"Bring Back Barley" says NME guy...

[Darrell]

Eurgh.

Morris doing backslapping "Derek from Finance is going a bit bald on top!" humour, there.

The 'Too Blue For TV!' live video can not be far away.

[Morrisfan82]

With regard to what Daves said about the NB hoo-ha, it's important to bear in mind that a lot of regulars were so defensive (or offensive, I guess) because there was a constant barrage of people coming in to an NB thread and effectively calling everyone pricks (who 'don't get it because you are Nathan Barley' and the other top 17 lazy schoolboy things to say in NB threads). People were operating at a bit of a blistering temperature because it's hard to keep cool in the face of that. Especially for the best part of 2 months.

Anyways, I posted this in't Shelter earlier:

..DOWN THE DRAIN
IT turns out that arch-satirist Chris Morris is a delicate little luvvie at heart.

Bosses at Channel 4 are calling time on his Nathan Barley show, about life in shallow Soho, which flopped horribly in the ratings.

But, er, no one's actually told Chris yet. "You've got to let the talent down gently," whispers our man wielding the axe.

So Chris, if you're reading this - IT'S OVER. Get working on the next show... and can it be funny this time?

That quote sounds completely made-up, so I don't know how much truth there is in it. But there yer go.

[Ambient Sheep]

Oh by the way, I'm sure I saw alan strang and ELW10 disagree on something here a couple of weeks back.  Don't ask me what though: some comedy show or other, one likes it, the other doesn't.

Yes, I was surprised.  It was the first time I'd seen it happen.  ;-)

[23 Daves]

The thing with that blog entry (and so many other reviews of Barley, like Momus' for example) is that it's been written by someone who may know a lot about 'art', but doesn't know the first thing about how comedy works, or comedic history in any way. As such, they come across as rambling pseuds desperate to find something worth seeing in a sub-par offering. It reminds me of Richard Socks on his quest to find out what exactly *is* paper?

"BUT IT'S TREN-DOYYY!!"

Except he's just updated his blog to add a comment saying that, in actual fact, his entire life has been seeped in comedy, his father being a comedian on television, working with The Goons, and him working with numerous comedians booking them in Australia.

That doesn't mean to say that he "understands" comedy of course, or could ever be into it so deeply as SOCTAA and friends, or has it dripping from his very soul like the regular posters on here, but in any case...

[hands cold, liver warm]

"It becomes clear that Dan is a sort of fractal (self-similar) version of Nathan"

It becomes clear that the reviewer doesn't know what fractals are but wants to use the word because it makes him/her sound clever

OK, I'm letting myself in for it here, but it works for me, and I'm pretty sure that I know what a fractal is.  A common feature of most (all?) fractals is that they are self-similar, i.e. that as you zoom in or out they have the same basic structure.

oh c'mon sheeps. You know why its bollocks

Fractals describe the mathematical processes underlying the formation of scaled structures. You can't use the word to say that "Barley and Ashcroft are similar people". Yes they are similar, but a more correct word to describe their similarity is "similar".  Fractals are something very specific to mathematics and to use the word in the way the reviewer did is nonsense.

Hitler and stalin were a bit fractal weren't they

I bought two chocolate eclairs from greggs, I was amazed by the self-similar (fractal) relationship between the two

Thus I think that the blogger's contention that just as Dan looks at Nathan...zooming out...We look at Dan the same way...and zooming out again...that Others look at Us the same way, is fractal-like, is a valid one.

Please tell me about the geometrically scaled nature of Nathan Barley. I must of missed that along with all the jokes.
Bollocks, and Ziggy agrees with me

p.s. Sheeps, you'd be more justified in calling me unnecessarily rude, which I probably was. The reviewer isn't a chump but it does annoy me when precise scientific terms are incorrectly used and abused by media/arty types.  Leave the science to the scientists and the media/arty types can stick to whatever the hell it is they do. The word 'fractal' has a precise and rigorous meaning, developed through years of research. It can't just be used to add a dash of colour to a media essay.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Re the 'You've won the war, so why not cease the Barley-bashing?' question: I don't think that the poor ratings mean we've won any kind of battle, let alone a war. It might be different if I thought comedians/media people were going to learn from it and do things differently, but it suggests nothing's really going to change. If they could get away with doing a second series, they would.

And also, if the ratings had been sky-high then I suspect all the reviews would have been positive to reflect this. This in itself is an hypocrisy worrth getting annoyed about. NB could easily have won an 'innovation' BAFTA instead of Green Wing, in which case all the critics would transfer their gushing plaudits accordingly. In my mind, NB and Green Wing are essentially the same show.

So...I don't think there's much point in continually making 'Why hasn't Dan got keys to his own office?' wisecracks, but I think the wider/general attitude to comedy that NB exhibited is still a worthwhile discussion point. Simply because the same bollocks is still being used to sell substandard stuff.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Heeeeeeere's...Jim Shelley:


DOWN THE DRAIN

It turns out that arch-satirist Chris Morris is a delicate little luvvie at heart.

Bosses at Channel 4 are calling time on his Nathan Barley show, about life in shallow Soho, which flopped horribly in the ratings.

But, er, no one's actually told Chris yet. "You've got to let the talent down gently," whispers our man wielding the axe.

So Chris, if you're reading this - IT'S OVER. Get working on the next show... and can it be funny this time?

[Jemble Fred]

There was some strange reference to NB at the Gonzos gig last night. They got a chap up on stage, who I'm sure wasn't in it, and he certainly wasn't Brooker etc, but Viv (Well, Matthew Perrett) asked him (jokingly) if there was going to be another series of Nathan Barley. Some in-joke that entirely puzzled me anyways.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Jim Shelley was the man who hitherto used Barley lines as 'quotes of the week' and banged on about how everyone was talking about it and it was the next big thing in comedy, etc. Until he saw the ratings and realised a new series hadn't been commissioned.

Just in case anyone still thinks that 'critics change their minds in reaction to where the wind is blowing' is a mad conspiracy theory.

[Morrisfan82]

That's the same article TV Bints ran on Saturday. Are you sure that wasn't put in by Polly Graham? She's been doing his column for him for ages now.

That sounds a bit rude.

[23 Daves]

"It becomes clear that Dan is a sort of fractal (self-similar) version of Nathan"

It becomes clear that the reviewer doesn't know what fractals are but wants to use the word because it makes him/her sound clever

OK, I'm letting myself in for it here, but it works for me, and I'm pretty sure that I know what a fractal is.  A common feature of most (all?) fractals is that they are self-similar, i.e. that as you zoom in or out they have the same basic structure.

oh c'mon sheeps. You know why its bollocks

Fractals describe the mathematical processes underlying the formation of scaled structures. You can't use the word to say that "Barley and Ashcroft are similar people". Yes they are similar, but a more correct word to describe their similarity is "similar".  Fractals are something very specific to mathematics and to use the word in the way the reviewer did is nonsense.

Really, that's such drivel I hardly know where to start.

It's perfectly acceptable to take words from just about any source (including science) and use them as metaphors or similes, and they can be stretched slightly.  Therefore, I can argue that the shape of the pupil in somebody's eye is a "perfect circle" (for example) whilst knowing, obviously, it's nothing of the kind.  

I'd agree that if the general consensus of readers is that they've been stretched too far, or put in the wrong context (ie an absurd, incredibly surreal metaphor in the middle of an otherwise straight piece of work) then there will be some criticism.  However, when Ted Hughes compared a telephone rather naffly to a "plastic Buddha", I'm quite sure that legions of British Telecom engineers didn't contact him to say "but it's not!  It wasn't designed to look like that!  Can't you leave this technological marvel alone?".

I'm sure your counter-argument to this is likely to be "well, to me the fractal image was ridiculous", but as Ambient Sheep has already pointed out, on a basic level it works.  On a more in-depth, literal level, of course, it may be flawed, as you've demonstrated.  But that's not really the point.  What you're effectively proposing is to give words in the English language a unique, fixed status, and banning them from looser, more fluid meanings in literature.  The Taliban might agree with you there, but I'm buggered if I do.  Basically, as soon as a word comes into being, it can be toyed with, dismantled, exaggerated or reduced in whatever way anyone sees fit so far as I'm concerned, and it generally will.  

You're not one of those killjoys who writes into Points of View about Doctor Who arguing "It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny", are you?

Hitler and stalin were a bit fractal weren't they

I bought two chocolate eclairs from greggs, I was amazed by the self-similar (fractal) relationship between the two

You see, it wasn't worded like that, and in my opinion that's just deliberately bad writing.  Like taking the line about African children "Their heads were shaped like question marks in the sun" and instead saying "This coathanger's a bit question mark shaped".  Of course it sounds ridiculous if you phrase it like that.

Please tell me about the geometrically scaled nature of Nathan Barley. I must of missed that along with all the jokes.
Bollocks, and Ziggy agrees with me

Come on, I know as well as you do that Chris Morris didn't sit down with Charlie Brooker and say "I think we should create Nathan Barley in a fractal formation".  Once again, it was just a device used to describe the structure of the show.  

To be fair, you're entitled to think an image or description is shite if you want.  It's not my piece of work you're criticising.  You've just annoyed me by being so arrogant and pigheaded about how words can and cannot be used.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe scientists/ technologists/ etc and writers should stay out of each other's way.

[23 Daves]

Re the 'You've won the war, so why not cease the Barley-bashing?' question:

First point:  I wasn't asking you to cease the Barley bashing.  I was just asking for a bit more tolerance of other's views, rather than everyone jumping screaming down someone's throat as soon as they come up with a counter-argument as to why they enjoyed the programme.

I don't think that the poor ratings mean we've won any kind of battle, let alone a war. It might be different if I thought comedians/media people were going to learn from it and do things differently, but it suggests nothing's really going to change. If they could get away with doing a second series, they would.

And also, if the ratings had been sky-high then I suspect all the reviews would have been positive to reflect this. This in itself is an hypocrisy worrth getting annoyed about. NB could easily have won an 'innovation' BAFTA instead of Green Wing, in which case all the critics would transfer their gushing plaudits accordingly. In my mind, NB and Green Wing are essentially the same show.

So...I don't think there's much point in continually making 'Why hasn't Dan got keys to his own office?' wisecracks, but I think the wider/general attitude to comedy that NB exhibited is still a worthwhile discussion point. Simply because the same bollocks is still being used to sell substandard stuff.

Fair points, I'd say, if that's what you believe.  

I may as well add that I agree utterly that there's a lot of talent that's totally underused or unused in comedy at the moment, and that even BBC3 clearly hasn't been the "adventurous" entertainment channel it was set up to be (I know of several comedians who came within sniffing distance of getting on the station only to be rejected for not quite fitting whatever plans they had - ie not being Dom Joly).

However, I wouldn't necessarily lump NB in with the crap, quite honestly.  I may in time realise that I'm utterly wrong, but for the time being it stands up for me.

[alan strang]

It's a new one on me, all this fractal business. Usually, when reviewers want to big up bad sit-coms with analogous academic posturing, they tend to choose something literary like Shakespeare (or Aristophanes if it's a satires).

[hands cold, liver warm]

Basically, as soon as a word comes into being, it can be toyed with, dismantled, exaggerated or reduced in whatever way anyone sees fit so far as I'm concerned, and it generally will.  

I'm staggered. So its OK for you to use whatever word you want in whatever context you like. Okey dokey. Throw your dictionarys in the fire. Not bothering with minor things like accuracy makes being a writer so much easier.

You're not one of those killjoys who writes into Points of View about Doctor Who arguing "It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny", are you?

no I like Dr Who. Its well fractal

You've just annoyed me by being so arrogant and pigheaded about how words can and cannot be used.  Maybe you're right.  Maybe scientists/ technologists/ etc and writers should stay out of each other's way.

A fractal is something, its not nothing. It has a meaning. You can't say "the football was shaped like blackpool tower, perfectly round" because blackpool tower is not round. In the same way as you can't say "Nathan Barley characters are similar to both themselves and to the audience, like a fractal". That isn't what a fractal is. I would feel the same way if 'evolution' was used incorrectly (as it often is). Some words are important. They tell us something real about the world, they bring us actual insight and its disappointing to know you feel you can do what you like with them just because you're a writer. That dilutes the power the word has to communicate meaning.

[sick as a pike]

You can't say "the football was shaped like blackpool tower, perfectly round" because blackpool tower is not round.

Chic Murray, a brief analysis-

It was raining cats and dogs and I fell in a poodle.
You mean 'puddle'.

My girlfriend's a redhead, no hair, just a red head.
I find this unlikely.

I had a tragic childhood. My parents never understood me. They were Japanese.
Scottish.

This chap said to me, "If you look over there, you'll see Dumbarton Rock". Well, I looked for 20 minutes and the thing never moved an inch.
More research please

[Neville Chamberlain]

Cuh! Would anyone be down on this bloke's use of the word "fractal" if he was an anti-Barley type? You people, honestly!

[Slackboy]

I thought the message of the Slackboy posts, and the positive NB reviews in general, was: "If you really like Nathan Barley.... then you are him".

I've never said that, although I can see how it might have been implied from what I said. It depends on if you think "fucking idiots" automatically infers a Barley-type idiot (which requires having more money than sense) rather than the just the general kind. But that's pretty irrelevant since I've already 'gised for all that stuff.

(I think you might be missing a "didn't" up there too maybe?)

[Johnny Yesno]

I quite liked NB but I disagree with the fractal business. I agree words are there to be played with and that a prescriptive view of language would lead to a lack of language change. Words change without the permission of dictionary makers.

However, the thing about metaphors is that people have to be able to relate to them for them to catch on. I just can't see how the relationship between Dan and Nathan involves the recursion and issues of scale present in fractals. If the blog had said that Britain and Nathan had a fractal relationship then you could imagine that however closely you looked at Britain, be it at one of it's cities, offices or individuals, you'd find that kind of cuntishness then that would make sense. But to compare two items of the same scale and make some kind of fractal comparison is just wrong.

[Slackboy]

I quite like the fractal comparison, even though you can tell that it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny before you've even done that. But that's ok because it's just on someone's weblog after all.

Nathan exploits Pingu because he thinks that's ok because it's funny; Dan then exploits Nathan because he thinks that that morally justified because he hates Nathan; Nathan then exploits Dan after it all goes wrong; then above that the writer's are exploiting all the characters and us and we are sort of exploiting them and so on. Smells of postmoderism with a bit of relativism thrown in if you ask me.

It's not completely wrong depending on how you look at it, but not worth taking so seriously unless you like doing that sort of thing.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

First point:  I wasn't asking you to cease the Barley bashing.  I was just asking for a bit more tolerance of other's views, rather than everyone jumping screaming down someone's throat as soon as they come up with a counter-argument as to why they enjoyed the programme.

To be fair, very few of the Barley defenders were up for a proper debate - there was Slackboy and one or two others, but it was mainly one-post wonders saying 'You guys take comedy too seriously, maybe YOU are Nathan Barley' and not much else.

[23 Daves]

I quite like the fractal comparison, even though you can tell that it doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny before you've even done that. But that's ok because it's just on someone's weblog after all.

Nathan exploits Pingu because he thinks that's ok because it's funny; Dan then exploits Nathan because he thinks that that morally justified because he hates Nathan; Nathan then exploits Dan after it all goes wrong; then above that the writer's are exploiting all the characters and us and we are sort of exploiting them and so on. Smells of postmoderism with a bit of relativism thrown in if you ask me.

It's not completely wrong depending on how you look at it, but not worth taking so seriously unless you like doing that sort of thing.

Which was my point, really...  and no, hands cold liver warm, if you look back at my original post I did say that if the writer took too many liberties with context then it might be slated, and perhaps rightly so, but everyone has a personal cut-off point.

I don't want to get too wrapped up in this debate, but Morris takes some enormous liberties with the English language, especially in Bluejam.  Much of it is done for humorous effect, but a lot of it is (presumably) done for atmosphere as well.  Ditto tons and tons of other writers.  Amis takes the piss far too much, in fact.

I also read a haiku the other week which was just  "The rainscape is so fragile it would shatter if brushed by a word".  A complete liberty to one person's ears, but obviously perfectly acceptable to one publisher.  Like I said, if you completely and totally obey English language and definitions in a rigid manner, you're not totally allowing for other possibilities.    There's nothing staggering, or staggeringly original, about that notion.

[Little Hoover]

I read something in a media newspaper/magazine today called Broadcast that C4 has commisioned a new sketch show to be Co-written by Charlie Brooker and 3 other names I didn't recognise.
Which suggests he wont be devoted fulltime to Nathan Barley in the near future.

[Ciarán2]

I also read a haiku the other week which was just  "The rainscape is so fragile it would shatter if brushed by a word".  A complete liberty to one person's ears, but obviously perfectly acceptable to one publisher.  Like I said, if you completely and totally obey English language and definitions in a rigid manner, you're not totally allowing for other possibilities.    There's nothing staggering, or staggeringly original, about that notion.

There's a great Richard Brautigan poem called Boo Forever, it goes...

"Spinning like a ghost on the bottom of a top I am haunted by all the space that I will live without you."

It doesn't entirely make sense does it? Depends. There's a great bit in Alice Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carrol where Alice gets into an argument with Humpty Dumpty and he says "There's glory for you!" In the context of the argument this doesn't make sense, and Alice points this out to Humpty to which he replies; "When I use a word it means whatever I choose it to mean." An interesting exchange ensues where it is debated whether or not it is possible to use language in this way. According to structuralism language depends upon agreements between people, without the agreement there can be no communication. Then of course the post-structuralists come along and point out that the foundations of structuralism are shaky in themselves. It's a fascinating, but seemingly endless, debate.

(None of this has anything to do really with Nathan Barley but I've never seen the show, so there you go...)

[alan strang]

I read something in a media newspaper/magazine today called Broadcast that C4 has commisioned a new sketch show to be Co-written by Charlie Brooker and 3 other names I didn't recognise.
Which suggests he wont be devoted fulltime to Nathan Barley in the near future.

This was mentioned in the 'Oops, there goes television again!' thread. A sketch show about "the lives of urban thirtysomethings".

[Lee]

It's Monkey Dust for the nougzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

[Pearl's away]

There was some strange reference to NB at the Gonzos gig last night. They got a chap up on stage, who I'm sure wasn't in it, and he certainly wasn't Brooker etc, but Viv (Well, Matthew Perrett) asked him (jokingly) if there was going to be another series of Nathan Barley. Some in-joke that entirely puzzled me anyways.

I assumed that they were just taking a cheap pop at the chap's hair-do.  Could be wrong though.

[The Mumbler]

I read something in a media newspaper/magazine today called Broadcast that C4 has commisioned a new sketch show to be Co-written by Charlie Brooker and 3 other names I didn't recognise.
Which suggests he wont be devoted fulltime to Nathan Barley in the near future.

This was mentioned in the 'Oops, there goes television again!' thread. A sketch show about "the lives of urban thirtysomethings".

Brooker, Neil Webster, Peter Holmes and Ben "Time Out's Time In TV Section Circa 1995" Caudell.  The cast will feature Rob Rouse from Channel 4's other recent ratings buster The Friday Night Project and, just as memorably, Bognor or Bust.