Culture – John Vincent

Travel Dilemma

A dilemma. Travel is a unique way of enhancing life’s experience. Travel inevitably has an environmental cost. It’s a predicament that’s impossible to avoid. I could look at this as a balance of pros and cons. That’s to seek a reason to balance the scales. It’s what I’m inclined to do. A highly rational way of viewing a dilemma.

This doesn’t work for everyone. Belief comes into the equation. For those who see the world on a knifes edge, tittering on the brink of environmental disaster, any argument about travel is shaped by trepidation. People can get quite puritanical about travel’s burdens.

Equally, there’s a group of people who fit in the “burn baby burn” camp. Those who will not give a tinker’s cuss about global environmental arguments. That’s a bit disingenuous. There’s always the belief that God’s plan is mysterious and these matters are not in our hands.

There’s a third category. I’ve met a few who fit this one. It’s to espouse great concern about green issues and then to act in a manner that’s inconsistent with that belief. Hypocrisy is nothing new. It’s a permanent part of the human condition.

Here, I’m only going down the rational rabbit hole. It’s to harbour genuine concern for the environment at the same time as understanding the power of travel to open minds and create world where we better understand each other.

To travel or not, that is the question. Whether it be nobler to stay at home or to suffer the hassle and crammed seats of a cheap flight, for the excitement of visiting an unfamiliar place. I’ll start by putting my conclusion up-front. It’s nobler to travel.

The pros and cons of staying at home or moving in familiar territory. Restricted circles.

On the upside then it’s possible to say with a clear conscious that you have done your bit to try and minimise the environmental impact of travel. You can stand at the bar in the local pub and lambast those who you think are ruining the planet.

On the downside, not everyone will appreciate how virtuous you claim to be. Probably citing some other environmental impact. Like your gas boiler, lack of recycling or guzzling SUV.

The pros and cons of trains, planes, and automobiles, exploring new territory. Global curiosity.

On the upside then it’s likely you will not be stuck for conversation. Certainly, you’ll be carrying home the knowledge of different cultures and how others live. In fact, the experience can lead to a better appreciation of how others tackle environmental challenges.

On the downside, a conscientious traveller must account for their CO2 emissions or, at least, have mind to compensate for them in some way. Time to plant trees.

I’ve framed this piece in terms of the substance of a personal decision. That’s not the biggest factor at play. The global growth in travel is the total of the behaviour of people from all levels of society, in a mass of different situations. One element is clear. As the economic circumstances of people improves so the propensity to wish to travel increases. I’ve not lined up a convincing graph to show this relationship. However, it’s hard to argue against it. As an example, the curve for global air travel keeps going up.

So, we live with a dilemma. Making travel more accessible at the same time as minimising the cumulative costs. A familiar dilemma. One that’s inherent in much that we do. A perpetual challenge.

Nostalgia vs. Innovation

My generation, and those a bit older than me, are inclined to shrug shoulders and, in a war wearied way, lament the passing of a great era. It’s not merely nostalgia. Although there’s a degree of selective memory in what we choose to remember as good.

This week, at the BBC Proms, I sat down in the bar at the interval and was joined by a friendly couple and another. We all had the grey hairs that qualified us as Prommers[1]. It soon became clear that the older gentlemen was a music buff who had been going to the BBC Proms since the 1960s. I’ve been going since 2018. Still an innocent bystander learning the Promming ways.

The intensity of my companion’s conversation was fascinating. Firstly, it was to comment, unfavourably, on the contemporary music that’s a hallmark of recent concerts. I liked it. I’d say it was a winsome winding through a wood accompanied by crickets playing soft percussion. Not so much adventurous as intriguing music for the Albert Hall. The view from the sofa was that these new musical fillers were a waste of time. There was a time when entire concerts were avant-garde and challenging. About the 1970s/80s, or thereabouts.

Let’s reflect. I think what the BBC is now going through is what a whole British generation is going through. An existential crisis. Not so much stop the world I want to get off, as a howl of irritation. Another sign is the annoying advert where the BBC heralds itself as a national treasure. Using the Monty Python line – what have the Romans ever done for us?[2]

The winds of change can be cruel. That’s not new. However, we’ve had a couple of decades coming to the realisation that some traditional ways of doing things are not going to nicely evolve into a recognisable future state. Incremental change has its benefits. Trouble is that it puts off the day when something more substantial needs to be done.

On two specific British cultural assets – music and comedy, we can’t afford to hang onto repetitive formats and a dependency on the likes and dislikes of an aging population.

Ghastly mush like, Mrs. Brown’s Boys is a blight on our televisions. Although it was an important part of my youth, endless repeats of Top of the Pops belong in a museum. If the BBC takes the road that only mines the past or tickles one section of the country, its fate is sealed.

Take Monty Python as an example. When first proposed it looked foolish, hopeless and niche. What’s the betting that there are creative people out there now who are being told to go away. The plethora of MBAs in media decision making roles shudder at taking risks.

Yes, there is a future for the BBC. Thing is it needs an immense kick up the backside in the fashion of Bishop Brennan. https://youtu.be/7PyI9q9AX1A?t=1335

[1] https://www.royalalberthall.com/visit/bbc-proms-faqs

[2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes/?item=qt0471953

A Modern Odyssey

Join the que. It’s getting to the point that if you don’t have aa view on Christopher Nolan’s version of the Odyssey you must be a hermit. Epic coverage for an epic movie. Add a mountain of click-bait on trivia too.

Before watching this movie, at the local cinema, I sat with a pint in hand overhearing a couple of people sitting behind me. They were having that discussion. Lots of compare and contrast. Some comments were not atypical of a film about Greek mythology. Even the subjects of Star Wars and Spiderman came up. I asked: did you enjoy it. A universal “yes” came back.

It’s a risky business making a film like this one. It immediately invites thousands of professional critics to look deeply. To subdivide every minute into an academic review. From school desk to university lecture theatre, I can imagine a lot of huffing going on. Diving into the detail or picking fault with the well -known parts or lamenting the ones left out.

I’m not going to get into the discussion about authenticity. For me that’s a complete dead-end. Afterall such ancient tales were made for retelling. The whole tale comes from an era when the written word wasn’t as it is now. More likely be like a gigantic drinking ballad told to enthral diners, where a host is aiming to impress. Each teller would bring their own spin.

Is this grand film entertaining? Yes, it certainly is. Big, bold and engaging. It’s long. But on first watching, the time goes quickly. I wouldn’t say the pace was always fast. It’s more the dramatic moments that captivate. I feel like I’ve been shipwrecked numerous times. Fought several battles.

Casting was spot on for the most part. One or two quirks. I know Calypso is a nymph in Greek mythology, but she looked as if she had walked out of a scene from Sex in the City.

Being me, I did wonder how the Cyclops made cheese when his hands where so large and his sheep were so small. Bigger sheep would have solved that one.

Poseidon was responsible for a great deal of torment. He however was left out of the casting. The rage of the sea lashed out without a face.

The dead, in their black volcanic sand, did take us into zombie movie territory. A lie echoed from the grave to burden the hero. It left us with a dilemma – was it all worth it? The death and destruction for the victory won.

Locations didn’t fill the screen in the way of Lord of the Rings. Far more focus was on the characters. There were places and scenes that didn’t fit my idea of a long-lost Greek landscape. That didn’t detract from the storytelling.

Modern sensibilities crept in to draw that line between an ancient time and what’s now happening in the world. It wasn’t just a homecoming story. War, and its consequences peppered the plot. Who to trust, and not is a major theme.

Echoes of the virtue of the “rule of law” where evident. The Greek Gods sat in the background. Ever present and ready to mess up the hero’s plans at any moment. Easily offended and not troubled by their impact on the human world.

Classical messages, as they ripple down the eons, do remind us of how fickle fate can be. Doing the right thing is not always obvious. What’s heralded as greatness often contains much tragedy. The story of life is the journey and not an end.

From the point of view of multimillion dollar filmmaking, it’s going to be fascinating to see what Nolan does next. How about an epic modern Macbeth. Or taking a past space odyssey to the next dimension. Even the story of Boudica.

Public and Private Life

What’s public and what’s private? There was a mythical age of the past when the dividing line between these two was self-evident and sacrosanct. Wholy respected by every member of society. A time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. Anything that happened within it’s walls was not for prying eyes or journalistic speculation. Everyone knew their place.

Naturally, this is utter nonsense. At least described in the way I’ve put it. Times change. Those immortal two words. So, the line between what’s public and what’s private has wobbled around over the centuries. I’m not, as you might expect, saying that nothing has changed over time because a hell of a lot has changed. Now, there are factors that make the public life different from past decades. Themes run through the ages along with unyielding change.

It’s very much in the News now. The impression given is that the act of standing-up in public has risks that can be high. Not so much the traditional risks of humiliation, being ostracised or suffering abject failure but real risks to life, in a physical sense.

It would be ridiculous to say that these are more violent times. When I look out of my kitchen window, I am reminded of the English Civil War[1]. Father and son, brothers, uncles, and cousins fought on opposite sides with fatal consequences. The ruined castle on the hill to my North is a monument to that terrible bloody conflict. In the lifetime of my parents the bombs fell from the sky on innocent civilians in this land, as they do in Ukraine to this day.

The tendency to think that we are a much more civilised society in the 21^st Century is a liberal and progressive notion. We are better fed and read. There are greater comforts and the four horsemen of the apocalypse are kept at arm’s length. Not disappeared but kept in check. Although the recent experience of COVID did unsettle everyone for a while.

What we do cherish. I hope we cherish, in this country. Is the relative freedom of speech that allows debate to be conducted in public. I use the word relative because the absolutists, who have an anything goes attitude, are not what I mean. Fundamentalist often ride with the four horsemen. Words do matter.

I’m straying from my point. There’s great merit in protecting public life. In matters that are of fundamental importance individuals must be free to stand-up and say their piece. Stifling debate is like putting the heat on a pressure cooker without a safety valve.

I’ve always been struck by the civility of most people. That’s what I’ve found when knocking on doors during political campaigns of one form or another. There’s a core of decency at all levels of society. Now and then, that thread is broken. It does take a lot to paint a different picture. That’s where the proliferation of social media has changed the dynamic.

The printing press was not an evil invention. That didn’t stop it being used for evil ends. The same with social media. Printed media is subject to regulation. A system of regulation that has developed over decades. That doesn’t stop a wide range of views being expressed. The fertiliser of public life. Similar boundaries are set for broadcast media. This is civilisation.

To date, social media is the wild west. It’s become essential to public life. At the same time, it’s a grave danger to public life. When it’s used to stir-up passions that lead to violence the danger is self-evident. Social media is not sacrosanct. Regulation is essential.

[1] https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/the-english-civil-wars-history-and-stories/

Will Andy Burnham Lead a New Era?

It’s not so unbelievable. With the volatility of politics in the 2020s, that a leadership role flips from one person to the next in the blink of an eye. The man tipped to run the country has won one constituency in his hometown. Now, lots of people envisage him in the biggest of jobs, sweeping aside the wows of recent years.

One view of this change is that the decades of past allegiances, that we almost took for granted, have now dissolved. The way we view others in our society has become far more complex.

British comedy is littered with these stereotypes. Comic strip characters. Property owning, upper middle class, broadsheet newspaper reader equates to a Conservative. Open toed saddle, tweed jacket owning teacher who goes on improving camping holidays, a Liberal. Football supporting, factory worker, from a generation of factory workers almost certainly a Labour supporter with Socialist friends. At the margines, long retired colonel who inherited a large countryside mansion and estate may even be a Fascist. These animated cartoon images persist. What’s different is that there are dwindling numbers of them in society at large.

Initialled AB, Andy Burnham, comes to us as a smiling face. Down with the people in a way Sir Keir Starmer found incredibly hard. AB has charm and a warm accent that suggest a relaxed demeaner. He talks with enough wriggle room for a wide swath of people to think that he’s on their side. A good skill to have to be successful in politics. As it is, what he stands for when push comes to shove isn’t so easy to discern.

In know the spelling is different but it’s out there in social media land. The fictional Birnam Wood, a forest near Dunsinane Hill in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. A place of prediction.

[That was one of the texts our teachers chose for us in my school days. Maybe they imagined troubled times ahead. Or wanted to warn us of power’s potential corrupting effect].

Three witches appeared to assure Macbeth that he was a winner. Only seemingly impossible events would defeat him. The message was critic. Bit like the Oracle of Delphi in the ancient Greek world. Nothing like recycling a good idea.

The British media’s prophecy is that Burnham will quickly step into the job of UK Prime Minister and restart the Labour Government with fresh vigour and new imagination. Not to mention better public communication. The constituency who thinks he’s a potential saviour is much bigger than the consistency who thinks he’s a devil in the making.

Will ambition and power’s potential corrupting effect take a hand. Or will the man with the name: “King of the North” have accumulated the knowledge and experience needed to shape history to the country’s benefit. A good sprinkle of luck will no doubt be needed too.

Despite what has passed in our post-Brexit land. UK PM’s coming and going, will Burnham be a force for good? I wouldn’t say past performance is any predictor at all. Making the buses run on time in Greater Manchester is a far cry from being a political party leader and UK PM.

I, as do so many, wish him a fair wind. Let’s hope he and his team can get to grips with the need to adapt, change and even be disruptive where it’s warranted. I hope he will not shy away from big decisions or be cowed by either his own side or the perfidious British right-wing media.

Brexit Documentary Review

Firstly, a reaction to the BBC documentary that’s telling the story of Brexit. They called it “Brexit: A Very British Civil War[1].” A corny title that plays on titles “A Very British Scandal,” the drama about Liberal MP Jeremy Thorpe and “A Very Royal Scandal.”

The “Civil War” analogy is out of place. Ten seconds of reading about any real civil war would have sunk that illusion. The events of 2016 were more a battle for the future. Battles continue to rage as the advocates of Brexit have merely changed their colours and rebranded.

Yes, I agree. The stage was set by the choice that voters took in 2015. In fact, if blame must be allocated then its as much the fault of liberal minds as it it’s the reactionary forces that pounded away at their ambition. The political idiocy of promising a national referendum in a country that rarely, if ever, has referendums was a critical folly. The UK is not Switzerland. UK voters have no idea what it’s like to be that sort of federal democracy.

David Cameron won a majority and his hand were tied. He did have choices, but he plodded along with all the imagination of a dull public-school boy in fear of rejection by his peers. Cameron didn’t see the bus that was about to hit him. Having been pounding away for decades the rag tag but monied pushers of a referendum wasted no time in campaigning. Cameron wasted every opportunity.

Aside from the story that the BBC chose to document is the image of a modern European country run by a strange herd of mostly Tory men, living a privileged life. It’s a searing display of a political crisis made by a few for the interests of a few.

I know it is said by both left and right in UK politics, but what more does anyone need to convince themselves that there’s a chasm between the people in Westminster and the people of the nation. Demographic trends were likely to shape the outcome of a national referendum. It proved to be so in the numbers. An older age group favouring Leave and a younger one favouring Remian. Populism had taken root in the Leave campaign.

The dim-witted organisers of the Remain campaign ran a campaign as if they were changing the name of a chocolate bar with diminishing sales. As if they were stereotypical comic depressed bowler hatted businessmen from the 1950s, Cameron’s crew ignored the analysis and lumbered on. He took a politically suicidal path.

The likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dithered with only their own political ambitions tugging at them to eventually decide as to which way to go. Again, my reflection amounted to – what a bizarre way to run a country. Especially one with the history and traditions of the UK.

I understand the notion that Cameron may have seen this political path as a way of resolving a self-evident Tory split once and for all. Ironically, the outcome is a Tory split the like of which couldn’t have been imagined ten years ago.

Deciding whether to back Leave or Remain wasn’t the real question. Capturing the future political agenda was the aim. 2016’s national referendum was not a war; it was a battle. The battle continues.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002xhvj

Remembering Anthony Head in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Is it as far back as early 1997? It’s hard to get my head around that fact. Buffy the Vampire Slayer goes back that far. I must admit that, when it first came out, I wasn’t aware of this enduring off-beat American TV series. I came to watch it later when its reputation started to rise. People started to say: have you seen?

We were in the age when video tape was thought to be advanced technology in the home. Dial up internet consumed time and energy even to do the basics. Phones had wires. On reflection that period, just before the millennium, was a significant one both culturally and in terms of emerging technology.

Vampire stories are nothing new. Ideas have been cycled and recycled ever since the printed word was placed in the hands of avid fiction readers. What’s refreshing about the Buffy saga is that it did venture onto new ground. The idea of a “Hellmouth” opening under an ordinary California school mixed-up lots of crazy notions about what the forces of darkness might do in a sunny community. As a plot device for a series of stories, having a dangerous and mysterious “portal ” is a clever idea.

What’s incredibly smart about the stories is the role of the “Watcher” whose job it was to train and educate Buffy as she faces relentless evil challenges. The character Giles steers her through volumes of supernatural history and helps investigates new perils.

Perfect as the Watcher was actor Anthony Head. He added an authority and stability to what could have become a stream of silliness. He fitted the juxtaposition of a normal, even slightly boring, schoolteacher with a wizard like seriousness of a mature elder. His Englishness added to the contrast between the 1990s and a world of timeless monsters.

With his passing, I’d like to remember Anthony Head as the actor who gave the Buffy series a wide appeal and stopped it becoming no more than a wacky teenage romp. It’s a series that is eminently watchable. The passing of nearly 30-years hasn’t diminished its sense of youthful drama and pure entertainment value.

There’s a list of categories that can describe this TV series. Horror, supernatural, comedy, rites of passage, and even romance. It’s that peculiar mix that makes it so iconic. There’s a 100% focus on the key characters without the inevitable virtual reality stuff that would make it now.

I don’t think it would be possible to remake Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It was of its era. Thanks to those who played their parts so well. It’s watchable anytime. Thank you Anthony Head.

Note: ITV X have the series to stream:

https://www.itv.com/watch/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/10a5896

Forgiveness: A Double-Edged Sword

The basic Sunday school Christian idea of forgiveness is fine and dandy. It’s a cornerstone of the social soup that is modern Britian. Although we like a good dose of retribution when it suites us, the core belief that we maybe forgiven as much as others might forgive us still pervades.

The above is a cultural aspect of life as our more primitive side has a tendency not to forgive. Especially when talking about people we don’t know or, for that matter, people we do know who do something deeply offensive, like betrayal.

Christianity is transactional about this subject. You must forgive if you want to be forgiven. That is practical in sustaining a cohesive society. If we wander around carrying grudges and consumed with anger all day long, then this will not end well. Here I find a crux of a problem. Although it may be admirable to forgive, if that charitable act melts away anger, then it can melt away the motivation to do something, like fix a problem.

So, how to respond to someone in public life who says unacceptable and harmful things five years ago but is now said to be a different person. Reformed. Incidentally, this said by a third party that the person concerned is a different person. Whatever that means.

Let me quote thinker Thomas Aquinas in that “evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise[1]”

He really does throw the whole conundrum back at us. Since my “right reason” and your “right reason” may be completely different. My anger is my problem. That said, my anger may be shared by many people. So, who is the arbiter of society’s righteous anger?

In Britain, this is a matter where the four estates play their part. People who make laws, people that carry them out, and those who judge. With the “fourth estate” being the fickle and flighty news media. I could say those who report to the public, or pile on their opinions. This formula doesn’t add clarity. Each of the estates can, and do, take different views. The question is then, which is the most powerful arbiter? The most influential.

Here the equation has changed. Whereas a sizeable section of the news media of my childhood undertook their work with a sense of social responsibility, this section is now under attack.

The term “social media” has been coined for the newcomers but in a way there’s no such thing. The digital world we call social media is not the least bit interested in sustaining a cohesive society. In fact, quite the reverse. Conflict, anger, controversy, and division are sources of income potential. Not a small income either. And on a global scale.

Normally, forgiveness does not come easy. It does require a period of reflection. What’s happening in the social media world is not so much forgiveness as forgetfulness. Delete an account, stir-up a new sense of outrage, move on at the speed of lightning. No need for forgiveness because people have forgotten the last reason for anger and moved on to a new source of anger. Thomas Aquinas never had to ponder over that one.

[1] Summa Theologiae II-II:158:1.

A New Era of Disruption

Where is it all going? Now, there’s a question to ask. Through the media pages there’s the signals of unprecedented change. It’s not as if we are sailing through smooth air, on a clam Sunday afternoon. No, it’s turbulence all the way.

Disruptors are getting the headlines. They don’t have to be clever. They don’t have to be honest. I’m expecting a headline along the lines of: “Everything you knew about spiders is wrong. They are from Alpha Centauri”. It’s only a matter of time. 4.3 light-years away is nothing, after all. Elon Musk will be there at the drop of a hat. Technology permitting.

My prediction maybe a bit off the wall but it’s to illustrate the point of media frenzy that is absorbing the public space of the moment. Much as we might see ourselves as a sophisticated species where a forum is a place of philosophical debate. Where thinkers and politicians test their theories in an open public space. We have the front page of the likes of the Daily Mail instead. Stories about reality shows gone wrong trump concerns about real reality.

It’s a new age. That said, it’s always a new age. In the world of politics and governance we have been here before. To an extent. Type the letters “SDP” into a popular search engine and it’s likely to come up with the Social Democratic Party (SDP). It’s a defunked political party. Or is that just my search engine? In 1981, a spin-off of the Labour Party, the “Gang of Four” showed great promise. Suddenly a step change in the UK’s political terrain seemed possible. A small group of seasoned politicians started to articulate a set of policies that people appeared to like.

To cut it short, that political experiment was absorbed and didn’t lead to the radical change of the landscape that was expected. Over the last 35 years the ideas spoken of by the SDP have not gone away but they have been absorbed and diluted. This does lead me to wonder if the schism between conservatives, those on the right-wing of UK politics, will not eventually melt away. The great big sponge of institutional lethargy will swallow up the dissenters. Loud disruptors on the make will merge with the elephantine traditions of past generations.

What I now think is that such thinking is dangerous. It’s all to do with the rapid nature of change. It’s to do with historic analogies becoming less relevant. It’s to do with an unparalleled speed of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. The landscape has changed.

The media is so important because we need stories to make sense of the world. Our place in the world and possible future is shaped by the results of a mass of interconnection, interaction and interdependency. Dare I say – No man is an island.

Usually when we experience a disruption to a commonly accepted narrative there’s a push back. An innate caution resides in us all. It maybe primitive. A tribal instinct.

This is where the digital world has changed our experiences. For all time. If every day (every hour) there’s a minor disruption, say a story about UFOs, the ground on which we stand starts to shift. Our shared sense-making starts to question and before we know it the fringe belief becomes common place.

Traditional institutions will confront disruptive change with opinion polls, spreadsheets, detailed analysis and studies. Interestingly, enabled and enhanced by digital technology. However, they are like the fire truck that turns up after the house has burned down.

Brexit was proof to me that a step-change can be driven by manipulating information. A political rupture can be advanced. A collapse of trust can be engineered. Now, that is frightening.

Numbers, Nostalgia, and Dystopia

I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from these numbers. There are people who believe that numbers are important in a cosmic sort of way. Certain combinations have a special meaning. Even the Bible goes in for this kind of mystical philosophy. I think this is a normal human instinct to look for patterns in everything. That is, even when nothing useful can be said about those apparent patterns. Me being reasonably rational, numbers are simple symbols with relatively simple meanings put to a myriad of uses. [Please let’s not go into complex numbers].

The thought that came to me is that the auspicious year of 1984[1] is now 42 years ago. And I think you know what I might write about the number 42. Life the Universe and Everything. The result of a long computation started to find out what life was all about in a fantasy world.

So, now it’s fine to conclude that the fictional world of 1984 didn’t come into being in the last 42 years. However, it can be argued that the groundwork for a political dystopia has been done in the meantime. There’s no doubt that in four decades a lot of interconnections and interdependencies have been constructed as globalisation has taken hold. Our everyday News cycle is proving this to be undeniable. A repercussion of the acts of a difficult politician on one continent impacts the availability of home-grown food on another poorer one.

My life in 1984 was as a young engineer trying to navigate through several workplaces to get the most interesting employment that was on offer. Fortunately, a great deal was happening in the field of electronics in the 80s. Integrated circuits where getting increasingly powerful. As the years clicked by the miniaturisation of components made possible what was once impossible. Several major projects were underway whilst industry was undergoing a rapid transformation.

[A different transition from the one in prospect brought about by artificial intelligence but, in so many ways, just as impactful and a fundamental percussor.]

This weekend, I was transported back to August 1984 and the island of Crete. In amongst piles of memorabilia there I found a scruffy notebook from a package holiday to Greece. My second venture to that Mediterranean country but the first with my partner.

That was a paper-based time. Airline tickets were paper. Money was paper (traveller’s cheques). Photographs were paper. Travel was a wholly analogue experience. Telephones tied down by wires. Even the Boeing 757 that transported us from London Gatwick to Crete had a cockpit full of dials, levers, knobs and switches, all mechanical.

Illuminating in our notes was the reaction to the heat and some continuity. Crete in August is hot at the best of times. That didn’t stop me from wandering along a long stretch of beach looking for an archaeological site. The further we went, the further it seemed we had to go. My saying that it was – just around the next bend – was never forgotten. And this week, there it was in barely legible handwriting.

Tourism has expanded many fold since those innocent wanderings. Greek buses are now modern and often quite regular, which they weren’t in 1984. Basic bathroom facilities in uncooled concrete apartments have given way to four-star hotels and luxurious pools. Nostalgia is fine, if it’s not taken to ridiculous levels, as is the habit of some of my generation.

[1] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/