Showing posts with label manners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manners. Show all posts

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Why I Despise the City of Chester

Chester is a city which doesn't exactly feel like how a city should feel. It's small, condensed, and in a very good way, totally haphazard. To describe it best, I could quote Gormenghast:
Withdrawn and ruinous it broods in umbra: the immemorial masonry: the towers, the tracts. Is all corroding? No. Through an avenue of spires a zephyr floats; a bird whistles; a freshet bears away from a choked river. Deep in a fist of stone a doll’s hand wriggles, warm rebellious on the frozen palm. A shadow shifts its length. A spider stirs … And darkness winds between the characters.

Yet it's also a city that announces its age at every opportunity and, unless you travel there for the heritage, that heritage can sometimes plainly wear on your nerves. I think of it as a city that wants to play me for a fool; where the price of everything is inflated to maintain the mock Elizabethan standards.

The moment you step out of the station, you're greeted by paralyzed history. The arch over the entrance to the Queen Hotel car park proclaims 'Carriages & Post Horses For Hire', whilst across the road another hotel, one of the city's many listed buildings, is proudly titled the 'Town Crier'. Everything wears history but it's a history that only a naive fool (or American) would believe is real. Wikipedia dates the building to only 1865, originally titled either the 'Queen Commercial Hotel' or the 'Albion Hotel', whilst the role of the city's town crier it itself a recent re-innovation, reappearing sometime in the 1990s. None of this really matters, of course. Not to the tourists.

I've never been a tourist. I've visited Chester so regularly since childhood that I no longer have any sense of its novelty. At one point, I was hoping to get a lecturing job in the English department at the university (I didn't) and at another point I was working on the city's outskirts, often travelling into the city on my half-days to enjoy the shopping. It's distant enough to be only an occasional day out but close enough to be completely familiar.

There was a time when English towns retained some distinctive quality but every town in the UK resembles every other town and Chester, despite its pretensions, is still really more town that city. There are the ubiquitous shops and anything more is usually worth disregarding or cherishing intensely. Whether it's the self-important town criers, the struggling actors dressed as Roman centurions, or the old fashioned open-topped bus that carries tourists around, Chester is different and yet, for people who aren't tourists, there's also something about it that feels wrong. It's a veneer of special which really doesn't run that deep. This is that vintage England which you're not entirely sure is real or an illusion.

Because, these days, my visits to Chester are usually to support my sister who makes occasional visits to see a consultant there, we often use Abbey Taxies on Foregate Street. It's a small office, wedged between a couple of cafes, Argos and a Bargain Booze across the road, all the buildings like much of the city centre: a mixture of styles but with the popular black and white timber the dominant theme. Inside there's a cattle-pen turnstyle arrangement, which I assume is for weekend use, where drunks probably stack up for their taxis home. However, it's always empty during the day and you walk straight through to an office at the rear, ask for a taxi, and you are then directed through the building towards the street at the back. You emerge in an alley that resembles grubby backstreets everywhere and the city's Tudor spell is immediately broken by the endless red brick. The timber history, you realise, was skin deep and the real history is to be found elsewhere in the Roman ruins dotted around the outskirts of the city centre.

Yet, the illusion is not entirely why I never enjoy visiting Chester. It's hard to criticise any place that tries to be different in these days of mass produced shop fronts and, despite my cynicism, I know much of the history is real and I always feel a thrill when I remember that my favourite poet, John Donne, attended the funeral of Sir Thomas Egerton at the Cathedral. What I suppose I dislike is the ethos of the place. There was a time when there was a free bus that ran from the station into the city centre. Manchester has that and I think many other great cities have the same. It's a small thing but it makes you feel welcome. Chester now charges visitors for this honour and I begrudge the £1 you have to pay for each five minute journey on the cramped bus, four additional pounds for the two of us in addition to the already exorbitant train fare. It means that right from the moment you leave the station, Chester doesn't feel welcoming and it gets no better once you arrive in the city centre.

For the average person, Chester flaunts both its wealth and your lack of it. It's the only place I know where I feel genuinely poor. On Eastgate Street, in the shadow of the famous clock (erected 1769, or so it says in the Latin pressed in gold onto the red sandstone), stands the Chester Grosvenor Hotel. It's the kind of hotel that has men in uniforms guarding the entrance with a rigid smile and ex-military menace. It offers an eight course 'Tasting Menu' for 'just' £59 per person, with a 'Tasting Wine Menu Selection' for only another £45. If I'd wanted to stay there tonight, the cheapest room is £195 for the 'Classic Bedroom' or £455 for the 'Deluxe Suite'. I'd have to hope they also offer a 'Standard Broom Closet'.

I know there's no reason to begrudge the rich their privileges but the problem is that Chester makes that ostentation so public. Because the hotel's entrance opens right onto the main shopping thoroughfare, the wedding parties often mix with the tourists and locals in a strange blend of real wealth and absolute poverty. You can quickly find yourself walking through a wedding shot or pushing past some huge Rolls Royce or horse-drawn cart thick with garlands. Handsome people are daily seen posing in their perfect lives at perfect weddings you suspect will end in a messy divorce six months later. Often the confetti (every piece cut into a heart shape, no less) sticks to your boots, in the lapel of your coat, in the creases of your hat. Today, there was a bright red Jag, a stunning F-Type Coupe, pushing its way through the crowds; it's deep throated roar clearing a path. I've never been so close to one as I was when its exquisite nose nudged me out of the way.

Yet for all the money, the pretty people in their fashionable clothes and their clipped accents, Chester has very little class. Get there late in the afternoon and you discover that most places close at five PM and the local baristas (the friendliest people in the city, especially those in the two Neros on the streets Eastgate and Foregate) tell me that the city is pretty starved of culture at night. Anywhere that stays open is catering to the stag parties or muscled gangsters hot on their winning streaks from the racetrack. At night, Chester is a place where women wear very little very brazenly, where there's as much wealth on show as there is flesh. Often, the clothes are of the leopard skin variety, as bereft of ideas as the wearers are bereft of manners. Today, I'd just emerged from Waterstones (I'd found a Kliban Cat calendar dumped in the bargain bin for £1) and I was walking along the Rows, which if you don't know Chester, are a raised pedestrian area a level up from the street, forming a continuous walkway cut into fabric of the buildings. It's all carved timber like the innards of the Mary Rose, winding and rising and falling as the constantly unique architecture changes from shop to shop. It's probably one of the city's great attractions, the stuff that makes Americans boldly declare 'quaint'. Yet it's also extremely unfriendly for anybody infirm or pushing a pram. So, at one of the many old well-heeled stone steps you find at the end of the Rows, a woman was standing with a baby in a buggy. She was trying to figure out how to get her pram down the steep steps. I was a good distance away, so I knew somebody would stop and help before I got there. In a city like Liverpool -- supposedly a tough working class city but the reality is that it's about the friendliest city you'll find anywhere -- somebody would help her in an instant. Yet that didn't happen today in Chester. It was some time before I reached her yet I found her still struggling. I stopped and helped her carry the buggy down to the street and I say that not because I'm particularly virtuous because I'm not. But it's what you do when nobody else will stop and help and Chester doesn't feel like a place where people help each other very often.

People are rich and with wealth comes a certain attitude which pervades the place. In reminds me of London in the way that people shove each other out of the way, rarely signal for you to go first and instead take every space as if it's already their own. On my rare visits to London, I've felt like Joe Buck in Midnight Cowboy, smiling at unfriendly strangers and apologising should I step in their way. Hold a door open for somebody in Manchester or Liverpool and people usually smile and say 'thank you'. Hold a door open for somebody in London (or Chester) and they assume you're there to hold the door open for them. It's not deliberate. Taking you for granted is a habit of mind.

The same unfriendliness is carried over into the shops. Chester is the only city where I've ever been physically thrown out of a bookshop. It was some years ago now. I was about to go back to university to study English and I was in the classics section of W.H. Smith. I remember I was trying to figure out which edition of Shakespeare's collected plays to buy. If you've ever studied Shakespeare seriously, you'd know it's an important decision not to be made quickly. A young assistant came up to me. He asked me what I was doing. I said I was browsing the books. 'They have libraries for that,' he replied.

'I'm sorry?'

'If you want to browse books, you should go to the library.'

'But I'm looking at these books intending to buy one.' I'd been stood there about five minutes and with student loan money in my pocket to buy my copy.

'Yes and we've had a lot of trouble with people like you...'

And then he escorted me out of the shop, despite my protests and requests to speak to the manager. I know I should have stood my ground but, also knowing Chester, I'd have probably ended up in the nick. I was too far from home to make a scene, plus, I guess, part of me felt like he was right. I didn't belong. A stinking letter to W.H. Smiths' head office did nothing. I suspect they'd mistaken me for somebody else. I never did find out. It was years before I even used that W.H. Smiths again.

Yet that's Chester. Despite the charm, there's a tricky undercurrent to the place. Walk the Rows and peer into the shops and you often see unfriendly faces looking back at you. Or, perhaps, just at me. I know the problem is partly how I look. I am shabby. I wear the clothes of my profession: lifelong student, writer, cartoonist, programmer, naive dreamer. And I know I dress a certain way because I want people to misjudge me because I also know that the suits and the tans mean very little in life. Or they mean very little to me. I want to be judged for who I am and not how I look. Yet the irony is that many of the shops contain the things I cherish. I now don't even bother trying to enter the few antiquarian bookshops. I stick to the charity shops. I don't enter the art galleries and I don't even go into the Cartoon Gallery, which is up on the Rows on Watergate Street. It should be one of my favourite places in the North West but I stopped visiting. Whenever I've gone in there in the past, I felt so out of place. Not that I've ever been made to feel out of place. The owners smile at me but I somehow know it's not for me. It's a shop made for golfing executives and their wives, not for would-be cartoonists only there to look at all the Bill Stott originals and, besides, Bill Stott gave me one of his originals. He's a good man. I suspect all cartoonist are, as I bet Albert is. Albert the Punch cartoonist who sits working at his desk at the back of the shop.

Yet I don't really know why I feel apart in the place I should feel most at home. Perhaps it makes me bitter to think that the guy there to buy an expensive cartoon for his den wall can't identify a Stott from a Bestie, a Mike Williams from a Bill Tidy.

And perhaps that's why I always leave Chester feeling disappointed. I know it's not really the city that disappoints me. I guess the disappointment is with myself. I realised this today.

We all go through life occasionally glimpsing lost souls, somehow outmaneuvered by fate. I saw a couple today, walking past me. They were obviously a couple and both wore glasses with extremely strong prescriptions. The boy looked cumbersome. The girl was attractive but in a slightly forlorn way and you know that she in no way would ever think herself attractive and you know that's one of life's small tragedies. She had a prettier face than many of those caked in fake tan and lip gloss. You might say the couple were a perfect match, each of them so ever slightly odd, and  that forced me to mutter a lament of 'poor buggers' as they walked past. Yet Chester also makes me realise that I'm another of the 'poor buggers', only there because my sister needed another hospital appointment because she continues to be extremely unwell, continually failed by the NHS, having just endured another six months of suffering because the local GP managed to lose two blood samples she'd given without informing us, meaning that, six months later, we had to face a consultant explaining how the important blood work hadn't been done and she'd have to do it again, involving another six month wait... Two poor buggers in Chester and never a lucky break between them.

And that, I suppose is the problem I have with Chester. Chester really makes me hate myself and makes me hate my life, which is unforgivable. I can't think of another place that ever makes me feel so utterly abject, glad to be home but also sad to be home. It's not simply the fraud of the history, the wilful ignorance of the people. It's the sense that life really is a lottery and some of us can afford the great suits, the expensive hotels, the bright red cars, the cartoon originals, the first editions, and, most of all, the private healthcare. The rest of us are stuck with shit luck, the NHS, and the knowledge that no matter how hard you work, how kind you are, how noble your dreams, or how generous your spirit, you can still be heeling along at the bottom wondering when life will give you a break.

'Antiqui colant antiquum dierum' is the City of Chester's motto. 'Let the ancients worship the ancient of days.'

As far as I'm concerned, the ancients are welcome to them.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Breastfeeding the Pseudo Truisms

There are few things more irritating in the world than the rise of the pseudo truism. By 'pseudo truism', I mean statements that have all the characteristics of a truth but don't actually make much sense once you start to leverage a little bit of thought beneath them.

Let me give you an example, though there are many you can find in your everyday lives if you simply leave your ears open to them. An obvious example of this would be variations of the phrase 'things were better back in the day', which is not only the motto of The Daily Mail  but also describes much of the UKIP manifesto. It's a statement that is obviously true until you actually begin to raise objections ranging in mildness from ration books to World Wars and The Black Death. Then you begin to realise that very often, things were simply not better than they are now. Another phrase is 'what goes up, must come down'. It sounds like a self-evident truth but astrophysicists would probably argue long into the night about the absolute certainty of that or, indeed, the very definition of what constitutes up and down within the infinity of time and space.

One phrase that really grates the brain is currently in vogue. 'Oh, there's nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly natural'. You often hear it from liberal Guardian readers who use variations of this addled phrase to justify anything from drug use to hardcore pornography. When the BBFC recently declared their intention of banning certain forms of extreme pornography, there were very many responses that made the point that 'they'll be banning kissing on the lips next' as though there was a simple process of causality between strangulation videos and a peck on the cheek. 'Sex is perfectly natural', they argue. 'There's nothing wrong it it'. Indeed there isn't but I'm not sure that natural sex should involve the use of a Black and Decker power drill.

There is an easy switch being made from something being 'perfectly natural' to the statement there's 'nothing wrong with it'. We move from a statement of fact to one of morality and the two are entirely different spheres of thought and action. There are, of course, many things about the human body that are natural but we have culturally decided should also be taboo. To take one crude but obvious example: the humble flatus. Every human being needs to fart but most of us choose to do so in a way that doesn't offend the people around us. There are, of course, people who take great pride in their farts. These people fart openly and often comment on the quality, duration, and fragrance of their flatus. These are usually the very same people who resort to the pseudo truism to justify their behaviour. These are often the same people who strip off on the beach and exclaim, 'there's nothing to be ashamed about. I'm just showing off what the Good Lord gave me'. It is the kind of statement that would require an entire book just to unravel its complex stupidity, so it is usually left unchallenged and thereby enhanced as a truism.

I could continue down this line and describe hundreds of things which are perfectly natural which I wouldn't consider doing in public. I wouldn't cut my toenails in public. I wouldn't urinate or defecate in public. Yet these are things which, I think, most people would agree would be unacceptable. I also wouldn't pick my nose or spit, actions you often see performed in public and which are (still) generally frowned upon. Personally speaking, I wouldn't speak with my mouth full or chew with my mouth open. I wouldn't take off my shirt in public, walk around topless or wearing just a vest. These are things that many people do and are considered perfectly acceptable depending on context. Vests on holiday in a hot climate: good. Vests to a funeral service: bad. But even here, these are questions less to do with taboo and are more about public taste and mores.

All of which brings me to the subject of breastfeeding in public.

You would have to be a fool to suggest that breastfeeding isn't natural. It's impossible to argue that it's either right or wrong. 'Right' and 'wrong' are terms that measures morality and context changes everything and it's this context which is really the point of the discussion. The discussion is really about the manner in which a person lives their live and interacts with the world around them. In any public space, there has to be a degree of compromise. Is smoking ethically wrong? Well, no it isn't. Smoking it on a bus, surrounded by people who don't wish to inhale your smoke might be said to morally wrong because it forces other people to accept your own personal choices. You are impinging on their freedom to not smoke. Should you smoke in a cafe? Again, the answer is no because you not only force people to accept your choice but you ruin their meal.

Put simply: do your actions impinge on another person's life and rights?

Breastfeeding is a passive activity. In most cases, a person can simply avert their gaze whilst a mother performs this natural duty of care to their baby. The problem, then, isn't really about breastfeeding. It's about the politics surrounding breastfeeding. The debate is really about the rights of certain people to stand up and say in a loud patronising voice 'oh, there's nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly natural' and use this as a means of closing down debate about interactions in the social sphere. Politicians are very keen to be seen adopting this pose. David Cameron is on their side but he's usually on any side which has the easiest position. It is far more complicated to make an argument about compromise and discretion than it is to resort to the argument that it's natural and there's nothing wrong with it.

The act of feeding is normally performed in a restaurant and that there's no difference between a person eating their lunch and a child feeding from its mother's milk. It means that it's apposite for a child to drink its mother's milk in a restaurant whereas it wouldn't be appropriate for me to remove my shirt and begin to wash my armpits.

As with many things involving social graces, it's the manner in which it's done. Many times I've sat beside women breastfeeding their babies in restaurants and coffee shops and I've barely even noticed. Indeed, I guess there are thousands more instances about which I wasn't even aware. There are other times, however, when I struggled to do anything but notice. I recall one woman in the coffee shop of my favourite bookshop who brazenly lifted up her t-shirt so her tit flopped out like a funfair goldfish in a plastic sack. Discrete? Hardly. Offensive? Well, for me it was simply because I felt it was a deliberate attempt to provoke controversy. She wasn't expressing her right to feed her baby. She was expressing her right to say in a loud voice, 'oh, there's nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly natural'.

And herein likes the controversy and, I think, a matter of old fashioned manners. It's the difference between my eating a meal and then burping quietly into my hand or opening my mouth and letting out an almighty belch. Both are natural and, in a pure and quite practical sense, there's no difference between the two. However, one is considerate towards others and one is only considerate to myself and my desire to say, "here I am. Look at me."

Yet I say all this not to put the onus on mothers when, in truth, mothers are hardly the worst offenders. Loud boastful men on their mobile phones are far more likely to ruin a meal than some mother nursing her child. There shouldn't, therefore, be a febrile debate about mothers feeding their children. There should, however, be a much quieter debate about manners in our society and what it means to live in a progressive modern liberal democracy.

Unfortunately, quiet debate is one thing that is currently definitely out of vogue and, yes, I realise that's also probably a pseudo truism..

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

A Society of Manners?

I wrote another polite email last night and re-submitted the best 1400 words I’ve ever written to a newspaper who I thought might print that sort of thing. On reflection, I guess it was a pretty craven thing to do but I thought I might have got the email address wrong when I’d previously submitted it high on caffeine and hope on Sunday. I’ve still not heard anything this morning. I now realise that I probably did have the right address but London folk don’t respond to these things immediately, even if they respond to these things at all and I seriously doubt if they do.

The way I’m treated by people often seems something of a paradox. It became apparent when ‘Twisted Root’ mentioned in the comments to my previous article about the bogus email from the tax people that ‘the 'Best Regards' sign off is a bit of a giveaway’. I snorted a laugh when I read the comment but, given a little reflection, I realise that tax people are usually this polite. Having dealt with them on the phone, they were helpful, witty, and surprisingly human. It reminded me again that whilst stereotypes are fun things to play with, you really shouldn’t expect reality to conform to their straight edges. Some of the funniest people I’ve known worked in accounts departments and some of the dullest people I’ve ever met were students of literature.

The paradox of good manners is that the people who tend to be rude are the people you find yourself working for and usually working for nothing. In the past two weeks, I've sent out 'commissioned'* work to three people and I never received a reply from any of the three. The things that usually grate with me are the instances when I go out of my way to do something for a person and that person treats it with negligible interest. I can never figure out why given the lengths I'll go to be polite to a person. Elberry recently pointed me in the direction of this unused clip from the film ‘Magnolia’ in which Tom Cruise’s love guru advises men to be rude to women who will then be in a submissive position and accept any bad treatment as though they deserve it. I wonder if I’m in a similar position, writing and drawing things for people who know they can take me for granted.

It’s a larger truth of life, I guess. Critics sneer but rarely create and the same is true with any kind of commissioning editor. In the same way that critics will never run out of targets, perhaps editors simply have a large enough world view which leads them to realise that there are always people willing to work for little or nothing.

It’s a sobering thought. Whenever you submit articles to newspapers, you’re lucky if you get anything more than the automated response of their email system warning you that they get so many submissions you’d be lucky to get a personal reply. Well, I guess that’s fair enough but this time I haven’t even had an automated response. The best 1400 words I’ve ever written treated as though it were no more significant than some bogus tax email. Though, on reflection, the bogus tax email has at least produced a real work response: I’ve now written two blog posts about it and I’ve had four comments and one juicy pingback.

So I wait and hope but in the meantime, I’m heading for the door. I’m due in the dentist’s chair in half an hour. And here’s another of those examples of manners being a paradox: my dentist is a really decent polite guy.

* Unpaid.