one man betrayed with a kiss

howdy pop pickers


every now and then - not often, look you see - a memory comes back which feels like a completed circle. something takes you back to such vivid recollection that you can say yes, it is accomplished, it is done, should it all end now, then with this i go if not freely or without resistance then very much at peace.

it may seem ridiculous to speak so in respect of "just" a compilation of songs, in particular one which (as we shall see as we go, if you read on) was not particularly loved or cared for, but each and every one of us sees things in variations of ways. for me, music has always been it.

yes, then, this is my post on the first proper release of Now That's What I Call Music 4 on CD. indeed, fact fans, pedantic types and those with an eye for details, indeed a version of it was released on CD at the time, albeit a much shorter version than what you got on lp or tape. and so badly did it do that CD issues of the series stopped again for a little while.

this set got hammered, caned, spannered, battered, or however you want to say it. well, tape one did, in my walkman. for me it was an absolutely perfect pick of songs, despite absolutely none of my "major" favourites at the age of 11 and 12 featured. not sure why tape two (which is now CD 2) didn't get much play. actually, i can't ever remember seeing it, perhaps it just went missing or something.

let it not be said that it wasn't just any of "my" major favourites absent from Now That's What I Call Music 4. to show how insanely good a year for music 1984 was, well, this set showcases some incredible songs, yet excludes arguably the three biggest bands of the year - Frankie Goes To Hollywood, whom spent 30% of 1984 at number one in the chart, Duran Duran and Wham.

popping in CD 1 and pressing play was to indulge in sheer bliss. if you are of a similar age to me, give it north or south a couple of years, then you may well have similar memories. or perhaps i am truly all alone here. the track listing is below, and way down below in non-Commodore 64 mode.

what exactly makes this all so good? i am unsure that i can give a qualified answer, for clearly my nostalgia is in overdrive. basically - and this is all just CD 1, which was once tape one - it's fifteen excellent songs, all put together with a wonderful flow, plus the comical folly that is The War Song by Culture Club. that, one can only assume, was included either for a laugh or contractual obligation reasons.

much delight is to be had in the fact that Now That's What I Call Music 4 as a 2019 CD set is exactly how Now That's What I Call Music 4 sounded as a tape or lp in 1984. up to now the welcome release of these sets on CD have been dogged with needless controversies - missing tracks and the wrong mixes or versions being used have marred the experience. forth time lucky, then.

but of course, them what do the Now series would get it spot on correct with the one volume (at least in respect of the 80s) that was the least popular. so ludicrously rich with music was 1984 that this set does not feature many - if any - number ones on it at all. sure, quite a few of the songs on this set have come to be regarded as the classics they are, but at the time what you find on this set are the "nearly big hits" of the year.

many thanks indeed to them what take the time and trouble to do all that Wikipedia stuff. the below is off their web thing, and gives a nice for those who like such things look at just how poorly Now 4 sold in comparison to the other 9 volumes of the first 10 of the series.

at the risk of sounding like an apologist, there are of course reasons for the fall off of sales, with few of them being related to the compilation in itself. for a start, there was a finite budget for music at the time, and Frankie Goes To Hollywood had only just released Welcome To The Pleasuredome. it sold big, that. people forget, but at the time it was estimated that one in four households had purchased the record. also, a certain thing called Do They Know It's Christmas? was released as a 7". for the first time ever, people felt they could genuinely change the world (for the better) via music, and so multiple purchases were made. yes, also a set called The Hits Album came out at the same time. mostly it was crap in comparison, but it did  have Jump by (proper) Van Halen on it.

listening to the discs, and looking at the tracklisting, i suppose if nothing else Now That's What I Call Music 4 for the general listener showcases something of an extraordinary phenomenon that feels (possibly incorrectly) decidedly 80s. That is big name (or reasonably close) artists doing one off songs for films that are not a Bond theme. five of them exist on this set.

for those that want them highlighting, you've got a what i believe is unique to this set version of the ace No More Lonely Nights by (now Sir) Paul McCartney from the hideously bad film Give My Regards To Broad Street. straight after that you get what must be the totes biggest case ever of a song outliving the film in the form of Together In Electric Dreams. although i liked the film. then you get Limahl doing Never Ending Story (guess the film) too. over on disc (tape) two you get Ray Parker jnr doing Ghostbusters, as well as the magnificent Sexcrime from 1984 by the Eurthymics. in respect of the latter, i really, really wanted the 12" single, but that featured the name of the song in massive letters. too late now, i suppose, but 11 year old me felt kind of awkward about taking that up to the counter at HMV.

buried away on tape two is a song called Pride by someone called U2. walking back in my mind to 1984, this was probably the first time i was aware of hearing the band. being 11, in England, under a Thatcher government and a dominant right wing press, all i was reasonably aware of about Ireland was that they were quite cross with England and some gang called the IRA kept bombing people. i was oblivious to any reason at all as to why they would do this. with this in mind, it was just the case that when Pride came on i heard a very angry Irish bloke shouting about love and shooting someone, so tuned out. the very next year i was baffled as to why that band were on the Live Aid stage, but then two years later they released an album which made everything make sense, and indeed made them the biggest band in the world.

any other highlights? just about everything except the rancid Culture Club song. my all time favourite tunes by Thompson Twins and OMD are right there, a classic Style Council tune, a throwaway catchy number by (now Sir) Elton John, the melancholy guilty pleasure of Missing You, the banging Repsect Yourself off of Kane Gang, a fun Feargal Sharkey number, some toe tapping happiness off of Status Quo, class tune from Rockwell and a bearable song by UB40. and all of that without mentioning an all time great just happening to be there, Lionel Richie's Hello.

indeed, yes, i have purchased all of the reissued Now That's What I Call Music sets in CD format. to be perfectly honest, 1, 2 and 3 were bought mostly in the hope that it would encourage them to continue, so that i may have been able to hear 4 again. but, if they release the rest, i shall buy. from what i remember 6 was a very close second favourite of mine. also, 5 has things like View To A Kill on it, which you can never have too many copies of

well, what more can i say. buy this set, i suppose, if you were there in 84 or were not. doesn't matter, it is timeless quality music (mostly). although one has to live in the here and the now - it's not where you're from it's where you're at - having the mind take a wander, or a stroll, to a particularly happy time and place in the heart is no bad thing. which is precisely what this CD set did for me.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

urinals

hello there


well, there is a bit of a clue as to what sort of content you will find here in this post right there in the title, look you see. it is not a clever or witty play on words, or rather word, to be sure. that is really what you will find here. you have, as it were, been warned, or given fair notice.

for those who prefer some sort of form of visual warning by which they decide if they carry on at their own risk or read on, well, fine. here is a picture of some bunnies. do be warned, for after that we reach the business end of the subject of urinals.

sometimes things just exist which do not prompt any thought or consideration. they are matters which exist purely for functional purposes, are accepted as such and everyone just moves on. it would be entirely reasonable to suggest (or assume) that urinals would very much fit in to this bracket. not so, it seems, not so. out there is someone what very much overthought the purpose, the aesthetics and the reason for a urinal, which led to them overdesigning it.

recently, for my sins, i travelled to that place where one should not go if at all possible to avoid. that is to the south, with south being defined as anywhere lower (in every possible sense) than Yorkshire. little of goodwill and much of ill is all that generally exists that way.

actually, in fairness my trip to the strange place was really rather good. during my visit, out of necessity i once or twice was compelled to make use of various bathroom facilities. on one such instance of this i was confronted with the below.

yes. these, i eventually worked out, are what qualify as or meet the criteria for urinals down in a place which is down in that south place. quite unexpected, really, and i must admit it took me a while to register in my mind that yes, those really were where they expected me to expel bodily fluids, to urinate or if you like to just go for a p!ss.

why. just, why, really. for what reason is it that someone felt that a urinal was not fine as it was, that it required some avant garde, post modernist artistic reimagining? really, it did not. the thing only needs to be functional and there to use.

the only reason i could think of for them urinals being all designer fancy la-de-dah was to provide patrons - gentlemen - using them with an ice breaking conversation starter. as i have never, ever had reason to start a conversation with someone whilst making use of a urinal, this is not something it is appropriate for me to comment on. with that being the case, i consulted Spiros.

several of you more regular readers will be all too familiar with my great friend Spiros. when not being the greatest legal mind of his generation, or out fighting insolent taxi drivers, usually he can be found in public bathrooms designated for use by the gentry, making short term but mutually beneficial friendships with like minded men. often (but not always) in uniform.

in his infinite generosity and kindness, Spiros agreed to pass comment. he made it most clear, in no uncertain nor debatable terms, that his preference was for no-nonsense, functional, proper urinals. quite like this one pictured below.

for him, this is where it is all at. by all, and by that i mean his, accounts, this is the only conversation piece a gentleman needs. one simply needs to stand, or if you like loiter, here and wait for a like minded chap to snuggle up next to you. when they do, you can either form a short term yet mutually beneficial friendship, or you can express a wish not to pursue such. Spiros says the way he does the latter is by angling it so that he does a little bit of wee wee on them.

as it happens, Spiros says that these days, or at least of late, he is making more friends (short term basis, etc) in elevators (lifts) than he is in bathrooms or general lavatory facilities. to this end, so to speak, he has sent me a video. one which you should watch only after being warned it is naughty. so this is a warning, and the below scrolling text is a warning.


DANGER WILL ROBINSON

RUDE AND NAUGHTY CONTENT AHEAD

CAREFUL NOW


right, this is your final warning, do not click on the video below unless you mean it.

Spiros said that i have to make it quite clear that it was not him what did that graffiti or vandalism, but he did give every indication that he wished to have thought to have done such himself.

let us be honest here, there is nothing more i can say on this subject that you wouldn't know if you are interested in this sort of thing.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the best and most important single of the nineties.......

howdy pop pickers


mindful of the fact that i am very much heading towards that point of a year when i construct a sort of "best of" thing, look you see, there is a very great danger in declaring anything to be "the best". or, for that matter, the "most important", or "most significant" and, well, so on. such shall forever be subjective, or even if it is all fact based scientific then open to debate, discussion and further dissemination. basically, calling something "the best" is a brave move, and perhaps one best not done.

something that has always stuck in my mind, then, was when NME declared Regret by New Order to be the "best and most important single of the 90s". it was not a flippant, off the cuff, limited to a possibly over excited review, either. no. they repeated this claim for a good few years.

yes, this was NME when NME was NME. as in, of value, and an important publication. normally they wielded their power for good, but their were some curious decisions they made. like, for instance, the time they effectively gifted the generally average band Cornershop a whole career as it suited them to do so for their bizarre war on Morrissey. and, maybe, their love of Regret.

please make no mistake. Regret is a good song. great, even. many would say f*****g excellent, and i would not quibble. someone or other out of the band (possibly Bernard) said that they felt it was the last truly good song the band did, and with that there would be no argument.

for some reason you might be reading this and be unfamiliar with the song, or not heard it for a while. if this is true of you, then here is a link to the video. yes, fans of such, it is indeed "that song that was on an episode of Baywatch once", or similar.

as much as i like the song, and New Order for that matter, i really do struggle with the view that NME had of it. enough to hold on to such for all these years. but it got me wondering, what would count as the best and most important single of the 90s?

just being "the last decent song" New Order did doesn't seem to tick that box. nor did the song, as far as i am aware, influence the style of the day in any way that left some sort of tangible legacy.

if you wanted to do some sort of fact based "best and important single of the 90s" thing then the answer comes to Something About The Way You Look Tonight by Elton John, which sold millions due to his re-recording of Candle In The Wind was on it. so far as i am aware all royalties off the re-recording portion of the single went to charity, so why not.

there is of course a case to say two songs hold the title of "best and most important" of the 90s, in the form of Country House off of Blur and Roll With It by Oasis. whilst both are easily listed as decidedly average songs, the chart battle brought on by the two being released at the least showed a time when music mattered.

well, dig what you dig.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

καμία αλήθεια δεν είναι ποτέ ψέμα

हरिः ओम्!

long has it been since i have used (or at least displayed) my powers of being able to see future events unwritten, look you see. far too long, maybe, or not long enough, perhaps. it is something that i do reluctantly but not in a hesitant way.

as fairly modest, infrequently regular readers will know, i have not one, not three, but two devices derived from an ancient time. they allow me to see what remains (for now) around the corner; to speak that which has not been spoken.

using this power is, simply, dangerous. i can sit here and claim that i shall only ever use it for good, but know that it cannot. anything which i foresee can be with the most perfectly good and pure and right reasons, but someone somewhere shall use it as a will to darkness. be warned of this before you follow further.

writing that which has remained unwritten makes it written, too. so, in a sense, my using my powers, to see what is unseen, makes it written, makes it seen, makes it so. i am sure that you have grasped a fair part of the complexities of this.

it is entirely possible that soon i shall be poisoned by my enemies, so that they may either cease my visions or try to claim them as their own. this is the nature of the realm i have ended up in, quite unsolicited if i may say so, except for the parts where i purchased the devices and used them. but, if it all comes to an end and in doing so one has allowed to touch a future they wished for, then so be it, it is done.

right, let me ask some pertinent and relevant questions that some of you may have. now is your last chance to leave the future to be discovered, rather than to know it.

shall Brexit ever actually happen?

8 BALL : chances aren't good
MAGIC LEMON : no sh!ts given

will Boris Johnson become Prime Minister again in December 2019?

8 BALL :  indications say yes
MAGIC LEMON :  i don't care

if i happen to [TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] close?

8 BALL :  so it shall be
MAGIC LEMON : bang on

shall Jeremy Corbyn be elected Prime Minister in December 2019?

8 BALL : prospect good
MAGIC LEMON : bang on

will America like who is elected President in 2020?

8 BALL : prospect is good
MAGIC LEMON : no sh!ts given

can common sense prevail and Ed Sheridan's fake records be removed from chart history?

8 BALL : the stars say no
MAGIC LEMON : when pigs fly

now might be a good time for you to pause, if indeed you are still reading. i know how upsetting, shocking, distressing or entirely expected many of these revelations about that which is to come are. take a breath, maybe have a cup of tea, perhaps a cigarette, then read on if brave.

will someone ostensibly [TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE] me ever [TEXT REMOVED ON LEGAL ADVICE]?

8 BALL : no
MAGIC LEMON : i don't care

can we expect further coverage of every little temper tantrum Greta Thunberg has?

8 BALL : consult me later
MAGIC LEMON : no sh!ts given

as you can see, the 8 ball is a bit exhausted, at the magic lemon is sucking down some negative energy. in the interests of transparency i am telling you that i am taking a break here, but this is irrelevant as writing should start again quite soon.

see, told you. kind of.

is Jo Swinson going to be Prime Minister in December 2019?

8 BALL : you can count on it
MAGIC LEMON : i don't care

will my demise bring the much desired satisfaction?

8 BALL : focus and ask again
MAGIC LEMON : not listening

from previous experience i can assure you that there is no sense pursuing any more tales of the future right now. it is draining, both on my devices and on my wrists, to press for knowing that which is unknown, and the mechanisms are now saying cease. at least, for now.

well, anyway, i hope the questions answered here coherently are if not what you expected then what you can accept. please do not use these valuable insights for anything wicked, naughty, evil or wrong. knowing that which is unknown is meant to be a gift, and if rejected can so easily turn into a burden, if not specifically a curse.

yes, certainly, unless i am poisoned or similar, at some future date i will dabble some more, seeing what can only be seen with special skills. but, should i end up poisoned or similar, well, know that i did go with regret about not being able to see more for you.





वरेण्य परस्पर !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

some 63% of stats are made up on the spot

hello there


just one of those frequently infrequent look at facts and figures "behind the blog", look you see. well, maybe "in front" of, as it happens, for they concern such as you, the reader. or readers.

as you will have noticed by now, this is not a "monetised" blog. there are no adverts (unless google shove them on without telling me) and i don't do "affiliate selling". with this in mind, how many, exactly, come and read, makes no difference. i am just happy if so much as one person does. and if you are the one, many thanks.

but, then again, a look at what sees some of you come here is always interesting. so, time for a gander.

that top one, which seems to have attracted a lot of people, has me baffled. i tried the search keywords myself, both on google and on the bing, and not one of my blog posts came up on the first page. oh. maybe i should have checked it on images? not that i can recall doing any plumbing, except that one time i had a knacked washing machine.

as for the rest of the searches, well, i hope you found what you were looking for. i am assuming it is someone else with the same name as me that someone is seeking on facebook, but if for some reason it is actually me, well i am on it somewhere. to the best of my knowledge i have my account set so as not to be found via search engines. just leave some sort of message here if you are looking for me for some reason.

indeed, yes, i am very happy to at last have a footprint, or if you like presence, in Japan. a long term ambition of mine has to have had more involvement with Japan, both here on this blog and in general. when i finally get to sell something to someone in Japan on or off of ebay, i can basically leave this earth, for i have done all that i could.

of course i remain delighted and ecstatic about the significant percentage of "unknown region" visitors. to my mind they are either sailors, or on oil rigs, or on a plane, or in space. i say they, but you may be one of them, apologies for being unintentionally rude. and, go Italy! welcome to you all, but this is a surprising one. to my mind Italians would be far too busy being stylish and concerned with looking stylish to trouble an internet, but there you go.

well, anyway, it's not where you're from it's where you're at, and thank you for being here.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

further adventures in car wash engagement

hello


towards the business end of november we are, look you see. and, for that matter, very much at the business end of the year. if "business end" translates as "end". to be honest, i am not sure. it is a really quite class term, though, and i do rather like using it. perhaps it can mean whatever one wishes for it to mean, for the sound of it aces all complaints (surely).  so, this means that here could be the final presentation of me making use of a car wash, as presented in Commodore 64 mode, for the last time this year.

at the great risk of sounding repetitive, which in itself causes a sense of deja vu, i am really unaware of whether it is the concept of a car wash which interests so many readers, or if it is such presented here in Commodore 64 mode. it does not really matter, i suppose. honestly i am delighted to attract any sort of visitor, so let me not quibble or stress as to why that may be so.

right, moving on, as you can see quite clearly, there is one of them floppy brush roller washing things doing the passenger side. which, if you are an American or also someone in a country where they drive on the entirely incorrect side of the road, what you think of as the driver side.

what direction was the floppy wet brush thing going? in the above image, from right to left. working down from the front of the vehicle i was having washed down to the back of it.

yes, indeed, one of them "animated gif" things for you of the car wash in action. as i recall, maybe only in passing, the last time i did this it was of the floppy fluffy wet brush things doing their business to one side. here, as you may have concluded, the focus is on the one what rolls up across the whole upper or top parts of the vehicle at this specific moment it was doing the windscreen, hence me being able to see it and film it for you.

if for some reason you wished to see the floppy brush thing to the side again, but only this time as it goes from right to left (which is to say from the rear of the vehicle to the back), well then here you go.

perhaps i should be saying something profound or meaningful here, what with this possibly being the final Commodore 64 mode car wash article of the year. or maybe ever, for one never knows what all of the future could hold. but, it is likely i will do more, and also i cannot think of anything all that interesting to say on the subject.

well, my thinking would be that anyone here on this part of the internet is purely doing so for the pictures rather than my words, so i shall leave it at that.



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

circle the wagons, we're under attack

hi there


it is not a particularly great revelation, look you see, to suggest that this (or any) post (article, think piece, what you like) might be confused, in instances incoherent, far from free flowing and mixing the non-linear with the non non-linear. but, for this one, i am quite aware of how it shall be so. giving some fair warning seems to be appropriate.

UPDATE : i watched Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me again, for the first time in 20+ years, after watching the below. as it happens, had i watched it before, the series would have made a lot more sense. i forgot loads and loads of what happened in the film, but David Lynch (predictably) did not, and if anything this series seems to be more of a sequel to the film than the TV series. and so makes a very great deal of by gibberish below even more gibberish, but publish and be damned.

the (not particularly) delicate subject here is Twin Peaks. specifically, it is the "new" (rather, recent) revival which they did, it apparently being called the (or a) "limited event series". having considered any which way there is to do this, it is clear there is no possible way to write of the subject without giving some, or a lot, of it all away. so, a *** SPOILER WARNING *** in a very real sense exists for this entire post, or at the least from here on out.

the owls are not what they seem

SPOILER WARNING

fire walk with me

exactly how many more warnings, or words of caution, would you like before you proceed? i suspect the above is sufficient, and yes, by all means feel free to just sit and admire that splendid bouncing text rather than read any more of this.

let me take a step back 3, maybe 4, years. when a return of Twin Peaks was announced, of course my interest was caught. yes, like many, i was a "big fan" of the original thing - all of it, be it both series (although in the UK we had it as one) and indeed the film, what had (and this is important for later) David Bowie in it. scattered across this blog are random elements which say i could feasibly called a "proper fan", what with me owning things like the board game, the Diane tape, books, etc.

i was, however, hesitant to get too excited. yes, Twin Peaks as it was in its entirety at this stage brilliant, innovative, much loved, cherished and fondly remembered. also, it felt complete. certainly, sure, a million and more stories were possible after the concluding episode, but essentially the whole thing felt satisfactorily finished, with the ending being a pretty much perfect blend of ambiguity and finality. the film was a nice bonus, rounding some things out but adding extremely little.

so, a return, or "revival", was announced. this was to much fanfare and excitement. and then that drifted away. problems kicked off early on, and thanks to absolutely everything needing to be on social media, it played out for all to see. without lingering on the details, there were some arguments between David Lynch and those financing it, which in a short version led to it all being cancelled, then being back on. alarm bells rang for me, and no doubt a few others. if a project of this presumed scope and size could be ditched then back on based on what seemed to be whims, perhaps this was all to be just a little to breezy and casual.

other problems (of sorts) kicked in. many of the original cast were happy to return. some were not, like for instance Lara Flynn Boyle. a couple of actors who did not return - David Bowie in particular - had David Lynch react in a way which seemed to suggest he felt betrayed by them for the casual reason of being dead when he required them not to be. but, he plodded on, and so all 18 episodes of his new vision came to be.

further alarm bells sounded when the series aired. it was launched with much fanfare, enthusiasm and excitement, with many people declaring the first episode or two being a triumph, the greatest thing ever to happen to television, etc, and so on. and then all conversation, coverage, celebration and mentions of it kind of drifted off, possibly around the third, forth or fifth episode. oh. maybe my assumptions or presumptions were correct, then, and the return to Twin Peaks was essentially a nice idea but not a very practical one.

then here we are. a couple of years after it was all broadcast, and a couple of years after it was released on what some of you and i would refer to as "home video", the price of the DVD (and indeed Blu Ray) box set dropped to somewhere slightly north of £10, making it tempting enough to go. i opted for the DVD variation, recalling that my Mum loved the original too, and so if it was any good then it would be easier to send her the DVD set i bought. this set shall not be posted to my Mum at any given time soon, or ever.

you wish for a plot overview? the fact that such does not exist on the back of the DVD box pretty much sums up your chances of this. in essence, or ostensibly, twenty five years after the final events we, the world, got to see of Twin Peaks, "good" Agent Cooper is commencing a journey to return from where he has been, presumably to stop and send back "bad" Agent Cooper.......

perhaps this is me having a hitherto unknown streak of millennial / snowflake sense of entitlement, but i had reasonably expected a series called Twin Peaks to - as a minimum - mostly be set in the town of Twin Peaks. further, i had taken it would mostly feature Agent Cooper, doing smart Agent Cooper like FBI things. but of course this is David Lynch, and a David Lynch in a time when "subvert audience expectations" is a thing, no matter how much damage such does to reputation (refer last series of Game Of Thrones) or box office (refer Solo and The Last Jedi). so, in one of these aspects of expectation, we seem to get Twin Peaks as a pan-American metaphorical, metaphysical "state of mind" thing rather than literal. as in, David Lynch goes right ahead and covers ground that he has not touched on before, except for the times when he hammered such a concept to death in Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, etc.

do we at least get Agent Cooper doing smart Agent Cooper things in this? no. i totes get why interest and coverage dropped off when it did as it was being broadcast, for if you have nothing nice to say about that which you love then it is probably best to remain silent. two (or three) episodes of "new" Twin Peaks in which the main plot is an Agent Cooper, quasi incarnated as a quasi deaf mute insurance salesman called Dougie, being unable to work out how to go pee-pee would be sufficient for a few to say "let me not punish myself by watching further".

the owls are not what they seem

SPOILER WARNING

fire walk with me

oh, sure, we get a fair (substantial) bit of "evil" Agent Cooper, for those who recall the conclusion of the original Twin Peaks, running about, generally doing evil things. you have noticed the repeat of the spoiler warning, yeah? much, or many, of his evil ways seem to be concerning ensuring that "good" Agent Cooper remains trapped in the place with the red curtain, or dead. one of the more interesting twists is when he (please see the spoiler warnings) turns out to be on a mission to kill one resident of Twin Peaks, a particularly nasty, vile and unpleasant character who seems to serve no purpose whatsoever but to upset viewers, who it seems to turn out is actually the son of "evil" Agent Cooper and no lesser a person than Audrey Horne. whereas this lurked as a story deeply in the background then ends up launched on an unsuspecting audience, the general sense it gives is that perhaps this line would have been a much, much, much (much) better story to have in place than a good deal of the irrelevant, red herring waffle that populates the slight majority of the 18 episodes. but, what do i know that David Lynch does not.

as far as i could work out as it went along, i, we, the audience, get Agent Cooper as Agent Cooper for, in total running time, a little north of one episode of the show. we are treated to significantly more of him as Dougie, and a fair bit of him as "evil" Agent Cooper. congratulations on subverting expectations, then - well done, you. but why, i wonder, is it all of a sudden so really bad and unacceptable to give audiences what they want from a show?

biggest disappointment for me? oddly not that most of Twin Peaks is set outside of Twin Peaks. nor the fact that, mostly, Agent Cooper is not Agent Cooper. the biggest groan, my "well that's just stupid" thought, came when they went right ahead and made Diane a "person", as such. played by Laura Dern, no less, showcasting the deft versatility David Lynch has always displayed when choosing to work with as wide a variety of actors and actresses as possible.

undoubtedly many were thrilled to see Diane "made real", as it were. equally they will be thrilled to see the part played by Laura Dern, who i have nothing against. a select few will have been even more delighted, wish come true stuff, to see Agent Cooper and Diane have something of a that sort of thing (sex) scene. for me it was all best left as a "great unknown". the idea that you never knew if Diane was real or not, if he was sending the tapes off or that was just his name for his smart cassette recorder, was part of the charm. a minor point, perhaps, but not without precedent. would, for instance, Pulp Fiction still be Pulp Fiction if the audience knew as fact what exactly was in the briefcase?

yes, indeed, i am quite aware of the "fan service" going on here. at many, or several, or two levels. there is probably a fanatical fan sect who always dreamed of Diane being real and Agent Cooper engaging in that sort of thing with her. but also there is possibly an unrelenting faction of Blue Velvet fans that have dreamed a dream of seeing Kyle and Laura do it; a dream they have not relinquished since the late 80s. here you go, then.

the most distressing aspect, for me, was without question the decision to recast the David Bowie (originally quite minor and very abstract) role as a massive kettle. no, i am not making this up. perhaps just rewriting the series so as not to need the David Bowie character might have been a better idea, but what do i know. making this worse is of course that they appear to have gotten someone to come along and do a (very) bad Bowie impression of Bowie doing his (extremely) bad Southern State drawl. not much in the world acts as a stark reminder that one of your heroes, your idols, is dead quite the same way as a respected director going "oh f***, he's dead? really? quick, get me the means to make a kettle, the biggest one ever, or i will use a regular one and some camera trickery".

make no mistake, for in this instance the owls probably are what they seem. above is David Lynch carving his vision of how David Bowie should be, a kettle, out of styrofoam. i have not seen American Gods, but i seem to recall reading that for the show they cast Gillian Anderson out of X Files for the Bowie role. that seems like a better idea, but i am loathe if not reticent to question David Lynch. except for the parts where i have here.

how about that last episode? i am assuming that if you have read this far, that you have heeded the lovely spoiler warnings and so on, you have no problem reading of this. whereas episode seventeen gives it all a "logical" conclusion, one gets an episode eighteen. for fans of such, yes, this is where one gets the Laura Dern / Kyle MacLachlan sex scene, so off you go. the only way i can think of to describe this episode (other than, or including, that sort of thing) is to say David Lynch went "hey. i have a great idea. i have seen those British shows Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes and i liked what i saw. let me just quickly turn this new series, and the one before it, and the film, into one whole bit massive ambiguous, time travel trap loop sort of thing.". no, i am not sure if i particularly liked it or not. certainly i found it interesting.

and, to be fair, this was set up right in the first episode (of this "new" series) with the variations of the 'glass box' scene. indeed, you could argue it was set up in either the original series or the Fire Walk With Me film. i do not remember which, but there was, i am sure, a scene where Agent Cooper clocked he could time travel, if only slightly, on a point on a particular stretch of road. unless i am quite confused and that was in X Files.

maybe that (possible) influence speaks of the "issues". whereas Twin Peaks broke incredible ground by what it did within the constraints of television, things have changed. this is a Twin Peaks very much informed by how television shows now simply ignore the constraints. it is a Twin Peaks informed by many shows, with Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad being the two very big and obvious ones. essentially, where once Twin Peaks broke ground and showed what could be done with television, now Twin Peaks is just another example of how television meant for mature audiences are made. that is perhaps the greatest sin, under no circumstances should Twin Peaks have been made to be "just another show".

none of the particularly graphic or (highly) disturbing scenes in the show ever felt like they were "pushing boundaries", or relevant to the concept, or anything but "this is now what is expected in shows like this". following the pack rather than setting the pace is not something i would have wished to befall either Twin Peaks or David Lynch.

it would be wrong to say i "hated" this new Twin Peaks as there was much good and interesting. and yet, i counter, it would be quite wrong to say i "liked" this new Twin Peaks because, well, see most of the above i guess. fairness, i believe, would be to say that i experienced it. which, knowing and admiring David Lynch's work over the years, is in all likelihood exactly what his ambition was.

yes, that Angelo Badalamenti theme remains. indeed yes, it remains haunting, beautiful, seductive and inspiring goosebumps in those touched by the show who hear it.

should you have read this far, then it is likely you have either already seen this revival, or have absolutely no interest in doing so. meaning that there is less point than usual (which is not much) in me making any suggestion as to if someone else not me should or should not watch it.

going through what i have written, and going through the discs to grab images to compensate for the (poorly written) waffle endured, i think i have changed my mind. often i looked at scenes of what i saw and went "oh yeah". perhaps, like life itself, this "new" Twin Peaks must be endured and confused progressing forward, understood and appreciated going back.

this has been a very strange experience. i am not sure, but i suspect i want more.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and they can't wait for their fifty first to roll around

hey there


whenever someone specifically (or pacifically) requests that i put something up here on this blog, look you see, generally i embrace the request. for no reason would i not, in truth. it is of much merriment and delight of heart when it turns out that someone reads this and wishes to "engage".

to say "life is full of moments" is, superficially, to put out there one of those phrases that people quite like to put in a lovely font, maybe have placed (superimposed) over an inspirational picture, and place on the wall at home (or similar). do not let that distract, for it remains true. so grab as many moments as you can that make memories, which make life what it is supposed to be.

our family has a couple (two) of moments and memories associated with the day today. sorry Katie, yes thinking of you but this one is over to the other memory of the day, since quite the milestone has reached.

indeed, that is Mum & Dad, today (or close to it), celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. an all too rare, very special achievement. one that has seen them all around the world, or as good as, and of course having to put up with me for a significant percentage of it. 92%, stats fans. if i remember how to do percentages, it has been a while.

how about a nice flashback picture? making this one of them "then and now", rather than "now and then" sort of posts. yes, absolutely.

many super excellent wishes and a whole lot of love from all of us as you celebrate this special day! yes, we very much wish we could be with you celebrating!

hopefully the next 50 are just as wonderful and as interesting!



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

return to reading

hello reader


it feels like a particular while, look you see, since i done some book "reviews" (or comments) here. time to read has evaded me somewhat, or so it seems. no matter, as i have only recently finished reading two (not three, or five) books (novels), time for some speculative commentary.

by chance, as in this certainly was not planned, it is two "old" books that i read. which is to say ones not published within the last couple of years. no, i had no idea before i picked either up. also, i kind of subscribe to a view that a dear friend once shared with me in respect of films. in his view, a movie was "old", as in "not new", only when you saw it. if one sat and watched a motion picture made fifty or so years ago that they had not seen before, then it was very much new to them.

anyway, a look at what i read.

Dark Side (or possibly Darkside) by Belinda Bauer turned out to be her second novel, and is a quasi-sequel to her (superb) first, Blacklands. it was rather good, very good indeed. perhaps not quite so good as Blacklands was, but certainly a better read than the recent one off her, Snap. meanwhile, The Gun Seller is off of Hugh Laurie, yes that one. rather like the Steve Martin novel i read a while ago, it's a breezy, whimsical thing, seemingly published more to indulge the stereotypical fragile ego of the author rather than for literary merits. as such, your enjoyment is limited or expanded by how much you care for the person what wrote it. generally speaking, Hugh Laurie is someone who i have on a list (not short but not extensive) of people that yeah, sure, if it came to it i would take a bullet for them, so i rather enjoyed it.

right, with that "just the basics" overview in place, do take note of, and pay attention to, a *** SPOILER WARNING *** being in place for the rest of this post. obviously i shall try not to have such in, but these things happen.

starting where i started would be to start with Darkside or Dark Side by Belinda Bauer. also, this is the "most recent" of the two in respect of publication date.

the provenance of my copy is unmistakably Tesco, for one of their "2 for £8" stickers beautifies the cover. however, i would not have purchased it as part of that deal, since i am still very much boycotting it, such is the underhand way they added £1 to the price. most likely i bought this as either their £3 or even £3.50 book of the week, or got it for £2.50 on condition that i spent a further 50p on The Sun, which will have gone directly into recycling.

plot? a small, sleepy village is somewhat disturbed by the death of an elderly resident, but then becomes rocked with it just so happens that the death turns out to be via murder. the local copper sort of tries to do his best to handle it, but soon the "big guns" of them there London coppers are called in, led by a particularly obnoxious and unpleasant type. whilst the obnoxious type seems more interested in making life hell for the local copper, and every one else for that matter, all of a sudden a few more dead by murder bodies start to appear......

make no mistake, the "twist" in this novel, as in who is responsible for the dead by murder bodies, is clinically obvious very early on. the pleasure in reading stems largely from watching it all unfold, but mostly (if that makes sense) from the superb written style. so, if you are looking for something complex that will have you trying to work it all out before any revelations, no, not here.

on, then, to The Gun Seller, by Hugh Laurie. yes, that Hugh Laurie. as in the talented, actually more intelligent and very much by some distance best one out of A Bit Of Fry & Laurie, and he was the lead (titular) character in that House show too, which was quite good.

provenance of my copy? i had no idea at all that Hugh had gone written a novel in the 90s, not until in came up in one of them auction site searches i was doing to see if there were any comedy audio books or what have you featuring he and his (considerably) lesser partner. as the all in (as in postage included) for a (exceptionally well looked after and good quality) used copy was only very slightly north of £2, i figured surely, certainly, why not.

does The Gun Seller have any sort of discernible plot? yes, in part or if you like partially. the book has what might be called am unspecified fraction of a third of a quarter of a whim of an idea for a plot. essentially, and in many respects, it is a quasi semi parody of Glamorama, only written and published some two years prior to Bret Easton Ellis publishing that work. which, i like to think, showcases just how brilliant Hugh Laurie is. yes, i like him, and would forgive him all.

so, anyway, plot. our narrator (a former soldier somewhat down on his luck, constantly) is approached to do a murder. not only does he say no, but he elects to become an unsolicited protector of the proposed assassination target. from there he goes off on a whimsical adventure, involving but not limited to the arms trade, traitors, MI5, helicopters, the American diplomatic core, terrorism, sex, lawyers, guns, money, motorbikes and skiing.

basically, or in short, maybe best described quickly i suppose, or as an overview even, The Gun Seller features many allegorical, metaphorical, sharp sarcastic or self depreciating witty lines sellotaped together with a tenaciously sticky semi link. so, if you find the dazzling, talented, handsome, brilliant, all around genius of Hugh Laurie entertaining, you will very much enjoy this "novel". if you don't, then go away, you silly person, until such a time as you do.

my suspicions are, or i have every reason to suspect that, this particular episode of "reviews" shall have been of no practical use to anyone, anywhere. except maybe those who really, really like seeing the covers of novels presented in Commodore 64 mode. with that being the most probable case, thank you all the more for reading, then.

yes, indeed i am reading further novels, and i have every reason to be confident that comments on them will appear here as and when they are read.




be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!