Review 2008: President Obama

Suggested by Annette.

Dear Mr. President,

It’s difficult to know where to begin when writing a letter to the person who’s supposed to be the most powerful man in the known world, especially on their first day in office. So much to do, and though eight years seems like a long time, and a wise man once talked about how much the White House was capable of doing in a single day, the business of politics isn’t that easy and time is bound to slip away.

The media are already chockablock with columnists and pundits suggesting what your priorities are and as people shake your hand during the inaugural ball, I suspect a couple of them will take the opportunity to whisper something in your ear. I’m not invited. But if I was, there’s one thing I’d ask. A single favour. Please be your own man.

One of the perennial problems with US Presidents is that they ultimately let the trappings of office and the seal consume them, the oval office becoming a prison without corners or bars for whatever hopes they may have. More often than not, at least recently, they spend most of their presidency trying to live up to those who’ve gone before.

Sometimes, it’s almost as though everything has been about becoming president and it’s not until they’re in office that they decided to y’know try some stuff and see if it works. The first four years become about re-election and then the next four are spent legacy fishing.

Setting aside his incompetence and deceit, the reason your predecessor came across as being so unpresidential was because he spent most of his time trying to be. When giving speeches, he was forever opening sentences with an attempt at great weight, but the gravitas usually drifted away, presumably to the bathroom.

Time and again he gesticulated and stammered, hoping against hope that we’d somehow manage to work out what he was trying to say even though he didn’t have the capacity to say it, famously when he was asked what mistakes he may have made. He had an irritating inability to speak more than a few words without taking a breath, as though he’d been to a public speaking coach and was following his trainer's suggestions to the letter.

Every indication so far is that this isn’t you. You’ll win that second term by simply doing a good job and your legacy will be nothing less than the rebuilding of your country into a better place, something you’ve been planning to do since you were in college. You have a dignity and capacity to string two words together President Bush lacked that already makes you the better statesman.

Much was made during the campaign about your work as a community organiser, but the substance of that, finding jobs for people is an indication that unlike Bush who basically fell into politics because he couldn’t find anything else to do, public service has been your life, using your intellect and rhetorical power of persuasion to make the lives of others better.

Surprisingly, I’m not sure there’s much else I can do to advise you. I’m just a short haired blogger from Liverpool who’s been watching agog at the quality of the people you’ve selected to help in your crusades from aids to experts. There’s been some criticism of these choices because they tend to be from the good schools like Harvard and Yale.

Oddly I can see their point – it sends a message that intelligent people worthy of higher office can’t come from the public school service, but on the other hand why not put the thinking class in key positions at such a critical time when wars are being fought in deserts and caves and on Wall Street? It’s inspiring that you’d unabashedly embrace elitism at a time when the mere idea is treated with such disdain.

During your inauguration speech, you used words and rhetoric which has been persona non grata for the past eight years and even before. You mentioned non-believers and the importance of science, talking to enemies rather than simply demolishing them with tanks, suggesting that everyone can be a hero if they’re prepared to make tough choices. Words difficult for some to hear, and yet you said them on your most important day.

I appreciate you have a busy evening ahead, so I don’t want to keep you much longer, but I just wanted to end by offering another, surprising underscoring of your achievement, if the tears of Jesse Jackson and the general outpouring of support you’ve received from across the political divide and across the world haven’t been enough.

Have you seen the film Undercover Brother? A parody of 1970s blaxploitation films but with the aesthetic of McG’s remake of Charlie’s Angels, it clicked the ears of the cultural stereotypes people of colour have of themselves and caucasians. It’s very funny. Neil Patrick ‘Doogie Howser’ Harris is the token white guy in a spy organisation called the B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D. and the main villain is simply called The Man. You might have met him – I think he was your opponent in the presidential campaign.

One of the key plot elements is about a potential black candidate for president, a Vietnam war hero played by Lando, sorry, Billy Dee Williams. Somewhere in there he’s brainwashed into opening a chain of fried chicken outlets instead, but the reason I’m mentioning him, and this film is that it illustrates that just six years ago, in 2002 when this film was made, the idea of a black president seemed like a gag, unlikely. Which is the scale of your achievement – you’ve turned a notion which only seemed possible in fantasy, worthy of parody, into a reality.

That’s amazing.

Take care,

Stuart.

Review 2008: Um 2008

Obama Hope!, originally uploaded by Maryland1RN.

Dear 2008,

Hello! I’ve never written to a segment of time before, but I just thought someone should take a moment to say goodbye before your replacement arrives in a few hours and you’ll be taking a well earned rest. Well I say rest, but it’s unlikely, unless there’s some bizarre Groundhog Day inspired hijinks that we’ll all have to live through you again, so it’s more like a retirement. You probably know already there’ll be some people who’ll be happy to see the back of you, but don’t take it personally. I’m sure every year makes a few enemies along the way.

I’ve often imagine what it must be like to be a year (or at least I have for the purposes of this letter). Do you have a union? Does it have subcommittees? Do 1939-45 get together every now and then to reminisce about the wars? When the financial crisis happened, did you give one of the 1930s a call for advice on how to deal with it? When you bump into 2003 in the street, does is he always saying ‘I told you so...’? Is there a year none of you can get along with like 1996? You’re all bobbing around in the timestream and then ’96 comes rowing along and you try and make yourself scarce? When 2009 is born, will Old Father Time hand out cigars?

Anyway, I’ve been searching for an adjective to describe you and it’s very hard. If I was simply talking about your effect on Liverpool it would be cultural. I might have only managed to get to the opening ceremony for our capital of culture just as it ended, and most of anything good was far too expensive for the average pocket (especially mine), but I still tried to see as much as I could. Jonathan Miller and Richard Dawkins offered some great lectures, I attended the awards ceremony for the Liverpool Arts Prize, chased around parts of the city I’d never visited before searching for Superlambananas, looked up in wonder at a giant spider twice and saw the amazing Art in the Age of Steam exhibition at the Tate.

I could also say you were difficult. I didn’t feel like I really accomplished anything and still running on the spot. Yet I did writing and writing and more writing and that included my first professional commissions. I discovered how useful the world ‘nevertheless’ is, survived a sort of road traffic accident, listened to loads and loads of music and watched more Doctor Who and related products in a year than I ever have before. As well I as reading, lots and lots of reading and I discovered that Shakespeare was an even bigger genius than I first thought because he was forever editing and improving his plays, something we’re only just realising now.

But the wars continued, though UK involvement in one of them is ending soon, we did particularly well in the Olympics and everyone will be tightening their belts ready for the impending depression (because I can’t imagine it will be anything else). This new US President you’ve brought us should cushion the blow (though I’m sure 2009 will try and snatch some of the credit even though you and 2007 did most of the work). That election kept me nicely entertained and distracted, thank you, though it would be nice if you could pay a visit to 2011 and 2012 when they’re with us to give them the benefit of your experience. You know yourself what these youngsters can be like...

I'd best let you get on with the packing. Have a good evening and try and behave yourself. What kind of retirement present do you think you'll get? A watch would be too ironic.

Take care,

Stuart.

[Why I've done this!]

Review 2008: The ten year old version of me

Suggested by Kat.

Dear Stuart,

I’ve been trying to remember what you’re like. I don’t mean what you look like – there are an amazing number of photographs – but what it was like to be you. I’ve been asked to write to you, but I don’t really know what to say.

Shall we talk about what life’s like for you now?

It’s 1984, so the Olympics have happened or are happening in Los Angeles, Peter Davison is Doctor Who, the International Garden Festival is in Liverpool and you’re thinking about the secondary school you want to go to. About now Band Aid is at number one, though other than that you’re not paying much attention to the pop charts because you have The Spinners on permanent loop. You’re generally unaware of major news events and mostly spending your time in front of a computer. That’s not going to change so get used to it. You’ll be pleased to know, though, that you’ll still be able to play Chuckie Egg in twenty-four years. And there's a new Star Trek film coming out. I know how much you enjoyed The Search for Spock.

What about your immediate future?

You’re being bullied, I know, and I wish I could tell you that’s going to stop, but it isn’t at least for now, it’s going to get worse right into secondary school, but it’ll ease when boys grow up or at least they move on to someone else. It’ll be horrible, but on the plus side, you’ll make some good friends as a result with the people who intervene, and you’ll cry at a station when one of them emigrates to Australia, though no one else seems to hear about it or care so get it out of your system. Though I’d make sure when your pet rabbit dies that you don’t tell anyone at least in school; it’s for the best.

Also, you know those feelings you’re having about Princess Leia, how you can’t keep your eyes off that postcard you have of her in that snow gear she wore on Hoth, and you’re not sure what they’re about? There’ll be plenty more of that. After a while you’ll start to think about girls you don’t know in the real world in the same way and then some you do and sometimes all at the same time. It’s called fancying or a crush and you’ll be having a lot of them. Pop stars will be your thing, at least at first, and though the names Kylie Minogue and Debbie Gibson mean nothing to you now, you’ll have posters of them all over your bedroom wall by the end of the decade.

How about now?

I don’t want to give too much away because even after a quarter of a century I can’t quite understand everything that is happening and besides I don’t want to spoil everything for you. Even after this time, there are still comics and books and games and school and holidays and records and you’ll be surprised by how little has altered. You’ll be told at some point that nothing really changes, the words stay the same even if it’s different faces making the speeches and wars continue even if the guns are in different hands. But things seem to have intensified lately. You’ll be pleased to know you stay healthy yourself though, even if the world around you becomes an often quite scary place.

Advice?

Keep informed, keep reading, and listen, you should be ok. At some point you’ll hear the word ‘cynicism’. It sounds like a negative word and some people will say that it is. But it’s also a survival word too because it stops you blundering around and following the crowd. You’re already fairly independent and that’ll continue – you’ll never be what people expect, you’ll always try to confound expectations just as you did on the first day of school when the class were asked to name a composer and you offered Tchaikovsky. The teacher wanted John Lennon, but everyone was impressed that you knew who this Russian composer was, let alone be able to pronounce his name.

And what ever you do, enjoy being your age. Before long, things will become very, very complicated.

Stu.

[Why am I doing this?]

Review 2008: The BBC

Suggested by Franchesca.

Dear BBC,

I bloody love you.

A popular television website was looking for contributions to a review of the television year. After thinking about the five programmes I most enjoyed, I wrote some paragraphs and only at the very end did I realise that they'd all been broadcast on BBC channels, which is amazing considering I don’t watch very much television these days having long abandoned just simply sitting in front of anything in favour of dvds and PVRs and the right to choose. I only ever listen to BBC radio, mostly Radio 4, sometimes Radio 3, lately a bit of Radio 2. You keep me informed and interested in the world, a place you continue to be fascinated with, leaving me never less than entertained and surprised.

Then there is Sachsgate.

I know like everything I’ve loved, there’s some disappointment along the way, niggles, really, and I’m not going appreciate everything you do. I wish you’d return BBC Breakfast to its clever mid-90s heydays instead of trying to be a posh GMtv. I wish you’d decide what BBC Two is supposed to be doing – it shouldn’t just be the place for programmes that wouldn’t appear on BBC One as well as programmes that have or will. I wish you’d properly fund BBC Three so that it doesn’t have to fill most of its schedule with reruns and films. I wish you wouldn’t keep cutting BBC Four’s budget so that it can make more of the intelligent drama which has always been its hallmark.

I’ll leave my opinions about the answer phone messages to one side because I didn’t hear them broadcast in context and I can’t really be too po-faced about them since I still laugh like a drain at the Victor Lewis Smith prank calls from TV Offal, especially when he called Derek Nimmo in the middle of the night to tell him the Queen Mother had died (she hadn't yet).

What disappointed me about the affair was your reaction.

When the broadcast originally went out, there were a handful of complaints which is not too surprising. But it was still a non-story then, mostly because if someone trips over on the pavement in Eastenders, a view probably throws an invective at you for suggesting that Walford Council’s highways management department aren’t doing their job properly.

As this attached timeline from The Guardian describes, the story only gained traction when the Daily Mail became involved over a week after the original broadcast in a desperate attempt to fill one of their pages with words and probably a photo of Russell Brand looking unkempt. They contacted Andrew Sach’s agent; Sach’s initially had no comment and only when the Mail said they’d run the story anyway did you get a complaint. Story’s published, back filled with this complaint, and the rest is history.

There were a range of problems with the way the BBC handled the story, both internally and in relation to PR, though I’m sure there’s a lot that went on behind the scenes between people that isn’t even in the resulting report, and though some of that material portrayed those involved as being indicative of an uncaring broadcaster was only more or less packed with examples of the kind of knuckle-headed mental meandering which happens in the average office, and probably at the Daily Mail itself.

Media types tend to be cynical. They have to be.

What annoyed me was at no point did anyone at the BBC go on the attack and point out what this was really about – commercial organisations wounding the one rival who isn’t governed by commercial concerns at a time when newspaper circulations are falling and advertising revenues have dropped. The Daily Mail have been running stories like this for ages; Associated Newspapers seem to have a campaign against the corporation, using every opportunity to berate everything you do. Only today there’s a story …

It’s just that on this occasion they struck lucky and were able capture the lack of imagination in the audience who called seemingly on mass even though they hadn’t heard the original broadcast and probably only had the fragments of transcript published in the paper. It certainly didn’t help that BBC News were running the story too at some point and as a top story, even though the rest of the world was falling apart. I appreciate that this was so that you couldn’t be criticised for having a cover up or restriction of the news departments independence, but it seemed like an act of self harm which stretched on for days.

I can't say what effect all of this will have on the short term future of the corporation but in the long term, assuming this kind of thing keeps happening, it can only lead to what these media rivals want -- a weakening of the BBC so that is looks toothlessly faded and out of step with the consumer in comparison to its commercial rivals. I'll probably still love you, but wish you were taking far more risks.

Take care of yourself,

Stu.x

[Why am I doing this?]

Review 2008: George Lucas

Suggested by my friend Chris.

Dear George,

It’s been quite a year for the Star Wars franchise. Between Robot Chicken and Family Guy and YouTube, the parodies have come thick and fast. There was also The Clone Wars film and series which look very exciting though I’ve not watched neither, since it seemed a bit pointless seeing a pilot for a tv show on the big screen only to not be able to watch rest of it since Sky as usual have sewn up the domestic rights. I await the probable fifteen or so dvd releases with great interest.

The live action series seems to be moving on apace, as scripts are written, sets designed and not a public clue of what they’re going to be about, other than bridging the chronological gap between the two trilogies. Thinking big in terms of talent and asking the likes of Russell T Davies to write episodes is smart (even if he turned you down) and I’d like to think you’ve already also had Kevin Smith or Joss Whedon on the phone (even though they too may be busy).

This is all very exciting of course, but some of us Star Wars fans, the ones whose appreciation of the franchise begins and ends with the films would like something else. Something new. Something which completes the story you began in 1976, rather than filling in the gaps best covered by our imagination.

We want episodes VII, VIII and IX.

As early as 1983 you were talking about seeing the Star Wars saga as three trilogies. A Time Magazine article describes the narrative road map for the prequels which you followed very closely (though there’s funnily enough, no mention of Jar-Jar) and a vague notion for these films. Time paraphrases what you must have said to them thus:

“Their main theme will be the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong. There was never any doubt in the films already made; in those the lines were sharply drawn, comic-book-style. Luke, who will then be the age Obi-Wan Kenobi is now, some place in his 60s, will reappear, and so will his friends, assuming that the creator decides to carry the epic further.”

Now I know that in May this year you told the LA Times that you now didn’t have any intention to extend the story, because “(the) movies were the story of Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker, and when Luke saves the galaxy and redeems his father, that's where that story ends” but that doesn’t really explain the so called Expanded Universe, which does exactly that and which you’re so in favour of you’ve hired a guy to make sure that it’s all consistent and which began with Timothy Zahn’s trilogy of books which at the time were sold as the official trilogy to the films, even though ironically bits of them have become inconsistent (I read).

The Expanded Universe and your adherence to it could be a millstone. It’s certainly proving as much with this new animated series I hear, with the talk of setting up of various levels of canonicity and whatnot so that you can still make some things up as you go along, even if it doesn’t quite match a sentence written by an author on a deadline at three in the morning six years ago. With the films about as canon as Star Wars can be (even though you effectively changed the plot during the Darth calls the Emperor scene dvd version of Empire) there’s nothing to stop you making up some new story.

It’d be a narrative apocalypse of course and you’d certain piss off your base, who would suddenly discover that all those books and comics they’ve invested in have nothing to do with the film series. Talk about dividing loyalties. It’d be like a macrocosm of the Splinter Of The Mind’s Eye controversy after you’d decided that Luke and Leia were siblings, despite the palpable if a bit inappropriate sexual tension. No wonder you hired a guy. Then again, speaking as someone who’s fairly monogamous when it comes to sci-fi fandom, reading the online discussion would be fairly entertaining as the likes of MaceWindu421 finds themselves trying to get their head around hating a new big screen addition to their favourite franchise. It certainly was in 1999.

Such was the sigh of relief amongst Trekk(ers/ies) when the new writers of the new Star Trek prequel are explaining away the differences by creating an alternative timeline even though there’s been about five different first mission stories for the Enterprise across the books and comics. Transformers just keeps remaking itself, becoming consistently more rubbish as it goes along. Of course, the best model is Doctor Who were everything is canon no matter how inconsistent or rubbish it is, explained away by a pick and mix of the Time War, timey-wimey, or if you’re really old school the Faction Paradox (who eat continuity for lunch). Even when the new series destroyed Gallifrey for a second time having only just brought it back into existence in the books, some of us decided it was the same event viewed from different points of view.

Except none of that has to matter (pointless previous paragraph really) because the above quote from Time Magazine is consistent with what’s happening in that Expanded Universe as described in the Legacy of the Force books. My impression, based on a glance through a rather scary timeline at the Wookiepedia, is that having beaten the empire, the rebels, now a New Republic are put in the position of ruling the galaxy and find themselves in much the same position as their old enemy, having to make difficult choices which from a certain point of view could be considered evil and of the dark side, which ultimately becomes conceptually divisive as members of the Skywalker-Solo clan begin infighting.

In other words, it’s still about the warring family played out against an intergalactic backdrop. It’s not an appalling model. There’s a frightening amount of continuity to pull back, yet there’s still room for the original favourites to reappear and nothing to stop you reconfiguring the tale to their point of view. You’d keep your base happy with first official live action appearances for the likes of Mara Jade and the Solo-Skywalker clan and more importantly, with these progeny in the frame, you can keep the story at least as entertaining for teenagers or kids, with loads of action sequences and story beats for them to identify with as siblings go to war.

About the only potential Toydarian in the metachlorian is whether the original cast would even be interested, but that’s looked better than it has in years. Time said: “Hamill and the others will get first crack at the roles—if they look old enough.” And now they really do. You managed to talk Harrison into being Indiana Jones again, something which seemed highly unlikely for years. I think Mark would be up for it having consistently appeared in genre series since the original series and voice Luke in Robot Chicken and done Wing Commander in the past. You might even get Carrie – she’s still acting and has been back in the world lately with a new biography. And I assume everyone else is available – certainly they were for the prequels.

So what’s stopping you?

Stuart.

[Why am I doing this?]

Review 2008: Steve Coogan

Keris wanted me to write to this popular comedian.

Dear Mr Coogan,

I’ve never really been a fan of yours.

I know that's a blunt way to begin a letter to a total stranger, but I want you to know what you’re dealing with right at the top. I should qualify the statement by adding that I did in fact like Alan Partridge very much but that I think that you’ve done some of your best work in the more serious film acting you’ve tried out in recent years.

I enjoyed your turns in both 24 Party People and A Cock and Bull Story and was very impressed with Happy Endings, so much so, I wrote one twelfth of my post-graduate dissertation about it. In other words, when I say I’m not a fan, I mean that I don’t go out of my way to see everything you do and haven’t loved all of your ideas.

In that way, you should consider me a hostile witness, or more specifically you could quite rightly describe this as an anti-fan letter.

I’m actually writing to you on behalf of a friend who’s quote “bewildered by what direction he thinks his career's taking...” Since I’m not a fan, with the exception of your film roles, I haven’t actually been following your career though I notice, judging by your CV you’ve been very busy making films on both sides of the Atlantic, and starring in a sitcom called Saxondale for the BBC. The last thing I think I saw you do was the very funny cameo in Hot Fuzz and before that Marie Antoinette. I hear that Kirsten Dunst is a lovely actress to work with.

But I do know what my friend was referring to. Having found yourself in demand in cinema, you took the rather interesting decision of going back to stand-up and in particular a stadium tour during 2008. I imagine the idea was inspired by rock bands who tour even when they don’t need to and play their greatest hits so that they can reconnect with their fans.

This is an area worth exploring.

You probably thought that you could go out there, resurrect some of your old characters and remind the public why those who loved you, loved you in the first place. Partridge in particular should be interesting since at 43, you’ve reached the age that he would have been when you started playing him.

The reviews have been mixed to say the least, and seem to be based on expectation. Those turning up with less than high expectations were pleasantly surprised; those who saw your live shows ten years ago or earlier and are, well, fans, have been disappointed and it’s not uncommon to read comments online to the effect of “spent over a hundred pounds on this. It was a waste of money.”

Reading the official reviews there seems to be a general agreement that the first half is a bit patchy, but the second with Partridge is far funnier. I’ve also noticed a couple of patterns – the reviews are far better later in the tour and much frostier in stadiums than the smaller venues were you could presumably more closely interact with the audience.

As a Liverpudlian, I’m bound to focus particularly on the gig you gave at our new(ish) Echo Arena. Venue excitement has calmed down a bit now, so it’s not often that you get much of a public reaction to something which is stopped there. Your show was different. The following morning you could almost hear a collective sigh across the city and then the local media went into overdrive reporting the reaction.

The comments on this attached review at a local comedy blog (written by the person who saw it for the Daily Post) are a good survey: the prevailing view is that you were under rehearsed, the transitional sketches were awful and the ticket prices were far too high for what was on offer. As the thread continues, others who’ve seen the show elsewhere chime in with similar opinions. You do have a couple of people defending, but even they have criticisms and admit they didn’t laugh all of the way through.

Anyway, you disappeared into the night, the tour continued and we’ve already talked about that. Then I opened the Metro on December 8th and you’re the person being subjected to the 60 second interview. This is often quite entertaining, since because of the brevity of the chat, the interviewer usually goes for the jugular or else throws in a few offbeat questions to make things interesting.

After a couple of easy questions about largest show at the 0h-two arena and asking why you’re doing stand-up again (I was right) he hits you with a question about bad reviews. Given the circulation of the paper, which is read on buses and trains across the country and more influential these days than many paid for dailies, this is just the moment to be a bit contrite, laugh it off, or at the very least admit that you were under-prepared earlier in the tour. The Pete Postlethwaite in King Lear approach in other words.

Sadly, you do the version which makes you come across as a bit of an ass.

You suggest that the reviewer from The Telegraph Dominic Cavendish was desperate to give a bad review no matter the quality of the show and that he essentially sneaked in after you’d decided you didn’t want any press there. First of all, even if this was the first night and assuming that Cavendish isn’t lying, spending the evening checking over your notes is just unacceptable if people have paid good money to see the show. Secondly, it’s all a matter of taste but Cavendish offers a very balanced review in the circumstances. Thirdly, though the review in the local paper, The Sentinel, punches up the good bits, admits:

“there was something slightly lacklustre about last night's performance which, although hugely entertaining at times, appeared to be something of a rough gem compared with the polished diamond it could have been.”

Are you saying Tamzin Hindmarch is grinding her axe as well? Do the people from Stoke who echo the Liverpool comments (literally admittedly in once case)?

You then go on to mention this Liverpool Echo review by Jade Wright (note that both the Post and Echo sent someone). It gives you 5/10. You say that they gave you a bad review because the screens weren’t used in the show “a technical error”. Wright doesn’t even mention the screens. You go on to suggest that the poor reception was because “Scousers hate Mancunians and the feelings mutual”.

As Liverpool Confidential notes, Oasis played the venue a couple of nights later and ‘brought the house down’ and reading around online it seems that the audience wasn’t exclusively Liverpudlians and in any case, are we (the royal we) so nutty as to spend thirty pounds a ticket plus booking fee to see someone if we’ve already got preconceived ideas about hating all the same.

Um no. The people who paid to see your show were fans; the city they came from had nothing to do with it and assuming you’re actually right about this, you should be appreciating that the thousands people who crowded into the arena that night worked past their apparent prejudices to see if a Manc could make them laugh.

The very same people who were then insulted reading what you said about them on the bus or train into Liverpool city centre on the morning of the 8th of December, especially later when you single them (us) out in saying that “people in Britain – apart from Liverpudlians – can laugh at themselves”. You’re describing the city which produced Arthur Askey, Mitch Benn, Les Dennis, Ken Dodd, Tommy Handley, Tom O’Connor, Jimmy Tarbuck and Alexei Sayle, some of whom started out in working the pubs and clubs telling jokes at the expense of other Scousers.

Only you can really answer the question as to what’s going on with your career. You’ve plenty of films coming out and it is good that you’re willing to take risks with this live show and as I’ve said, there are reports that the show has improved and developed during its run. You’ve just got to be careful not to say nasty things about the very people who are buying tickets and keeping you in a wage. Otherwise, what’s the point?

On reflection, it doesn’t seem to be that we can’t laugh at ourselves. It’s just that on that night we didn’t laugh at you.

Take care,

Stuart.

[Why am I doing this?]

Review 2008: "I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself (or You) a Letter"

Dear Readers,

Hope you’re well and that you’re getting the correct weather for the time of year. These days, that kind of thing isn’t certain, but there were hale stones this evening in town and given the proximity to the festive season, that seems just right.

Which is also why I’m writing to you. If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that each December I have a kind of review of the year. I say kind of, because as time has gone on, these “reviews” have had less and less to do with the preceding eleven months, and more variations on a theme.

Last year, we wrote about our home towns and the year before that I answered a range of burning questions. I try to make it so that every other year I write everything, and in the others you do. Well, it’s my turn this year though I’m going to need your help. Again.

This year I want to write some open letters, the twist being that you’re hopefully going to choose who I’m going to write them to and perhaps the subject. These can be as light weight or personal as you want and it could be to yourself or someone you know or someone famous or historic or – well you can use your imagination. If you can’t think of a topic I’ll pick one of my own.

I know this is early, but if John Lewis or Marks & Sparks can have their decorations and gifts on sale already, it’s probably a good idea to have a head start. You’ll be unsurprised to hear I’ve started my present buying too, though that was in the January sales so I’m not sure that counts.

Anyway, have a think about it and if you have any ideas, do email at feelinglistless@btopenworld.com or leave a comment.

Take care,

Stu.

PS And don’t forget, if you have a blog or some other website, leave a link so I can send some of my meagre traffic in your direction.