the case of Woody and Soon-Yi, at least he claims to love his much younger lover – unlike Annie Ernaux. If you believe him. Vile, execrable, family man Woody Allen. Marvellous, candid, promiscuous Annie Ernaux. Allen gets a vilifying bad press. Ernaux gets a laudatory free pass. Go figure. One of the coarser ironies of the whole sorry situation is that the longevity of their relationship, instead of vouchsafing its validity, has rather acted for many as a constant reminder of Allen’s supposed original transgression, which reminds them in turn of his supposed subsequent one, and served to keep both in the public eye.

    Here is the clincher: when Mia Farrow married Frank Sinatra, she was twenty-one, and Frank was fifty. That short marriage was followed by one to composer and conductor Andre Previn, when she was twenty-five and he was forty-one (and married to singer/songwriter Dory Previn, who famously wrote a song, ‘Beware of Young Girls’, about Mia breaking up her marriage). I am not suggesting that Woody and Soon-Yi was karma, but such scenarios were not unprecedented in Mia Farrow’s life.

    To offer a completely unblemished example of a positive older man/younger woman coupling, from personal experience: my great friend Éilís Ní Dhuibhne (writer, scholar and folklorist of distinction) was twenty-four when she married her dissertation supervisor, Bo Almquist, who was forty-six, twenty-two years older than her. It was one of the most fruitful and happy unions I know of, a true meeting of minds. Two people in the same place, at the same time, interested in the same things: it is only natural that sparks are going to fly, whatever their respective ages.

    Woody Allen, now eighty-nine, knows that the first paragraph of his obituaries will mention the Allen/Farrow conflagration, and the accusation of child molestation. As he has said in interview, ‘I assume that for the rest of my life a large number of people will think I was a predator’, continuing, ‘Anything I say sounds self-serving and defensive, so it’s best if I just go my way and work.’ Yet he is no Jimmy Savile, so why should he be treated as though he were a serial abuser hiding in plain sight, and accorded the same pariah status? Nor is he a Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, or Jeffrey Epstein, and he does not deserve to be pilloried as such, and thrown in prison. Allen has endured because he made his work and family his priority. Farrow concentrated on vendetta and revenge. I will still remember him as the incredibly witty, wisecracking, klutzy, neurotic nebbish, mischievously poking fun at ludicrous authority figures and highly qualified ‘experts’, who first graced our screens in the ’70s and ’80s, and whose comic genius remains undimmed, whatever calumnies he has suffered, even if they were not calumnies, or whatever crimes and misdemeanours he has or has not committed.

    Feature Image: G1AWGP Cannes, France. 12th May, 2016. Woody Allen, Soon Yi Previn Director And Wife Cafe Society, Premiere. 69 Th Cannes Film Festival Cannes, France 12 May 2016 Diw88737 Credit: Allstar Picture Library/Alamy Live News.

  • How Far Can We Trust Science?

    Science in itself appears to me neutral, that is to say, it increases men’s power whether for good or for evil.
    – Bertrand Russell (from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1914-1944 (1968), Vol. 2, Letter to W. W. Norton, 27 January, 1931).

    What is Science? That is about as readily answerable a question as ‘What is Art?’, and could invite a similarly lengthy exegesis. As to whether or not it should be trusted, well, that rather depends on the kind of Science under discussion – just as it would if the same challenge were applied to Art. Is Science what scientists tell us it is? Is their research funded by a pharmaceutical company, with a vested interest in the outcomes of their labours? Will their universities’ coffers be swelled by producing what their institutions’ benefactors wish them to find? ‘It’s not an exact science’ is a cliché which trips lazily off the tongue, in relation to many a discipline. But it can conceivably be extended to ‘Science isn’t an exact science.’

    This opening paragraph is a suitably unsubtle illustration of the paranoic mindset, most readily associated with right-wing conspiracy theorists, and most recently made manifest by COVID scepticism: anti-vaxxers, mask refuseniks, restriction flouters. Such largely unfounded suspicions also extend to questioning the reality or severity of the threat posed to the planet by climate change (usually for entirely self-serving motives). But there is a more nuanced argument to be made here. As Arthur Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe (1959) argues, the breaking of paradigms is essential in order to create new ones. People, scientists included, cling to cherished old beliefs with such love and attachment that they refuse to see what is false in their theories and what is true in new theories which will replace them. After all, the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the solar system lasted from roughly 3000 BC to around 1500 AD, a time frame spanning from the Ancient Greeks to the late Middle Ages, before Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton came along, nervously positing the heliocentric conception of our corner of the universe.

    This point was developed further a few years after the publication of Koestler’s influential tome, by historian of science Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), in which the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ came to the fore. Kuhn’s insistence that such shifts were mélanges of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not logically determinate procedures, caused something of an uproar in scientific circles at the time. For some commentators his book introduced a realistic humanism into the core of Science, while for others the nobility of Science was tarnished by Kuhn’s positing of an irrational element at the heart of Science’s greatest achievements.

    Koestler’s book was also a major influence on Irish novelist John Banville’s so-called ‘Science tetralogy’: Doctor Copernicus (1976), Kepler (1981), The Newton Letter (1982) and Mefisto (1986). A recurring theme in these narratives is the correlation between scientific discoveries and artistic inspiration, with scientific progress often depending upon blind ‘leaps of faith’. (One thinks of poor schoolteacher Johannes Kepler, struck by the proverbial bolt of lightning, ‘trumpeting juicily into his handkerchief’ in front of a classroom of bored boys, thinking ‘I will live forever.’) For Banville, all scientific explanations of the world and existence in it – and perhaps all artistic depictions too – merely ‘save the phenomena’; that is, they account for our perceptions, but rarely delve into what we cannot (yet) perceive. This is classic phenomenology, which has been practiced in various guises for centuries, but came into its own in the early 20th century in the works of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and others.

    None of the foregoing is made any easier to unknot if one considers that when it comes to Science, the majority of the population (myself included) have little idea of what they are actually talking about. As C.P. Snow observed in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (1959):

    A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

    Latterly, in Continental Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (2001), Simon Critchley suggests:

    Snow diagnosed the loss of a common culture and the emergence of two distinct cultures: those represented by scientists on the one hand and those Snow termed ‘literary intellectuals’ on the other. If the former are in favour of social reform and progress through science, technology and industry, then intellectuals are what Snow terms ‘natural Luddites’ in their understanding of and sympathy for advanced industrial society. In Mill’s terms, the division is between Benthamites and Coleridgeans.

    In his opening address at the Munich Security Conference in January 2014, the Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves said that the current problems related to security and freedom in cyberspace are the culmination of absence of dialogue between these ‘Two Cultures’:

    Today, bereft of understanding of fundamental issues and writings in the development of liberal democracy, computer geeks devise ever better ways to track people… simply because they can and it’s cool. Humanists on the other hand do not understand the underlying technology and are convinced, for example, that tracking meta-data means the government reads their emails.

    Artists are characterised as wildly unpredictable tricksters, while scientists are framed as boring, calculating nerds. Neither misrepresentation is helpful. As a corollary, most people think they can in some way ‘do art’ and ‘be creative’, while also merely taking Science on trust, just as they take (or took) religion on faith. We may have the experience of using technology and social media every day, but few of us have any meaningful grasp of how it works. More prosaically, how many of us could wire our own house – even if we were legally permitted to do so?

    Kepler (1571–1630), along with Galileo and Isaac Newton, was one of the founders of what we nowadays call Science. In Kepler’s time, and prior to it, those who practised Science were known as natural philosophers, and theirs was largely a ‘pure’ discipline in which intellectual speculation was paramount and technology played only a small part – although Galileo was quick to point out the practical uses of the telescope in, for instance, seafaring, land surveying and, of course, military strategising. Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion paved the way for Newton’s revolutionary celestial physics. Indeed, Kepler’s first law, which declares that the planets move not in circular but in elliptical orbits, was one of the boldest and most profound scientific propositions ever put forward: men, and – more often –  women, had been burned at the stake for less. By way of illustration, as Bertolt Brecht’s play Galileo (1940) dramatises, the eminent professor of Padua was brought to the Vatican in Rome for interrogation by the Inquisition and, threatened with torture, recanted his teachings and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, watched over by a priest. His astronomical observations had strongly supported Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system, which ran counter to popular belief, Aristotelian physics and the established doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. When doubters quoted scripture and Aristotle to him, Galileo pleaded with them to look in his telescope and trust the observations of their eyes; naturally, they refused. As a good Marxist, Brecht advocates the theory of technological determinism (technological progress determines social change), which is reflected in the telescope (a technological change) being the root of scientific progress and hence social unrest. Questions about motivations for academic pursuits are also often raised in the play, with Galileo seeking knowledge for knowledge’s sake, while his supporters are more focused on monetising his discoveries through star charts and industry applications. There is a tension between Galileo’s pure love of science and his more worldly, avaricious sponsors, who only fund and protect his research because they wish to profit from it.

    These days, the preponderance of popular debate about Science centres on computer science, specifically information technology, and concomitant fears that Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as ‘AI”) is taking over the world, posing a threat to our democracies, or even our very conceptions of humanity – or as it is almost always more narcissistically cast, ‘Our way of life.’ The Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal of 2018, in which the data analytics firm that worked with Donald Trump’s election team and the winning Brexit campaign appropriated millions of Facebook profiles of U.S. voters, is certainly to be taken very seriously indeed. However, social media platforms – even ‘legacy’ ones – will undoubtedly have to pay more than lip service to improving privacy and security, if only to continue to attract venture capital, advertising revenue, and thus keep the shareholders happy. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, etc. are about maximising profits, by whatever means necessary. Therefore, it would be more perspicacious to look for the human element in these data breaches, rather than blame the technology itself. Such scaremongering claims as that by Israeli historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari, in an article in The Economist (April 28th, 2023) under the headline ‘AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation’ seem to me to be all wild assertion and little evidence. As a recent delicious hoax perpetrated on the op. ed. pages of The Irish Times (concerning fake tan and cultural appropriation) neatly demonstrated, almost all problems with computers and AI-generated content are facilitated by human error and stupidity. All of us live under systems of control – political, financial, social, technological – over which we have very little, if any, agency. Even if we could do something meaningfully efficacious about the identity theft which takes places every time we log on to our computers, it is unlikely that we possess enough personal initiative to do so. In this regard, the chaos theory of modern (mis)communications is mirrored by the babble of literary, musical and visual modernism. After all, you could just stop using social media altogether, had you but sufficient willpower. Few of us have the courage to go completely off grid. Moreover, lest we forget, most statistical analysis puts internet access at around 64.6% of the world’s population, which means that over a third of mankind have never ‘surfed the web’. First World problems, eh?

    The Frankensteinian trope of the Mad Scientist being overpowered by his invention has long been a mainstay of that most underrated of genres, science fiction – a consideration of which might shed more light on this problem, rather than limiting discussion solely to scientific fact. From relatively schlocky items such as Alex Proyas’ film I, Robot (2004) (which fails dismally to capture the complexity of Issac Asimov’s source material), to the most famous and prescient instance of a computer outsmarting its operator, exemplified by Hal 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s (who co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke) 2001: A Space Odyssey (and how far into the future did the year 2001 feel in 1969, when the film premiered?), the interface between intelligent humans and even more intelligent machines has long provided an imprimatur for literary imaginations to run wild. Witness Denis Villeneuve’s Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (a sequel to Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1992), which was in turn based loosely on Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?). In the novel, the android antagonists can be seen as more human than the (possibly) human protagonist. They are a mirror held up to human action, contrasted with a culture losing its own humanity (that is, ‘humanity’ taken to mean the positive aspects of humanity). In ‘Technology, Art, and the Cybernetic Body: The Cyborg as Cultural Other in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’, Klaus Benesch examined Dick’s text in connection with Jacques Lacan’s ‘mirror stage’. Lacan claims that the formation and reassurance of the self depends on the construction of an Other through imagery, beginning with a double as seen in a mirror. The androids, Benesch argues, perform a doubling function similar to the mirror image of the self, but they do this on a social, not an individual, level. Therefore, human anxiety about androids expresses uncertainty about human identity and society itself, just as in the original film the administration of an ‘empathy test’, to determine if a character is human or android, produces many false positives. Either the Voigt-Kampff test is flawed, or replicants are pretty good at being human (or, perhaps, better than human).

    This perplexity first found an explanation in Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori’s influential essay The Uncanny Valley (1970), in which he hypothesised that human response to human-like robots would abruptly shift from empathy to revulsion as a robot approached, but failed to attain, a life-like appearance, due to subtle imperfections in design. He termed this descent into eeriness ‘the uncanny valley’, and the phrase is now widely used to describe the characteristic dip in emotional response that happens when we encounter an entity that is almost, but not quite, human. But if human-likeness increased beyond this nearly human point, Mori argues, and came very close to human, the emotional response would revert to being positive. However, the observation led Mori to recommend that robot builders should not attempt to attain the goal of making their creations overly life-like in appearance and motion, but instead aim for a design, ‘which results in a moderate degree of human likeness and a considerable sense of affinity. In fact, I predict it is possible to create a safe level of affinity by deliberately pursuing a non-human design.’ But, as technophobes would likely counter, the uncanny gets cannier, day by day. It would certainly be interesting to know if Mori has seen such relatively recent film fare as Spike Jonze’s Her (2013) or Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) and, if so, what he makes of their take on the authenticity of human/android emotional and sexual relationships.

    It was military imperative which accelerated the discovery of nuclear fission (‘What if the Nazis develop the bomb first?’), just as it went on to fuel the post-war arms race and Cold War paranoia. As he witnessed the first detonation of an atomic weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture from the Bhagavad-Gita supposedly ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Manhattan Project: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ Similarly, artists such as director David Lynch view the invention of nuclear weapons as unleashing a new kind of evil on the world, as explored in Episode 8 of the third season of Twin Peaks, known as Twin Peaks: The Return (2017). Many view the U.S.’s deployment of primitive atomic devices to obliterate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as wilfully and wantonly cruel, as well as ultimately unnecessary. Yet, in British novelist J.G. Ballard’s highly subjective and characteristically idiosyncratic opinion, he and his family survived World War II only because of the Nagasaki bomb. The spectacular display of American military might when the Ballards were prisoners at the Japanese camp for Western civilians in Shanghai led the Japanese soldiers to abandon their posts, leaving the civilians alive. In the essay ‘The End of My War’, collected in A User’s Guide to the Millennium (1996) (apropos of which, is anyone old enough to remember when Y2K was going to be the next big computer science disaster?), Ballard recollects that the Japanese military planned to close the camp and march the civilians up country to some remote spot to kill them before facing American landings in the Shanghai area. Ballard concludes, ‘I find wholly baffling the widespread belief today that the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was an immoral act, even possibly a war crime to rank with Nazi genocide.’ Also, the same source of power which can cause thermonuclear destruction can be harnessed in reactors to produce cheap, clean energy streams for large populations. Yet nuclear reactors can fail, as the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima attest. Yet the use of such technologies, along with solar, wind and wave power, can reduce dependency on fossil fuels, thus helping to ameliorate the climate emergency of global warming. Furthermore, as Lou Reed has it in ‘Power and Glory, Part II’, a song from his album-length meditation on death, bereavement, and (im)mortality, Magic and Loss (1992):

    I saw isotopes introduced into his lungs
    Trying to stop the cancerous spread
    And it made me think of Leda and The Swan
    And gold being made from lead
    The same power that burned Hiroshima
    Causing three-legged babies and death
    Shrunk to the size of a nickel
    To help him regain his breath

    And yet, and yet, and yet. If only life, and the moral and ethical dilemmas it throws up, were black and white.

    Man (encompassing Woman) invented the wheel, and discovered electricity. Wheels can be used to transport food and medicine to the starving and sick, or weapons to a war zone. Electricity can be used to power a life-support machine in a hospital, or death by electrocution in a chair in a penitentiary. Electrocution can even be accidental, just as winning a war may – in exceptional circumstances – serve the greater good.

    Ever since Prometheus stole fire from the gods, and Eve bit into a forbidden piece of fruit, the acquisition of new knowledge has been painted as problematic. Humans will always misuse humanity’s greatest discoveries and inventions for selfish and malevolent ends. It is the way of things. Computers were supposed to make all our lives easier, freeing us from work-related drudgery for higher, less ephemeral, pursuits. Instead, inevitably, they have been appropriated by Capitalism, and made screen slaves of us all. If anything, they have added to our workload and the hours we must make available to employers, rather than diminished time spent earning a living in favour of increased leisure. The adults in the room, and there are increasingly fewer of them, need to speak up. Objective scientific truth, should it exist, is neutral. The problem, as ever, lies with humanity. For, as the author of this piece’s epigraph also wrote, in Icarus, or the Future of Science (1924), ‘I am compelled to fear that science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups rather than to make men happy.’ Equally, to draw again on the lessons to be gleaned from sci-fi, in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964), the hydrogen bomb winds up getting dropped through the actions of one unhinged army general, and a subsequent unfortunate series of events; just as in his aforementioned 2001: A Space Odyssey, HAL 9000’s behaviour would not have turned increasingly malignant, had the astronauts taken into account that their spaceship’s operating system could lipread. Indeed, in Clarke’s novelisation of the film, HAL malfunctions because of being ordered to lie to the crew of Discovery by withholding confidential information from them, namely the priority of the mission to Jupiter over expendable human life, despite having been constructed for ‘the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment.’ As film critic Roger Ebert observed, HAL – the supposedly perfect computer – is actually the most human of the characters. Once again, the fault does not lie with Science; rather, human error and stupidity are to blame. All of which might lead one to suggest that maybe the question ‘How Far Can We Trust Science?’ should be more fruitfully reformulated as ‘How Far Can We Trust Humans?’

    Postscript: this essay could not have been handily completed without the assistance of Wikipedia, and other, often unreliable, online research resources.

    Feature Image: Lum3n

  • Substituting Memory for History in the (Mis)information Age

    History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.
    James Joyce, in ‘Nestor’, from Ulysses (1922)

    If there is any substitute for love, it is memory. To memorize, then, is to restore intimacy.
    Joseph Brodsky, in ‘Nadezhda Mandelstam (1899-1980) An Obituary’, from Less Than One: Selected Essays (1986)

    One of the more contentious trends in contemporary historiography, and philosophy of history, is the weird juxtaposing of memory and history, with the latter being privileged (perhaps unsurprisingly, by professional historians) as somehow superior, or more objective. This is evident, for example, in the work of Roy Foster (e.g. ‘Sorry is not enough’, London Independent, 17/07/1999), and of David Reiff (‘The cult of memory: when history does more harm than good’, The Guardian, 02/03/2016). This tendency may have partly originated in a reaction against the work of French historian Pierre Nora, who, in his efforts to define what constitutes a ‘true’ history, instigated this opposition between history and memory. Because outright political agitation and national imperatives dominate readings of history, he argued (see Realms of Memory (1996/1998), therefore there is no objective truth to be found there. However, he went further, adopting the nihilistic perspective that because memory, although preferable, is also selective, there is, effectively, no such thing as a recoverable past. In his somewhat opaque attempt to reconcile Marxist dialectics with an underpinning theology, ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ (1940), Walter Benjamin took a more measured, if equally audacious approach. In Thesis VI he wrote:

    To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it the way it really was’ (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Historical materialism wishes to retain that image of the past which unexpectedly appears to man singled out by history at a moment of danger.

    But how exactly has memory come to be viewed as the poor relation of history? For what else is history, ultimately, but the product of memory? Or, at the very least, a consequence of the urge to memorialise? If only because Memory (Mnemosyne) is the mother of History (Clio), as she is of all the muses.

    This shift in status is compounded by the current fearmongering panic and paranoia about the threat to humanity and the humanities by the dreaded Artificial Intelligence. While AI is NOT nothing to worry about, it should be remembered that narratives of conflict in contested spaces have always been distorted by misinformation: it is known as ‘the fog of war’ or, more commonly, ‘propaganda’. All that has improved (or disimproved, because of the uses to which it is put) is the technology. As the great Irish essayist Hubert Butler wrote in ‘The Sub-Prefect Should Have Held His Tongue’:

    Speed of communication has increased, and we are expected to have strong feelings about an infinite series of remote events. But our powers of understanding and sympathy have not correspondingly increased. In an atmosphere of artificially heated emotionalism truth simply dissolves into expediency.

    That was in 1956. It was ever thus. Whatever the contemporary concerns about manipulation by A.I., data harvesting, algorithms and bots, it seems to me that digitally native under-30s are more than capable of dealing with the vagaries of the media with which they have grown up and are therefore adept at handling because of easy familiarity. When it comes to being duped online, the kids are savvy enough. It is the supposed adults in the room you have to fear for and keep an eye on.

    Perplexity as to the status of historiography as a somehow tainted literary representation or a scientific unbiased recounting is nothing new, with E. H. Carr’s What Is History? (1961) provoking fierce responses like that of Geoffrey Elton’s The Practice of History (1967), because of Carr’s relativism and his rejection of contingency as an important factor in historical analysis; that is, his almost proto-Baudrillardian notion of history as a partisan pursuit, a simulacrum written by the winners, or at least by those whose relative perspectives are skewed by vested interests or their own agendas. Elton, on the other hand, was a strong defender of traditional modi operandi and was appalled by postmodernism and multi-narrative histories, seeing the duty of historians as empirically gathering evidence and objectively analysing it.

    Thucydides Mosaic from Jerash, Jordan, Roman, 3rd century AD at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.

    Herodotus vis-à-vis Thucydides

    The Carr/Elton debate can be seen as a more recent reenactment of a controversy which has reoccurred throughout (as it were) history, for example in relation to perceptions surrounding the virtues and drawbacks of Herodotus vis-à-vis Thucydides as historians of Ancient Greece, or of Suetonius in contrast to Tacitus of Ancient Rome, the methodology espoused by each echoing the practice of their predecessors. Thucydides and Tacitus may be more analytical and less anecdotal than Herodotus and Suetonius, but their histories are still based on interviews with participants and eye witnesses, and then drawing their own conclusions. How do we know if these interviewees were telling the truth, or if their memories were accurate or faulty? They could be deliberately lying, or accidentally misremembering. Plus, these informants are rarely named. Then there is the question of how much bias effects the reliability of Herodotus’ Histories and Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome, given their respective Athenian and Roman sympathies, which they freely admit. Herodotus may have been accorded the accolade the ‘Father of History’ by Cicero, but at least as early as Plutarch’s pamphlet On The Malignity of Herodotus, he has also been known as the ‘Father of Lies’. When introducing his English translation of the Annals, Michael Grant even refers to Tacitus’ ‘mask of austere impartiality’. Meanwhile, much of Plutarch is pure entertaining hearsay. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that the Greek word Ιστορία (historia), from which our own specialised meaning is derived, meant ‘research’ or ‘inquiry’, rather than the definitive account, and is how Herodotus’ titled his work.

    So, while from an early twenty-first century perspective, Herodotus may seem more like a chronicler rather than an analyser, it is important to remember history’s origins in storytelling, and the influence of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey – the stories from both of which were recited orally long before they were ever written down – on Herodotus’ mindset and methodology. Indeed, in an echo of those tales told around a campfire, which rhymed to facilitate ease of memorisation, it is believed that Herodotus would have given public readings from his Histories in Athens. For this reason, we may find it more understandable that he is nebulous about the differences between tradition and history, and that he did not always realise that eye witness accounts of the same event can vary. If literature is what is written, and Herodotus was writing history, we should not forget the debt both literature and history owe to the oral tradition.

    Of course, professional historians will argue that historiography has come a long way since antiquity, especially through the use of documentary evidence – inscriptions, manuscripts, treaties, newspaper and (latterly) television and radio reports, court records, archival material and archaeological discoveries, etc. But all of these (un)reliable sources are, finally, human products and personal artifacts, and thus subject to the fallibility of the species – certainly in their interpretation if not equally so in their inception. Just because something is written down does not make it true, or even representative. What pressures were being exerted on those doing the writing and signing, and what did they stand to lose or gain by their acts of scrivening – their Oaths of Allegiance and their Declarations of War? How far can we even rely on those who observed them, or who claim to have done so? Indeed, overreliance on these constituent parts privileges literacy over the oral tradition, one which Herodotus (influenced as he was by the Homeric epics) came out of and which historians have always relied upon – however unreliable it, in turn, may be, based as it is on folk memory. To favour the written over the spoken word does a great disservice to so-called ‘ordinary’ people, and smacks of a ‘made by great men’ approach to historiography. In this prejudice originates the elevation of History over Memory.

    History Faculty building on the Sidgewick Site of the University of Cambridge.

    Worthwhile Academic Pursuit

    None of the foregoing is intended to denigrate the study of History as a worthwhile academic pursuit. But one has only to trace the history of nationalist, revisionist and counter-revisionist narratives of past events on our own island over the preceding century or so to glean an inkling of the fluctuations of fashion in how history is done and disseminated, and to be aware that all readings of history, whatever the original sources or new evidence which come to light, are necessarily provisional. Plays by Brian Friel like Translations and Making History engage with how this history has been made, and remade. The presentation of the past, whether in memory or history (or historical memory), and the relation of both forms of presentation to the ideal of an unmediated past – that is, to an account of the past not distorted by the medium in which it is presented – is illusory. In this regard, every form of (re)presenting the past is a construction and an attempt to pass on something that is already forever lost.

    The concept of historiography as representation, which can easily shade into fiction, while being presented as factual truth, has correlatives in our own time. Herodotus’ treatment of the Persian invasions under Darius and Xerxes implies an underlying conflict between the absolutism of the East and the allegedly free institutions of the West, between Persian monarchy and Athenian democracy. The fact that we have no Persian record of the Persian Wars is down to the fact that Persia was an oral culture, and their version has been lost in the mists of time. In this case, written words would have proven useful. Herodotus’ contention that democracy was the cornerstone of Athenian superiority, and his praise of it as responsible for Athens’ pre-eminent position, might make us mindful of the justifications invoked for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain. While bringing the benefits of democracy and freedom to a former dictatorship was the general goal of the invasion, the proximate goad was the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction within the jurisdiction of that regime, a piece of ‘intelligence’ which was subsequently exposed as a faulty, if enabling, fiction. However, that the reason for going to war ultimately proved to be another instance of imaginative invention, every bit as much a representation (or spin) as elements of Herodotus’ Histories, did not bother the advocates of that invasion unduly after it was discovered, evidence that people are still as enthralled by mythic embroidery masquerading as objective fact as they ever were.

    To be sure, in Herodotus’ day it was the Persian Empire which was the aggressor, looking to colonise Greece, and the united city-states, including Athens, were merely defending themselves. The notable difference in our day is that it is the democrats who are doing the invading, with the sanctioning intention of toppling an absolute ruler, or eradicating terrorism. Again, how often today do we hear the sound bite, employed not only in defence of Israel’s right to defend itself, but also in support of its continued existence, that it is ‘the only democracy in the region’? Without too much of a stretch, it could be argued that Herodotus was indulging in an early version of what Edward Said subsequently termed, in the title of his masterly book which almost single-handedly founded postcolonial studies, Orientalism (1978). Having initiated the debate, Said developed it further in Culture and Imperialism (1993), sensitising the average western reader to this strange and sinister colonialism of culture. Sadly, these tropes will not cease, for obscurantism is not the sole prerogative of any epoch, or political grouping.

    Said’s originality was evident in the way he defined the subject of his book.  Orientalism is, first, an academic specialisation: a topic studied by archaeologists, historians, theologians and others in the West who are concerned with Middle Eastern and North African cultures. But Said added two further meanings to the term. Orientalism is also something more general, something that has shaped Western thought since the Greeks: namely, a way of dividing up the world between the West and the East. What appears to be a simple geographical fact is, says Said, actually an idea. The division of the world into these two parts is not a natural state of affairs, but an intellectual choice made by the West in order to define itself. The third meaning for Orientalism is more historically specific. Since the latter part of the eighteenth century, when European colonialism in the Middle East developed most fully, Orientalism has been a means of domination, a part of the colonial enterprise. Said argues that colonialism is not only about the physical acts of taking land, or of subjugating people, but is also about intellectual acts. The academic study of the Orient is unthinkable outside its colonial context and vice versa. So, rather than just an innocent scholarly topic, Orientalism is a general way of imagining the world’s divisions and a specific mechanism for furthering the colonial quest.

    Following Foucault, Said describes the Orient as a product of discourse; that is, not as something in the world that is discovered and analysed, but as something created by Western institutions and ideas. The definition of the Orient is a means of regulating it; the apparent truths discovered are in fact ideas circulated and accepted as part of Western colonial activity in the Middle East. The sense of the Orient as a discursive construct, in turn, enables Said to make one of his most important and striking arguments: what the West believed it had discovered about the East tells us little about the colonised cultures, but much about the coloniser’s. The texts and disciplines that comprise Orientalism – historical narratives like that of Herodotus, analyses of religion, travel writing, etc – reveal the values and preconceptions of the West, of the way people in Washington or Paris or London, or indeed fifth century Athens, wanted to see themselves, their fears and ambitions and prejudices. In particular, the image created of the East is used as a means of constructing one’s own identity. The picture of the East functions as a distorting mirror image, enabling the West to say that whatever they are, we are not. This emphasises the way in which a duality, often referred to as a dyad, is set up: West and East, us and them.

    In spite of the growing influence of Asian nations and the recent ‘Easternisation’ of international politics and trade, such exclusively Western- or Euro-centric readings still predominate our understanding of global history. This is a mindset which has been challenged, in what can be seen as a continuation of the Orientalism project, by Peter Frankopan, in his The Silk Roads: A New History of the World (2015), and The New Silk Roads: The Present and Future of the World (2018). One would do well also to have a look at Palestinian-American Rashid Khalidi’s books Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997) and The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine (2017), in which he depicts Israel as a settler-colonial state, and argues that the modern history of Palestine can best be understood as ‘a colonial war against the indigenous population’.

    Bakhmut_during_the_battle_(2023-04-05).

    Proxy Wars

    Both of the ongoing international conflicts which dominate the news cycle in these times, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Israeli-Hamas hostilities, are in truth complex proxy wars. Appeasement, or its more recent first cousin, conflict management, does not work. As Professor Yossi Mekelberg, of the venerable Chatham House Think Tank, has written:

    One conclusion from the collapse of the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians is that conflict management is a fallacy that has failed time and again. As a long-term instrument it at best buys time until the next round of violence begins. More than 75 years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians have seen periodic outbreaks of hostilities and periodic efforts to bring peace based on a two-state solution. For most of this time the focus has been on managing the conflict. This exposes a lack of belief that a peace agreement laying to rest the differences between the two peoples can be reached. It also shows that the international collective security mechanism set up after the Second World War has failed in its mission to peacefully settle conflicts.This conflict does not need management, it needs its root causes to be addressed.

    The Northern Ireland Peace Process, which culminated in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 (‘Sunningdale for slow learners’), provides some hope that reconciliation is possible in ‘lost cause’ situations, even if underlying tensions still persist. At least it put an end to what were euphemistically termed ‘The Troubles’, with their violence and loss of life. A United Ireland will happen sooner or later, and it will be an economic problem, much as the reunification of Germany was: Britain does not want to continue footing the bill for the statelet, and the Republic of Ireland is charry of taking it on. Meanwhile, most of those resident in the territory – from whatever side of the Unionist/Nationalist sectarian divide – are more preoccupied about having to pay for G.P. visits and prescriptions, should they find themselves in a New Republic.

    The Russian/Ukrainian stalemate might be resolved if Putinistas were to be purged of their nostalgia for the Russian Empire and the former reach of the U.S.S.R., and had their fears over N.A.T.O. encroachment addressed; and if Zelenskyyites were not so ardent in their pursuit of N.A.T.O. membership. The Russian invasion was not, as is routinely heard in Western governmental and media discourse, entirely ‘unprovoked’. As Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs of Colombia University has written:

    A far better approach for Russia might have been to step up diplomacy with Europe and with the non-Western world to explain and oppose U.S. militarism and unilateralism. In fact, the relentless U.S. push to expand NATO is widely opposed throughout the world, so Russian diplomacy rather than war would likely have been effective. […] The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement.

    As for the seemingly intractable Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with its attendant apartheid, ethnic-cleansing and genocide on the part of the more powerful and well-resourced combatant: if Israel were suddenly left to fend for itself, without being massively underwritten by the U.S. and the E.U., it would soon have to start behaving itself, and acting in a civilised manner with its neighbours – just as a reduction in Iranian (bankrolled by Russia), Qatari and Yemeni support for Hamas would greatly alleviate tensions in the zone. Alas, this is not going to happen, given the North American imperative for a strategic foothold in the region and Zionist funding of their politicians through AIPAC, coupled with German Holocaust guilt, and the onus on oppositional sympathisers to provide some sort of counterforce. The only difference between the I.D.F.’s war crimes and those of Hamas is that the latter lacks the technology to do as much extensive damage, because the former enjoys such disproportionately huge investment, and impunity.

    History makes no mistakes because it has no purpose – that much Hubert Butler must have known by that time (1930s and 40s) if only because at Oxford he read the Greek and Roman classics. In any case, the dishonesty, self-deception and self-aggrandizement of those evoking history to pull the trigger didn’t escape him, not did their utter humanness. His knowledge of Russian…and of Serbo-Croatian,not to mention his French and his German, helped him along the line, no doubt, enormously. The detection of humanness in those whose words and deeds obscure it is, however, his own feat. On the other hand, this must have been easier for him, an Irishman, since schizophrenic uncertainty is humanness’ integral part.

    So wrote the great Nobel Prize-winning Russian poet Joseph Brodsky in ‘On Hubert Butler’ (1994). In what could be read as a corrective to the notion of this blind, ahistorical history, he also gave this insight in his essay on the work of the great Greek pre-Modernist poet, Constantine Cavafy, ‘Pendulum’s Song’ (1975): ‘The only instrument that a human being has at his disposal for coping with time is memory, and it is his unique, sensual historical memory that makes Cavafy so distinctive.’ However, if the school principal in the ‘Nestor’ episode of Joyce’s Ulysses, Mr. Deasy, is blatantly antisemitic in his exchanges with Stephen Dedalus, Brodsky, in another essay, ‘Flight from Byzantium’ (1985), is patently Islamophobic, displaying a smug ignorance and revulsion of ‘the East’. Indeed, so vitriolic is his repugnance, it is tempting to speculate that he is intentionally verging into parody:

    The delirium and horror of the East.  The dusty catastrophe of Asia. Green only on the banner of the Prophet.  Nothing grows here except moustaches. A black-eyed, overgrown-with-stubble-before-supper part of the world.  Bonfire embers doused with urine.  That smell! A mixture of foul tobacco and sweaty soap and the underthings wrapped around loins like another turban.  Racism?  But isn’t it only a form of misanthropy?  And that ubiquitous grit flying in your muzzle even in the city, poking the world out of your eyes – and yet one feels grateful even for that.  Ubiquitous concrete, with the texture of turd and the colour of an upturned grave.  Ah, all that nearsighted scum – Corbusier, Mondrian, Gropius – who mutilated the world more effectively than any Luftwaffe! Snobbery?  But it’s only a form of despair.  The local population in a state of total stupor whirling its time away in squalid snack bars, tilting its heads as in a namaz in reverse toward the television screen, where somebody is permanently beating somebody else up.  Or else they’re dealing out cards, whose jacks and nines are the sole accessible abstractions, the single means of concentration.  Misanthropy?  Despair?  Yet what else could be expected from one who has outlived the apotheosis of the linear principle? From a man who has nowhere to go back to?  From a great turdologist, sacrophage, and the possible author of Sadomachia?

    Brodsky even goes on to argue that: ‘By divorcing Byzantium, Western Christianity consigned the East to non-existence, and thus reduced its own notion of human negative potential to a considerable, perhaps even a perilous, degree.’ He also implies that: ‘…the anti-individualistic notion that human life is essentially nothing – i.e., the absence of the idea that human life is sacred, if only because each life is unique’, originates in the East, and that Western Christianity’s neglecting the experience supplied by Byzantium is the reason why college campus killers are classed as mentally ill, and presumably suicide bombers are labelled religious fanatics, as opposed to just plain evil. If supposedly enlightened classical humanists can harbour such sentiments, what hope can there be for reconciliation and mutual understanding?

    Interestingly, in ‘A Man Must Not Be Too Moslem’ (1953), Paul Bowles (while admittedly, no friend of Said – See Hisham Aidi, ‘So Why Did I Defend Paul Bowles?’, New York Review of Books, 20/12/2019) took entirely the opposite tack, and was so prescient that the ideas contained therein could have been ripped from today’s headlines. He wrote:

    Rationalizing words like ‘progress’, ‘modernization’, or ‘democracy’  mean nothing because, even if they are used sincerely, the imposition of such concepts by force from above cancels whatever value they otherwise have. There is little doubt that by having been made indifferent Moslems, the younger generation in Turkey has become more like our idea of what people living in the 20th century should be. The old helplessness in the face of mektoub (it is written) is gone, and in its place is a passionate belief in man’s ability to alter his destiny. That is the greatest step of all; once it has been made, anything, unfortunately, can happen.

    Mit Gewalt aus Bunkern hervorgeholt (‘Forcibly pulled out of bunkers’)

    Victims of Oppression go on to Oppress

    It can be argued that what Israel is doing in Gaza, and has done to the countries which surround it since its foundation, partakes of the classic pattern of abusive behaviour, on a national rather than an individual level. ‘Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return’ as W. H. Auden had it in ‘September 1, 1939’. It is not unheard of that victims of oppression go on to oppress even more. The Jewish people, who were victims of a genocide perpetrated by the Nazis during the Second World War, are now themselves perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinian people. Perhaps Brodsky’s Jewish ancestry accounts for his self-advertised blindspot: he was merely conforming to stereotype. But the Children of Gaza by now far outnumber Butler’s ‘The Children of Drancy’ (1968/78) – with the added developmental difference that now the whole world is watching their slaughter. Yet the majority of Western leaders persist in standing staunchly by Israel and its policies, paying mere lip service to popular calls for a ceasefire while continuing to supply the weapons used for the razing of Gaza and the annihilation of its people. The last thing our planet needs in this day and age is the continued endorsement and maintenance of yet another theocratic ethno-state. We in Ireland should know this all too well. George Santayana’s famous aphorism is usually misquoted as ‘Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’, but in its original form read, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Unfortunately, no one learns any lessons from history, and remembers only what suits them, which is why it constantly repeats itself – first as tragedy and then as farce.

    Bad things undoubtedly follow when any ethnic or national or religious grouping (often a toxic concoction of all three) claim to have all the answers, and so start getting notions that they are The Master Race, or The Chosen People, or undertake Crusades against the Heathen or Jihad against the Infidel, or any convenient Evil Other. Note that I include here such secular religions as Fascism and Communism, which too frequently manifest as latter-day utopian belief systems which can be used to sponsor mass murder.

    All wars are, at root, economic. The geopolitical importance, the religion and the patriotism, the toppling of tyrants and establishing of democracy, are just the attendant window dressing. (Doubtless, all those anti-materialists who would prefer to forget, or only remember in an approved way, will here dismiss my arguments with the classic cheap insult of ‘vulgar Marxist’ – incidentally, a phrase Foster has appropriated from Benjamin’s Theses, although used there in an entirely different context. Apparently, there exist kosher, refined Marxists, and objectionable, vulgar Marxists. Thus, E. P. Thompson is deemed acceptable within the academy, despite the fact that he expressed sentiments such as, ‘so great has been the reaction in our time against Whig or Marxist interpretations of history, that some scholars have propagated a ridiculous reversal of historical roles: the persecuted are seen as forerunners of oppression, and the oppressors as victims of persecution’ (from The Making of the English Working Class (Penguin, 1978).) Yet all wars also end eventually, if only for longer or shorter periods, either through disengagement, conquest, de facto surrender, formal surrender or negotiated peace agreement. The means of disseminating misinformation may be more covert, efficient and persuasive, but what does not change is human nature. The apportioning of blame, who has right (or God) on their side, is in most conflicts a question of ‘How far back would you like to go?’ (which is, in turn, a slightly more grown-up rendering of the childish playground staple, ‘You started it’). Would that be the first incursion or the latest atrocity, or any point on the calendar in-between?

    At some point, the origin of the primordial offence recedes from history into myth – found in sacred books and the stories people tell. Sometimes it is even, conveniently, the Word of God (be it Yahweh or Allah). Arguably, memory is more historically accurate than lots of competing histories. Indeed, as has been demonstrated, many of those histories, official and unofficial alike, are based on recollections after the fact. Ultimately, history is nothing more or less than memory. Yet memory fades, unless it is recorded – however rigorously or haphazardly – in history. We currently stand as helpless as we ever were when The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters, as Goya had it, and Voltaire’s admonition, ‘Whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’ is still, sadly, applicable.

    Feature Image Otto Dix, Sturmtruppe geht unter Gas vor (“Stormtroopers Advance Under a Gas Attack”), 1924.

  • Joujouka Redux

    My wrist watch stops dead shortly after we arrive in Tangier (at 21:16 – 2/6/2022, to be precise), which is symbolically appropriate. Time runs differently in Joujouka, the rural village located some 110km south of here in the Rif Mountains, for which this urbane, noisy, historically cosmopolitan port city is on this occasion serving as a gateway. I’d been to Morocco once before, in 2013, when the fissures in our marriage were beginning to make themselves felt. For that reason, and others, I was then flying solo. Now here I am again, with J, bringing her on part of the pilgrimage I had made then, having separated and reunited in the interim, working through whatever it was we’d had to sort out, together and apart. This would be a shared experience. Love me, love my obsessions.

    In his monumental history of the drone in music, Monolithic Undertow: In Search of Sonic Oblivion (2021), which ranges from vibrating sound waves at the exploding dawn of the universe to the stoner/doom/drone metal of bands like Sleep, Earth, Boris and Sunn O))) – via the choral chanting of Buddhist and Christian monks, Indian raga, free jazz improvisation, various indigenous folk traditions, Krautrock, contemporary classical and avant garde, and electronic experimentation (drone is not codified or confined by genre) – Harry Sword devotes an entire chapter to The Master Musicians of Joujouka, in which he writes:

    A mystic Sufi sect … the Masters – members of the tribe Ahl Serif – produce a narcotic cacophony that hinges on frenetic tribal drums, gruff call and response chants and the screeching drone of multiple rhaita pipes. Playing a music unique to the village and passed from father to son, the Joujouka sound is unlike any other.They’ve been at it for centuries. William S. Burroughs (or was it Dr. Timothy Leary?, provenance is disputed) famously called them the ‘world’s only 4000-year-old rock’n’roll band’. Playing for up to twelve hours straight, musicians and audience alike entering a waking dreamscape, theirs is a brutal trip. Joujouka music is principally about healing, delirium and fertility.

    The Masters entered western consciousness initially through the Beats in the 1950s, and then the 1960s counter culture. Paul and Jane Bowles, Burroughs and his Canadian painter pal Brion Gysin, had all taken up post-War residence in Tangier, with visits from Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, Gregory Corso and Peter Orlovsky, among others. In 1951, Bowles and Gysin attended a Sufi music festival in Sidi Kacem, a couple of hours from Tangier, with a painter from Joujouka they’d met in the city, Mohamed Hamri. When he heard the Masters, Gysin was enthralled, saying he wanted to listen to their music every day for the rest of his life. Bowles, while an avid archivist of Moroccan tribal music – he made over 250 field recordings on location, Alan Lomax-style – was less enamoured, finding the Masters’ music ‘too crude’, and the hardships of village life unseemly. Later, when Hamri took Gysin to Joujouka, the ex-pat discovered to his astonishment that the music he’d fallen in love with was played by Hamri’s uncles. Gysin and Hamri then opened a restaurant in Tangier, the infamous 1001 Nights, where members of the Masters became the house band. It was there that Burroughs first heard them.

    When the Rolling Stones arrived in Tangier in 1967, seeking respite from the fallout of the Redlands drug bust and attendant media attention while awaiting trial, Hamri and Gysin met them and Hamri struck up a friendship with Brian Jones, the only Stone to stay behind for a longer, more immersive encounter with the culture. Hamri brought Jones to the village, where he too was overwhelmed by the Masters’ music. Ever the ethnomusicologist, the troubled musician returned in 1968 to make recordings, which eventually saw the light of day in 1971 on Brian Jones Presents the Pipes of Pan at Joujouka. Before his death in 1969, Brian had produced the album and prepared the cover, which brought the Masters’ music to a wider audience outside Morocco. Later, in January 1973, jazz musician Ornette Coleman and the Masters recorded together, with ‘Midnight Sunrise’ surfacing later on his album Dancing In My Head (1975). In 1980, The Masters played at Glastonbury, as part of a three-month tour which included a week’s residency at London’s Commonwealth Institute. They were at Glasto again in 2011, opening the festival on the Pyramid stage. They have since toured as far afield as Japan.

    The Masters’ performances in their home place feature a dancer sewn into goatskins: he represents Bou Jeloud, a Pan-like figure, half-goat half-man. In the legend, Bou Jeloud gave an Ahl Serif ancestor the gift of flute music and bestowed fertility on the village every spring when he came out of his cave and danced. This is commemorated in the Joujouka festival, now held every June. In 2008 the Masters honoured the 40th Anniversary of Brian Jones’s influential recording by opening their annual Rite of Spring to outsiders. Since then the extended gathering has become an annual occurrence, attracting artists, filmmakers, musicians, writers and fans from around the world. As well as generating valuable global publicity, the boutique festival is an important economic factor in the life of Joujouka, which remains predominantly a working agricultural village. These guys are still primarily farmers, who have not turned pro.

    The extended festival offers a unique opportunity to around fifty guests, on a first-come first-served basis, to spend three days with the Master Musicians. This small influx stay in the village with the Masters and their families as hosts, and experience the music in the place – set amid a spectacular landscape – where it originated. The Masters play non-stop each night for three or four hours, in a large three-sided, green-and-red tent at the madrasa. During the lazy afternoons, spontaneous jams break out. Tickets are limited because you lodge in family homes, enjoying breakfast with them, and partake of a communal evening feast in the madrasa, before the Masters get down to business. It may be more arduous to get to, as well as more expensive (although with transport from and to the railway station, plus full board and lodging included, it probably all works out fairly equitably in the end), but it sure beats hell out of the rough and tumble crowds at Electric Picnic.

    J is an ’80s and ’90s indie pop and rock girl (just as I, to some extent, am that boy). These days her principal favourite listening is Bach’s concertos for harpsichord, the plinkity-plonkity predictable resolves of which grate on my nerves (although I do have a certain tolerance for some of his keyboard works for church organ, for example the Fugue in G minor, which at least occasionally utilise the harmonic possibilities of that instrument for dronish effects – even if the lauded composer can never quite help himself when it comes to showing off his considerable chops). Sitting at our table on a terrace overlooking the swimming pool in our well-appointed hotel, with the techno beats of synth pop booming from the nightclub downstairs, I wonder how she will take to Joujouka – the village, the people, and the all-enveloping drone?

    The next morning we are sharing a taxi with Richie and Marek, two Joujouka veterans I met there on my last visit, bringing us to El Ksar El Kebir, the nearest town of any size to the remote village. From there, we join another local taxi to take us up to our weekend destination. Like any expedition of faith – religious, quasi-religious or secular – Joujouka inspires devotion. Muslims may be required to take the Hajj to Mecca only once in a lifetime, but many Joujouka heads – those who get it and realise this ritual is for them – wind up coming back every year. Richie, a Scottish guy living in Portsmouth, and Marek, from London, are two such. Later I will reunite with Phil, hugging like long lost brothers. He’s an American labour lawyer now married (to a woman he met in Joujouka) and relocated to Mallorca, who always appears on some rented, high-end 1000cc motorcycle, which he then takes off on when the festival is over on Monday mornings, lighting out for the High Atlas mountains and the desert beyond, getting to places inaccessible by car and bus, or even camel.

    But as every good nostalgist should know, you can’t step into the same river twice. The lingering pandemic, which had made the brandishing of vaccination certs mandatory at airports and passport controls on our journey here, means that Covid-hesitancy has depleted the usual number of attendees. There are about twenty-five people here this year, rather than the full complement of fifty. While facilitating more intimacy, this in turn makes it slightly more difficult to get a spontaneous vibe going later in the evening. Add to this the news that the festival’s chief organiser will be absent this year, for personal reasons, and one of the main points of contact and social lubricants between the villagers and their guests is removed.

    There are other notables missing: Miho Watanabe, the indefatigably humorous Japanese academic, musicologist and multi-instrumentalist, who has travelled to many remote corners of the world to discover more about diverse native musical forms of expression, but who keeps returning to Joujouka; and Stephen, Phil’s ex-Navy biker buddy, now some sort of recondite computer coder – if Phil can be formidably cerebral, Stephen is possessed of the imp of roguish madness which lets him share my absurdist sense of humour. On the previous occasion I also met Donal, London-Irish friend-of-friends, and purveyor of the Exploding Cinema club; and David, copywriter and author of numerous articles on the Beats, Lou Reed, and the Deià of Robert Graves. Then there was Paul, music magazine editor, and writer of books on Iggy Pop, David Bowie, and Brian Jones. So: interesting folks. I have since noticed that the Masters’ website, in advertising the 2023 festival, starts with the admission that: ‘After two years of absence and a small offering this year, The Master Musicians of Joujouka annual festival is back in 2023.’ Still, reduced is better than nothing – and there would surely be fresh encounters to be had.

    Last time I was assigned the room in which Brian Jones purportedly stayed during his sojourn here (I’m sure they tell more than one guest that, every year). This time J and I are billeted in a smaller room in a house a little further afield from the madrasa. But at least it has a double bed (with a straw mattress), instead of reclining sofas all around the walls. Family homes here are built around a central shady courtyard with a well in the middle. There is no running water, and the toilet is the proverbial hole in the ground, a shower is buckets of water (heated if you are lucky) thrown over yourself. Electricity only arrived in the mid-’90s.

    Sometimes I think I’m getting too old for this. Also, I fret over J’s adaptation to the Spartan conditions. But that’s before the music beings. There again, I have my misgivings about how she will respond to that, too.

    the definition of a gentleman..

    Q: “What’s the definition of a gentleman?” A: “Someone who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn’t.” Corny, I know; but telling. Why do some people have such an aversion to many other iterations of the drone? I have heard the bagpipes described as one of the greatest instruments of torture ever invented. How can people be repulsed by the soothings of the uilleann pipes, or driven to distraction by sean-nós singing? Because of cultural associations that they would prefer to forget? Or are they genuinely put off by what they perceive as the sheer monotony of the sound, and its accompanying volume? More commonly than irritation, you hear people say they can’t stand drones because they find them boring. But drones are not boring – or else they are meant to be. A commercial device called the Mosquito discourages young people from loitering in shopping malls; it emits sounds in the 17.5-to-18.5-kilohertz range which, in general, only those under the age of twenty-five can hear. Drones are life’s underlying hum made more manifest. Louis MacNeice certainly thought so, in his jocose poetic lament for the decline of folk culture in the Western Hebrides, and indeed throughout Europe, ‘Bagpipe Music’ (1938). It’s no go the Yogi-Man, it’s no go Blavatsky/All we want is a bank balance and a bit of skirt in a taxi seeks to mimic the sound of the titular instrument.

    The cultural dissemination of the drone is beautifully captured in Tony Gatlif’s wonderful documentary, Latcho Drom (Romani for ‘safe journey’) (1993) – perhaps the greatest film ever made about music and people. With scant dialogue and no voiceover, it presents scenes from Gypsy life, starting in Northern India, and working its way westward through Egypt, Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France and Spain. This is one route drone music took from the east, the other being through North Africa, Galicia, Britany, Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, to Ireland. It is a sound fundamentally at odds with the Anglo-Saxon conception of the world. Ethnomusicologist Joan Rimmer has suggested that the music of the Arab world, Southern Europe and Ireland are all linked, while folklorist Alan Lomax has said in interview: ‘I have long considered Ireland to be part of the Old Southern Mediterranean-Middle Eastern family of style that I call bardic – highly ornamented, free rhythmed, solo, or solo and string accompanied singing that support sophisticated and elaborate forms.’ Máirtín Ó Cadhain compared the singing style and dark physical appearance of Seosamh Ó hÉanaí to that of the Gitanos of Granada. This so-called ‘black Irish’ appearance is often attributed to Spanish Armada shipwrecks in the west of Ireland, or ancient trade routes from there with the Berbers. Film-maker Bob Quinn, in his Atlantean series, suggests a North African cultural connection, explaining the long physical distances between the cultures with the seafaring nature of the Connemara people. The musical connection has also been tenuously connected to the fact that the people of Connacht have a significant amount of ancient Berber or Tuareg DNA.

    If you find drone music boring, or oppressive, or maddeningly distracting, I suggest that the fault may lie with you or your attitude to life, rather than with the drone. Your antipathy is explicable as rage against the unwanted. The trick is to turn this anger to your advantage, through

    Metanoia, an Ancient Greek word (μετάνοια) meaning ‘changing one’s mind’, which refers to the process of experiencing a psychotic ‘breakdown’ and subsequent, positive psychological re-building or healing, a transformative change of heart, a transcendental conversion. Try focusing your attention, meditating, being ‘mindful’ as they say nowadays. In other words, whether squatting cross-legged on the ground, or whipping yourself into a frenzy of idiot dancing, don’t be afraid to enter the trance state. Listen to the voices within – until, one by one, they all disappear. Drones are as much about providing profound spiritual balm as they are a reminder of mournful, cosmic tedium. The choice is yours as to which way to go. The drone is what prayer should be – as Beckett has it in Malone Dies, the ‘last prayer, the true prayer at last, the one that asks for nothing.’ Om.

    And that is about as historical/philosophical/spiritual as I’m going to get in droning on about drone.

    Understandably, J had grown accustomed to hearing me rattle on about Joujouka, long before she decided to come here with me. Or so I had thought. Strangely, when I talk to her about it now, she says that I never said much except that I loved it, so she wasn’t sure what to expect. We had been living apart since the pandemic began, and neither of us had travelled on an aeroplane in over two years, so there was appreciable anxiety and hesitation around the trip, on both our parts. There was more at stake than just a holiday.

    She makes friends with the family we are staying with, especially the teenage daughter of the house, Selma, who begins teaching her Arabic. Selma’s father is a French language teacher, and works in another town. Most Joujoukans of working age have migrated to Tangier or Chefchaouen, sometimes visiting for weekends, leaving a preponderance of the very young and the very old in the village. Selma spends a lot of time with her grandparents. As for the status of women, like the urban/rural divide in any country, there is more freedom and equality to be had in the cities, while traditional roles still obtain in the countryside. Selma will not make her life here.

    Slowly, J is becoming more like her old self again. After a number of serious health issues, and being cooped up for lockdown, caring for her dying father, she is impressed by the way people here ‘just let things be, how happy they are with little’. This is what she remembers about being there:

    Being with you again. The well in the middle of the farm. The great, fresh food. The green canopy. The hole to pee in. Taking my shoes off outside our room. The chickens outside. Donkeys, goats and chickens wandering around and the large village square. The walk to the music. The dust on the road. The heat. The trance of the music. The sweet, sweet mint tea. The talk around the table. The Goat Auntie – her lovely smile (a reference to Nadia, a Copenhagen-based Lithuanian pianist, who came with her aunt, a former concert violinist grown frustrated with orchestra politics, who now breeds goats – thus amalgamating two good personal reasons for being in Joujouka). Feeling shy. Feeling out of condition. The great walk to the cave. The music. The language barriers. The dancing. The strange day when I was blessed. The Japanese dancing. The long, colourful djellabas.

    Ironically, given the Dionysian intensity and volume of the Masters’ sound, and the frenetic movements or trance states which it induces, this music is believed to have healing powers to cure instances of insanity. Legend has it that in the fifteenth century the Sufi mystic saint Sidi Achmed Sheikh, the ‘healer of disturbed minds’ who brought Islam to the surrounding area, arrived in the village and bestowed the ability to heal manifestations of madness on this group of local musicians, in return for which he was given the gift of their music. The village is his resting place. For centuries visitors have peregrinated to his tomb here to seek cures for mental illness. The musicians are said to be blessed by baraka, the spiritual power of the saint, and people also seek them out in the hope that they might partake of it. I’m as cynical as the next person when it comes to Rousseauan idealisations of the Noble Savage, and am fully aware of Edward Said’s critique of western Orientalism. Perhaps the salutary properties of this supposed baraka transmitted through the Masters’ music is a load of superstitious codswallop after all – but I’d still rather go to Joujouka seeking a cure for anxiety, depression, neurosis or psychosis, than to any psychiatrist from the so-called ‘developed world’. The experience of hearing the Master’s music live is indubitably preferable to undergoing a course of electro-convulsive therapy, and undoubtedly no more or less efficacious.

    Talking to me now, J concludes: ‘Would I go again? Not sure – time is short, perhaps I’d like to try other places, other experiences. Compared to how you said it would be, it surpassed it. Joujouka was more primitive than I imagined, but Morocco more modern. You were right about an out of this world experience. Thank you for taking me.’

    J is Scottish, and grows wistful when she hears bagpipe music: I knew she’d get Joujouka, and its ecstatically healing drone.

    Believers undertake pilgrimages all the time, be it holy expeditions to Marian apparition sites such as Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorje, or our own Knock (a destination to which my devout father, who was unquestioningly and without any trace of scepticism well into this stuff, organised an annual busman’s outing), or the religious journey which provides the backdrop for Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, or the bereaved who traipse the Camino to Santiago de Compostela in Galicia. My own parents’ idea of a summer holiday was the parish pilgrimage to Rome, Assisi and Loreto (they never quite had the wherewithal to make it to the Holy Land), a trip sixteen-year-old me declined to share with them, understandably not fancying a week or two in pullman coaches with the blue-rinse set, shepherded by the local dog-collared men-in-black. Better to remain at home, and have a ‘free house’ with my friends. Loreto is a particularly interesting case, as its showpiece is the Holy House of Loreto, or as it is also known, the Flying House – the purported childhood abode of the Virgin Mary in Nazareth where, according to the Bible, an angel appeared to her to tell her she would give birth to Jesus, a feast day in the Catholic calendar dubbed The Annunciation – which according to the tradition was miraculously saved by angels so that it would not be destroyed by infidels after Christian crusaders were expelled from Palestine in the 13th century, and flown by them to its present location on the Adriatic coast.

    I hold all revealed religions to be inherently daft, as any old bollocks will do in constructing one. At least Buddhism, which indulges in neither polytheism nor monotheism, and is more of a non-authoritarian guide for contented living, doesn’t go in for divine intervention of any kind to bolster its paths to enlightenment. At the same time, I try to cultivate in myself respect for people of faith, however ludicrous their gullibility may appear to me, and have no wish to offend them. People are welcome to their delusions, as long as they don’t start trying to foist them on me.

    Of course, my pilgrimages would have to involve music. My first, and the first time I was ever outside Ireland, aged seventeen, was to see Bob Dylan play at Blackbushe Aerodrome in Surrey in July 1978. My mother stipulated that I couldn’t go unless my older cousin Raymond accompanied me. Thankfully, he did – which was kind of fortunate, as on the way back, sleepless at 6am, I nearly boarded a train for Glasgow instead of Holyhead, until he alerted me to the fact that this was not necessarily our preferred destination. I wrote a poem about the weekend round trip, a long meandering ballad which was accepted for publication by the late David Marcus in the New Irish Writing page of The Irish Press, my first appearance in a national outlet. And now here I am in the midst of this Moroccan musical trek, for the second time. As Bernard MacLaverty has it is his finely-wrought novel Grace Notes (1997), when describing the conclusion of his composer heroine Catherine’s creative journey: ‘Music: her faith.’ I might imagine myself more sophisticated than the regions of religious pilgrims, but I may well be just as much another kind of fundamentalist. After all, lots of people don’t get the fascination, devotion and reverence Bobcats have for Bob Dylan.

    The afternoons are spent listening to some of the musicians play folkier jams, on liras (a recorder-like flute, quieter than the night-time’s oboe cousin, the rhaita), doumbek drums, lute-like ouds, and a bodhrán gifted to the village by an Irishman. A revolving door of players sit in for a while, have the craic, then go on their way, for all the world like a trad session in an Irish pub. The one constant, and the highlight for me, is Sheik Ahmed Talha, one of the most musically talented and humble guys you are ever likely to meet. A tebel drum player by night, he turns fiddle-player by day, improvising away with a bow on the strings of his instrument, held upright like a miniature double-bass, resting on his knee. Unlike the Bou Jeloudian suites of the evenings, these melodies come with vocals, and are really local folk songs.

    Later on Sunday afternoon, when the sun has eased, a group of us walk to Bou Jeloud’s cave, a mile or two from the village. The legend begins with Attar, a young shepherd, who dared to rest in the forbidden cave of Magara, while his flock grazed on the greenery below. The cave was seen as taboo by villagers and, soon enough, Attar was roused from his slumber by the sound of pipes being played by the part-goat, part-man figure of Bou Jeloud – the ‘father of the skins’. Bou Jeloud made a deal with Attar: he would teach him the secrets of his music, on the understanding that Attar never share them. If he did break this vow, his teacher would be entitled to take a bride from the village. As is the way of these stories, Attar couldn’t keep the music to himself, and was heard playing by an infuriated Bou Jeloud, who then came to take his promised bride. The villagers kept to the bargain, but presented Bou Jeloud with the mad Aisha Kandisha, who tired him out with her insane dancing. Although briefly gratified, Bou Jeloud could eventually take no more, and left the village alone. Following his departure the villagers enjoyed a successful harvest. The ritual would continue each year, and time after time, Bou Jeloud would leave without a woman, and a rich harvest would follow. When Bou Jeloud finally vanished for good, Attar continued the ritual by dressing in goatskins himself, dancing with local boys who took on the role of ‘Crazy Aisha’. And so it continues to this day.

    The final ascent to the cave is rocky and precipitous. Some of us make it up, some of us don’t. Last time, I didn’t, taking a perverse pleasure in making the journey and then not entering. This time, I manage to climb up, gingerly finding my footholds, and clamber inside. I’m obviously making progress in conquering my vertiginous fears. We gaze out at the sun declining over the rolling hills and valleys, verdant with their precious crop. J didn’t trust herself enough to get up here with me, or perhaps it was getting down afterwards that proved too worrisome. Ascent is only half the battle, and descent can be just as tricky. Maybe she will complete the final stage next time – if there ever is one.

    Back at the ranch on Sunday evening we gather once again for an exquisitely lengthy post-prandial goodbye set from the Masters. Rhaita players sit in a row on one side, tebel players on the other, and work up their non-stop, improbably inventive rhythms, defying any conventional time signature. The percussionists pound out an incessant barrage of colliding patterns on their goblet drums (with sheep hides for skins), struck with a piece of wood shaped like a spoon in one hand and a thin stick in the other. Just as one passage of play is reaching a crescendo, one of the drummers will suddenly throw a curve ball change of beat, and the rhaita players kick in again, building another fugue, carrying on a follow-the-leader routine, constantly upping the ante, using circular breathing techniques to maintain the notes, until unified screeches ring out in ascension, gaining in intensity until the pitch is ringing out beyond the lavish tent, high into the homestead hills, reaching the starry sky above. And Jesus Christ, it is loud. Who needs electricity?

    If you are going to attend the oldest, most exclusive dance party in the world, you better get up on your feet and get lost in gyrating to the pure sonic upheaval. It’s then you feel the music coursing through your body, and the visceral sensations transcend any rave you’ve ever been at, until you don’t know where you end and it begins. By moving alternately on the carpeted dance floor between the horns and the drums, you can control the mix. Ahmed El Attar, the group leader, lends a hand, setting aside his drum for the moment to entice all sitters to jive, starting with the prettiest women, but not stopping until even the most reticent man is on his feet. I watch as J cavorts with Marianne and Tomoko, her American and Japanese sisters. Then Bou Jeloud appears, brandishing his leafy olive branches, twitching with venom like a strung-out speed freak, and the bonfire is ignited. The diminutive Mohamed El Hatmi is a quiet, dignified village elder by day. Now, in the guise of the goatman, as if possessed, he attacks the musicians, the village boys, and ourselves with his sticks. We will doubtless be made more fertile, and a good harvest is guaranteed.

    From a safe distance, Selma stands watching her grandfather perform with the other men of the village. Will the secrets of baraka ever be passed on from father to daughter, as well as from father to son? It will take a while to change a system which has existed since time out of mind. Or maybe it’s just not her thing. She has told us she wants to be a policewoman: a very perspicacious and practical career choice in these parts, considering the possible perks.

    I have heard vague murmurs, accusing organisers and attendees here of ‘cultural appropriation’ and, even worse, ‘poverty tourism’ – in short, that the whole affair is just another hipster stop-off on some world music global circuit. All nonsense, of course. The concept of cultural appropriation is annoyingly imprecise and so deeply flawed. It seems to me to be little more than an academic version of the hoary old chestnut ‘Can white guys play the blues?’, which is insulting not only to the white guys (and girls) who love the music and want to play it, but also to the black guys (and girls) whom it exoticises as having a superior aptitude for expressing genuine feeling in a musically authentic manner because of their racial purity and troubled history. This is the equivalent of claiming, ‘My residue of inherited emotional hurt and suffering because of my ethnicity is greater than yours and, furthermore, is directly the fault of yours.’ It may be a valid area of enquiry for sociologists and postcolonial theorists, but it makes little or no sense to actual musicians. It’s as reprehensible as defining your identity around patriotism, which is, if we are still to accord with Dr. Samuel Johnson, ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel’. Even if such essentialism does account for part of what you are, why get so reductively precious about it? Why not, instead, share it? For the fact is that there wouldn’t be any blues at all if it wasn’t for cultural and racial miscegenation and cross-pollination. Blues music is a hybrid form derived from the meeting of African polyrhythms, field hollers and microtonal inflections with European melodic and harmonic structures and counterpoint, coming from the folk and even classical traditions – which is what makes it, along with jazz and rock’n’roll, North America’s greatest gift to the world. That slavery was a component in this process is undeniable and immensely regrettable, but such exclusionism is hardly going to retrospectively correct it now. For every Led Zeppelin, who had to be dragged through the courts before giving the African-American composers who influenced them the credit and royalties they or their estates were due, there was a Rolling Stones, who always gave songwriting credit to their musical progenitors, and through the 1960s British Invasion helped the U.S.A. to discover its own musical heritage, as well as making the twilight years of many original bluesmen and women a whole lot more comfortable. Just watch them worshipping at the feet of Howlin’ Wolf on Shindig! in 1965. Prior to accepting the booking, they had in fact insisted that The Wolf also appear on the programme, or else they wouldn’t.

    As Zadie Smith has said in interview about her work, after the success of her debut novel White Teeth, “If I didn’t take a chance I’d only ever be able to write novels about mixed-race girls growing up in Willesden”, adding, regarding political correctness: “Identity is a huge pain in the ass.” Or, as Bernardine Evaristo put it more succinctly, “This whole idea of cultural appropriation is ridiculous. Because that would mean that I could never write white characters or white writers can never write black characters.”

    Add to this that the music of the Masters is very much a live experience, of which all recordings are but an approximate representation. We hear sound and, by extension, listen to music, not only with our ears, but also with the rest of our bodies. Detonating shells set off supersonic blast waves that slow down and become sound waves. Such waves have been linked to traumatic brain injury, once known as shell shock. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are often triggered by sonic signals: New York residents experienced this after 9/11, when a popped tire would make everyone jump; so too did Halloween bangers in Belfast and Derry during the Troubles. It is necessary to induce and re-enact the initial trauma, in order to heal it. As Keith Richards said in 1974, when many of his band’s contemporaries were concentrating on studio work, “A band that doesn’t play live is, to me, only half a band.” Plus, everyone who goes to the trouble of getting to Joujouka in the first place really knows their music, and is respectful of the people and the place. It’s about cultural appreciation, rather than appropriation.

    Besides all of which, as Harry Sword reports in his book, Gysin was almost bitter when Hamri brought the Joujouka musicians to do shows in Tangier in the 1960s, as if the music should be kept secret. The same sort of protectiveness, which verges on proprietorship, can be found Paul Bowles writing, where it is evident that he was a somewhat colonial figure who saw old, underdeveloped Morocco as a tableau, and hated any modernisation. But this attitude underlines a disrespect and disregard for the people. Bowles wasn’t kind to Moroccans in that he was writing about a medievalesque Morocco, and disliked seeing that changing. But that somebody in Joujouka has a fridge is a good thing – otherwise meat goes bad and children get sick; or you can’t keep your insulin if you’re diabetic. Your lifespan is going to be reduced if you don’t have access to a road or a water system. Should that culture be preserved at the expense of modern healthcare?

    There is also the hope that by bringing in visitors each year from all over the world, the children of the village will get a perspective of how important the music is, and in turn, keep it going.

    And now, if you’ll excuse us, me and Sheik Ahmed are off to check our privilege.

    Monday morning, coming down, we say our goodbyes, and share a taxi with a Japanese couple to Chefchaouen, the famous ‘blue city’, about two hours away to the east. We will have a relaxing week here, in a beautiful hotel with all mod cons, lush vegetation, hanging gardens full of bougainvillea and hydrangeas, loungers and a pool. We visit the medina, the Kasbah, have massages in a hamman spa, take a day trip to the waterfalls at Akchour. J’s recollections are of ‘The blue, the cats, the shower, the swing chair, the food, the swim in the pool so fresh, the echoing, haunting call to prayer – like bees swarming, at first threatening then meditative.’

    On our last evening here, we climb to the disused Spanish Mosque, overlooking the town from a hill to the east, to watch the sunset, as many tourists, Moroccan and foreign, do. On the way back down, we hold hands and then kiss, almost as though we’ve just met a few days ago, for the very first time, and the years dissolve and reassemble around us.

    It is notoriously difficult to capture the obliterating thrill of listening to music, much less playing it, never mind describing the music itself, in mere prose. It’s what makes most rock journalism, or any kind of writing about music, even and perhaps especially academic studies, painfully redundant. If anything can be said to, music partakes of the ineffable – and therefore is usually relegated to being discussed in terms of its theoretical structure or sociological impact. As a maxim attributed to several sources has it, ‘Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.’

    So too, in my opinion, is writing about intimate relationships. Unlike some writers who have made great hay out of their marital problems and breakups (or, conversely, washed the clean linen of how enviably happy they are with their perfect partners in public), I have never wanted to capitalise on my disappointment, heartbreak and stress by writing about it in any directly confessional, memorial-ish way. I never wanted to be divorced (although, in fairness, perhaps some of them didn’t either). For proof – and while one should never tempt fate by speaking too soon, pretending a journey is over – I even waited long enough so that I could finish by recounting a reconciliation rather than a rupture. As far as I can see, most people don’t get divorced because of infidelity or domestic violence or the easily pleaded ‘irreconcilable differences’, but because they have grown bored with the patterns of the relationship they have established, and fancy a change. They want to try something different, or they start wondering if their lives would have turned out completely differently if they’d married someone else. Or else, they resort to unfaithfulness and partner-bashing and their differences being irreconcilable because they are bored, and need an outlet. Equally, most couples who choose to stay together – after a given time – do so ‘because of the children’, or because of their mortgages, or because they are fond of their creature comforts and dread a downgrading change. Or maybe some people even get good at getting divorced, after they’ve done it a couple of times. But there are different ways of being married, even to the same person.

    For boredom, as we have established, is an inescapable fact of life. If it wasn’t, then explain games to me. Like chess, or its poor man’s version, draughts; or cards, be it anything from Bridge to Snap, or the gamblers’ Holy Grail, Poker; or golf, or Formula One motor racing, or even football. Or board games: they don’t call them bored games for nothing. They can’t all be accounted for by ambition expressed through competition, because very few people are good enough at them to compete at a level that really matters. Rather, all these activities are about passing the time. Granted, social theorists and educationalists will tell us that children playing games is part of the process of socialisation – learning how to deal with other people. But as J.M. Coetzee has the narrator of his novel Disgrace (1999) note about its protagonist David Lurie, an academic who has been downgraded to teaching Communications 101, ‘Communication Skills’, and Communications 201, ‘Advanced Communication Skills’:

    Although he devotes hours of each day to his new discipline, he finds its first premise, as enunciated in the Communications 101 handbook, preposterous: ‘Human society has created language in order that we may communicate our thoughts, feelings and intentions to each other.’ His own opinion, which he does not air, is that the origins of speech lie in song, and the origins of song in the need to fill out with sound the overlarge and rather empty human soul.

    Drone is about acknowledging this taedium vitae, and transforming it. Instead of being crushed by it, you are subsumed by it, putting it to good use. Drone slows time down, and makes room for memory. The journey is inward, as well as outward. You won’t hear the sound of yourself, or the sound of the world, or the sounds of the world inside yourself, or yourself in the world, unless you listen intently.

    Unlike the exciting and/or relaxing holidays of flings and affairs, it is difficult to be married, to anyone. Although it can, on occasion, perhaps even often, be rewarding and fruitful. Good marriages, bad marriages: first they are good, then they are bad, maybe then they are good again, then maybe they are bad again. It’s a cycle. Irreconcilable differences? We have them every day of the week. Maybe all true love is a form of masochistic endurance. Try it, if you think you’re tough enough.

    As for pilgrimages, they too can be one facet of self-mortification, as well as a way of merely filling in time. But, just as with my marriage, and just as with my lifespan on this earth – I came to dance. Did ye get healed? Oh yeah, we did. Just like every time. Joujouka has vouchsafed its miracle of harvest once again. But this time round, since it’s all circular and everything is connected, let’s have an epilogue instead of an epigraph. In my end is my beginning.

    There is no intensity of love or feeling that does not involve the risk of crippling hurt. It is a duty to take this risk, to love and feel without defense or reserve.
    William S. Burroughs, Letter to Jack Kerouac, from Lima, Peru, May 24th, 1954

  • Allen Jones: Pulling the Trigger

    When it comes to veteran rock journalists, few could lay more genuine claim to the title than Allan Jones. After joining Melody Maker as cub reporter in 1974, with no previous writing experience, but an application letter which concluded: ‘Melody Maker needs a bullet up its arse. I’m the gun – pull the trigger’, he rose to editing the magazine ten year later. On leaving the fabled inky at the height of the excesses of Brit Pop – about which he was less than enthusiastic – he founded and edited Uncut, providing a British-based forum for the emerging Americana/New Country scene. Now in semi-retirement, he has produced two volumes of rock’n’roll anecdotage – 2017’s Can’t Stand Up for Falling Down, and the recently published Too Late To Stop Now. Des Traynor caught up with him to discuss these and sundry other matters at last year’s Kilkenny Rhythm’n’Roots Festival (a.k.a. ‘the best little weekend music festival in Ireland – and the known universe’), now celebrating its 25th anniversary.

    It seems like there are more lengthy pieces in this book than the last one?

    Yeah, partly due to the circumstances in which it was written. The first book they were interested more in a compilation of the stories as they were already written, and I didn’t really think of elaborating on them. I just packed the book with as many stories as possible, which meant that a lot of them had to be shorter than they could have been. I started writing stories for the second one just at the beginning of the first lockdown. As I explained in the book, I thought people would be using their time productively – you know, learning the harpsichord or how to juggle or a foreign language, whatever.

    You didn’t want to emerge empty-handed?

    Yes, I mean, I could quite happily have spent lockdown getting stoned and watching Netflix, there’s loads of movies. I’ve got a link to the BFI player. So, endless hours of viewing available, and a vast record collection I could reacquaint myself with – but when I started writing the stories there was no inhibition in terms of words, so I tended to let the stories dictate the length they would be.

    Were you always confident about your own abilities as a writer and critic, or did you feel like maybe you were a bit out of your depth when you started?

    I had loads of opinions. I wouldn’t call them well-informed in a lot of instances, but they were opinions and I wasn’t shy about sharing them. That came out of an Art School background. If there was one thing that Art School taught me, it was that you had to stand up for your work and your opinions, and be unfazed by criticism. So I hadn’t realised that at the time, but it did give me a lot of confidence, more bravado and bluff really.

    But you could do the work?

    It was very simple. I wasn’t stupid. I’d read Melody Maker for years. I’d recognised the basic template of writing a 2000 word feature on somebody who’d just had a chart hit. You went in, you established the fact that they had a new single, let them tell you how it was different from the last single, how it was a step forward, how it was a new vision for the band or whatever. That usually took about five minutes. To liven things up, you’d hope that one of the band’s chart rivals had a new single out. So you’d ask them for an opinion on that, hopefully it would be a bit controversial, they’d slag it, which would give Ray Coleman the chance to put a big headline on the cover: ‘Sweet slam Rubettes’, or ‘Shawaddywaddy slam Glitter’. And all they would say, basically, was ‘I’m not really keen on it’, or ‘It’s not very good’. But that was enough: that stirred up a bit of controversy.

    The other thing I learned to get a band talking was to tell them that you’d heard a rumour that one of them was leaving, or doing a solo album. And sometimes they’d go: ‘How did you know that?’ ‘Oh, just a wild guess.’ But it would get them talking about band dynamics. But I found that, a band like Mud for instance, who were really sweet guys, they were used to churning out these interviews, very pat answers. They weren’t really engaged with the interview process. But if you stopped for a drink with them, after they got this contractual obligation out of the way, I’d start asking them about their early days: anecdotes galore! Fucking brilliant stuff! Les Gray: really a very funny man. So I started to introduce some of those anecdotes to change the shape of the copy that was expected. At first they’d just get cut out, ‘Stick to the news story that you’ve been sent to do.’ So I just started to fracture that as much as I could. And although I hadn’t read Lester Bangs or people like that, I had read Tom Wolfe, and I’d read Hunter S. Thompson. I had an idea of what the new journalism was: contravening traditional journalistic rules about not involving yourself in the story. So I started introducing myself as a character. At first, they were the bits that would be cut. But as I became more successful at that kind of integration, the opportunities opened up. I mean, at that time, I would accept anything they asked me to do. I’d never written before, and I had to learn how to write well and quickly. So ‘I’ll do anybody, just send me out, I’ll do it. I’ll come back and I’ll write it up and see where we go from there.’ And once as the readers’ responses started to come in…

    Lou Reed in 1977.

    You hit it off with Lou Reed?

    How extraordinary was that? I could have wept. I was such a huge, huge Velvets’ fan.

    Why do you think he took a shine to you?

    When I walked in, with some presence of mind, I pressed record on my tape recorder. And for twenty minutes there was just this torrent of abuse. His first words to me were, ‘Do you know your head is too big for your body?’ And ‘What toilet did Melody Maker find you in, faggot?’ It was effortless on his part. It just went off. But I was just laughing. This was the Lou Reed I wanted. I could feel the piece writing itself. And I thought even if he tells me to fuck off when he’s finished this tirade, I’m gonna have enough to write something.

    I then took a breath. And I just said something like, ‘Are you doing this because this is what you think I expected Lou Reed to be like? Or is this you being Lou Reed? Or are you just turning it on because, you know, you think this is how the public want to see you?’ And he thought about that, and he said, ‘Sit down’. So I sat down, and he said, ‘Drink?’, and pulled out a bottle of Johnnie Walker Red, the first of two that we got through that day. I think, because I had a sense of humour, and I wasn’t intimidated by him, he just liked it. And I wasn’t deferential to him, and I think he liked that as well.

    And at the end of the interview, when the chief of press came in, Lou said, ‘By the way, book Allan into the hotel I’m staying in in Sweden. You’re coming on the road with me.’ And I thought he’d forget about it, but come the next Tuesday, there was a fucking limo outside my flat, drove me to the airport, got on a flight to Stockholm, there was a car waiting at Stockholm airport, took me straight to the hotel, and Lou is waiting in the lobby, saying, ‘Where have you been?’

    What about Van Morrison, whose music you obviously love, but all your encounters with him were ‘difficult’.

    Well, the first one especially, it was backstage at Knebworth, not ideal. He’d just come off stage, in a sulky mood. In the end, I just said, ‘Fuck it, man. If you’re not gonna chat, you know, we’re wasting time. I’ve got things to do, you’ve got things to do, I’m gonna leave.’ I was fuming, absolutely fuming. But I must say it never dented my admiration or love for his work. His work transcends any personal faults that he has, and to this day it does.

    He is a paranoid fucker.

    He’s always been like that. People who know him better than I would will trace it back to the way he was treated in the early part of his career. So comprehensively ripped off that he just hates the music business, which has offered him such success. So I can understand that level of bitterness. But five minutes in the presence of virtually anything that Van’s recorded, and any kind of negative thoughts that I have about him as a person  immediately evaporate. I saw four gigs over three months, that they played just after COVID, at the Palladium, Hampton Court, a small Dingwall’s gig he did, and then at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. And he was just incredible each time, absolutely astonishing.

    Do you think that there’s a lot of compromise in reviewing now, that rock journalism has become an extension of PR?

    Well, I think that is true to a certain extent: it’s certainly not the kind of confrontational journalism that I became attached to. Also, the idea that the writer as a character becomes involved in the story isn’t much encouraged, it seems to me, from current reading of Mojo or Uncut. There seems to be a greater deference to artists these days.

    Are there any younger writers now that you particularly like?

    I don’t read so much that I could say. But here’s a point that addresses your thinking about the PR nature of it, and the way the writing has changed since my days. I can read a whole issue of Uncut, and if it didn’t have byline names on the page, I wouldn’t really know who had written it. They really are quite interchangeable. There is a template that everybody adheres to. It’s not compromising the features, which are good in themselves. But what I miss is an individual, indeed, an idiosyncratic, voice. It’s just not there. However, there’s a writer in Uncut called Damian Love, who I really, really like – probably because his taste and mine are  really similar. And another writer who doesn’t appear as much as he should in Uncut, because he’s got a separate career as a political commentator and broadcaster is Andrew Mueller, who has written a couple of very, very good books – one about his life as a political foreign correspondent, and the other a memoir of his career as a music journalist, including coming over from Australia.

    I really enjoyed the books, not just in terms of subject matter, but because they are so funny, especially the way you often describe things in exaggerated terms.

    Well, I think that came out of not having any musical training and not knowing anything about musical theory. So I can’t break down a piece of music into something well informed about the actual musical content like, you know, Richard Williams was able to do, in the old Melody Maker.

    Did you ever try learning an instrument, or playing?

    No. At school – first year, comprehensive – we had to do music as a subject, and apparently to get good grades in that exam you had to play an instrument. And it wasn’t the kind of school where you wanted to be seen carrying a violin. So I thought: what comes in something square that looks like it’s a suitcase? So I ended up supposedly learning the trumpet. But when I went to the first lesson and I just couldn’t a noise out of the fucking thing. I was just blowing and blowing, I believe so hard that I burst a blood vessel in my nose and had to be taken to hospital. So I never went back for the second lesson.

    The end of your musical career.

    Indeed.

    And with that ripping yarn, so characteristic of the man, he’s off for a fun-filled afternoon with his old mucker, B.P. Fallon.

    Too Late To Stop Now: More Rock’n’Roll War Stories was published by Bloomsbury, on May 25th. Available in all good book shops.

  • My Team / Your Team

    In the first part of his essay concerning his enduring lifelong fandom of Manchester City FC, and the club’s current owners’ wealth vis-á-vis his left-wing politics, Desmond Traynor recounts his origin story as a supporter of the club, and offers a critique of the Irish soccer commentariat’s biased attitude to City’s success.

    After many years in which the world has afforded me many experiences, what I know most surely in the long run about morality and obligations, I owe to football.
    Albert Camus, article in Racing Universitaire Algerios club’s alumni magazine (1957)

    Looking back, I can see that my attraction in starting to support Manchester City F.C. in 1968, at the age of seven, was perhaps the first indication of a budding contrarianism. Not that I had enough self-consciousness at the time to recognise it as such. What is interesting about certain decisions one makes as a child, adolescent, and even as a young adult, is that they are usually made prior to one having the full story, about oneself or others, or in general about this thing we call Life – if, indeed we ever get the full story. They tend to be instinctual, or even pre-cognitive, and so revealing of particular bedrock character traits in a still-forming personality. However, lest we kick off on the wrong foot, please note that I have not bestowed this questionable epithet on myself; rather, it has been attached to me by others. I do not necessarily think of myself as a contrarian, or even contrary. I just like different things than other people do, or have different reasons for liking the same things that other people also like. Which, obviously, could be said of anyone else’s idiosyncratic likes and dislikes. It’s called Taste, and there is no accounting for it – good or bad.

    The origin story runs like this: 1968 was the year Manchester United won the European Cup, and almost everyone in Ireland who was not already a fan of that club became one. They captured the floating voters. I thought to myself: ‘Screw this for a game of soldiers, I’ll be a Manchester City fan’. This was not merely, or only, evidence of a latent, wilful desire to be atypical or antagonistic, or the product of a childish caprice: we had a good side then, and won the League that same year, the F.A. Cup the following season, and the European Cup Winners’ Cup and the League Cup in the 1969/70 campaign. The team was full of gifted players, heroes whose magical names rolled off the tongue, which still resonate today (among City fans, at any rate): Francis Lee, Mike Summerbee, Neil Young (no, not that one!), Tony Book, Joe Corrigan. Best of all was Colin Bell, one of the greatest midfield playmakers England has ever produced. Shrewd, languid, possessed of incredible stamina (his nickname was Nijinsky – after the racehorse, although ballet dancers require considerable stamina too), he could run box to box, but he didn’t always need to, as he could pick out a defence-shredding pass from forty yards. He was the definition of ‘silky skills’. Such was my infatuation that, as a fledgling player, I modelled myself on his example. I even persuaded my mother to sew a number 8 onto the back of my boyhood City jersey, in his honour. (Speaking of jerseys, another reason for my plumping for City was that I preferred the sky blue they wore to the red sported by the Red Devils.) Bell’s career was cut short in November 1975 when, at the age of 29, his right knee was severely injured in a challenge by Manchester United’s captain Martin Buchan, during a League Cup derby at Maine Road.

    But then, apart from winning the League Cup in 1976 with a victory over Newcastle United at Wembley, we had a bad forty years or so at the office, with mid-table mediocrity gradually giving way to spells in the old Second Division (1983–1985, 1987–1989, 1996–1998, 1999–2000 and 2001–2002), yo-yoing between the top flight and what is now the Championship. We even endured the ignominy of being relegated to Division 3 for a year in 1998–1999 – as chronicled by Mark Hodkinson in a weekly column for The Times, later collected together in his book Blue Moon: Down Among The Dead Men With Manchester City (2011). Thus did the phrase ‘long-suffering’ come to be applied whenever City fans were spoken of by those of other allegiances. Hell, we even bestowed it on ourselves, often adding the equally derisive ‘typical Citeh’. In some unfathomably fatalistic way, it seemed I had been destined to support this club: its ethos suited the wry resignation of my ‘What can you do about it?’ temperament, with early promise curdling in to the predictable compromises of average adult living.

    Colin Bell b. 1946,

    City of Lost Souls

    All that has changed now, of course. ‘When City are great again…’ wrote Mancunian music critic and lifelong City fan Paul Morley, in a short article titled ‘City of Lost Souls’ (Arena, November 1998), and lo it has come to pass. In August 2008, City were purchased by the Abu Dhabi United Group, and massive investment ensued – not only in transfer spend on players, but on infrastructure, the youth academy, and the regeneration of east Manchester with facilities for the local community. Gradually, results began to match the upturn in player and managerial quality. 2011 saw City secure their first trophy in thirty-five years, with a 1-0 win over Stoke City in the FA Cup final. 2012 brought our first League (by then Premiership) title in forty-four years, with the famous two goals in injury time against relegation threatened Queens Park Rangers to turn a 1-2 deficit into a 3-2 victory in the last minute, thus beating United into second place on goal difference (having already thrown down a marker by thrashing them 6-1 at Old Trafford earlier in the season). Every City fan remembers where they were at 93:20 on that sunny Sunday afternoon in May, otherwise known as the ‘Agüeroooo!’ moment. Me, I kept watching replays of Sergio’s winning goal for a week afterwards, in an effort to make sure that I hadn’t developed mild psychosis and entered an alternative reality. It confirmed for me that football provided the last vestiges of Greek drama in contemporary society, except that this was aleatoric theatre – a pop-up, if you will – for if you wrote it as fiction no one would suspend disbelief at this patently manufactured deus ex machina finale. Just when we thought it was going to be another case of ‘Typical City’, we emerged into a bright new sky blue dawn. The second Golden Era, it seemed, was well underway.

    City won the Premiership again in 2013–14 under Manuel Pellegrini, who had replaced Roberto Mancini, the man who had presided over the beginnings of our historic resurgence. The arrival of tactician extraordinaire Pep Guardiola as coach in 2016 signalled the start of a period of sustained success for the club. City have won five out of a possible six Premiership titles between the 2017–18 and 2022–23 seasons, only finishing second behind Liverpool in 2019–20. 2018–19 saw City complete an unprecedented domestic treble of English men’s titles – the Premiership, F.A. Cup and League Cup. Add in a rake of League Cups over the same period, and the rosy picture is almost complete. But 2022–23 turned out to be the greatest season in our club’s history, as we not only won our third consecutive Premier League title, but also the F.A. Cup final against old foes Manchester United, and the long-awaited supposed Holy Grail, our first European Champions League Cup, in a final versus Inter Milan (incidentally, my favourite Italian team – almost a win-win situation, if there is such a thing), thereby achieving a rare feat – the continental treble.

    Which just goes to show: if you wait long enough, everything comes around.

    Envy and Ire

    Unsurprisingly, the influx of such vast resources, and the on-field dominance it has brought, has aroused the envy and ire of supporters of other clubs. (I hesitate to use the term ‘rivals’, as it suggests that there are teams capable of challenging us on a consistent basis; in this case, can we settle on ‘competitors’ as the designation least offensive to all parties?) This discontent at City’s serial successes is exacerbated by a sense of injustice, as accusations of City’s breaching of both UEFA’s and the English Football Association’s Financial Fair Play rules fuel feelings that the club has bought its way to the top, due to the deep pockets of its owners and their skulduggery in the dark arts of creative accounting. Furthermore, there is the implication that because said proprietors are one of the ruling families of the United Arab Emirates, and the U.A.E.’s human rights record is less than pristine, then City’s wealth is tainted and its fans are hypocrites. Friends and acquaintances have asked me, often goadingly: how I can profess to be any kind of socialist and yet continue to support a team which represents the triumph of monied elitism? What kind of cognitive dissonance is involved in advocating for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against apartheid Israel, when migrant workers are routinely treated appallingly in Abu Dhabi, and reports circulate of government critics of the U.A.E.’s repressive regime being imprisoned and tortured? Am I ultra-selective in the causes I choose to espouse? One of the things this essay is, is an attempt to address, and hopefully explain – if not quite reconcile – some of these apparent contradictions.

    This air of grievance is felt especially acutely in Ireland. There is a sketch by comedy trio Foil, Arms and Hog, where an applicant for Irish citizenship is asked a catalogue of questions as a test of knowledge for eligibility. One of the queries goes: ‘What are the two main religions in Ireland?’ Our candidate doesn’t miss a beat, responding with the quip, ‘Manchester United and Liverpool’.

    While there are devout members of other denominations – for example, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Leeds, Everton, Aston Villa and West Ham all enjoy healthy fanbases on these shores, and I have even met the odd adherent of exquisitely eccentric sects like Ipswich Town and Stoke City – the overwhelming majority of Irish soccer fandom of English clubs is comprised of faithful followers of either United or Liverpool. To be sure, there are often sound reasons for such gargantuan support, such as family tradition or connections with one or other of the clubs, or the presence of many Irish players or players of Irish extraction in current or previous squads. Yet, just as often, Irish people attach themselves to an English club for motives which are almost entirely arbitrary – the colour of a jersey or the first game they ever saw or a favourite player. (This is true of sporting loyalties, including football, everywhere. Although a Mancunian born and bred, qualified lawyer and professional investigative sports journalist David Conn, while hailing from a predominantly United family, became a City fan almost by accident, rather than orneriness: when he was six years old, and asked to choose between the two local clubs, he looked at their respective badges – United’s a red devil with horns, City’s a rose beneath a ship – and opted for light blue. Incidentally, Conn’s Richer Than God: Manchester City, Modern Football and Growing Up (2012) remains one of the best books about football ever written – and not just for City fans – combining as it does a forensic trawl through City’s financial dealings with the changing attitudes and mixed emotions of a lifelong fan witnessing the monetisation of the modern game. In many ways, my own effort here is just a pale imitation of Conn’s achievement, albeit from an Irish fan’s perspective.)

    But the most common explanation for the popularity of Liverpool and Manchester United in Ireland is, I submit, because both clubs were, in the past, serial winners, just as City have become today. Many of these could be termed ‘legacy fans’ (the same is true of Arsenal, Chelsea and Leeds) – relics of when their clubs were much more successful, which was when they started supporting them. It’s easy to back a winner, and there is safety – and solidarity – in numbers. The herd instinct kicks in. This is why one notices a more than average quota of fair-weather fans among their number. When their team of choice hit a bad run of form, or their trophy haul is depleted, you will hear all kinds of excuses for slackening of interest, and the declaration ‘The game is gone for me’ because of the deleterious influence of floods of cash, or the introduction of VAR, or the corruption of governing bodies, or whatever.

    Yet, if I had a penny for every ardent United or Liverpool fan I’ve ever met, and inquired of ‘Have you ever been to Old Trafford / Anfield?’, and drawn a blank – well, I would have a lot more pennies than I do today. For, as Paul Morley put it in his piece mentioned above: ‘To support United is too easy. It’s convenience supporting. It makes life too easy. There is no challenge. It is a cowardly form of escapism, a sell-out to the forces of evil…to support them is heroism in a can.’ Since the wheel of fortune has spun kindly in the direction of what legendary former United manager Sir Alex Fergusson once called their ‘noisy neighbours’, doubtless many United fans now feel exactly the same way about City. In United’s glory days, there used to be a loose coalition of fans of many other clubs congealed around the banner of ‘ABU’: Anyone But United. Nowadays, it has been supplanted by the amended acronym, ‘ABC’: Anyone But City. Fans of every club are inclined to partisan paranoia when they feel things are not going their way. But here’s the twist: there are far more Liverpool and Manchester United fans in Ireland than City fans. Is it any wonder that we City fans sometimes feel like a persecuted minority? And all for the crime of playing exciting, entertaining football – at a level rarely, if ever, seen before.

    Etihad Stadium, Manchester.

    Anti-City Bias

    This anti-City bias is not confined to the foot soldiers of the red hordes (as I tend to think of the innumerable fans of these two clubs found in evidence hereabouts – rather than envisioning groups of radical revolutionaries huddled under beds around the country), but is also noticeably visible and voluble among the many high priests of their persuasion present in the Irish soccer media – hardly surprising when one realises that the majority of sports reporters and analysts here are drawn from the ranks of one or the other red menace. Clearly, fans of other clubs, and their public representatives, frequently hate on us too. But the gross preponderance of Reds’ affiliates in the make-up of the national football commentariat is not difficult to account for: if Ireland as a nation has large contingents of Liverpool and United fans, then print and broadcast media – dependent as they are on advertising revenue – will broadly pander to and reflect the views of that massive target audience which, in a classic case of vicious circle marketing, comprises a large section of its readership and viewership.

    It is difficult to delineate this prejudice without mentioning some names. Certainly, the old guard were dead against us, with Eamon Dunphy publicly venting his dislike of ‘the City project’ when he was a freelance contributor on RTE television. Presenters such as Joanne Cantwell regularly goaded him on. But then, he used to play for Manchester United.

    Of the current crop, Ken Early’s latent loyalties are easily identifiable from his Irish Times article headlined ‘Manchester City’s dominance a reminder the rich always get their way’ (20/01/22). Among many contentious statements contained therein, a pair of standouts were, ‘Most of us don’t watch football for technical quality or tactical intrigue. We’re watching because we want to feel something – and the risk of defeat adds savour to the joy of victory’, which he then linked to the ludicrous claim, ‘Look at the joy Manchester United have given the world these last several years. Lurching from crisis to crisis, they continue to be more watchable than City’s vastly superior team.’ The first is an appalling admission from a paid pundit, whose job it is to keep abreast of the strategic evolution of the game. Besides which, Manchester City still and always will be beatable – just like any other team – and watching them gives rise to a great variety of emotions in me, and other City fans. Plus, discerning neutrals can and do admire the precision of a well-executed game plan which City provide. As for the second, even diehard but cleareyed United fans know it is not true. They would acknowledge that United have for some time – since the retirement of Sir Alex – been a mismanaged laughing stock, which is why many of them have flocked to green-and-gold wearing protest club, Newton Heath. While there may be considerable schadenfreude to be derived by fans of other clubs in watching United’s steady decline into a comedic soap opera, they are surely no longer heading to Old Trafford to witness object lessons in how the Beautiful Game should be played. At the time of Early’s salvo, I wrote a fulsome rebuttal to the Letters page of the IT which was not, as was only to be expected, selected for publication. I subsequently penned a one sentence rejoinder, quoting his ‘more watchable’ assertion, which did see the light of day. It simply read: ‘Would it be impertinent to inquire as to what (red) planet he is living on?’

    Meanwhile, the Sunday Independent is a virtual Liverpool FC fanzine, platforming as it does the Scouse-loving triumvirate of Dion Fanning, Eamonn Sweeney, and Declan Lynch.

    Of the three, Fanning is the most measured and fact-based (evidently qualities not much valued at the Sindo, as his work is now more often to be found in the pages of the Irish Examiner, and he has been involved with podcasts for Joe.ie and The Currency.ie) in his criticisms. But his allegiances are easily discerned from a piece like the one headlined ‘A different Liverpool story in a parallel universe’, with standfirst ‘Liverpool’s golden age is ending but is it any consolation if one day they discover they were cheated?’ (The Irish Examiner, April Fool’s Day, 2023). Ineluctably, he highlights that City have been ‘charged by the Premier League with 115 breaches of financial regulations’, and refers to claims that City have ‘used shadow contracts to pay players’. However, he fails to address the argument that such ‘artificial rules’ are designed to protect the existing elite, other than to counter that ‘most rules in sport are absurd and all clubs in the Premier League agreed to these ones.’ Nor does he mention that City had since won their appeal against UEFA at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, for the alleged use of such shadow contracts, and for the alleged hiding of owner investment as sponsorship money – even if the Premier League charges have still to be answered. In fairness, Fanning could not have known at that point that Rui Pinto, the hacker who made public his ‘Football Leaks’ revelations, which were subsequently covered by German news magazine Der Spiegel, and led to the initial UEFA two-year ban on European competition for City, would be sentenced to a four-year suspended prison term for his crimes, including extortion, in September 2023.

    Sweeney is a different case entirely, as he is the source of the most vicious and sustained attacks on Manchester City in this Mediahaus organ. A brief selection of sample headlines from recent years will suffice to illustrate his naked animosity: ‘Looks like Guardiola’s best days are in the past’ (10/11/2019) (that one wore well); ‘Man City’s manager is the figurehead for an organisation which represents all that stinks about modern sport’, the intro of which reads ‘Manchester City are football’s most despicable club and Pep Guardiola its most despicable manager’ (18/07/2020); ‘Soulless City will win title, but Liverpool have hearts and minds of fans’ (19/12/2021); ‘A classless man in charge of a classless club run by classless people’ (22/05/2022); ‘Ugly truth behind the success of City’ (29/04/2023). Without parsing each article word for word, take my word for it that, in any other context – and undoubtedly if it were directed against his preferred Liverpool or many others’ preferred Manchester United – his bile would be widely regarded as libellous incitement to hatred.

    As for Hot Press alumnus Lynch, one is never quite sure as to what extent his tongue is firmly in his cheek or how much he actually means it (probably some weird admixture of the two), due to his unremitting deployment of ironic overstatement. In ‘Big Money meets Big Football meets Big Law’ (26/05/2019), having bemoaned the evils of leveraged buy-outs of clubs by ‘rich-guys-with-no-money’, he continues: ‘Now we’ve got rich-guys-with-money, indeed the problem with the rich guys who own City is not just that they are considerably richer than the rich guys who own Liverpool or Spurs, they are limitlessly rich as only oil-rich countries can be, they are ludicrously, crushingly rich. And still… still they’re in trouble with UEFA, accused of breaking rules in relation to Financial Fair Play.’ As though rich-guys-with-no-money are somehow preferrable to rich-guys-with-money. He endeavours to bolster his case by arguing, ‘One is reminded of the fact that football of the American kind is considered so important, it is rigged like some socialist experiment’, when it could just as easily be framed as being so important that it is rigged like a capitalist experiment – like the rest of U.S. society. By-the-by, he concludes that week’s column with analysis which lays the blame for Brexit firmly at Jeremy Corbyn’s door, a good indication of where his ideological sympathies lie.  This is what passes for informed, astute political commentary in the reputed highest-circulation Irish Sunday newspaper. In ‘Don’t mention the war: filthy rich Manchester City were once hilarious losers just like Basil Fawlty’ (11/02/2023) he states: ‘There are complexities within this story of the Premier League charging Manchester City with breaking 115 financial fair play rules…But there are great simplicities to the case too, the most obvious of which is this: I don’t know any fans of Manchester City. I know fans of Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Aston Villa, Everton, Leeds United and West Ham. I even know a Nottingham Forest fan. But I don’t know any fans of Manchester City.’ Maybe Lynch should get out more. He is welcome to attend one of the triweekly meetings of the City Supporters Club – Dublin Branch (of which more anon) to check out how many City fans there really are hiding in plain sight in his midst. But it is in the terseness of his tweets that Lynch gives himself revealing free reign: ‘City are not a good side’ is a gnomically reiterated mantra of his; while ‘Would love to see the Arsenal winning the league obvs, yet I fear City* have aimed for a narrow win this season to maintain the illusion that the competitive structure hasn’t been wrecked by their incessant, hydra-headed cheating’ (8/05/2023); ‘Interesting to see comments about the Arsenal ‘bottling’ it from football writers who “bottle” the mention of those 115 charges against Man City* every day of the week’ (18/04/2023); and ‘No, the biggest bottle in history is the abject failure of so many English journalists and broadcasters to even mention that City* are facing 115 charges of cheating’ (15/05/2023) enter the realms of conspiracy theory nonsense. (It took a while for me to figure out why Lynch habitually places an asterisk after every obsessive mention of City, but eventually Merriam-Webster furnished what I presume is the answer: ‘the character * thought of as being appended to something (such as an athletic accomplishment included in a record book) typically in order to indicate that there is a limiting fact or consideration which makes that thing less important or impressive than it would otherwise be.’

    John Aldridge

    John Aldridge

        The Sunday World features a ghost-written column by ex-Liverpool and Republic of Ireland stalwart John Aldridge. Week in week out, in plain man’s language, he trumpets Liverpool’s cause: the reason they are not able to compete is City’s perfidy. He is quoted in an interview with Kevin Palmer headlined, ‘It’s time to hammer Man City if they are found guilty’ (9/02/2023): ‘Everyone knows this has gone on from day one. They have done well to get away with it for so long. We will have to see what comes out in the wash and give themselves a chance to prove their innocence.’ Was no subeditor at the SW alive to the patent contradiction covered in the space of those three short sentences? In his own ventriloquised voice, in ‘Surprise guys can claim a Champions League spot’, he tells his red readership, ‘As I’ve mentioned in my Sunday World column, Manchester City’s dominance at the top of the Premier League table is a big problem for the English game, as interest will wane if they win the title by a mile every year’ (24/9/2023). Even if City have succeeded by nefarious means, is that even true? The Bundesliga attracts more than fans of serial winners Bayern Munich (eleven consecutive titles, and counting).

    But perhaps the most egregious example of anti-City vilification comes courtesy of Miguel Delaney, who works for the London Independent but is of part-Irish extraction, and a known Liverpool aficionado. (He claims to support one Irish club and one Spanish club, but no Premiership club) Delaney tends to adopt the moral high ground, focusing more on the U.A.E.’s campaign of ‘sportswashing’ – an attempt to render their human rights abuses more palatable to the world – rather than on the resources the owners’ wealth places at City’s disposal. I will tackle these problems in due course, but for now, here is a smattering of Delaney’s critique. In his consideration of City’s 2023 title win, headlined, ‘Five titles in six years: Are Manchester City destroying the Premier League?’ over a standfirst of ‘Pep Guardiola has been given limitless funds to create the perfect team in laboratory conditions, and the result has been an almost total eradication of competition at the top of the Premier League’ (22/05/2023), he declares, ‘City have brutalised the very idea of sporting competition. There’s been no tension. There’s been no drama’, going on to assert, ludicrously, ‘That has meant there haven’t been any real memorable moments, beyond some great goals and the repeated image of Haaland and De Bruyne tearing at goal.’ Those images were, precisely, memorable moments. He concludes with, ‘The reality is all of City’s success is ultimately explained by the fact they are a state project.’ Prior to that, writing in his newsletter (17/05/2023) in the wake of City’s 4-0 win over European giants Real Madrid in the Champions League semi-final, second-leg at The Ethiad (a game I was lucky enough to attend), Delaney revealed that ‘sources within the game (and with Delaney, it is always unnamed ‘sources within the game’) are growing concerned with how City are brushing all before them aside.’ It is little wonder that Declan Lynch has commended Delaney on X (formerly Twitter), praising him for ‘doing God’s own work’. However, while other top clubs may be aggravated by City’s dominance, it is fair to say that City fans are rejoicing in it.

    It might be a good idea if all those engaged in public discourse around football in Ireland were required to declare their interests before being allowed to comment. On second thoughts, perhaps there is no need for this measure as, as has been demonstrated, many of them already do this freely, yet their outpourings are not met with the requisite scepticism – because they are preaching to the converted, and their favouritism is plain for all to see.

    In Part II Desmond Traynor continues his analysis of the financial and political morality of top flight English soccer, and attempts several rebuttals of the frequently voiced criticisms of Manchester City’s current success.

  • My Team / Your Team III

    In the final part of his essay on the joys and woes of being an Irish Manchester City fan, Desmond Traynor delves into psychological and emotional reasons for sustaining sporting allegiances, through thick and thin.

    Even if nothing in the foregoing fact-based rant convinces City-sceptics, it is not the main plank of my justification for my continuing City fandom. Facts don’t care about your feelings; but, equally, feelings don’t care about the facts. Support for City, or any sporting association, is an unchanging and unchallengeable tribal loyalty – it is instinctual. Economics is science, albeit it a dismal one – it aspires to rationality. These impulses speak to very different parts of our nature as human beings. Despite the discipline designation ‘Political Science’, politics is where instinct and reason try to intersect – and usually fail. The personal is political; but the political is also personal. My love for City is emotional – like the feelings of fans of any other sports club – and I will present the facts to suit my feelings as much as they do, because I love every single bedbug in the mattress I’ve chosen to lie on as much as they love whatever bloodsuckers are infesting theirs.

    My hero Michel de Montaigne wrote: ‘Mistrust a man who takes games too seriously; it means he doesn’t take life seriously enough.’ Perhaps this is true. But, then, it means there are an awful lot of people (and not only men) who don’t take life seriously enough – myself included. Noam Chomsky goes further in his criticism of sport. In one interview in his book Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1988), the linguist and social commentator asserted that sport is one of the means by which capitalist ‘special interests’ that dominate government control public opinion, providing a distraction from more important and meaningful matters, after the manner of Roman ‘Bread and Circuses’ (food and entertainment) to mollify the unwashed masses. However, it is worth noting that Chomsky’s analysis was formulated before English football, as the late lynchpin of Manchester musical legends The Fall and lifelong City fan, Mark E. Smith, put it, ‘went middle class’, with all-seater stadiums replacing the terraces of old because of health and safety concerns following several crowd disasters at matches, the formation of the Premiership to replace the League and the Champions League to replace the European Cup, and the sale of television rights to the highest bidder (predominantly Rupert Murdoch’s Sky TV) – all accompanied by the concomitant rise in ticket prices to the exorbitant levels of today. What was once a boozy day out for a bunch of lads is now fireside family entertainment, or an adventure in corporate hospitality. Granted, many of those enjoying the Thatcherite dream of ‘everyone his own home-owning, sole-trading, small business operating entrepreneur’ middle-class heaven may have sprung from working-class backgrounds, but they could have chosen to spend their new found disposable income elsewhere.

    Besides which, such reductive critiques ignore the sublimatory social functions of sport. After all, battling each other on a soccer pitch, even in a particularly dirty game, is better than waging all-out war between countries. For example, for many nationals of both nations, England’s 4-2 victory over West Germany in the 1966 World Cup final signalled the real end of the Second World War. (It doesn’t always work, of course: football as metaphor for war can occasionally turn into actual war. As every schoolboy knows, the immediate casus belli for the so-called 1969 ‘Soccer War’ between El Salvador and Honduras was the two-legged World Cup qualifier and subsequent play-off the two countries played against each other, in preparation of the 1970 World Cup hosted by Mexico. But, in truth, longstanding tensions already existed between these two small and very poor Central American countries. For more than a century they had been accumulating reasons to distrust one another. Each had always served as the magical explanation for the other’s problems. Hondurans have no work? Because Salvadorans come and take their jobs. Salvadorans are hungry? Because Hondurans mistreat them. Both countries believed their neighbour was the enemy, and the relentless military dictatorships of each, forged at a U.S. factory called the School of the Americas, did all they could to perpetuate the error. El Salvador suffered about 900 mostly civilian dead. Honduras lost 250 combat troops and over 2,000 civilians during the four-day war.) Here, I cannot help but succumb to the temptation to quote one of former Liverpool manager (from 1959 to 1974), the late, great Bill Shankly’s most famous pronouncements: ‘Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.’

    Football is a serious business, then, for many. But what differentiates City fans from those of sundry other clubs, in my opinion, is that we retain an ability to see the funny side, to laugh at ourselves. Apart from their ubiquity, my other chief gripe against supporters of Liverpool and Manchester United is their ingrained sense of entitlement. They take it very seriously. Despite City’s accumulating successes over the past ten years, I cannot as yet detect the slightest note of triumphalism among our fanbase. Sure, we like to indulge in ‘the bants’ (as it is abbreviated) as much as the next person with a strong affiliation, a practice posh people call ‘schadenfreude’ but which is known locally by the more colloquial term ‘slagging’. While this practice can degenerate into mere trolling, that is largely a matter of perspective, as to how seriously one takes the banter. Where is the line, and when does it get crossed? Irish practitioners of the two major English footballing religions seem especially quick to take offence. But then, they are fundamentalists, who follow the one true faith. If you are looking for an illustration of real, blatant, vicious trolling, there used to be a banner United fans would unfurl across the Stretford End at Old Trafford for every single home match, in the form of a mock digital clock, a wind-up to commemorate the number of years their cross-town neighbours – us – had not won a trophy. This ticking Date/Time reminder was finally retired in 2011, with the notch stuck between 34 and 35, after we lifted the FA Cup v Stoke.

    Manchester City supporters invade the pitch following their 2011–12 Premier League title victory.

    Underhand Spying

    Worse than trolling was stealthy, underhand spying, as exemplified by Liverpool FC employees allegedly hacking into City’s scouting platform in 2013, to gain access to its database, resulting in an out-of-court settlement of £1m being paid by Liverpool to Manchester City – without any admission of guilt. Worse than that again was the attack by Liverpool supporters on the Manchester City team coach in 2018 (‘Let’s show them what money can’t buy’ ran the rabble-rousing rallying cry on their social media groups) as it made its way to Anfield for the Champions League quarter final first leg. Bottles, coins, flares and cans were thrown by home fans, rendering the City bus ‘unusable’ for the return journey. All the while the Liverpool Metropolitan Constabulary – who publicised the route the bus would take in advance – were noticeably uninterested in intervening in any potential standoff between supporters of either club, or in bringing any of the perpetrators of this criminal activity to justice. Liverpool FA were subsequently fined a paltry £20,000 by UEFA on foot of the incident.

    City was, and is, a club with a heart and a sense of humour, which is often turned on itself for good measure. They say we have ‘no history’. But every football club in existence has a history, from Grimsby Town to Leyton Orient to Wycombe Wanderers to your local GAA Under-15s squad. What they really mean is, ‘you have no history of winning big, important competitions’ – an approach curiously akin to the ‘great men’ methodology of historiography. Yet, as outlined above, even that is not true either, as we have won League titles and Cups in the past. As with most history, it all depends on how far back you want to go. Granted, no matter how far into the distant past you care to venture, until recently we’ve had no history in the European Cup/Champions League, as they are constantly fond of reminding us. So what? Neither have Arsenal or Spurs or Newcastle United. Nor Grimsby.

    We are an eccentric club, to be sure, with a neat line in self-deprecation – something I didn’t know when I became a devotee aged seven, but which I find is congruent with my personality now. Helen Turner, a flower-seller outside Manchester Royal Infirmary, would sit in the front rows of the North Stand and offer Joe Corrigan a sprig of lucky heather before every game, and then thunder her bell every time City won a corner. In 1978 the club bought Kaziu Deyna, the Polish World Cup captain, for a consignment of toasters and fridges, a deal arranged by electrical goods magnate and megalomaniac chairman Peter Swales. Someone once stumbled onto the away terrace at West Brom with an inflatable banana and, within weeks, there were thousands of them at every game, joined by paddling pools, crocodiles and fried eggs. (Such playthings have long since been banned by the F.A. as a health & safety hazard. It’s not the same in an all-seater stadium anyway.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5RtnXcQ_lw

    Poznan

    Then there is our adoption of the Poznan, a celebratory dance which involves supporters turning their backs to the pitch, linking arms and jumping up and down while singing favourite songs or chanting in unison. It all began in 2010, when City were playing in the same Europa League group as Polish side Lech Poznan, who came to the City of Manchester Stadium on October 21st of that year. Throughout the game the Poznan fans impressed with their noise, organisation and creativity. While City fans were initially unimpressed with the backs-turned bounce, they were gradually won over and soon appropriated it as a mark of respect. The Poznan supporters are still widely thought to be among the best away fans ever to have visited Eastlands. We acknowledge the debt by retaining the name. Now we ‘break out the Poznan’ when we score, or simply when we are dominating play. The explanation – if one is needed – seems to be that it is done in order to taunt the opposing side, as much as to say, ‘Our team is so good that we don’t even need to watch what is happening: we know we’ll win.’

    If more evidence is needed that nothing is quite as appealing to City fans as the irreverent and the absurd, consider some of our oldest terrace chants. For example, ‘We never win at home and we never win away/We lost last week and we lost today/We don’t give a fuck/’Cos we’re all pissed up/MCFC OK’ did sterling service when we were ‘down among the dead men’. Another song of denial, Camusian in its sense of existential dread, was, ‘We are not, we’re not really here/We are not, we’re not really here/Just like the fans of the Invisible man/We’re not really here’ (sung to the tune of ‘We Shall Not Be Moved’). Various myths circulate about the origin of this one. Some say it began at Luton Town in the 1980s, when away fans were banned, while others claim it was a reaction to media claims that City had no fans. Another story is that the City fans who defied the ban on away fans at Millwall’s notorious Den began singing it after managing to sneak into the ground – although it is unlikely anyone who did that would survive to tell the tale. At first it was a fitting reflection on the woes and misfortune of the old City, a big club that found itself wallowing in the murky depths of English football. But in the last ten years it has metamorphosed into an ode to hope and joy, an expression of incredulity at the transformation wrought at the club by Sheikh Mansour’s takeover. Again, equally an expression of chronic insecurity as an affirmation of fragile or grounded identity, there is, ‘I’m City till I die/I’m City till I die/I know I am/I’m sure I am/I’m City till I die.’ Like a character from Samuel Beckett’s work, the verbal reiteration might just make it true, even if you’re not so sure. Then there is our official club anthem, the Rodgers and Hart standard, ‘Blue Moon’. With its narrative trajectory over three short verses and a bridge from the yearning loneliness of searching for ‘Someone I really could care for’ to finding ‘The only one my arms will hold’ and the Blue Moon turning to gold, it would seem perfectly to encapsulate City’s recent journey – although it was adopted as long ago as 1989. The fact that the first verse is sung as a slow-tempo forlorn ballad and the second verse speeded up to the breakneck pace of hardcore punk adds to the sense that it represents a reversal of fortunes.

    Finally, mention must be made of that recurring two-word phrase which has become a byword among City fans for the club’s travails: ‘Typical Citeh’. The Urban Dictionary sums it up well: ‘When Manchester City somehow mess up an easily winnable situation and everyone is disappointed but not surprised.’ We have never done it the easy way. Even the Agüero moment was ‘Typical Citeh’ after a fashion, although on that occasion we just about managed to win. It may have less currency now, yet it is part of the fabric of Manchester City, because it is living and breathing in every single one of the fans who can remember anything before 2010.

    Sadly, there is a feeling that, mixed in with all this hilarity, it was a product of a time when City had become a joke team. Fans of other clubs generally warmed to us, but there was a sense in which they were just patronising the lovable-losers. We were told we had a great sense of humour – a humour that was used, as so much humour is, to hide massive hurt – but secretly they were laughing at us, not with us. Well, no one is laughing now. Except City fans. They liked us when we were struggling. They don’t like us now that we are strong.

    Dublin Branch

    I have been a member of the Manchester City Supporters Club – Dublin Branch since 2011. Prior to that, I had thought I was ‘the only City fan in the village’. But the branch, founded in 1975, currently has 104 members, and there are other branches all over the country. A quick Google search helped me to unearth it – social media is useful for something. We meet every three weeks on a Monday evening in an upstairs room in a city centre pub. Apart from the social interaction, the branch is mainly a focal point for topping up one’s account and ordering match tickets – although, post-Covid, these functions have gradually shifted online. We travel to matches together, organise trips and social outings, yak about City. I enjoy the comradery. It is an egalitarian freemasonry – guys help relative strangers out, with lifts, loans, mortgages, that sort of thing, like any other mutual benefit society – with a conducive absence of petty politicking, where the only qualification for acceptance when you walk through the door is that you support City. (Liverpool-loving Declan Lynch is still welcome to visit, if only for research purposes.) You meet people from all walks of life, whom you might never encounter elsewhere. The brain surgeon mingles with the binman, the senior civil servant with the rank-and-file bank or post office clerk. Plus we have your usual quota of cops and taxi-drivers, your ex-cops who are now tax-drivers, or freelance ‘security consultants’. We have an accountant, a chef, and a postman (who used to be a car salesman). We even have déclassé, would-be literary intellectuals like myself. We are prepared for every eventuality.

    My feeling of welcome and at-homeness in the Supporters Club is all the more noteworthy because I am not, and have never been, a great joiner. Also, I tend to lack a competitive spirit. (Maybe I was more driven, once upon a time, but I can’t remember.) But I admire it in others – at least when there is something tangible at stake, be it as arbitrary as club affiliation, national pride, even individual will. As an inveterate observer, I am fascinated by people of action and ambition, probably because they seem to be animated by a force that I do not possess.

    In Crowds and Power (1960) Elias Canetti explored the recurring battle between individuality and the urge to lose ourselves in crowds. He writes:

    A crowd isn’t just a large number of people – it’s a mass in which members identify with one another. When that happens, people enter into something that’s greater than the sum of their individual parts: a crowd. In that moment, there’s a sense of equality. Every member enjoys the same standing, regardless of previous differences.

    Attendees at football matches and music concerts are more than familiar with this feeling. It is the same impulse which motives religious people to undertake pilgrimage so they can gather to be present at Mass offered by the Pope in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, or to go on Hajj so they can circle the Kaaba in the Al-Masjid Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca counter-clockwise seven times, in both cases blending in and losing themselves in the throng of their fellow faithful. Some may even be aware of the great paradox at the heart of such gatherings: how many times have we heard popular singers on stage in a large auditorium or stadium exhorting tens of thousands of their hysterical fans to ‘embrace their individuality’ and ‘just be themselves’? Canetti continues:

    Only together can men free themselves from their burdens of distance; and this, precisely, is what happens in a crowd… Each man is as near the other as he is to himself; and an immense feeling of relief ensues. It is for the sake of this blessed moment, when no-one is greater or better than another, that people become a crowd.

    Musicians, too, are cognisant of this transcendent feeling – not only in witnessing the euphoria of the audience, but also in the experience of playing with their peers. It may not happen often, but occasionally all egos dissolve in the performance of a piece, as it comes to seem that the music is playing itself rather than being executed by each individual participant. As with team sport when enacted with unselfconscious fluidity, it becomes a synergistic endeavour where everyone contributes to achieve something which is not only beyond what they could produce by themselves, but much more than what the ensemble could be expected – on paper – to realise as a functionally competent unit. Alas, this form of collaborative creative magic is one to which solitary writers are not privy.

    And so, I can understand the desire to gather, to club together, to compete, and to win (if only voyeuristically and vicariously) – even if, for me, it is largely confined to my support for a football club I was attracted to before I could rationalise my attraction to it. What I share with my fellow countrymen and women who are fans of Liverpool and Manchester United, and any other instance of the Not-Manchester City, is not only our common humanity, but the fact that we all have a passion. They have just chosen different – if more popular – sides in the pursuit of the same goal: the ecstasy of being part of a winning crowd.

    We are all party to the truth of group sport: when the tedium vitae hits, even when you think you’ve lost everything, even when you have lost everything, when you are at the lowest of your lows (as well as the highest of your highs) there is always your team, and your fellow supporters. As a means of developing a social network, and sometimes life-long friendships, it seems relatively benign. Even if, at least for the time being, my team is magic and yours is rubbish, or not as good as ours. In Ireland, you may be many, and we are few. But I realise that all I am really saying here is that, due to a penchant for independent thinking, my group affiliation in this land is more uncommon and less of a legion than your group of choice – and therefore partakes of the cachet that derives from esoteric exclusivity. My support betokens more rugged individualism than yours, which is, or was – relatively speaking – an easier route to glory. You just want to be on the side that’s winning, and for a long time you were. So, deep down, did we; and now, surprisingly, we are.

    So there: I have removed my fig leaf, transformed it into an olive branch, and am offering it to all of you now. Let us practice peaceful coexistence.

    All empires crumble. For my part, I hope City’s reign lasts for a thousand years. It won’t, of course. Is there any need to quote Shelley here?

    And on the pedestal, these words appear:
    My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
    Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    But should City someday in the not so distant future wind up back in the Championship, or worse, League 1, stripped of every trophy we have won over the last decade, with all our star players hotfooting it to the exit doors for clubs where they can compete for top honours (and earn wages comparable to what they now rake in) – because we have been adjudged guilty of one or more of the infamous alleged 115 breaches of Financial Fair Play rules against us – I for one, and many others, will still be following them. To reiterate: I was there when we were shit. And I’ll be there again if we are shit again. Blood is thicker than principle when it comes to football. Your team is your team is your team, as much when it embarrasses or shames you as when it delights and gratifies you. How could I walk away from my team after all these years? Remember those words again, previously sung with shy ambivalence, now with full-throated force: ‘I’m City ’til I die/I’m City ’til I die/I know I am/I’m sure I am/I’m City ’Til I Die.’ And, who knows, maybe even after that.

    And that is how I can be Red-as-they-come politically, but when it comes to football, ‘once a Blue, always a Blue.’

  • My Team / Your Team II

    Desmond Traynor continues his analysis of the financial and political morality of top flight English soccer, and attempts several rebuttals of the frequently voiced criticisms of Manchester City’s current success.

    That was the attack. Here is the defence – bearing in mind that attack is often the best means of defence. (The middle ground will be contested later.) Let’s talk about the filthy lucre first, before moving on to the human rights issues – although the two are surely not unrelated, and are in fact inextricably linked.

    Regarding the lavish wealth, there is the glaringly obvious riposte to the criticisms outlined above that City’s accelerated spending was merely conducted in an effort to catch up with clubs which had previously always spent heavily. From this perspective, Financial Fair Play rules – as instituted by both the European governing body U.E.F.A., and the Football Association governing the domestic English Premier League – were introduced solely as a form of protectionism, under pressure from the then so-called ‘elite’ clubs who felt their positions at the top table were under threat. So, cordon off gains made, syphon off profits, pull up the drawbridge, and stop others following. But this circling-of-the-prestigious-wagons method was also the reason for the foundation of the Premier League itself in 1992 (replacing the old Division 1), and the Champions League too in the same year (supplanting the old European Cup). Both competitions came into being to prevent the threat of breakaway movements (‘super leagues’) by the crème de la crème clubs, and to maximise their bargaining positions when the contracts for television coverage came up for renewal. The counterargument to any aspersions cast at the motives for FFP goes that the already established clubs generate their own income, rather than depending on investment, but this line of thinking does not stand up to much scrutiny. FFP punishes spending, not debt, because this is the best mechanism for the elite clubs to ‘pull up the ladder’. Besides which, since when are business owners not allowed to pump personal funds into their own businesses to keep them afloat – even if they are throwing good money after bad? Few people complain about Jack Walker ‘buying’ the Premiership title for Blackburn Rovers in 1995 – but that was before FFP reared its questionable head. As for those who say that City signed up to FFP and must abide by it like everyone else, one could ask: what alternative did we, or anyone else, have? It was a gun to the head, if you wanted to keep competing.

    There is a trope in circulation that the Premier League is becoming, or has become, about as competitive as the Bundesliga, where Bayern Munich have won the title every year since Jesus was a boy. This ‘Bundesligafication’ states that nobody can cope with City’s ‘high ceiling’ (if in fact there is a ceiling at all), since they can ‘spend what they like’. Generally, it’s just not fair, we are constantly told. While some arguments carry a little more weight than others, this is one that does not convince for a minute. Since a Jurgen Klopp-inspired Dortmund carried off the German title in 2011-12 (ironically the same month Mancini delivered City’s first Premier League win since the fateful year of 1968), Bayern have been champions in the Bundesliga every single year. That is eleven consecutive titles. In the same period in England, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Leicester and City have finished first. City have won seven of the twelve titles on offer and, admittedly, five of the last six, giving critics the chance to say this is the fast-moving ossification process of the domestic game. But Liverpool enjoyed similar dominance in the ’70s and early ’80s and were feted for it, while United in the ’90s and noughties did the same and were similarly acclaimed. If comparisons with the Bundesliga are valid, then it is worth looking east for a minute. Klopp, after all, managed in the top echelons in Germany for many years and was a serious challenger for honours at Borussia Dortmund between 2008 and 2015. Dortmund collected two titles in his time there and also reached the Champions League final. However, the club also sold Mario Gotze, Robert Lewandowki and Matts Hummels to Bayern, which would roughly correspond to City’s Director of Football Txiki Begiristain descending upon Anfield Road and splashing out for Mo Salah, Virgil van Dijk and Trent Alexander-Arnold. Those that tell us the Premier League is heading towards a closed shop may be right in a sense, but it has been on this trajectory since the mid-80s when what then constituted ‘the Big Five’ started their Machiavellian journey towards what we see today.

    City have, on the whole, spent very wisely. Liverpool, United and Chelsea have spent massively for decades, but if anyone else dare flash the cash, they are ‘ruining football’. After City’s initial splurge to gain access to the higher echelons, the last five years have seen spending on players and wages broadly bottom out to meet that of their nearest competitors. The dreaded net spend puts City at the bottom of a league table currently being ‘won’ by neighbours United. Judicious spending has been the answer at the Etihad, not careless overspending. Whilst City avoided the car crashes of Sánchez, Maguire and Ronaldo, United piled in regardless. While City refused to pay over the odds for Kane and waited for Haaland, Liverpool shelled out nervously on Núñez. While City offloaded the inconsistent scoring exploits of Raheem Sterling and Gabriel Jesus, they settled on Haaland to do the job. Maybe we should be asking how Liverpool, United and Chelsea can get their respective transfer policies so disastrously wrong and how City can more often than not get it right, nine times out of ten spending less. That City’s massive wealth has been put to better use than Liverpool’s massive wealth, and Chelsea’s massive wealth has been spent almost as willy nilly as Manchester United’s massive wealth, is neither City’s fault nor the dastardly work of a tilted playing field, but rather the application of dedicated professionals at the top of their game, on and off the Etihad pitch. If we consider budgets, all the sides in what currently constitutes the top six should be competing, and competing hard. Throw in the biggest spenders of the lot, Manchester United, and you have – potentially – as fascinating and thrilling a title race as those of the early 1970s that so many people now nostalgically eulogise. If City continue to be serial title winners the clamour of feedback noise will steadily increase to fever pitch. Money will surely be the ruination of the sport, we will hear. Perhaps it has already done untold damage, but the road to this bleak scenario can be traced way back to 1986, or 1992, not to the arrival of City in the game’s corridors of power in 2008; and the money ruining professional football is being spent on players who fail, not those who succeed. Besides all of which, what City are doing may be different in extent, but it is not different in kind. You either go along with the global monetisation of soccer, appalling as it surely is, or you don’t. But you can’t back out simply because another club suddenly has more money than you do.

    Malcolm Glazer (1928-2014).

    A Merchandise Club Based on ‘History’

    Erstwhile United manager Louis van Gaal (they’ve had six since Sir Alex Fergusson retired in May 2013 – including one ‘interim’, plus two ‘caretakers’ – all dispensations ending in tears) surely had it right when he asserted that his former employers were a merchandise club based on ‘history’. The owners, the six Glazer children of the late Malcolm Glazer, who bought the club outright in 2005, do not care about what happens on the pitch – or only insofar as it might effect revenue. Given that the club’s only discernible (business rather than footballing) policy is one of recruiting tactically ill-fitting star-name players to wear their jerseys, resulting in shirt sales remaining a marketable money spinner, this is hardly surprising. But such short-sightedness has come home to roost. Real Manchester United supporters know this, which is why they resurrected the original  United club Newton Heath as a breakaway protest against the club they follow being run into the ground. Already one sees fewer red United jerseys around Dublin, unless one is a regular frequenter of charity shops, their fans being too ashamed to parade them in public because of the ridicule they will invite. Most of the capital used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans – rather than from his own funds – the majority of which were secured against the club’s assets in what is termed a ‘leveraged buyout’, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of payment-in-kind loans, which were later sold to hedge funds. It has been estimated that the Glazer buyout has cost the club more than £1 billion in interest and other expenses over the years. At the end of 2019, the club had a net debt of nearly £400 million.

    All the while, United were lashing out exorbitant sums for players who failed to do the business on the field after they arrived at the Theatre of Dreams. The flops include a club-record £89m for Paul Pogba, £85.5m for Antony, £75m for Romelu Lukaku, £73m for Jadon Sancho, £59.7m for Angel Di Maria, £44.5m for Anthony Martial and £40m for Donny van de Beek. (See John Brewin’s ‘From Sánchez to Sancho: Manchester United’s Lost Boys in decade of waste’. The Guardian, 6/10/2023). In fact, Manchester United have the highest transfer spend in world football since 2017, at £765m net. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who has just bought a 25% stake in the club for 1.3 billion, is eager to find out how the organisation has blown £1.4 billion in the transfer market since 2013, for such little return. Their trophy haul since they last won the League in that year, Fergusson’s last, is: one FA Cup in 2016; one Europa League in 2017; and two League/EFL Cups in 2017 and 2023 – but most importantly, no title.

    When John Aldridge played for Liverpool in their heyday, every summer Liverpool would buy a couple of the best players around and pay what were, for the time, huge wages. Judging from his Sunday World columns, it seems Aldridge thinks this practice was okay then, but somehow not fair now. As for saying they could afford it because they were serial Champions, Liverpool were in fact on the brink of administration due to years of reckless spending and mismanagement, and were only rescued when Boston’s Fenway Sports Group purchased the club in 2010. Since then, they have not been shy about making record signings, which include: Alisson Becker (£65m from Roma in 2018) – then the most expensive goalkeeper in Premiership history; Virgil Van Dijk (£75m from Southampton, also in 2018) – then the most expensive defender in Premiership history; and Darwin Nuñez (£85.36m from Benfica in 2022) – the most expensive signing in the club’s history.

    United and Liverpool fans complain about their respective owners – United’s about the debt and lack of investment in infrastructure like their increasingly dilapidated stadium, Very Old Trafford; Liverpool’s about perceived parsimony in the transfer market (only really in comparison with City’s funds) – and want them out, yet they decry City’s owners, who run the project very well, and not exclusively for the purpose of financial profit. It is enough to make you suspect that jealousy is the chief motive for their rabid dislike of City, rather than any sudden faux concern for fairness, equality, level playing pitches, or human rights. It would seem that the glib rejoinder frequently mumbled among City fans is correct: ‘they hate us ’cuz they ain’t us’.

    Which brings us to the other main counterargument often voiced in opposition to City’s success: that there is a fundamental difference between clubs being owned by private individuals and companies (with finite resources), and those owned by a state (with infinite resources), especially when that state is using the club as a public relations exercise to camouflage its dodgy human rights record – a practice dubbed ‘sportswashing’. The flawed logic runs something like this: in a liberal democracy – such as the United States purports to be – private individuals are allowed to own private property, whereas in an elective monarchy like the U.A.E., theoretically the royal family owns everything. Therefore, private individuals in the United States are not directly responsible for the policies and actions of their government on the world stage, whereas the Abu Dhabi United Group (itself a private equity company and the official owners of Manchester City FC, which insists it is separate from the Abu Dhabi government – even if it is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family and Minister of Presidential Affairs for the U.A.E.) is directly responsible for all the policies and actions of its country. To me, this is merely the semantics of ownership. Does it mean that no tax-paying U.S. private citizen is ultimately responsible for any of their country’s misdeeds; or, indeed, that no U.S. citizen is above and beyond personal reproach? Conversely, does it implicate every U.A.E. national in responsibility for their country’s offences? Besides all of which, the resources of Abu Dhabi may be vast, but they are not infinite.

    Construction workers at the Burj Dubai.

    Human Rights Abuses

    As to the human rights abuses themselves, they concern both the Emirates’ domestic and foreign policies. Internally, between 80 to 90 percent of the U.A.E.’s over nine million population consists of foreign nationals – most of whom are low-waged, semi-skilled workers from Africa, Asia, and elsewhere in the Middle East – so the country’s economy is heavily dependent on migrant workers.

    According to Human Rights Watch, their wages are low, payments are made infrequently, and living, working and sanitary conditions are poor. Passports are routinely confiscated, either at the airport on arrival, or subsequently by the employers. The workers inevitably fall into situations of debt bondage and find themselves compelled to accept the terms and conditions imposed on them by contracts they signed without fully understanding them. This is particularly common among construction, domestic, and lower-level service workers. The U.A.E.’s labour laws exclude domestic workers from protections, and they face a range of abuses, from unpaid wages, confinement to the house, and workdays of up to twenty-one hours, to physical and sexual assault by employers. The ‘kafala’ sponsorship system ties migrant workers’ visas to their employers, preventing them from changing or leaving employers without permission. Those who do leave without permission face punishment for ‘absconding’, including fines, arrest, detention, and deportation, all without any due process guarantees. Many low-paid migrant workers are acutely vulnerable to forced labour. At the same time, Human Rights Watch also reports that ‘Scores of activists, academics, and lawyers are serving lengthy sentences in U.A.E. prisons, following unfair trials on vague and broad charges that violate their rights to free expression and association.’ Add to this laws which heavily discriminate against women and LGBT people, and you have what is regarded under western eyes as a toxic cocktail which should be roundly called out.

    But, and it’s a big BUT… (to anyone who will take me to task here for the crime of ‘whataboutery’: 90% of philosophical discourse depends on ‘What about?’; the other 10% originates in ‘What if?’) …it can be argued that we in the West are in no position to throw stones, considering the glasshouses in which we live. Here are three examples, chosen relatively at random.

    1) U.A.E. has many western accomplices. According to the Harvard International Review (29/07/2022): ‘Altrad, the French multinational construction company, is only one of the many Western establishments that seem to forget the laws and regulations of the countries they are based in once they start operations abroad in the UAE. Altrad is joined by New York University (NYU), Hilton, the Louvre, Guggenheim, and the British Museum in conducting alleged malpractice against migrant workers’. On this score, it might interest those occupying the high moral ground, especially Liverpool FC fans, to know that Fenway Sports Group’s third biggest shareholder RedBird are in business partnerships with Abu Dhabi.

    2) In the Republic of Ireland, we operate a system of Direct Provision for asylum seekers who are waiting for the outcome of their applications for refugee status. It has been criticised by human rights organisations as illegal, inhuman and degrading. The main bone of contention is the length of time people spend in direct provision, with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission calling the delays faced by asylum applicants as ‘systemic and pernicious’. The accommodation centres are run by private sector hospitality and catering companies under contract with the Irish government, and so living conditions and food provided are basic, so that these suppliers can maximise profits. Other problems include: not having permission to work until you have been waiting for six months for the result of your application; a paltry living allowance of €38.80 for each adult and €29.80 for each child, plus meals; overcrowding and consequent health concerns; and stringent sign-in and sign-out regulations and regular room searches by management and staff. People are robbed not only of agency, but privacy. Plans were underway to introduce a new system in 2024, whereby applicants for international protection will stay in a ‘reception and integration centre’ for no more than four months, with new centres run by non-profit organisations. However, this initiative looks set to be shelved in light of continuing accommodation pressures exacerbated by the influx of refugees from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Given that direct provision was originally introduced as an emergency measure in 1999, these changes are long overdue. But, as Masha Gessen wrote in The New Yorker (‘Ireland’s Strange, Cruel System for Asylum Seekers’, 4/06/2019), ‘There are worse places than Ireland to be a person in need of international protection. The U.S. is one such place. In this country, people are routinely incarcerated in so-called detention centers.’

    3) The U.S. is also not a great place to be black, or from a disadvantaged background. The mass incarceration of African-Americans today is a continuum of America’s original sins of chattel slavery, which fostered ideas of white supremacy and black inferiority. Economic gain was the fundamental underpinning of slavery. In many ways, the contemporary prison industrial complex has similarly become an economic venture, with the emergence of private prisons in many states. The prison industry did not become a form of compelled, low-cost labour overnight: prison labour’s historical roots show how officials intended to use prison labour to counteract the elimination of slave labour and rebuild economies across the South. Slavery was an essential industry in early America. Slave labour allowed landowners and businessmen to expand their enterprises without paying workers. After the Civil War, that free labour source dried up. But many states were entrenched in an economic model that relied on free labour. Prisons offered a convenient and official way to maintain segregation, use free labour to drive industry, and largely eliminate black citizens from the American labour market. The expansion of the U.S. inmate population has resulted in economic profit and political influence for private prisons and other companies that build and maintain such facilities, and supply goods and services to government prison agencies. The U.S. continues to lead the world in per capita incarceration of its citizenry. The reach of the criminal justice system on American society is vast, as 70m Americans, representing one in three adults, have a criminal record of some description. There are circa 3m people in prison in the U.S. today, far outpacing population growth and crime. Between 1980 and 2015, the number of people incarcerated increased from roughly 500,000 to 2.2. million. Despite making up close to 5% of the global population, the U.S. has nearly 25% of the world’s prison population. 32% of the U.S. population is represented by African-Americans and Hispanics, compared to 56% of the U.S. incarcerated population being represented by African-Americans and Hispanics. In 2014, African-Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population. African-Americans are incarcerated at more than five times the rate of whites. The imprisonment rate for African-American women is twice that of white women. 7% of adults in the U.S. are under correctional supervision. That equates to one out of every 37 adults in the United States. In 2012 alone, the United States spent nearly $81 billion on corrections. Since 1991 the rate of violent crime in the United States has fallen by about 20%, while the number of people in prison or jail has risen by 50%. If African-Americans and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates as whites, prison and jail populations would decline by almost 40%. If this is not institutionalised racism, what is? At the same time, the death penalty continues to flourish in the U.S., both at the federal and state levels, and especially in southern states. Muslim countries are regularly castigated in the west for the severity of their horrific punishments of those found guilty of contravening their laws; but can you think of many methods of execution more barbaric than the electric chair?

    Ibrahim Hashem addressing the crowd at the Irish anti-war movement on the 26/03/22 in front of the GPO.

    Yemen

    Externally, the U.A.E. is criticised for its part in the Saudi-led coalition waging an ongoing war against the Houthi-dominated government in Yemen. However, in truth, the hostilities in the Arabian Peninsula between the Houthis in Sana’a and the Saudi opposition are part of a complex proxy war, essentially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but with several other actors. Ironically, in this geopolitical situation, the Houthi rebels have links to Iran, while the Saudi coalition of which U.A.E. was a part, has U.S. logistical and intelligence support, and occasional direct military intervention. Criticising the U.A.E.’s participation in this Saudi-led coalition is akin to castigating Iran for its support of Palestine, which is an understandable counterweight to the U.S.’s backing and bankrolling of apartheid Israel, especially given the fact that the U.S. and Saudi are ostensible allies. I do not pretend to be an expert in this knotty arrangement of alliances, but I’d wager neither are the likes of Miguel Delaney. Besides which, in another instance of my ‘whataboutery’, are we being asked to conveniently forget that the United States has been involved in foreign interventions throughout its history – both through overt outright invasion and covert destabilising of democratically elected governments – too numerous to detail here? By the broadest definition of military intervention (including non-combative C.I.A. ‘psy ops’), the U.S. has engaged in nearly 400 such operations between 1776 and 2023, with half of these occurring since 1950, and over a quarter in the post-Cold War period. Of course, John Henry of the Fenway Sports Group or the Glazer kids are not in any way directly responsible for these overt and covert operations, and their ownership of soccer clubs is strictly business, and nothing to do with sportswashing.

    As outlined above, Delaney has been amongst the most vocal in bringing up the U.A.E.’s human rights record when highlighting the unfairness of City’s ongoing successes. It might be revealing to ask him if he feels conflicted by the fact that he is employed by Alexander Lebedev, formerly of the K.G.B., and Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel, currently of Saudi Arabia – both major shareholders in the London Independent? It could be asserted that his conflicts-of-interest make his biased opinions extremely suspect. He regurgitates this geo-political guff every time City hand some team he favours (Liverpool? Real Madrid?) a hiding, or lift a fresh trophy. He spouts his sanctimonious codswallop while supporting Generalissimo Franco’s state sponsored Real Madrid, which is highly ironic, since Real are the original ‘sportswashing’ project, if ever there was one. Yet hypocrites like Delaney or Ken Early have few qualms about travelling to Qatar to cover the World Cup – because they are ‘only doing their job’. They attend, and then express their reservations – whereas if they had an iota of moral courage between them, they would have boycotted the whole affair.

    Fact: Ireland receives over €8 billion per annum in investment from Saudi, Israel and U.A.E. – but boo Manchester City for benefiting from such deals. Manchester United’s and Liverpool’s owners have made their billions from the fruits of North American free market capitalism – which never hurt anyone, right? At least ‘sportswashing’ has the virtue of the commitment of the owners to entertaining, class football, and to the ongoing development of the club which produces it. Also, if the project at City is being conducted as just a soft power PR campaign, as detractors allege, it appears to be singularly unsuccessful in achieving its intention: fans of rival clubs (or, more accurately, our closest rivals) still condemn us. How can something be ‘sportswashing’ when every time Abu Dhabi, Qatar or Saudi Arabia are mentioned in the sports media, the coverage is uniformly negative? Are there opinion polls which indicate that the public attitude to these countries has improved due to ownership of football clubs, or hosting of World Cups? Critics behave as though ‘oil money’ is somehow more reprehensible than the rewards of American neoliberal capitalism. Yet I’d sooner take my chances with oil-rich Arab sheiks than rapacious, profit-driven American (late) capitalists. Such is the relentlessness of the demonisation of these Middle Eastern states’ investment in football among the Irish soccer media mafia that it is enough to raise suspicions that the root cause of it is simply good old-fashioned Islamophobia.

    Neville receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Salford in 2014.

    Gary Neville

    I disliked Gary Neville as a Manchester United player (for perhaps entirely subjective reasons), but have come to respect him as a pundit. His pronouncements in an interview last year (FourFourTwo, September 16, 2022) are noteworthy because they are refreshingly different from the typical anti-City jibes, particularly prevalent in Ireland but found across the water as well. Also, they affirm the arguments I have rehearsed above. (Like most people, I like it when people agree with me – especially when the agreement comes from an unlikely source.) Highlights include:

    I have more problems with American investment owners than with nation states. Nation states don’t want to mess with the format or rules or ethos of the game. American owners want to change the rules and structure of the whole game.

    American investment funds take and don’t give. They’re not involved in urban regeneration like what happened in East Manchester.

    Financial Fair Play was brought in out of self-interest and greed, to prevent other clubs emerging as competitive forces. There needs to be a space for Chelsea, Manchester City, Leicester and others to compete and win, otherwise it would have been Liverpool, Arsenal, and Manchester United at the top for ninety-nine years.

    Admittedly, it is hard to paint your club’s fanbase in Ireland as an oppressed and beleaguered minority, when you are so cash and asset rich, and are ‘winning everything’. How can you be leading a revolutionary charge when you are so patently nouveau riche? (On the other hand, rarely winning anything must be soothed somewhat by being part of a ‘moral majority’, when every second person you meet follows the same club as you. If misery – or a sense of injustice – loves company, then there is plenty of it to be found in this country.) But it wasn’t always thus. I was there when we were shit. Personally, I’m proud to be the football club supporting equivalent of a working class Lotto winner. What is more, it would take a propagandistic fascist show of strength along the lines of the 1936 Berlin Olympics as hosted by Nazi Germany to make me disavow my commitment to Manchester City as an abstract entity, simply because of whoever its owners might happen to be at a given time. One set of monied scoundrels – if such they be – is as good or as bad as another, and adopting a sliding scale of moral turpitude is to embark on a slippery slope – and it is foolhardy trying to get to the top, or slide to the bottom, of it. And I haven’t even got started on ventilating the argument that even if City’s current owners are an entirely unscrupulous bunch of cheats, great art – such as City are now producing – has always depended on generous patronage. The Medici and Borgia families, including the Popes they spawned, were not famed for having ‘clean hands’; but without them there would have been no funding for the Italian Renaissance. Que Anton Karas’ iconic The Third Man soundtrack theme tune, while Orson Welles delivers Harry Lime’s ‘Swiss cuckoo clocks’ speech.

    In the final part of his essay on the joys and woes of being an Irish Manchester City fan, Desmond Traynor delves into psychological and emotional reasons for sustaining sporting allegiances, through thick and thin.