S.H.I.E.L.D.W.A.L.L. Operation Auntie: A Follow-Up

Over four months later, Auntie's responded.  Due to what they are calling "a backlog of correspondence," my complaint to the BBC was lost in the shuffle, meaning that any possibility of rectification is long gone.  Sturgeon's law dictates that beaurocratic jumbling and IT gremlins are probably to blame over human error or open contempt, so I'll offer them that boon.  Unfortunately, their response comes far too late to be of any use, and doesn't seem to understand the problem in the first place.  They are sorry I was offended, but they weren't sorry they did anything wrong.  I had asked them to rectify this in a follow-up, but what would be the point in doing so five months after the original show came out?  The damage has been done.

Here are the contents of that email, received 19th March 2012:

Dear Mr Harron

Reference CAS-1085160-85SYDW

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘The Review Show’ broadcast on the 4 November.

Firstly, please allow me to express my most sincere apologies for the long delay in replying. I'm sorry to say that your e-mail was caught up in a backlog of correspondence. We know that correspondents appreciate a quick response and we’re sorry you have had to wait so long on this occasion.

We understand you were unhappy with the final segment of the programme.

In regards to Kirsty Wark stating that the books discussed were out of print, it wasn't actually suggested that all of the books in Stewart Lee's library are out of print.

Kirsty Wark said, "Here’s comedian Stewart Lee with a selection of his favourite books, most of which appear to be out of print. Should that tell us something?"

We apologise for any confusion caused.

In regards to Stewart Lee’s comments on Robert E. Howard, this was not a documentary, but a discussion and Stewart Lee's sentiments were presented not as fact, but as his own personal opinions. He is a contributor and is not speaking for the BBC.

We apologise if you felt his comments about Robert E. Howard were offensive and if you felt the item was poorly researched, but any comments made by Stewart Lee were that of a contributor in a discussion and are not subject to the same levels of research and preparation a documentary.

We’d like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes the programme makers and presenters, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Right, let's look at it in more detail.

In regards to Kirsty Wark stating that the books discussed were out of print, it wasn't actually suggested that all of the books in Stewart Lee's library are out of print.

Kirsty Wark said, "Here’s comedian Stewart Lee with a selection of his favourite books, most of which appear to be out of print. Should that tell us something?"

We apologise for any confusion caused.

I think it's pretty clear that this sentence can be taken in two ways.  First, one could assume that Wark is talking about most of Stewart Lee's selection of his favourite books being out of print, which makes sense, since we're talking about his favourite books, not all of the books in Steward Lee's library.  Or, one could assume that Wark was talking about most of Stewart Lee's books in his own library are out of print - even though the segment is specifically talking about a selection of his favourite books, and his library isn't even mentioned.  If, indeed, Wark was talking about Lee's entire collection being "out of print," then that should've been clarified, since there's a big difference.

Nonetheless, this is all besides the point, since none of the books in question were out of print at the time of the show's broadcast.  So if Wark was talking about those other books which were not featured, why mention that little factoid and mean-spirited snipe when it has zero bearing on the books that are being discussed?

In regards to Stewart Lee’s comments on Robert E. Howard, this was not a documentary, but a discussion and Stewart Lee's sentiments were presented not as fact, but as his own personal opinions. He is a contributor and is not speaking for the BBC.

We apologise if you felt his comments about Robert E. Howard were offensive and if you felt the item was poorly researched, but any comments made by Stewart Lee were that of a contributor in a discussion and are not subject to the same levels of research and preparation a documentary.

Again, Stewart Lee said:

Because he was insane, he maintained that he didn't write any (of the stories) - these characters stood over his shoulder, and dictated to him. 

How is a viewer supposed to know that this was Lee's "opinion," given that this isn't being presented as anything of the sort?  This is being presented as fact.   Not "I think he was insane," or "I heard that he maintained he didn't write any of the stories," this is presented as black-and-white, this-is-how-it-is-so.  I can't know if Lee himself considers the insane hallucinating REH to be a factual account of the man, but his language certainly suggests he does.

See, I recognize that this isn't a documentary, but does that mean all attempts at journalistic rigour and fact-checking are thrown to the wind?  I expected better from the BBC.  I can understand a live show being unpredictable and inaccurate, but The Review Show is filmed in advance.  The idea that there's nobody on that show doing a modicum of fact-checking even among contributors absolutely astounds me.  How could anyone be so blasé about the content of a programme which is allegedly about education, encouragement of learning, and discovery of new things?

I think it's the complete lack of accepting complicity which bothers me.  "It's not our fault, you misunderstood what Wark was saying, and we can't be held accountable for what that loose cannon Stewart Lee says!"  All the blame for the misunderstanding is placed back on the viewer for "misunderstanding it."  They try to reassure me by saying my complaint and others like it are circulated around the BBC offices and made available for all to read, but notably fail to ensure that any of the makers, presenters and management will actually make a point of reading it.

Putting it on a desk doesn't mean they will read it.  How do I know?  Several of my friends and family work in the BBC, and I haven't heard anything from them on the matter.  Either they didn't read it, and this "make it available for all" didn't work, or they didn't make it particularly available whatsoever.  Or maybe they just had a paper plane fight one afternoon, who knows.  Who knows what sport they make of license-payer's complaints?

And to top it all off, the email made a point of noting that the address could not be responded to.  The only way to get a response to the response is to go through the complaints process all over again.  I can't be bothered waiting four months just to get another brushing off.

It's times like this I really miss Points of View, but then, I think that show was one giant joke to the BBC, an elaborate prank set up to ridicule all the Tunbridge Wells sorts who complain about all the sex and violence on television. Knowing my luck, they'll get some voice actor to impersonate me on their web show.  If you're reading, Auntie: at least make sure I sound Scottish.

Three Years Gone

Now it really is three years since Steve Tompkins' untimely death.

Once again, I'll be looking back on his posts on The Cimmerian blog, flicking through the journals graced by his essays and comments, and really wishing he was still around to see what he thought of everything that's happened in the last three years.  I particularly wonder what he'd have thought of John Carter, "Game of Thrones," Imaro: The Naama War, and of course the other film.  I guess I won't know in this lifetime.

Skål, sláinte, prost, and many, many cheers for Steve Tompkins.

The Agony of What Could Have Been: John Carter of Mars

I have one request: before you read any further, please read all of it until the end. It's quite a long read, but I really hope it's worth the time.  There are a few controversial opinions in here. Don't just read the preview and decide not to bother clicking on.  It's very important you read the whole review, or none of it - though naturally I'd be thrilled if you read until the end.

I write this blog because I feel like I have something worthwhile to share with the world. It seems everyone and their dog has a blog these days, so it's understandable that some consider the currency to be about as valuable as a Weimar Papiermark. But there are days when the sense of self-consciousness is overridden.  There are some things you just have to yawp from the rooftops, screaming at the stars, begging for someone to listen, for the message to be heard and understood.  This is one of those occasions.

John Carter is one of two things on the internet: it's either a hyperinflated, safe, cynical, lifeless flop destined to be considered along the likes of Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, or an unappreciated future classic unfairly dismissed by the media worthy of joining the ranks of similarly originally maligned films like Blade Runner and The Thing.  Ever a man to instinctively side with the underdog (even though the underdog, in this case, has a $300 million budget: there's a turnup for the books) I figured that this is a classic case of schadenfreude against the Evil Disney Empire, a meme which got tiresome before I was on the 'Net.

But then again... I figured, perhaps the critics have a point?  The advertising campaign for the film has been nothing short of horrendous.  Burroughs fans obviously don't need to know who John Carter or Dejah Thoris or Tars Tarkas are, but the masses don't.  Trailers for, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring do a great job of not only appealing to the Tolkien fans, but hooking non-Ringers in with a straight outline of the plot and basic ideas of the characters, with a few "greatest hits" clips for flavour.  What's more, there are some parts of the trailer that were actively baffling, not to mention misleading ("Earth is next!" - that line's not in the film I saw, although the threat of the Therns is implied).

Complicating matters is the fact that many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are bending over backwards to promote the film.  I'm not kidding, just about everyone loved this film, on the forums, on the message boards, mailing groups.  I was concerned that I might be turned off the film by simple hype aversion, as happened with Firefly and A Song of Ice and Fire - both of which I enjoy in parts, but not nearly to the extent of my compatriots.  So even going in as I always do, with the best will in the world and desire to enjoy the film, that fear that my friends and colleagues were delusional - and that if I enjoyed the film, my gushing review would create the same problem for those still undecided.

So I'll say some things, and again, I implore you: if you've read this far, please read the rest, so you can understand where I'm coming from.  I saw John Carter.  I understand why it's doing so poorly.  I think this is a perfect illustration as to why directors like Andrew Stanton rarely get the chance in this era.  This is a tremendous missed opportunity.  I didn't like it.

And hopefully when you finish reading, you'll understand why I say these things.

The Quest for Truth, Or, Why Do I Go On These Crusades?

My crusade against misconceptions and fallacies being perpetuated is by no means limited to Robert E. Howard. My hatred of rumour being presented as fact is at least in equal measure to my appreciation of the Man from Cross Plains, and why I tend to get pretty passionate about the misrepresentation of the Hyborian Age, Middle-earth and the like.  The difference is that most of the time, I don't post it on my blog.  I thought I'd share this recent exchange to give you an idea of why I do what I do.