Tim Atkinson's Blog, page 56
April 19, 2014
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
I've been sent rather a nice bundle of Hobbit-related goodies including a DVD of the latest instalment of this epic, The Desolation of Smaug. Other items include a pen, some badges, a rather nice magnetic metal display thingumy and one of those woolly noddy-hats that seem to be all the rage at present, particular among the adolescent male.
Now, not really knowing who Smaug is (or was) or being all that interested in his desolation or otherwise I've decided to give the lot away. It was my wife's idea. She said (and I quote) 'why don't you put it on the blog and invite bids - for charity - and then give the lot to the highest bidder?'
Isn't there already a site for that, I said, called eBay?
And, what do you know, there is. And you can list an item and donate the money (or a percentage of it - I've chosen to donate the lot) to a nominated charity.
Next step (I'm sorry if this is all old hat and well known to everyone else - I really didn't know you could do this and am a teeny-weeny bit excited!) is to search eBay's list of charities and see if there's one you like. Or in my case, see if my favourite charity is listed. And guess what? It is.
Yes, Young Minds is there. You may recall that I donated royalties from my novel, Writing Therapy to the aforementioned charity, which has long been a favourite of mine. (I say 'donated' but it ought to be donate - and would be if anyone still wanted to buy a copy of Writing Therapy... hint!)
Anyway, I'm delighted that Young Minds is on eBay and delighted that the proceeds of this sale will go towards the valuable work they do supporting young people with mental health problems and well as educating young people about mental health and to helping drive important changes to adolescent mental health care.
I'm not blind to the potential pitfalls of selling on eBay. Indeed, I've been caught out myself a few times before. (One story, concerning a customer who hadn't received what I had sent - with proof - ended bizarrely with her telling me she couldn't possibly use all the tracking information I'd provided to submit an online search for incoming post with Royal Mail as... she didn't have access to the internet!)
But I digress. Bidding starts at a mere 99p; postage is quite high at £4.99 but if I can do it cheaper, I will.
So if you're a Hobbit fan, here's the listing.
Happy bidding!
Now, not really knowing who Smaug is (or was) or being all that interested in his desolation or otherwise I've decided to give the lot away. It was my wife's idea. She said (and I quote) 'why don't you put it on the blog and invite bids - for charity - and then give the lot to the highest bidder?'
Isn't there already a site for that, I said, called eBay?
And, what do you know, there is. And you can list an item and donate the money (or a percentage of it - I've chosen to donate the lot) to a nominated charity.
Next step (I'm sorry if this is all old hat and well known to everyone else - I really didn't know you could do this and am a teeny-weeny bit excited!) is to search eBay's list of charities and see if there's one you like. Or in my case, see if my favourite charity is listed. And guess what? It is.
Yes, Young Minds is there. You may recall that I donated royalties from my novel, Writing Therapy to the aforementioned charity, which has long been a favourite of mine. (I say 'donated' but it ought to be donate - and would be if anyone still wanted to buy a copy of Writing Therapy... hint!)
Anyway, I'm delighted that Young Minds is on eBay and delighted that the proceeds of this sale will go towards the valuable work they do supporting young people with mental health problems and well as educating young people about mental health and to helping drive important changes to adolescent mental health care.
I'm not blind to the potential pitfalls of selling on eBay. Indeed, I've been caught out myself a few times before. (One story, concerning a customer who hadn't received what I had sent - with proof - ended bizarrely with her telling me she couldn't possibly use all the tracking information I'd provided to submit an online search for incoming post with Royal Mail as... she didn't have access to the internet!)
But I digress. Bidding starts at a mere 99p; postage is quite high at £4.99 but if I can do it cheaper, I will.
So if you're a Hobbit fan, here's the listing.
Happy bidding!
April 17, 2014
Happy Birthday Nick Hornby
Is your partner male? Does your partner read? Because a recent survey has suggested that if your answer to those questions is a 'yes' and then another 'yes' then your partner is also likely to say 'no' if you offer them a book. Not just a specific book. Any book. In other words, a lot of men don't read books, at all, ever.
As a man who not only reads the things but also writes them (do feel free to browse the Amazon side bar a little lower down this page, on the right, no - down a little further: there!) I'm saddened at the news, and not just because of the loss of potential customers.
Anyway, today happens to be the birthday of a man, a writer (and, no doubt, a reader) but a 'bloke' too, drinking, footie-watching, band-listening, bird-watching (!) chap whose work might just get your own man (if you have one, and should you want to get him) reading.
Yes, happy birthday Nick Hornby. I don't know how old he is but I do know - having read almost all his books - that both the style and subject matter of his work will appeal to the typical male. Not that I am.
But I think he might be. And if your's is, why not get him reading? A book is so much more than lots of words on loads of pages, after all. It's worth the effort.
As the birthday boy himself says,
The more you read about the value of literacy, the more you understand it’s everything, really. All statistics show the more kids read, the more likely they are to have successful lives.
As a man who not only reads the things but also writes them (do feel free to browse the Amazon side bar a little lower down this page, on the right, no - down a little further: there!) I'm saddened at the news, and not just because of the loss of potential customers.
Anyway, today happens to be the birthday of a man, a writer (and, no doubt, a reader) but a 'bloke' too, drinking, footie-watching, band-listening, bird-watching (!) chap whose work might just get your own man (if you have one, and should you want to get him) reading.
Yes, happy birthday Nick Hornby. I don't know how old he is but I do know - having read almost all his books - that both the style and subject matter of his work will appeal to the typical male. Not that I am.
But I think he might be. And if your's is, why not get him reading? A book is so much more than lots of words on loads of pages, after all. It's worth the effort.
As the birthday boy himself says,
The more you read about the value of literacy, the more you understand it’s everything, really. All statistics show the more kids read, the more likely they are to have successful lives.
April 10, 2014
Bring back the dog licence
Is it time to ban dogs?
Think about it. Regular deaths and serious injuries inflicted by an otherwise innocent family pet; a hundredweight of dog dirt which - at best - leaves a retch-inducing smell on the carpet and at worst can lead to toxoplasmosis and consequent blindness. And perhaps most worrying of all, the enormous environmental impact of these meat-eating, massively-farting hounds of hell. Did you know, for instance, that the carbon footprint (or should that be, paw print) of man's so-called best friend is double that of a SUV?
Look, I'm no dog-hater. No, really! But then I don't hate private jets (or their owners) either (although I wouldn't want them flown from every street corner). I don't hate cats (with only a slightly smaller carbon paw print) or goldfish. But I don't want them running riot (euphemism) over the grass where my children play. Still less do I want them jumping up at said children (oh, he's only being friendly!) on the way to school.
Both my youngest children are terrified of dogs and I can hardly blame them. After having huge unleashed hounds (ok, one was a Westie but to a two-year-old that's pretty frightening) bound up to them as they go about their business kicking a ball or riding a scooter (it's alright, the owners always say; he doesn't bite) is hardly likely to endear them to the smelly, slobbering, woofing neo-wolves.
To be serious for a moment, many (perhaps most) dog-owners are responsible, law-abiding people. I even occasionally see them picking up their pet's deposits and then putting the bagged contents in the bins provided (rather than, say, hanging them from the nearest lamppost or stuffing them in a hedge). Yes!
So I'm sure they'll be only too willing to contribute financially to help offset the environmental damage caused by their canine indulgences. After all, we tax carbon emissions; we pay a green levy on our heating bills; we make polluters pay towards the cost of clearing their pollution.
A new dog licence might also ensure that only those with a responsible attitude will consider owning such a pet. Maybe 'trophy' dogs and those unfeasibly large animals that could easily accommodate a saddle will become less popular if taxed according to their size or appetite (or 'emissions').
I concede that, in a nation of (so-called) dog lovers such a policy is unlikely to be a vote winner. But then, since when has politics been a popularity contest? (Actually, scrub that last sentence. Politics these days is one big popularity contest and nothing gets included in a party's manifesto that hasn't first been before a focus-group and tested out for votability).
But I digress. Dogs are lovely, waggy woofy things but they also make a terrible (and harmful) mess and can be the cause of serious injury and even death. Substitute the word 'dog' for another 'd' word in that sentence and there's no way we'd not be having a serious discussion about introducing some kind of protective legislation.
I don't want dog muck on my shoes, I don't want my children knocked down by other people's 'playful' pets and I don't want to run the risk of any child or adult being harmed by what is, in effect, another person's hobby.
No-one else seems bothered. I'm in a minority (probably) of one.
But this is only the beginning.
Who will join me?
Come on everyone. Let's do the dog...
Think about it. Regular deaths and serious injuries inflicted by an otherwise innocent family pet; a hundredweight of dog dirt which - at best - leaves a retch-inducing smell on the carpet and at worst can lead to toxoplasmosis and consequent blindness. And perhaps most worrying of all, the enormous environmental impact of these meat-eating, massively-farting hounds of hell. Did you know, for instance, that the carbon footprint (or should that be, paw print) of man's so-called best friend is double that of a SUV?
Look, I'm no dog-hater. No, really! But then I don't hate private jets (or their owners) either (although I wouldn't want them flown from every street corner). I don't hate cats (with only a slightly smaller carbon paw print) or goldfish. But I don't want them running riot (euphemism) over the grass where my children play. Still less do I want them jumping up at said children (oh, he's only being friendly!) on the way to school.
Both my youngest children are terrified of dogs and I can hardly blame them. After having huge unleashed hounds (ok, one was a Westie but to a two-year-old that's pretty frightening) bound up to them as they go about their business kicking a ball or riding a scooter (it's alright, the owners always say; he doesn't bite) is hardly likely to endear them to the smelly, slobbering, woofing neo-wolves.
To be serious for a moment, many (perhaps most) dog-owners are responsible, law-abiding people. I even occasionally see them picking up their pet's deposits and then putting the bagged contents in the bins provided (rather than, say, hanging them from the nearest lamppost or stuffing them in a hedge). Yes!
So I'm sure they'll be only too willing to contribute financially to help offset the environmental damage caused by their canine indulgences. After all, we tax carbon emissions; we pay a green levy on our heating bills; we make polluters pay towards the cost of clearing their pollution.
A new dog licence might also ensure that only those with a responsible attitude will consider owning such a pet. Maybe 'trophy' dogs and those unfeasibly large animals that could easily accommodate a saddle will become less popular if taxed according to their size or appetite (or 'emissions').
I concede that, in a nation of (so-called) dog lovers such a policy is unlikely to be a vote winner. But then, since when has politics been a popularity contest? (Actually, scrub that last sentence. Politics these days is one big popularity contest and nothing gets included in a party's manifesto that hasn't first been before a focus-group and tested out for votability).
But I digress. Dogs are lovely, waggy woofy things but they also make a terrible (and harmful) mess and can be the cause of serious injury and even death. Substitute the word 'dog' for another 'd' word in that sentence and there's no way we'd not be having a serious discussion about introducing some kind of protective legislation.
I don't want dog muck on my shoes, I don't want my children knocked down by other people's 'playful' pets and I don't want to run the risk of any child or adult being harmed by what is, in effect, another person's hobby.
No-one else seems bothered. I'm in a minority (probably) of one.
But this is only the beginning.
Who will join me?
Come on everyone. Let's do the dog...
April 7, 2014
Weirdy beardy
I've had a beard for so long now that they've suddenly become fashionable again. Admittedly, the one's now sported by today's young bucks are rather fuller than my own which is no more really than a chin of designer stubble. It's the last remaining vestige of the beard I first grew aged eighteen and it's probably going to last until I'm eighty given that my wife not only approves but thinks my face looks odd without it. It may even look odd with it. Who am I to tell?
There's a lot on nonsense written about beards and facial hair in general and discriminating against the facially hirsute might just be the last vestige of irrational (and legal) prejudice. Suspicious? Something to hide? Chinless wonders? Certain large employers have been known to insist that everyone on the payroll (men and women) be clean shaven. It is said Mrs Thatcher excluded any beard wearer from her cabinet.
Although I suspect that such overt discrimination is a thing of the past (not least, on religious grounds - Sikh males are obliged not to sport a full beard and I doubt very much whether refusing to employ a member of the Khalsa on such a pretext would be a wise move) the old attitudes live on in muttered oaths and unspoken maxims.
So I, for one, am delighted to see so many men out there with beards. And I hope you are too. So...
There's a lot on nonsense written about beards and facial hair in general and discriminating against the facially hirsute might just be the last vestige of irrational (and legal) prejudice. Suspicious? Something to hide? Chinless wonders? Certain large employers have been known to insist that everyone on the payroll (men and women) be clean shaven. It is said Mrs Thatcher excluded any beard wearer from her cabinet.
Although I suspect that such overt discrimination is a thing of the past (not least, on religious grounds - Sikh males are obliged not to sport a full beard and I doubt very much whether refusing to employ a member of the Khalsa on such a pretext would be a wise move) the old attitudes live on in muttered oaths and unspoken maxims.
So I, for one, am delighted to see so many men out there with beards. And I hope you are too. So...
April 5, 2014
Life as a stay-at-home dad - again!
It's not often I hear the top-of-the-programme running order for the BBC Radio Four Today programme and leap out of bed with excitement. Ok, that didn't quite happen this morning either. But I admit I was a tad curious when they trailed an item billed as 'what life is really like for stay-at-home dads'.
I should've contained myself. For a start, they didn't speak to any (stay-at-home dads, that is). Instead Zoe Williams (who qualified in neither category last time I was looking) spoke of childcare being boring and a chap called Billy McGranaghan from a charity supporting single dads said they have it tough because mums at the school gates are suspicious of them (a lot of them think dads are wishy-washy) and the dads don't have a network of support like the mums do. He then went on to describe the network of support for dads that his organisation - Dad's House - runs. Sounds laudable. And also contradictory.
Of the thousands of stay-at-home dads out there (the programme claimed numbers have doubled in the last twenty years and now stand at almost 300,000) I was amazed and rather disappointed that they couldn't be bothered to phone one of us up. There's a lot to be said and speaking to a dad - a stay-at-home-dad - perhaps in preference to a London (female) columnist and member of the capital's chatterati might have been a little more relevant. It might even have been enlightening.
I was really keen to hear the item, wondering who they'd asked to contribute, whether it was somebody I knew and what they might have to say. I even set Piezo to record the piece off-air.
I shan't be keeping it. If you'd like a listen, click on the Today programme website. It'll be available for the next seven days... after which it will self-destruct.
Which is probably for the best.
I should've contained myself. For a start, they didn't speak to any (stay-at-home dads, that is). Instead Zoe Williams (who qualified in neither category last time I was looking) spoke of childcare being boring and a chap called Billy McGranaghan from a charity supporting single dads said they have it tough because mums at the school gates are suspicious of them (a lot of them think dads are wishy-washy) and the dads don't have a network of support like the mums do. He then went on to describe the network of support for dads that his organisation - Dad's House - runs. Sounds laudable. And also contradictory.
Of the thousands of stay-at-home dads out there (the programme claimed numbers have doubled in the last twenty years and now stand at almost 300,000) I was amazed and rather disappointed that they couldn't be bothered to phone one of us up. There's a lot to be said and speaking to a dad - a stay-at-home-dad - perhaps in preference to a London (female) columnist and member of the capital's chatterati might have been a little more relevant. It might even have been enlightening.
I was really keen to hear the item, wondering who they'd asked to contribute, whether it was somebody I knew and what they might have to say. I even set Piezo to record the piece off-air.
I shan't be keeping it. If you'd like a listen, click on the Today programme website. It'll be available for the next seven days... after which it will self-destruct.
Which is probably for the best.
April 3, 2014
It might be good, but can you measure it?
Structured learning, targets, overt teaching, more inspections. Is it another attempt to bring our GCSE results up to the standard of the Chinese?
(Incidentally, I have the perfect solution to that problem should anyone wish to try it out. And it costs nothing! It is this: teach our children Chinese-style, complete with Chinese discipline. Seriously, no wonder they're so good at maths...)
But no. This isn't anything to do with exams and international league tables (yet). It's a new idea for the under fives.Before I go any further I have to admit that I'm not a great believer in the mantra that a problem of whatever nature - social, economic, educational - is best fixed by throwing more and more official, government-funded stuff at it.
So the idea that if - and it is a big 'if' - the nation's five-year-olds aren't being adequately prepared for school we should throw Ofsted at the problem, test it and set targets for it is not one I find convincing. After all, look at what that's done for GCSE results (see above)!
But there's something even bigger at stake this time - childhood. Yes, childhood. My youngest can count, she recognises words and letters and at age three is as ready as she needs to be for the reception year at school.
She goes to a lovely, gently stimulating nursery and at home she plays. Yes, plays. I make sure what she plays can also help her learn a little some times but I also like to see her play for it's own sake, play for the fun of it, play for play's sake.
And the benefits - over and above the obvious pleasure - are impossible to measure: how can you quantify happiness? How can you set a target for a child's imagination?
I find today's talk of the inadequacy of our under-fives depressing. And I tell you what - I bet if you look hard enough you'll find a few inadequacies in those Chinese classrooms too.
Only, we can't see them. Because no-one's measuring.
(Incidentally, I have the perfect solution to that problem should anyone wish to try it out. And it costs nothing! It is this: teach our children Chinese-style, complete with Chinese discipline. Seriously, no wonder they're so good at maths...)
But no. This isn't anything to do with exams and international league tables (yet). It's a new idea for the under fives.Before I go any further I have to admit that I'm not a great believer in the mantra that a problem of whatever nature - social, economic, educational - is best fixed by throwing more and more official, government-funded stuff at it.
So the idea that if - and it is a big 'if' - the nation's five-year-olds aren't being adequately prepared for school we should throw Ofsted at the problem, test it and set targets for it is not one I find convincing. After all, look at what that's done for GCSE results (see above)!
But there's something even bigger at stake this time - childhood. Yes, childhood. My youngest can count, she recognises words and letters and at age three is as ready as she needs to be for the reception year at school.
She goes to a lovely, gently stimulating nursery and at home she plays. Yes, plays. I make sure what she plays can also help her learn a little some times but I also like to see her play for it's own sake, play for the fun of it, play for play's sake.
And the benefits - over and above the obvious pleasure - are impossible to measure: how can you quantify happiness? How can you set a target for a child's imagination?
I find today's talk of the inadequacy of our under-fives depressing. And I tell you what - I bet if you look hard enough you'll find a few inadequacies in those Chinese classrooms too.
Only, we can't see them. Because no-one's measuring.
March 31, 2014
A LEGO® Movie
Isn't it great when you've got a big brother to help you make your LEGO® Juniors Princess Play Castle (£15.99rrp)?
And the great thing about these new LEGO® playsets is that - once made - they can be changed (and then reconstructed) relatively easily... hours of endless fun.
And what's more, the bricks and bits needn't live in the vacuum-cleaner anymore either, thanks to one of these magnificent LEGO storage brick, courtesy of Home Storage Systems.
Things really do just get better and better.
New LEGO Juniors Playsets range in price from £9.99rrp to £24.99rrp and the LEGO storage brick is £22.95 from Store Home Storage Systems.
And the great thing about these new LEGO® playsets is that - once made - they can be changed (and then reconstructed) relatively easily... hours of endless fun.
And what's more, the bricks and bits needn't live in the vacuum-cleaner anymore either, thanks to one of these magnificent LEGO storage brick, courtesy of Home Storage Systems.
Things really do just get better and better.
New LEGO Juniors Playsets range in price from £9.99rrp to £24.99rrp and the LEGO storage brick is £22.95 from Store Home Storage Systems.
March 24, 2014
Why don't more dads take paternity leave?
I'm not always at my best (or most awake) on Sunday afternoon (can't think why!) so it's not always a good time to have to take a telephone call, especially when it's the BBC Radio Four Today Programme asking what I think of the above question.
According to a new study by The Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM) one in four new fathers don't take any paternity leave at all and few more go beyond the statutory two week break.
The research - among almost 1,000 employees and 800 managers - found that a lack of support from employers was to blame for limiting time off among men after the birth of their child and the survey also found that fewer than one in 10 new fathers take more than two weeks of paternity leave, falling to just 2% among managers.
So what do I think?
Initially, I was rather surprised. But then on reflection, saddened. Because if, as is still the case in so many families, dads earn the main salary then at a time of greatest financial need clearly many families simply can't afford the loss of earnings. In spite of fine, family-friendly words from the government, the reality of so many childcare initiatives is often less than satisfactory.
I'm always rather suspicious about attempts to get parents back to work too - to earn more money to pay someone else to look after the children. But that's what successive governments badger us to do.
I don't think we should all stay at home singing 'The Wheels on the Bus'. But I can't help noticing that those who really benefit from a swift return to work are George Osbourne and the blessed Taxman. Think about it - you go to work (and therefore pay tax) to pay someone else for childcare and then they pay tax on their earnings. It's two for the price of one - Bingo!
Or maybe that's not quite the word to use in the circumstances.
In the event the item on the 'Today' programme didn't run (or if it did, not with me) but I thought the findings were important enough to share and discuss.
I've had a wonderful five years at home with my two youngest. It's suited our circumstances and - with a bit of belt-tightening - we can (just) afford it. And I think it's a shame if other dads feel they can't manage it or if mums feel pressured into giving up or going back to work or doing anything that doesn't suit them and the needs of their family.
It's all about flexibility. At the end of the day if only a fraction of dads choose to take up the existing entitlement or plan to use the new shared arrangements it doesn't matter - if that's what suits them and their family.
But if it doesn't and they feel they can't do any different, it's a tragedy.
According to a new study by The Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM) one in four new fathers don't take any paternity leave at all and few more go beyond the statutory two week break.
The research - among almost 1,000 employees and 800 managers - found that a lack of support from employers was to blame for limiting time off among men after the birth of their child and the survey also found that fewer than one in 10 new fathers take more than two weeks of paternity leave, falling to just 2% among managers.
So what do I think?
Initially, I was rather surprised. But then on reflection, saddened. Because if, as is still the case in so many families, dads earn the main salary then at a time of greatest financial need clearly many families simply can't afford the loss of earnings. In spite of fine, family-friendly words from the government, the reality of so many childcare initiatives is often less than satisfactory.
I'm always rather suspicious about attempts to get parents back to work too - to earn more money to pay someone else to look after the children. But that's what successive governments badger us to do.
I don't think we should all stay at home singing 'The Wheels on the Bus'. But I can't help noticing that those who really benefit from a swift return to work are George Osbourne and the blessed Taxman. Think about it - you go to work (and therefore pay tax) to pay someone else for childcare and then they pay tax on their earnings. It's two for the price of one - Bingo!
Or maybe that's not quite the word to use in the circumstances.
In the event the item on the 'Today' programme didn't run (or if it did, not with me) but I thought the findings were important enough to share and discuss.
I've had a wonderful five years at home with my two youngest. It's suited our circumstances and - with a bit of belt-tightening - we can (just) afford it. And I think it's a shame if other dads feel they can't manage it or if mums feel pressured into giving up or going back to work or doing anything that doesn't suit them and the needs of their family.
It's all about flexibility. At the end of the day if only a fraction of dads choose to take up the existing entitlement or plan to use the new shared arrangements it doesn't matter - if that's what suits them and their family.
But if it doesn't and they feel they can't do any different, it's a tragedy.
March 18, 2014
On this day...
...Wilfred Owen, 'war poet' and so much more, was born in 1893.
Although we now know him through his war verse he was largely unknown and unpublished in his (short) lifetime (he was killed in action on November 4th 1918 - just days before the guns fell silent). A mere five poems appeared in print before his death and the world would have to wait until 1963 for the Collected Poems (edited by Cecil Day Lewis) to appear.
But although work may have been slow to gain recognition, having done so it stands as the ultimate expression of 'war and the pity of war' (as Owen himself said). Thanks to its ubiquity on English exam papers, Owen's work has come to define what generations actually think of the war, even though his own views are slightly more ambiguous.
There's no doubting his horror and utter rejection of all the barbarity and inhumanity of trench warfare. But Owen the man was keen to fight; he wrote home to his mother about the glory and honour of battle; he won the Military Cross.
But it's his poetry that defines the 'lions led by donkeys' tragedy that is still our dominant view of the Great War. It has come to tell us what we ought to think, without any of the doubts and contradictions that Owen's wider views on the subject express.
It's as if his work has been seized by the futility brigade, as if the man himself with all his mixed-up emotions about the conflict has been appointed post-mortem spokesman for the pacifist union.
He deserves better. He knew the horrors and wrote memorably about them.
But he also knew why he was fighting.
Although we now know him through his war verse he was largely unknown and unpublished in his (short) lifetime (he was killed in action on November 4th 1918 - just days before the guns fell silent). A mere five poems appeared in print before his death and the world would have to wait until 1963 for the Collected Poems (edited by Cecil Day Lewis) to appear.
But although work may have been slow to gain recognition, having done so it stands as the ultimate expression of 'war and the pity of war' (as Owen himself said). Thanks to its ubiquity on English exam papers, Owen's work has come to define what generations actually think of the war, even though his own views are slightly more ambiguous.
There's no doubting his horror and utter rejection of all the barbarity and inhumanity of trench warfare. But Owen the man was keen to fight; he wrote home to his mother about the glory and honour of battle; he won the Military Cross.
But it's his poetry that defines the 'lions led by donkeys' tragedy that is still our dominant view of the Great War. It has come to tell us what we ought to think, without any of the doubts and contradictions that Owen's wider views on the subject express.
It's as if his work has been seized by the futility brigade, as if the man himself with all his mixed-up emotions about the conflict has been appointed post-mortem spokesman for the pacifist union.
He deserves better. He knew the horrors and wrote memorably about them.
But he also knew why he was fighting.
March 14, 2014
What's it like being a stay-at-home dad?
What's it really like? Well if you really want to know I suppose you could read this blog. All (or the majority) of the 800-odd posts are about or inspired by just that.
Or if you haven't the time for that you could read an article I was asked to write for Vodafone's Your Better Business magazine, called Breaking the Stigma . There's even a small prize for the first person to spot the witty reference to the title they gave me.
Or if you haven't the time for that you could read an article I was asked to write for Vodafone's Your Better Business magazine, called Breaking the Stigma . There's even a small prize for the first person to spot the witty reference to the title they gave me.
