Stewart Lee's Redemption... Sort of

You may remember I gave Stewart Lee a tough time of it a while back, which amounted to a hill of beans. Well, I have good (Scot) news and bad (Scot) news.

Good news: Stewart Lee's published an article on Robert E. Howard.

Bad news: Stewart Lee's published an article on Robert E. Howard.

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.

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.

The Review Show does a drive-by on Howard

After all that heavy emotional lifting Germaine does, it's time to send you into the weekend on a slightly lighter note. 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?
 - Kirsty Wark's condescending lead-in to Stewart Lee's discussion of Robert E. Howard, Arthur Machen and Nina Hamnett on The Review Show, and yes, it should tell us that The Review Show needs to learn how to use %&$@ing Google

The more I think things are getting better, that people are finally starting to let go of the old myths, the more angry I get when something like this comes up.  Mike Chivers of Necronomania sent me this, and I simply have to discuss it.

Warning: I am seriously ticked off by this.

The Politics of Howard Fandom

That's it.  No more posts about "Bankrupt Nihilism" unless I'm seriously forced to.  However, the honour of The Blog That Time Forgot is at stake, and since I don't have the PayPal account with which to order a username at MetaCritic (which I cannot fathom, unless I'm doing something wrong), I'll have to do so here.

First of all, the comments here are naturally very critical of Leo's political leanings, which isn't really the crux of the argument.  I'm not going to argue with their assertions of Leo being a right-wing lunatic, because Leo's right-wing lunacy doesn't have a bearing on his erudition and wealth of reading experience, and I'm not very good at judging which point being right wing changes from "conservative" to "berserk craziness."

It's the comments which claim Leo is ill-read in the fantasy field - some think he hasn't even read Elric, ferchrissakes! - that I have issue with, not just because I know them to be true, but because it's patently absurd, unless this is the only Leo Grin essay you've ever read.  Fair enough if it is - though it would be nice if some people did a Google search to see if Leo has, in fact, ever written about Howard, Tolkien, or any other fantasy author before.  Just common courtesy, you know?

Thomas Ellison Is Not Well: Robert E. Howard and Norman Bates

So, we've had Howard compared to Tweedledum, Al Capone, and now Norman Bates.

Of course!  How could I not see it before!

Oh, that's right...

Robert Bloch was inspired to write Psycho after reading about Ed Gein’s exploits but I contend parts of the novel were inspired by Robert E. Howard’s last days as chief caregiver for his sick mother.  In Chapter Nine, Norman Bates realizes he will always be mommy’s little boy.  The only time Norman feels like a somebody is when he’s lost in a book.  Robert E. Howard could never escape being mommy’s little boy, either.  When he was writing for pulp mags or letters to friends, Howard was Two-Gun Bob, Terror of Cross Plains.  Howard had fans, admirers, and editors who wanted to publish his stories.  But in the end, Howard was just Hester Howard’s frightened little boy.  On June 11 1936, Robert E. Howard shot himself moments after he learned his mother would never awaken from a coma.  Why did the creator of Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, and many other characters end his life when he was so close to being free from the burden that had crippled his writing for so long?  Maybe Norman Bates is right  when he says “I think perhaps all of us go a little crazy at times.”

Lovely.  I don't see this ending up badly at all.  That said, I can see how someone could make the Bates-Howard connection if one bases it on Bloch's misconception of Howard the Oedipal, but it's clear that Thomas Ellison is saying that Bloch was basing it on fact, not misconception.