When I was at school we studied a poem which has remained with me to this day. This became a favourite of mine since it humourously portrayed Australia - her climate, landscape and, indeed, her inhabitants. As events over the last year have unravelled in NSW, this poem has come to offer a different description to the news reports of drought, floods and bushfires. Perhaps, also, herein lies a different explanation for activities of our weather and climate.
SAID HANRAHAN by John O'Brien
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
They're singin' out for rain.
"They're singin' out for rain," he said,
"And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place
As I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If rain don't come this week."
A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.
"We want an inch of rain, we do,"
O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke "maintained" we wanted two
To put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."
In God's good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o'er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place
Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."
Around the Boree Log and Other Verses, 1921
Thursday, 28 June 2007
Saturday, 5 May 2007
silly irony
My response to a comment got so long I thought I would use it to increase my blog numbers.
Some things that are art or created can have beauty. A humanly created thing can be more beautiful than real life.
The blob of wax in a psuedo complex story may be ironic. Usually it is an incidental outcome. Rarely is this intended. Just because something is ironic, doesnt give it quality. It doesnt even give it a justification for the outcome. Irony for what purpose? A movie which spends its time creating a fanciful scenario only to turn it into the absurd, simply on the premise of the silliness of it all is simply poor. One may see the logic or the reason or the purpose of it. Nevertheless, to tell me it is silly, fails to capture an interest. Irony can be used with much more ability than these display. Futility can be conveyed with greater strength and conviction. And if at the end of a movie, whose aim is to give a message of the silliness of it all, you are left with only that one thing, how pitiful is that?
As for critics, the job of testing the taste of critics will necessitate you watching many movies anyway. Identifying a critic who aligns with you can take a lot to achieve. Perhaps you missed a lot of what I was saying. I didnt spend $18. And i didnt say it was all crap. And there was no heartache. I am open to exploring things and critiquing that which I think is not good. I can choose to read books or listen to music even though some may suggest something negative about them, because I know I can read or watch it and draw my own opinion from it or apply my own set of values and criteria to it.
Are we to be people who only do what we are told? To be robots acting on a protocol determined by another?
So this is it: I saw a movie and thought the ending poor. I have seen others, which have also ended poorly, as if the writer just gave up trying to conclude a web he or she had woven. The point is not whether or not this shows irony or displays the silliness of it all. Anyone can create a story and then have it all end up as one massive explosion, killing everyone. I have read hundreds of children's stories which do exactly that. So when I go to a cinema, I expect not to see those same childish stories acted by adults. As I said in my previous blog, you may like these kinds of endings, but my point is that they are poor endings which reflect on the lack of quality of the writing.
Should we aim to achieve mediocrity because we can't cant replicate the creator?
Should we accept an unsatisfying outcome because it shows irony and might be the point of the writer? Certainly not. Will an outcome satisfy or give resolution if it atleast has irony or a silliness message? Not for me, I have a higher expectation.
Has anyone actually ever found one critic whose opinions always align with yours? I doubt it? And then again, how would you be certain if you never watch one against their recommendations?
So, there.
Some things that are art or created can have beauty. A humanly created thing can be more beautiful than real life.
The blob of wax in a psuedo complex story may be ironic. Usually it is an incidental outcome. Rarely is this intended. Just because something is ironic, doesnt give it quality. It doesnt even give it a justification for the outcome. Irony for what purpose? A movie which spends its time creating a fanciful scenario only to turn it into the absurd, simply on the premise of the silliness of it all is simply poor. One may see the logic or the reason or the purpose of it. Nevertheless, to tell me it is silly, fails to capture an interest. Irony can be used with much more ability than these display. Futility can be conveyed with greater strength and conviction. And if at the end of a movie, whose aim is to give a message of the silliness of it all, you are left with only that one thing, how pitiful is that?
As for critics, the job of testing the taste of critics will necessitate you watching many movies anyway. Identifying a critic who aligns with you can take a lot to achieve. Perhaps you missed a lot of what I was saying. I didnt spend $18. And i didnt say it was all crap. And there was no heartache. I am open to exploring things and critiquing that which I think is not good. I can choose to read books or listen to music even though some may suggest something negative about them, because I know I can read or watch it and draw my own opinion from it or apply my own set of values and criteria to it.
Are we to be people who only do what we are told? To be robots acting on a protocol determined by another?
So this is it: I saw a movie and thought the ending poor. I have seen others, which have also ended poorly, as if the writer just gave up trying to conclude a web he or she had woven. The point is not whether or not this shows irony or displays the silliness of it all. Anyone can create a story and then have it all end up as one massive explosion, killing everyone. I have read hundreds of children's stories which do exactly that. So when I go to a cinema, I expect not to see those same childish stories acted by adults. As I said in my previous blog, you may like these kinds of endings, but my point is that they are poor endings which reflect on the lack of quality of the writing.
Should we aim to achieve mediocrity because we can't cant replicate the creator?
Should we accept an unsatisfying outcome because it shows irony and might be the point of the writer? Certainly not. Will an outcome satisfy or give resolution if it atleast has irony or a silliness message? Not for me, I have a higher expectation.
Has anyone actually ever found one critic whose opinions always align with yours? I doubt it? And then again, how would you be certain if you never watch one against their recommendations?
So, there.
of messy knots and crappy endings
I write tonight on a theme I will no doubt return to again. I think I see things differently to others. About movies I mean. I'm not alone in how I see them, of course. Its about personal satisfaction. Its about the plot and how it interconnects. And most of all its about the ending; about how the constructs of a story support a conclusion.
Imagine a messy bundle of multicoloured string. Not a neat 'fresh from the haberdashery' ball of string, but a tangle of threads in an apparent random arrangement. From a few feet away, the bundle has many different colours. You can make out one or two ends, yet you look for more ends, since there are many different colours: red, white, black, orange, yellow, brown and purple. The threads touch at points, suggesting connection. After observing it for almost two hours, you can see that it is indeed one piece of string, painted many different colours and made to look like many threads woven together.
Your attention is now taken by something behind you. Another ball of thread. This has one end visible and so you hold it. This is neater and better packed together. It seems deliberately entwined. As you unravel the thread, new ones emerge. Sometimes they just appear, at other times the unravelling thread reveals the new end. After two hours, you reach the last bundle. At the end, the threads are fused together with a giant blob of wax. The connection is vague. Rather than seeing the ends of the string your vision is obscured by a blob of wax.
Some people might like the messy bundle of string. They may enjoy the many colours and the patterns their jumbling has caused. Others may enjoy the journey of unravelling, of seeing new patterns or new threads. They may enjoy looking at a pattern and seeing where those lines have been drawn from. For me, a bundle of threads of different colours is something substantial if the different colours are real different threads, rather than colours painted on a line. otherwise you enjoy an illusion. And for me, to simultaneously trace different intersecting threads yet not see the final weave, obscured with a clumsy, shapeless blob is to fall short of a promise.
A new word: unresolution. It refers to movies that have a thread they cannot weave to a point, or to films that pretend to have much complexity but are masks of simplicity. Unresolution is where the plot fails to deliver what it promises.
Perhaps you are a person who likes this kind of unresolution. I see it as a weak device. This is not to say that there have to be happy endings, nor does everything have to have an ending, since life continues, and movies represent but a small part of that continuity. However, I am saying that a movie should be what it pretends to be. It is rarely important to know where the threads came from. Usually these are revealed early on or they are somewhat inconsequential. What may matter more is where they go and how they end?
My disappointment is not really with the movie. After all it is a construct. It has been designed. My dissatisfaction is with the constructor, the designer. They have placed the threads together, not randomly, but deliberately. And it is they who control what is promised and what is delivered. They who are unable to deliver what throughout the movie they promise: a solution to their own puzzle. Like a child who throws a ball on a roof where no-one can get it - and for what? It proves nothing apart from their ability to throw a ball. Or like an ill-tempered man who tips the chess table before the game is concluded. Some may look on in amusement. However, the amusement is with the man not the main spectacle. Those who came for the game are left somewhat cheated.
Tonight I saw a movie which had elements of complexity, detail and plot. And then, when you expected a twist, the twist was that there was none. When you expected an equally complex resolution to the problem, a primitive and shallow one was offered.
Many movies, perhaps all, have as their central theme a problem in need of solving. How well the movie does that will determine its unresolution. If it does it poorly, it can be said to be unresolved.
Perhaps this demands a sequel. Who knows, I may even introduce a prequel after my sequels have run dry.
I wonder about the thread of my life. Are things apparent and not real? Is there illusion and facade? What of the interconnectedness? What of its design and designer? Will my threads end in a blob of wax or do the threads weave nicely together? Will someone cut them all before i have the chance to see them woven as one?
Imagine a messy bundle of multicoloured string. Not a neat 'fresh from the haberdashery' ball of string, but a tangle of threads in an apparent random arrangement. From a few feet away, the bundle has many different colours. You can make out one or two ends, yet you look for more ends, since there are many different colours: red, white, black, orange, yellow, brown and purple. The threads touch at points, suggesting connection. After observing it for almost two hours, you can see that it is indeed one piece of string, painted many different colours and made to look like many threads woven together.
Your attention is now taken by something behind you. Another ball of thread. This has one end visible and so you hold it. This is neater and better packed together. It seems deliberately entwined. As you unravel the thread, new ones emerge. Sometimes they just appear, at other times the unravelling thread reveals the new end. After two hours, you reach the last bundle. At the end, the threads are fused together with a giant blob of wax. The connection is vague. Rather than seeing the ends of the string your vision is obscured by a blob of wax.
Some people might like the messy bundle of string. They may enjoy the many colours and the patterns their jumbling has caused. Others may enjoy the journey of unravelling, of seeing new patterns or new threads. They may enjoy looking at a pattern and seeing where those lines have been drawn from. For me, a bundle of threads of different colours is something substantial if the different colours are real different threads, rather than colours painted on a line. otherwise you enjoy an illusion. And for me, to simultaneously trace different intersecting threads yet not see the final weave, obscured with a clumsy, shapeless blob is to fall short of a promise.
A new word: unresolution. It refers to movies that have a thread they cannot weave to a point, or to films that pretend to have much complexity but are masks of simplicity. Unresolution is where the plot fails to deliver what it promises.
Perhaps you are a person who likes this kind of unresolution. I see it as a weak device. This is not to say that there have to be happy endings, nor does everything have to have an ending, since life continues, and movies represent but a small part of that continuity. However, I am saying that a movie should be what it pretends to be. It is rarely important to know where the threads came from. Usually these are revealed early on or they are somewhat inconsequential. What may matter more is where they go and how they end?
My disappointment is not really with the movie. After all it is a construct. It has been designed. My dissatisfaction is with the constructor, the designer. They have placed the threads together, not randomly, but deliberately. And it is they who control what is promised and what is delivered. They who are unable to deliver what throughout the movie they promise: a solution to their own puzzle. Like a child who throws a ball on a roof where no-one can get it - and for what? It proves nothing apart from their ability to throw a ball. Or like an ill-tempered man who tips the chess table before the game is concluded. Some may look on in amusement. However, the amusement is with the man not the main spectacle. Those who came for the game are left somewhat cheated.
Tonight I saw a movie which had elements of complexity, detail and plot. And then, when you expected a twist, the twist was that there was none. When you expected an equally complex resolution to the problem, a primitive and shallow one was offered.
Many movies, perhaps all, have as their central theme a problem in need of solving. How well the movie does that will determine its unresolution. If it does it poorly, it can be said to be unresolved.
Perhaps this demands a sequel. Who knows, I may even introduce a prequel after my sequels have run dry.
I wonder about the thread of my life. Are things apparent and not real? Is there illusion and facade? What of the interconnectedness? What of its design and designer? Will my threads end in a blob of wax or do the threads weave nicely together? Will someone cut them all before i have the chance to see them woven as one?
Thursday, 3 May 2007
to conquer a mountain
When a person, no, a mountaineer, climbs a mountain and reaches the summit, we say they have conquered the mountain. Reach the summit of K2 and you have conquered the most formidable of mountains. When at the summit, however, you should not stay long, lest the conditions kill you.
I have never reached the summit of a mountain. A landlord of mine many years ago talked of his mountain climbing feats. At the age of about 50 (my estimation, not his disclosure) he had managed to climb the highest peak of every continent.
http://www.everestnews.com/seven.htm
A fairly impressive feat for a former 'head of corporate banking of Bank of America'. A redundancy from that position helped finance his last summit climb. To reach the summit of Vinson Massif or Mt Everest is a remarkable feat. One in ten people die attempting to reach the peak of Chomolungma! And yet for all of this, can we really declare that they have conquered the mountain?
So is this really conquering? Can a mountain really be conquered? Perhaps they have been permitted to reach the top, only to appreciate its size and majesty?
I wonder if those who manage to reach the summit of K2 believe or would even suggest that they have conquered it? Wouldn't respect be a prerequisite and humility be a product?
I have never reached the summit of a mountain. A landlord of mine many years ago talked of his mountain climbing feats. At the age of about 50 (my estimation, not his disclosure) he had managed to climb the highest peak of every continent.
http://www.everestnews.com/seven.htm
A fairly impressive feat for a former 'head of corporate banking of Bank of America'. A redundancy from that position helped finance his last summit climb. To reach the summit of Vinson Massif or Mt Everest is a remarkable feat. One in ten people die attempting to reach the peak of Chomolungma! And yet for all of this, can we really declare that they have conquered the mountain?
So is this really conquering? Can a mountain really be conquered? Perhaps they have been permitted to reach the top, only to appreciate its size and majesty?
I wonder if those who manage to reach the summit of K2 believe or would even suggest that they have conquered it? Wouldn't respect be a prerequisite and humility be a product?
Sunday, 22 April 2007
procrastination
a new twist:
keep doing things for today
and tomorrow may never come
a worn path:
have been putting off sleep
to put off tomorrow
the time now:
tomorrow
keep doing things for today
and tomorrow may never come
a worn path:
have been putting off sleep
to put off tomorrow
the time now:
tomorrow
Sunday, 8 April 2007
anticipation
I had never looked forward to a date as much as my own wedding. This evening, I realised I am looking forward to a date even more than that one. A date that precedes my wedding. A date very late in June.
Friday, 6 April 2007
tooth fairy is real
Today is Good Friday. Easter.
Yesterday, as I was driving home, I was listening to ABC radio. They had an interview with the heads of the Anglican and Catholic churches and basically retold the story of easter. As is normal for radio hosts, the guests were prompted as in a radio interview. It flowed, it wasnt over done or pretentious. There was no conflict or serious preaching; merely a retelling of what it is Christians believe about Easter. The radio host is not a Christian but the station received a surprisingly large number of calls and sms messages expressing anger that the ABC had spent time on this matter, given that the listeners did not feel that Jesus or his death was historical, or relevant. Some of the txts were quite scathing.
The host was puzzled at this response. After all, there was no complaint when other people, such as Pauline Hanson, were interviewed. Is she relevant to the whole population? By having her on the show, does the ABC endorse all her views? So why the response at talk about this Jesus?
I couldnt help but wonder why these people who were so upset at the ABC, could not just turn off the radio, or at least change stations, if, indeed, it was so unpleasant for them. I also wondered if, in their detestation at having to have their life affected by Jesus at this time of the year, they actually continued to go to work, rather than put up with the hassle of having Friday and Monday as public holidays. Not likley!
I think, however, that the difference in response between other irrelevant stories or interviews and that of yesterday afternoon is significant and telling. It tells us what Jesus, himself says. Jesus confronts. His very life confronts and demands a response. I guess it was obvious the way many ABC listeners responded to him.
Then after I got home I was amazed to hear that the USA did not have a public holiday for Easter. Not even for Good Friday. Was it a reflection of their approach to Easter or to public holidays? Either way, it is sad.
So, to today.
A housemate told me that The passion of the Christ was on TV tonight. What time did it start? 11pm! I then looked at the TV guide for Friday. I'm sure that the heading used to be 'Good Friday' many years ago. But anyway. And I'm sure that, even just last year, there were more TV shows about the Easter story. One station had a daytime movie. This is what it said about it:
'Toothless. (97 R, S). When a dentist is killed in an accident, she finds herself unable to enter the gates of heaven. To atone for her years of inflicting pain on her patients, she is appointed to the position of tooth fairy.'
Oh dear.
Well it may not mean much to other people but it says alot to me and so I'm writing it down. And after all isn't that what blogging is all about. This is my first blog, however, ive seen that people write lots of things in blogs which I know they think are important or clever but aren't. Could this just be another one?
Yesterday, as I was driving home, I was listening to ABC radio. They had an interview with the heads of the Anglican and Catholic churches and basically retold the story of easter. As is normal for radio hosts, the guests were prompted as in a radio interview. It flowed, it wasnt over done or pretentious. There was no conflict or serious preaching; merely a retelling of what it is Christians believe about Easter. The radio host is not a Christian but the station received a surprisingly large number of calls and sms messages expressing anger that the ABC had spent time on this matter, given that the listeners did not feel that Jesus or his death was historical, or relevant. Some of the txts were quite scathing.
The host was puzzled at this response. After all, there was no complaint when other people, such as Pauline Hanson, were interviewed. Is she relevant to the whole population? By having her on the show, does the ABC endorse all her views? So why the response at talk about this Jesus?
I couldnt help but wonder why these people who were so upset at the ABC, could not just turn off the radio, or at least change stations, if, indeed, it was so unpleasant for them. I also wondered if, in their detestation at having to have their life affected by Jesus at this time of the year, they actually continued to go to work, rather than put up with the hassle of having Friday and Monday as public holidays. Not likley!
I think, however, that the difference in response between other irrelevant stories or interviews and that of yesterday afternoon is significant and telling. It tells us what Jesus, himself says. Jesus confronts. His very life confronts and demands a response. I guess it was obvious the way many ABC listeners responded to him.
Then after I got home I was amazed to hear that the USA did not have a public holiday for Easter. Not even for Good Friday. Was it a reflection of their approach to Easter or to public holidays? Either way, it is sad.
So, to today.
A housemate told me that The passion of the Christ was on TV tonight. What time did it start? 11pm! I then looked at the TV guide for Friday. I'm sure that the heading used to be 'Good Friday' many years ago. But anyway. And I'm sure that, even just last year, there were more TV shows about the Easter story. One station had a daytime movie. This is what it said about it:
'Toothless. (97 R, S). When a dentist is killed in an accident, she finds herself unable to enter the gates of heaven. To atone for her years of inflicting pain on her patients, she is appointed to the position of tooth fairy.'
Oh dear.
Well it may not mean much to other people but it says alot to me and so I'm writing it down. And after all isn't that what blogging is all about. This is my first blog, however, ive seen that people write lots of things in blogs which I know they think are important or clever but aren't. Could this just be another one?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)