Levering up the floorboards in Lewis Carroll's room has produced yet more pages from the previously unknown Alice book
Alice found herself at a party.
She noticed that the Blue Queen was there, so was the Gibblet, and the Borogove. And a host of others.
A large creature came up to her, mumbling in Latin:
'Ego Loris sum,' he said nodding and trying ineffectually to brush the hair out of his eyes.
'What does that mean?' said Alice.
'It means, "I am Loris,"' he said proudly as if that proved something in itself.
'What's going on?' Alice asked.
'This, my girl, this,' barked Loris in a way that suggested that hearing his own voice gave him immense pleasure, 'is the Glory Party. Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori. And don't you forget it, my girl.'
The moment Loris said this there was a ripple of applause round the whole party.
Alice heard people saying, 'Immense', 'huge', 'marvellous', 'extraordinary', 'genius', 'what a leader' and so on.
Another man came over to her.
'I am Several Chaps,' he said.
'Oh you look like just one,' Alice said.
'I am more than I look,' he said.
'Actually you're less than you look,' said the Blue King and Alice watched while Several Chaps was taken out and put in the bin.
Alice heard someone say:
Bye-bye grant shapps
You were Several Chaps.
But it came at price:
none of them was nice.
Mysteriouser and mysteriouser, thought Alice.
A group in the party were huddled round a magic lantern show laughing and slapping their sides.
'Look at this. The Neighbour Party next door are full of Splits.'
Alice looked.
It was indeed.
'They don't know what to do,' the group laughed.
'Now come along, 'said the Blue King, 'we've got a war to fight.'
It all went quiet.
'What's the matter?' said the Blue King, 'don't tell me that our Glory Party is full of Heeby-jeebies? If it is, I'm going to have to get the Neighbour Party to come and help.'
'Ah hah hah hah,' said all the people in the party, 'the Neighbour Party is full of Splits.'
The Chorus of scribes were there and when they heard about the Neighbour Party's Splits they started writing that down over and over and over again.
'Aren't you interested in the Heeby-jeebies?' Alice asked. 'The Blue King can't go to war if the Glory Party are full of Heeby-jeebies.'
But the Chorus of scribes went on writing, the Neighbour Party is full of Splits. The Neighbour Party is full of Splits. The Neighbour Party is full of Splits....over and over and over again...
Alice walked on.
A place where I'll post up some thoughts and ideas - especially on literature in education, children's literature in general, poetry, reading, writing, teaching and thoughts on current affairs.
Monday 30 November 2015
Sunday 29 November 2015
A reminder from Wilfred Owen about the politics of war
TO BE READ TO YOURSELF OR TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY, WHEN YOU CAN'T GET TO THE RADIO OR TV IN TIME TO TURN OFF CAMERON OR FALLON BABBLING AWAY
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
[The Latin phrase was used at times of war in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It means roughly "It is sweet and glorious to die for one's country."]
Letter to my MP urging her to vote against bombing Syria
I'm one of your constituents and Labour-voting supporters. I am writing to you to urge you to vote against bombing Syria.
My reasons are as follows.
1. Any bombing will kill civilians. Apart from the human tragedy this involves it will also act as a recruiting sergeant for ISL.
2. It is comparatively easy for ISL to hide from aerial bombing, regroup and pose as great resistance fighters to the colonial, imperial and/or corrupt West.
3. There is no proper co-ordinated thought-through strategy of facing the threat that ISL poses. Bombing will make matters worse. There are hardly any examples of aerial bombing being successful - London Blitz, Dresden and Vietnam spring to mind as spectacularly unsuccessful ones.
4. There are alternatives: e.g. putting pressure on the Saudis to prevent them from supporting surrogates and allies of ISL, putting pressure on Turkey to stop buying the oil and to stop bombing the Kurds, helping to create a regional conference(s) in order to discuss peaceful solutions.
5. There is a real danger that escalating the conflicts through bombing will bring on the danger of world war. We should be making it a priority to de-escalate.
6. It's a good time to question why the UK is involved at this kind of level in foreign conflicts. Is there any cogent, rational explanation as to why the UK is involved in the Middle East acting as policeman, assailant and judge while, on occasions posing as mediator and arbitrator. It seems to be either a hangover from colonial times and/or part of the UK tail being wagged by the US dog. I would suggest that every time the UK is called upon to support the US or another country's foreign adventures, the Conservatives are able to present themselves as the real true 'defenders' of the UK. The exception is of course Iraq which very few now would take exception to calling a blunder, a tragedy and one of the reasons why we now face armed Islamism in many parts of the world. If for no other reason, opposing the bombing of Syria is one way we can put some distance between social democratic politics and the bombing of the Middle East.
My reasons are as follows.
1. Any bombing will kill civilians. Apart from the human tragedy this involves it will also act as a recruiting sergeant for ISL.
2. It is comparatively easy for ISL to hide from aerial bombing, regroup and pose as great resistance fighters to the colonial, imperial and/or corrupt West.
3. There is no proper co-ordinated thought-through strategy of facing the threat that ISL poses. Bombing will make matters worse. There are hardly any examples of aerial bombing being successful - London Blitz, Dresden and Vietnam spring to mind as spectacularly unsuccessful ones.
4. There are alternatives: e.g. putting pressure on the Saudis to prevent them from supporting surrogates and allies of ISL, putting pressure on Turkey to stop buying the oil and to stop bombing the Kurds, helping to create a regional conference(s) in order to discuss peaceful solutions.
5. There is a real danger that escalating the conflicts through bombing will bring on the danger of world war. We should be making it a priority to de-escalate.
6. It's a good time to question why the UK is involved at this kind of level in foreign conflicts. Is there any cogent, rational explanation as to why the UK is involved in the Middle East acting as policeman, assailant and judge while, on occasions posing as mediator and arbitrator. It seems to be either a hangover from colonial times and/or part of the UK tail being wagged by the US dog. I would suggest that every time the UK is called upon to support the US or another country's foreign adventures, the Conservatives are able to present themselves as the real true 'defenders' of the UK. The exception is of course Iraq which very few now would take exception to calling a blunder, a tragedy and one of the reasons why we now face armed Islamism in many parts of the world. If for no other reason, opposing the bombing of Syria is one way we can put some distance between social democratic politics and the bombing of the Middle East.
Bye bye Grant Shapps
Bye bye Grant Shapps,
you were several chaps.
But it came at a price:
none of them was nice.
Friday 27 November 2015
When they do war, they forget how to count
When they do war
They forget how to count
They forget how to count
And that's how they do it.
They come
They kill
They kill
They go
They give us
No numbers
No names
They disappear them
They vanish them
It's how they do it.
They come
They kill
They kill
They go
Names are deleted
Numbers are un-counted
bodies are un-included
Faces are un-remembered
That's how they do it.
They come in
They flush out
They mop up
They take out
No numbers
No names
No names
No numbers
And it's worth it,
they say.
It's worth it.
Believe us, it's worth it
believe us.
Oh yes it IS worth it
if you forget how to count.
It IS worth it
if you forget the numbers.
It IS worth it
if you forget the names.
It IS worth it
if you forget the faces.
That's how they do it.
But
we're counting.
Watch us:
we're counting.
Listen:
we're counting.
And-
-we count.
They forget how to count
They forget how to count
And that's how they do it.
They come
They kill
They kill
They go
They give us
No numbers
No names
They disappear them
They vanish them
It's how they do it.
They come
They kill
They kill
They go
Names are deleted
Numbers are un-counted
bodies are un-included
Faces are un-remembered
That's how they do it.
They come in
They flush out
They mop up
They take out
No numbers
No names
No names
No numbers
And it's worth it,
they say.
It's worth it.
Believe us, it's worth it
believe us.
Oh yes it IS worth it
if you forget how to count.
It IS worth it
if you forget the numbers.
It IS worth it
if you forget the names.
It IS worth it
if you forget the faces.
That's how they do it.
But
we're counting.
Watch us:
we're counting.
Listen:
we're counting.
And-
-we count.
Thursday 26 November 2015
Poem: Mother
I am listening to my mother
I am listening to my mother
she's knitting
knitting needles clicking
I am listening to my mother
she's sewing
sewing machine humming
I am listening to my mother
she's typing
typewriter clacking
I am listening to my mother
in my head
I am listening to my mother
she's knitting
knitting needles clicking
I am listening to my mother
she's sewing
sewing machine humming
I am listening to my mother
she's typing
typewriter clacking
I am listening to my mother
in my head
More pages from unpublished parts of Alice in Wonderland
Another sheaf of notes has been found under the floorboards of Lewis Carroll's room in Oxford.
Alice heard some singing and chanting. She turned to the Blue Queen and said that she wanted to find out more about it.
'Excellent,' said the Gibblet, 'excellent'.
The Blue Queen took Alice to a darkened room and showed her some magic lantern slides. Alice looked at them with amazement. She saw people standing with their eyes shut, she saw people kneeling. Sometimes it was just men, sometimes it was men and women together.
'That's very interesting,' said Alice.,' and are there people who don't do any of this sort of thing?'
The Blue Queen and the Gibblet went very quiet.
'Are there?' said Alice.
'Children like you,' said the Blue Queen, 'need to prepare for life. That's why we showed you lantern slides of different kinds of people.'
'Yes, I know,' said Alice, 'but are there even more different kinds of people who don't do any of this sort of thing? If I knew about them, wouldn't that help me prepare for life too?'
'Don't answer her,' screamed the Gibblet, 'she doesn't need to know. I'm not even sure it is knowledge, anyway.'
The Gibblet opened a huge book called 'The Big Book of Knowledge'.
'No, it's not in here,' he said exultantly, and closed the book very quickly. 'If it's not in the 'Big Book of Knowledge', it's not knowledge,' he added.
'Who wrote this 'Big Book of Knowledge'? asked Alice.
'The Borogove,' said the Blue Queen, her voice trembling with emotion. She shut her eyes.
'The Borogove, the Borogove,' sang the Gibblet in a high pitched lyrical voice as he kneeled down on the floor.
'Have you got the Borogove on one of these lantern slides?' asked Alice.
'One day...one day...' said the Blue Queen in a mysterious way.
Alice walked on.
Alice heard some singing and chanting. She turned to the Blue Queen and said that she wanted to find out more about it.
'Excellent,' said the Gibblet, 'excellent'.
The Blue Queen took Alice to a darkened room and showed her some magic lantern slides. Alice looked at them with amazement. She saw people standing with their eyes shut, she saw people kneeling. Sometimes it was just men, sometimes it was men and women together.
'That's very interesting,' said Alice.,' and are there people who don't do any of this sort of thing?'
The Blue Queen and the Gibblet went very quiet.
'Are there?' said Alice.
'Children like you,' said the Blue Queen, 'need to prepare for life. That's why we showed you lantern slides of different kinds of people.'
'Yes, I know,' said Alice, 'but are there even more different kinds of people who don't do any of this sort of thing? If I knew about them, wouldn't that help me prepare for life too?'
'Don't answer her,' screamed the Gibblet, 'she doesn't need to know. I'm not even sure it is knowledge, anyway.'
The Gibblet opened a huge book called 'The Big Book of Knowledge'.
'No, it's not in here,' he said exultantly, and closed the book very quickly. 'If it's not in the 'Big Book of Knowledge', it's not knowledge,' he added.
'Who wrote this 'Big Book of Knowledge'? asked Alice.
'The Borogove,' said the Blue Queen, her voice trembling with emotion. She shut her eyes.
'The Borogove, the Borogove,' sang the Gibblet in a high pitched lyrical voice as he kneeled down on the floor.
'Have you got the Borogove on one of these lantern slides?' asked Alice.
'One day...one day...' said the Blue Queen in a mysterious way.
Alice walked on.
Wednesday 18 November 2015
Quick rearrangement of sticks to beat the Left with
1. All that stuff we used to say about 'PC gone mad' - suspend that for the moment.
2. All terms like '*loony* left' remain really, really, really funny. We don't want to be ruled by 'PC gone mad'.
3. We're really pleased that Livingstone has made a faux pas. Don't worry about consistency about language.
4. Carry on with terms like '*loony* left'. No one will pull us up for that one.
5. Carry on.
2. All terms like '*loony* left' remain really, really, really funny. We don't want to be ruled by 'PC gone mad'.
3. We're really pleased that Livingstone has made a faux pas. Don't worry about consistency about language.
4. Carry on with terms like '*loony* left'. No one will pull us up for that one.
5. Carry on.
Tuesday 17 November 2015
That tweet, that Stop the War, those wars, those bombs, us
Oviously the media will keep going on and on for months about the Stop the War 'reaping the whirlwind' tweet. Anyone, all of us, apart from the terrorist groups involved, worry, care and mourn for the people killed. Of course we do. They're us. These bombs and guns are directed against the likes of us, going to footy matches, sitting in cafes and going to concerts. In one terrible ironic aspect of this episode, the people doing this stuff must know that the people who they regard as the enemy (the politicians and generals) won't even be in the places where they've bombed and shot. It'll be us. You can bet that some of the people they kill, are even people who've said that they're against our rulers sending troops to the middle east. We really don't need lectures about how it's us who are disrespectful to the dead. The dead are us. As are the dead of Ankara, or in all the other places that have been targeted by these bombs. What is going on is that our politicians aren't protecting us. The bombs hardly ever reach the politicians and generals. Perhaps they're not targeted. Perhaps they've protected themselves much better than they've protected us. So don't tell us when we start to make connections between what politicians do and what bombers do that we aren't regretful enough or sad enough, or bitter enough. It's us, not you who are getting it.
In fact, when historians come to write up this period of history, (long after rows about the tweet), giving readers a picture of what Britain, France and the US were doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria...when they go back to the 'great ideas' earlier of how to 'solve' the 'problem' of Iran, how they happily allied with Saudi Arabia, how they pumped billions into Israel which never took seriously any 'peace process', how the western powers regard the middle east as some kind of fiefdom that should be run for our benefit....and when these historians look at the growth of groups that at one moment appeared to oppose the despotic powers of the middle east, and the next bombed 'soft' targets all over the world, when they look at how wars provide the context for paranoid, vindictive, vengeful, indiscriminate murderous ideologies (why wouldn't wars offer this kind of fertile environment? men sit for hours and hours in terrible conditions trying to kill each other, trying to kill anything or anybody they have been told is their enemy, whilst being in a permanent state of fear that they themselves are going to be killed...) when all this is put together by historians, will they say the converse of that whirlwind tweet? Will they say there was no connection whatsoever, not even the tiniest connection? Will they say that these terrorist groups had no connection whatsoever to the wars and interventions of the last 50 years or so? Will the historians say that the only way to understand these terror groups is to examine the sacred texts of Islam? The answer to it all lies in the books? Will they say that the big mistake the western powers made was to not bomb and kill more and more and more?
Maybe when the last drop of oil has been wrung out of the soil all across the territory, the oil-wealthy dictators and kings will have emigrated to New York and London, leaving millions in destitution, utterly un-enriched by the spent oil wealth, one lone historian will ask, 'What was that all about then?'
In fact, when historians come to write up this period of history, (long after rows about the tweet), giving readers a picture of what Britain, France and the US were doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria...when they go back to the 'great ideas' earlier of how to 'solve' the 'problem' of Iran, how they happily allied with Saudi Arabia, how they pumped billions into Israel which never took seriously any 'peace process', how the western powers regard the middle east as some kind of fiefdom that should be run for our benefit....and when these historians look at the growth of groups that at one moment appeared to oppose the despotic powers of the middle east, and the next bombed 'soft' targets all over the world, when they look at how wars provide the context for paranoid, vindictive, vengeful, indiscriminate murderous ideologies (why wouldn't wars offer this kind of fertile environment? men sit for hours and hours in terrible conditions trying to kill each other, trying to kill anything or anybody they have been told is their enemy, whilst being in a permanent state of fear that they themselves are going to be killed...) when all this is put together by historians, will they say the converse of that whirlwind tweet? Will they say there was no connection whatsoever, not even the tiniest connection? Will they say that these terrorist groups had no connection whatsoever to the wars and interventions of the last 50 years or so? Will the historians say that the only way to understand these terror groups is to examine the sacred texts of Islam? The answer to it all lies in the books? Will they say that the big mistake the western powers made was to not bomb and kill more and more and more?
Maybe when the last drop of oil has been wrung out of the soil all across the territory, the oil-wealthy dictators and kings will have emigrated to New York and London, leaving millions in destitution, utterly un-enriched by the spent oil wealth, one lone historian will ask, 'What was that all about then?'
Monday 16 November 2015
Iain Dale on LBC tonight asks if we have the stomach to fight ISIS
This evening in someone else's car, I had the experience of listening to Iain Dale on LBC. He hosts an evening phone-in. He set up the session by saying that we had moved into a new era as a result of the Paris deaths which meant that we had to take some kind of new action. The big question was whether the British people had 'the stomach for it'. He said that people might accuse him of being a 'warmonger' but so be it.
The first three calls that I heard were opposed to him each from different perspectives. One was Crispin Blunt MP who made it clear that he thought there was no action (in Dale's meaning of the word) that made sense so long as the civil war was going on in Syria. Whatever else happened, that had to be solved first. I surmised that he comes from a kind of pax britannica perspective, that he thinks that the UK still has some kind of useful role to play, acting as a referee in the middle east in order to protect 'our' interests, but as a realist he could see that saying 'we will bomb' made no sense.
Iain Dale ignored everything he said.
Then a caller came on who said that hadn't the French and the US been bombing for the last two years. so what had they been bombing and why hadn't it worked?
Iain Dale seemed to be saying: but that didn't disprove the point that we should go on bombing.
Then 'Raheem' came on and Raheem said that he worked with young Muslim men and he could see that many of them became radicalised by Western policy of backing dictators in the region and then bombing civilians. He gave the example of Cameron greeting the PM of Egypt.
Dale said that he didn't like the word 'radicalised' he said that he preferred to say 'brainwashed'.
Raheem said that every time he talks to these young Muslim men they mention western policy. Iain Dale said: but that doesn't explain the rapes and murders of Muslims wherever Da'esh are.
Raheem faltered a bit here (and I found myself willing him to say that a radical, authoritarian, militarised group will always have more than one objective: often one towards the outsider enemy (in this case the West) and another towards people perceived as collaborators, quislings and apostates. What's more: radical, authoritarian groups often have some male-led, male-based ideology about sex in which women only have the roles of handmaiden and child-makers. So, 'hating the West' and killing or raping fellow Muslims are not in contradiction with each other for a group like ISIS.)
Anyway, Raheem didn't say that.
He said that Iain Dale didn't understand the problem.
Iain Dale then repeated exactly what he said at the beginning of the programme as if he hadn't heard the previous three calls, said 'Did we have the stomach to take what action was needed..?'
And I got out the car.
The first three calls that I heard were opposed to him each from different perspectives. One was Crispin Blunt MP who made it clear that he thought there was no action (in Dale's meaning of the word) that made sense so long as the civil war was going on in Syria. Whatever else happened, that had to be solved first. I surmised that he comes from a kind of pax britannica perspective, that he thinks that the UK still has some kind of useful role to play, acting as a referee in the middle east in order to protect 'our' interests, but as a realist he could see that saying 'we will bomb' made no sense.
Iain Dale ignored everything he said.
Then a caller came on who said that hadn't the French and the US been bombing for the last two years. so what had they been bombing and why hadn't it worked?
Iain Dale seemed to be saying: but that didn't disprove the point that we should go on bombing.
Then 'Raheem' came on and Raheem said that he worked with young Muslim men and he could see that many of them became radicalised by Western policy of backing dictators in the region and then bombing civilians. He gave the example of Cameron greeting the PM of Egypt.
Dale said that he didn't like the word 'radicalised' he said that he preferred to say 'brainwashed'.
Raheem said that every time he talks to these young Muslim men they mention western policy. Iain Dale said: but that doesn't explain the rapes and murders of Muslims wherever Da'esh are.
Raheem faltered a bit here (and I found myself willing him to say that a radical, authoritarian, militarised group will always have more than one objective: often one towards the outsider enemy (in this case the West) and another towards people perceived as collaborators, quislings and apostates. What's more: radical, authoritarian groups often have some male-led, male-based ideology about sex in which women only have the roles of handmaiden and child-makers. So, 'hating the West' and killing or raping fellow Muslims are not in contradiction with each other for a group like ISIS.)
Anyway, Raheem didn't say that.
He said that Iain Dale didn't understand the problem.
Iain Dale then repeated exactly what he said at the beginning of the programme as if he hadn't heard the previous three calls, said 'Did we have the stomach to take what action was needed..?'
And I got out the car.
Sunday 15 November 2015
Acts of war
Human events may or may not proceed according to physical laws of cause and effect (e.g. I let go of a stone, it drops). I tend to think that human events proceed according to a more complicated process in which human behaviour is in a permanent state of 'influencing each other' (mutual influence, or reflexive influence). We see this in language. When I speak to you, part of the reasons for what I say and how I say it is in my awareness of who you are. My behaviour, then is already reflexive. Then you reply, being aware of who I am, whilst being affected by what I said. Cause and effect doesn't describe this fully.
Why am I saying this?
Because the terrible events in Paris raise the spectre of cause and effect thinking. I don't believe that either saying 'ISIS caused the events' or 'the wars caused ISIS' are sufficient explanations of the processes that led to those men massacring those people. We should even be wary of saying that e.g. because a particular interpretation of Islam is a necessary condition for the ISIS mentality that this is a sufficient one. Same goes e.g. that because the wars are a necessary condition for the growth of ISIS that they are sufficient.
In other words, clearly we have lived in a time of 'reflexive influence'. Aha, say some, but this reflexiveness is not symmetrical. That's to say, one side of the question has more power than the other: so, some have implied that 'Islam' is the most powerful side of the process. Not so, say others, it's the wars and the might of the West. I agree, we have to get our relative powers sorted out in this too.
Perhaps, the most telling comment of all was Hollande saying that it was an 'act of war'. Somewhere in the reasons for him saying this, was an awareness that this deed was part of a long war in which many parties over the long history of relations between 'the West' and the 'Middle East' have justified their actions for many different reasons. But at the heart of it is the use of weapons to kill other human beings. In a terrible way, Hollande clarified that. Surely he entitled us to review this matter as a piece of terrible military history, in which for the most part the greater power was, has been and still is in the hands of the West.
War is a classic case of reflexive influence, ('arms race'), and surely now, after Hollande's words, no Western leader can pretend that if ISIS kill again it isn't part of this war being waged by both sides. In military terms, it really doesn't matter very much what ISIS say to justify what they're doing, or what the West say to justify what they're doing. We can notice it, but we shouldn't be too seduced by it.
Once we have that in our heads, we can ask 1)is either side's war justifiable? 2) millions of people have been killed in this long war, so it's urgent that we find a way to stop it going on...so does it look as if either side killing more people will stop more killing? (and yes, we have noticed that the great majority of people killed in this war are civilians).
Why am I saying this?
Because the terrible events in Paris raise the spectre of cause and effect thinking. I don't believe that either saying 'ISIS caused the events' or 'the wars caused ISIS' are sufficient explanations of the processes that led to those men massacring those people. We should even be wary of saying that e.g. because a particular interpretation of Islam is a necessary condition for the ISIS mentality that this is a sufficient one. Same goes e.g. that because the wars are a necessary condition for the growth of ISIS that they are sufficient.
In other words, clearly we have lived in a time of 'reflexive influence'. Aha, say some, but this reflexiveness is not symmetrical. That's to say, one side of the question has more power than the other: so, some have implied that 'Islam' is the most powerful side of the process. Not so, say others, it's the wars and the might of the West. I agree, we have to get our relative powers sorted out in this too.
Perhaps, the most telling comment of all was Hollande saying that it was an 'act of war'. Somewhere in the reasons for him saying this, was an awareness that this deed was part of a long war in which many parties over the long history of relations between 'the West' and the 'Middle East' have justified their actions for many different reasons. But at the heart of it is the use of weapons to kill other human beings. In a terrible way, Hollande clarified that. Surely he entitled us to review this matter as a piece of terrible military history, in which for the most part the greater power was, has been and still is in the hands of the West.
War is a classic case of reflexive influence, ('arms race'), and surely now, after Hollande's words, no Western leader can pretend that if ISIS kill again it isn't part of this war being waged by both sides. In military terms, it really doesn't matter very much what ISIS say to justify what they're doing, or what the West say to justify what they're doing. We can notice it, but we shouldn't be too seduced by it.
Once we have that in our heads, we can ask 1)is either side's war justifiable? 2) millions of people have been killed in this long war, so it's urgent that we find a way to stop it going on...so does it look as if either side killing more people will stop more killing? (and yes, we have noticed that the great majority of people killed in this war are civilians).
Do our leaders protect us?
To leaders now and in the past:
when you ask us to choose you,
you say you will protect us
and millions believe you.
When you command guns and bombs
to kill people
you say you are protecting us
and millions believe you.
But some of the people
who receive the guns and bombs
have figured out
they can come to the countries
where the guns and bombs came from
and do the same.
When you ask us to choose you,
and to believe that you will protect us
will you tell us
that the guns and bombs you command
have no more chance of stopping
people coming here to bomb us
than they have done so far?
Or will you say,
more guns
more bombs
more guns
more bombs?
when you ask us to choose you,
you say you will protect us
and millions believe you.
When you command guns and bombs
to kill people
you say you are protecting us
and millions believe you.
But some of the people
who receive the guns and bombs
have figured out
they can come to the countries
where the guns and bombs came from
and do the same.
When you ask us to choose you,
and to believe that you will protect us
will you tell us
that the guns and bombs you command
have no more chance of stopping
people coming here to bomb us
than they have done so far?
Or will you say,
more guns
more bombs
more guns
more bombs?
Is it subject knowledge?
Is 'how to sell crap that no one needs' subject knowledge?
Is 'How someone gets and tries to hold power over you' a subject knowledge?
Is 'How to spot that someone is deceiving you' a subject knowledge?
Are ''how I teach' and 'how I learn' forms of subject knowledge?
Who decides which subjects and which parts of subject knowledge are the subject knowledge to be taught?
Does the subject 'How to find things out' count as a 'subject knowledge'?
Is 'How someone gets and tries to hold power over you' a subject knowledge?
Is 'How to spot that someone is deceiving you' a subject knowledge?
Are ''how I teach' and 'how I learn' forms of subject knowledge?
Who decides which subjects and which parts of subject knowledge are the subject knowledge to be taught?
Does the subject 'How to find things out' count as a 'subject knowledge'?
Events
Human events may or may not proceed according to physical laws of cause and effect (e.g. I let go of a stone, it drops). I tend to think that human events proceed according to a more complicated process in which human behaviour is in a permanent state of 'influencing each other' (mutual influence, or reflexive influence). We see this in language. When I speak to you, part of the reasons for what I say and how I say it is in my awareness of who you are. My behaviour, then is already reflexive. Then you reply, being aware of who I am, whilst being affected by what I said. Cause and effect doesn't describe this fully.
Why am I saying this?
Because the terrible events in Paris raise the spectre of cause and effect thinking. I don't believe that either saying 'ISIS caused the events' or 'the wars caused ISIS' are sufficient explanations of the processes that led to those men massacring those people. We should even be wary of saying that e.g. because a particular interpretation of Islam is a necessary condition for the ISIS mentality that this is a sufficient one. Same goes e.g. that because the wars are a necessary condition for the growth of ISIS that they are sufficient.
In other words, clearly we have lived in a time of 'reflexive influence'. Aha, say some, but this reflexiveness is not symmetrical. That's to say, one side of the question has more power than the other: so, some have implied that 'Islam' is the most powerful side of the process. Not so, say others, it's the wars and the might of the West. I agree, we have to get our relative powers sorted out in this too.
Perhaps, the most telling comment of all was Hollande saying that it was an 'act of war'. Somewhere in the reasons for him saying this, was an awareness that this deed was part of a long war in which many parties over the long history of relations between 'the West' and the 'Middle East' have justified their actions for many different reasons. But at the heart of it is the use of weapons to kill other human beings. In a terrible way, Hollande clarified that. Surely he entitled us to review this matter as a piece of terrible military history, in which for the most part the greater power was, has been and still is in the hands of the West.
War is a classic case of reflexive influence, ('arms race'), and surely now, after Hollande's words, no Western leader can pretend that if ISIS kill again it isn't part of this war being waged by both sides. In military terms, it really doesn't matter very much what ISIS say to justify what they're doing, or what the West say to justify what they're doing. We can notice it, but we shouldn't be too seduced by it.
Once we have that in our heads, we can ask 1)is either side's war justifiable? 2) millions of people have been killed in this long war, so it's urgent that we find a way to stop it going on...so does it look as if either side killing more people will stop more killing? (and yes, we have noticed that the great majority of people killed in this war are civilians).
Why am I saying this?
Because the terrible events in Paris raise the spectre of cause and effect thinking. I don't believe that either saying 'ISIS caused the events' or 'the wars caused ISIS' are sufficient explanations of the processes that led to those men massacring those people. We should even be wary of saying that e.g. because a particular interpretation of Islam is a necessary condition for the ISIS mentality that this is a sufficient one. Same goes e.g. that because the wars are a necessary condition for the growth of ISIS that they are sufficient.
In other words, clearly we have lived in a time of 'reflexive influence'. Aha, say some, but this reflexiveness is not symmetrical. That's to say, one side of the question has more power than the other: so, some have implied that 'Islam' is the most powerful side of the process. Not so, say others, it's the wars and the might of the West. I agree, we have to get our relative powers sorted out in this too.
Perhaps, the most telling comment of all was Hollande saying that it was an 'act of war'. Somewhere in the reasons for him saying this, was an awareness that this deed was part of a long war in which many parties over the long history of relations between 'the West' and the 'Middle East' have justified their actions for many different reasons. But at the heart of it is the use of weapons to kill other human beings. In a terrible way, Hollande clarified that. Surely he entitled us to review this matter as a piece of terrible military history, in which for the most part the greater power was, has been and still is in the hands of the West.
War is a classic case of reflexive influence, ('arms race'), and surely now, after Hollande's words, no Western leader can pretend that if ISIS kill again it isn't part of this war being waged by both sides. In military terms, it really doesn't matter very much what ISIS say to justify what they're doing, or what the West say to justify what they're doing. We can notice it, but we shouldn't be too seduced by it.
Once we have that in our heads, we can ask 1)is either side's war justifiable? 2) millions of people have been killed in this long war, so it's urgent that we find a way to stop it going on...so does it look as if either side killing more people will stop more killing? (and yes, we have noticed that the great majority of people killed in this war are civilians).
Tuesday 10 November 2015
What is the alternative to SPaG?
Is 'grammar' a sealed system with its own protocols created by and for itself, or is it a system that is part of a wider process of making meaning…which itself is part of a wider system of human behaviour?
The SPaG is based on the former – that it is a sealed system with its own protocols. These protocols, under this theory, can be ‘spotted’ and, by implication, explained, by observations of grammar itself in tiny units of written language. Under the second theory, grammar can only be fully demonstrated and, by implication, explained, on the basis of making meaning in much longer passages of language in use (including speech), which themselves are dependent on what producers of language and their receivers (writers and readers, speakers and listeners) want to say and mean.
If you reduce language to the little sentences of a SPaG test and then ask children to produce passages of writing which include features from the test for little sentences, you get crap writing. How do I know? I have a ten year old. His homework last night could well have been an instruction on how to produce crap writing about fireworks night. He had to include certain grammatical features. This is precisely what I’m referring to as the fallacy of the ‘sealed system’. It’s assumed that sticking the grammatical feature into some writing will lead to satisfactory meaning-making.
The further problem of this way of teaching and testing language is that grammar can’t take the strain. The harder people try to make grammar fit the straitjacket of ‘right and wrong’ answers, and the sealed system of thinking, the less able is the grammar to take it. The test becomes littered with false distinctions, (see subordinating conjunctions and prepositions as an example), highly disputed categories (see subjunctive), and questions which are supposed to have one answer but which have more than one right answer. Last year, children were not allowed to write ‘The sun shone bright’ because, the word ‘bright’ was ‘not an adverb’. David Crystal told the examiners they were talking cock. He was overruled. What does he know about language? The devisers of the KS1 draft SPaG couldn’t even sort out how to describe our means of asking questions. They got their auxiliaries and main verbs in a muddle. In trying to make the micro-grammar ‘right’, they end up being ‘wrong’. We all know how to ask questions. We do it every day all day. Struggling to find right and wrong ways of describing this, in sufficiently simple terms for seven year olds ended up with them being ‘wrong’ by their own criteria – not mine.
There is yet another problem which none of us has commented on: to make the sealed system approach work, you have to exclude everyday speech. So, the language that the children are actually using themselves everyday and all day is excluded from this classification system. There is a powerful body of theory that investigates speech – from sociolinguistics to psycholinguistics to pragmatics. To take one tiny obvious example: two of the most used words (or non-standard dialect versions of them) are ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Will ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and their many subtle ways of being used be in the SPaG test? I very much doubt it. That’s because it is much harder to squeeze the ‘grammar’ of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ into the sealed system model. They are so clearly part of ‘meaning-making’ and human behaviour and not part of rules that can be derived from writing (other than drama).
To return to the issue of the possibility of a ‘comprehension-grammar’ this then raises a pedagogical point: how might we best teach ‘grammar-for-meaning’? I would suggest that this is where the compare-contrast principles come in,and it’s where we might pose problems for children in terms of ‘how might we best write ‘x’ kind of writing for ‘y’ kind of purpose?’ not, ‘how might we stick this grammatical feature’ into any old bit of writing?’!!!!
That’s the alternative way to teach grammar whilst paying respect to how grammar works in language: humans invented it in order to make meaning within our human needs, desires and activities.
The SPaG is based on the former – that it is a sealed system with its own protocols. These protocols, under this theory, can be ‘spotted’ and, by implication, explained, by observations of grammar itself in tiny units of written language. Under the second theory, grammar can only be fully demonstrated and, by implication, explained, on the basis of making meaning in much longer passages of language in use (including speech), which themselves are dependent on what producers of language and their receivers (writers and readers, speakers and listeners) want to say and mean.
If you reduce language to the little sentences of a SPaG test and then ask children to produce passages of writing which include features from the test for little sentences, you get crap writing. How do I know? I have a ten year old. His homework last night could well have been an instruction on how to produce crap writing about fireworks night. He had to include certain grammatical features. This is precisely what I’m referring to as the fallacy of the ‘sealed system’. It’s assumed that sticking the grammatical feature into some writing will lead to satisfactory meaning-making.
The further problem of this way of teaching and testing language is that grammar can’t take the strain. The harder people try to make grammar fit the straitjacket of ‘right and wrong’ answers, and the sealed system of thinking, the less able is the grammar to take it. The test becomes littered with false distinctions, (see subordinating conjunctions and prepositions as an example), highly disputed categories (see subjunctive), and questions which are supposed to have one answer but which have more than one right answer. Last year, children were not allowed to write ‘The sun shone bright’ because, the word ‘bright’ was ‘not an adverb’. David Crystal told the examiners they were talking cock. He was overruled. What does he know about language? The devisers of the KS1 draft SPaG couldn’t even sort out how to describe our means of asking questions. They got their auxiliaries and main verbs in a muddle. In trying to make the micro-grammar ‘right’, they end up being ‘wrong’. We all know how to ask questions. We do it every day all day. Struggling to find right and wrong ways of describing this, in sufficiently simple terms for seven year olds ended up with them being ‘wrong’ by their own criteria – not mine.
There is yet another problem which none of us has commented on: to make the sealed system approach work, you have to exclude everyday speech. So, the language that the children are actually using themselves everyday and all day is excluded from this classification system. There is a powerful body of theory that investigates speech – from sociolinguistics to psycholinguistics to pragmatics. To take one tiny obvious example: two of the most used words (or non-standard dialect versions of them) are ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Will ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and their many subtle ways of being used be in the SPaG test? I very much doubt it. That’s because it is much harder to squeeze the ‘grammar’ of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ into the sealed system model. They are so clearly part of ‘meaning-making’ and human behaviour and not part of rules that can be derived from writing (other than drama).
To return to the issue of the possibility of a ‘comprehension-grammar’ this then raises a pedagogical point: how might we best teach ‘grammar-for-meaning’? I would suggest that this is where the compare-contrast principles come in,and it’s where we might pose problems for children in terms of ‘how might we best write ‘x’ kind of writing for ‘y’ kind of purpose?’ not, ‘how might we stick this grammatical feature’ into any old bit of writing?’!!!!
That’s the alternative way to teach grammar whilst paying respect to how grammar works in language: humans invented it in order to make meaning within our human needs, desires and activities.
Monday 9 November 2015
Grammar of 'We must live within our means' - useful? or not?
'Grammar' may be useful for all sorts of things but it may or may not help you understand why things are being said or written.
Consider, 'We must live within our means' as repeated by representatives of the government.
If we inspect that sentence according to the standard 'grammar' that I was taught we discover that this is a 'sentence' and the kind of 'sentence' that is a 'statement' (not a question or a command) It's a sentence partly because it begins with a capital letter and, given that it's a statement, we say this because it contains a 'finite' verb that has going along with it all that you would expect it to - a 'subject' and an 'object' if the verb 'needs' it. It's complete.
The subject of this sentence is 'we'. The verb is made up of two elements 'must' and 'live'. The terminology tells us that 'must' belongs to a family called 'auxiliaries' and within that family there are some specific kinds called 'modals'. The word 'live' in this sentence is a 'main verb' and it's the kind that is 'active', 'present' 'intransitive' - it doesn't take an object. The phrase 'within our means' seems to modify the verb 'live' or 'must live'. So it's called 'adverbial' an 'adverbial phrase', made up of a preposition 'within' and a 'nominal phrase', 'our means', which in turn is made up of a 'noun' 'means' and a word that describes it which may be described as a 'possessive adjective', a 'possessive' or, as some Americans tend to call it a 'possessive pronoun'. Further descriptions, 'we' is a 'possessive pronoun' of the kind that is described as 'first person plural'.
(If I've got any of this 'wrong' it's because years and years of grammar teaching didn't sink in, or I am just not good enough at it, even though I was 'taught'.)
I haven't given much explanation for the above - sorry but this is not the point of this blog.
My point is, what does this grammar tell us about the purpose and meaning of this sentence?
My view is: not a lot.
The people inventing it and repeating it have used all the words 'correctly'. It doesn't say for example "I must to live within our means'. Or 'I musts live within our mean'. (And you can have plenty of fun thinking up some more.)
Now let's examine 'we'. 'We' in this context means 'all of us in the UK'. But how are these 'means' distributed? And do we all 'live within' them in the same way? In fact, some people have to live within very small means, some live within means that are huge. However, those who will be on the receiving end of living with less will be 'living within' in a very different way from those living within a huge surplus.
So 'we' is in fact a deceit. It makes out that 'we' are in the same boat all facing the same dilemma, while concealing a vast stash of wealth that is not part of the description 'means'.
I'm going to suggest that none of this is apparent through old-fashioned grammar analysis. It needs another kind of analysis, a combination of semiology and ideological analysis available to a combination of people: ordinary folk with no linguistic training of any kind who can spot the bullshit, and know straightaway that someone is using a common phrase in order to trick them; people who do know the tools of semiology and lit crit and ideology to get behind this sort of thing.
Consider, 'We must live within our means' as repeated by representatives of the government.
If we inspect that sentence according to the standard 'grammar' that I was taught we discover that this is a 'sentence' and the kind of 'sentence' that is a 'statement' (not a question or a command) It's a sentence partly because it begins with a capital letter and, given that it's a statement, we say this because it contains a 'finite' verb that has going along with it all that you would expect it to - a 'subject' and an 'object' if the verb 'needs' it. It's complete.
The subject of this sentence is 'we'. The verb is made up of two elements 'must' and 'live'. The terminology tells us that 'must' belongs to a family called 'auxiliaries' and within that family there are some specific kinds called 'modals'. The word 'live' in this sentence is a 'main verb' and it's the kind that is 'active', 'present' 'intransitive' - it doesn't take an object. The phrase 'within our means' seems to modify the verb 'live' or 'must live'. So it's called 'adverbial' an 'adverbial phrase', made up of a preposition 'within' and a 'nominal phrase', 'our means', which in turn is made up of a 'noun' 'means' and a word that describes it which may be described as a 'possessive adjective', a 'possessive' or, as some Americans tend to call it a 'possessive pronoun'. Further descriptions, 'we' is a 'possessive pronoun' of the kind that is described as 'first person plural'.
(If I've got any of this 'wrong' it's because years and years of grammar teaching didn't sink in, or I am just not good enough at it, even though I was 'taught'.)
I haven't given much explanation for the above - sorry but this is not the point of this blog.
My point is, what does this grammar tell us about the purpose and meaning of this sentence?
My view is: not a lot.
The people inventing it and repeating it have used all the words 'correctly'. It doesn't say for example "I must to live within our means'. Or 'I musts live within our mean'. (And you can have plenty of fun thinking up some more.)
Now let's examine 'we'. 'We' in this context means 'all of us in the UK'. But how are these 'means' distributed? And do we all 'live within' them in the same way? In fact, some people have to live within very small means, some live within means that are huge. However, those who will be on the receiving end of living with less will be 'living within' in a very different way from those living within a huge surplus.
So 'we' is in fact a deceit. It makes out that 'we' are in the same boat all facing the same dilemma, while concealing a vast stash of wealth that is not part of the description 'means'.
I'm going to suggest that none of this is apparent through old-fashioned grammar analysis. It needs another kind of analysis, a combination of semiology and ideological analysis available to a combination of people: ordinary folk with no linguistic training of any kind who can spot the bullshit, and know straightaway that someone is using a common phrase in order to trick them; people who do know the tools of semiology and lit crit and ideology to get behind this sort of thing.
Sunday 8 November 2015
The newly discovered 'Alice' manuscript - all 5 passages in one.
Stunning literary find: under the floorboards of a room at Christchurch College, Oxford, an electrician has found a manuscript thought to have been written by 'Lewis Carroll' (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). Some of it is hard to decipher and it's clearly incomplete. Here are the five pages found so far...
1.
"Come in,' said a woman in a loud voice.
Alice walked in to a large room at the Compartment of Edification.
Sitting in front of her, staring into the middle distance was the Blue Queen.
'How old are you?' said the Blue Queen.
'I'm seven years old,' said Alice politely.
Sitting next to the Queen was the Gibblet.
'Seven?' said the Gibblet, 'Seven? Test her.'
'Test her,' said the Blue Queen.
'Test me?' said Alice, 'but we've only just met.'
'And be robust,' said the Gibblet.
'And be robust,' said the Blue Queen.
Alice heard a scratching sound.
She looked round and observed a row of scribes scratching the word 'robust' on their scrolls.
'Why are you doing that?' enquired Alice.
'To tell the world the good news about robust tests,' they chorused.
'But how do you know 'Robust Tests' is good news?' asked Alice politely.
'Because the Blue Queen said it is,' chorused the scribes.
'Just because someone says something is something, doesn't mean that it is the thing they say it is,' said Alice.
'Test her!' shouted the Gibblet.
Test her!' shouted the Blue Queen.
'Robustly,' said the Gibblet.
'Robustly,' said the Blue Queen.
'Why do you keep repeating what he says?' said Alice.
'How else would I know what to say?' said the Blue Queen.
'You could think for yourself,' said Alice.
'No, no, no!' screamed the Gibblet. 'That's why we have the tests.'
'What? To help people think for themselves?'
'No, the opposite, you little ninny,' screamed the Gibblet.
'I like opposites,' said Alice. 'I like thinking of things that don't have opposites, like a cupboard, or a coal scuttle.'
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Gibblet.
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Blue Queen.
'As far as I'm concerned you've both failed,' said Alice. She turned round and walked out.
-----------------
2.
Alice came to an old stone building. She walked in and saw some people sitting round a table. On the table were books and papers, and the people had put rings round some of the words.
One of the people, a friendly-looking Wombat pointed at one of the words and said, 'It's a subjestive!'
Some of the people in the room clapped.
A Frog, just as friendly, looked at it and said, 'It's not a subjestive.'
All the others who hadn't clapped before, clapped now.
Alice came over and looked very hard at the word.
'What do subjestives do?' she asked.
'They subjest,' said the Wombat.
'Is it subjesting now?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Wombat.
'No,' said the Frog.
Just then the Gibblet walked in.
Everyone went very quiet.
'Have you done it?' the Gibblet said in a very disagreeable way.
'Yes, we have,' said the Wombat, 'it's all done except for the last one: the subjestive, so because it's not done and we can't agree on it, we would recommend, sir, that we leave it out of the Spadge.'
Alice felt her head going round: first it was the subjestive, now it was the Spadge.
'It will not be left out of the Spadge!' shouted the Gibblet, his giblets shaking with rage.
'But sir...' said the Wombat, 'we cannot ask children to find a subjestive when some of us don't think it's there.'
'Oh yes we can,' said the Gibblet, 'it'll be there if I say it's there.'
'Oooh,' said Alice excitedly. 'Sometimes I say my Boojum is there. And then it's there.'
'That is nothing like subjestives, girl,' said the Gibblet, 'I'm beginning to find you very, very annoying.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'what are subjestives like then?'
The Gibblet went red.
It all went quiet. The Gibblet got out a little leaflet which was called 'The Spadge'. The Gibblet studied it, turning it over and over.
After a silence that seemed to Alice to be much too long, the Gibblet said, 'Subjestives are things that you find in the Spadge when it says, ' Here are four sentences. Underline the sentence that has the subjestive'.'
Alice got excited again.
'Oh I love those, because when you don't know the answer, all you have to do is guess one of them, and one time out of four you'll be right!'
The Gibblet stood up.
'You will not repeat what you have just said anywhere ever, ever, ever!' he said sternly.
'Don't worry,' said Alice, 'I don't need to. We all do that choosing-any-one-of-the-four trick every time we play parlour games. Everyone does.'
'Do they?' said the Gibblet in a shocked voice.
'Well not everyone, actually,' said Alice. 'It's just a trick that some people know. People who don't know end up not choosing any. Then they'll never find the subjestive, will they? So they'll be wrong. It's a shame really. Quite often when I do it, I end up with the right answer.'
'But - but - ,' spluttered the Gibblet, 'you might not know which one really is the subjestive.'
'And clearly, you don't either,' laughed Alice.
'And while we're doing 'and',' said the Frog, 'can I ask why the subjestive is in the Spadge when we haven't finished advising you on what should be in the Spadge ?'
'You people make me sick,' shouted the Gibblet. 'Borogove was right. You are the Blob. You are all the Blob.'
And he stormed out.
Alice looked at them all.
'Are you the Blob?' she asked, looking for something blobby.
'It's like your Boojum, ' said the Frog, 'if the Gibblet and the Borogove say the Blob is there, it is there.'
-------------
3.
The Blue Queen was sitting with her scribes.
Alice sat watching them.
'Today,' said the Blue Queen, 'I'm telling you how it works.'
'Oh good,' said the First Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Second Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Third Scribe.
'I know what you're going to say,' said Alice to the Fourth Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Fourth Scribe.
Alice walked in to a large room at the Compartment of Edification.
Sitting in front of her, staring into the middle distance was the Blue Queen.
'How old are you?' said the Blue Queen.
'I'm seven years old,' said Alice politely.
Sitting next to the Queen was the Gibblet.
'Seven?' said the Gibblet, 'Seven? Test her.'
'Test her,' said the Blue Queen.
'Test me?' said Alice, 'but we've only just met.'
'And be robust,' said the Gibblet.
'And be robust,' said the Blue Queen.
Alice heard a scratching sound.
She looked round and observed a row of scribes scratching the word 'robust' on their scrolls.
'Why are you doing that?' enquired Alice.
'To tell the world the good news about robust tests,' they chorused.
'But how do you know 'Robust Tests' is good news?' asked Alice politely.
'Because the Blue Queen said it is,' chorused the scribes.
'Just because someone says something is something, doesn't mean that it is the thing they say it is,' said Alice.
'Test her!' shouted the Gibblet.
Test her!' shouted the Blue Queen.
'Robustly,' said the Gibblet.
'Robustly,' said the Blue Queen.
'Why do you keep repeating what he says?' said Alice.
'How else would I know what to say?' said the Blue Queen.
'You could think for yourself,' said Alice.
'No, no, no!' screamed the Gibblet. 'That's why we have the tests.'
'What? To help people think for themselves?'
'No, the opposite, you little ninny,' screamed the Gibblet.
'I like opposites,' said Alice. 'I like thinking of things that don't have opposites, like a cupboard, or a coal scuttle.'
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Gibblet.
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Blue Queen.
'As far as I'm concerned you've both failed,' said Alice. She turned round and walked out.
-----------------
2.
Alice came to an old stone building. She walked in and saw some people sitting round a table. On the table were books and papers, and the people had put rings round some of the words.
One of the people, a friendly-looking Wombat pointed at one of the words and said, 'It's a subjestive!'
Some of the people in the room clapped.
A Frog, just as friendly, looked at it and said, 'It's not a subjestive.'
All the others who hadn't clapped before, clapped now.
Alice came over and looked very hard at the word.
'What do subjestives do?' she asked.
'They subjest,' said the Wombat.
'Is it subjesting now?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Wombat.
'No,' said the Frog.
Just then the Gibblet walked in.
Everyone went very quiet.
'Have you done it?' the Gibblet said in a very disagreeable way.
'Yes, we have,' said the Wombat, 'it's all done except for the last one: the subjestive, so because it's not done and we can't agree on it, we would recommend, sir, that we leave it out of the Spadge.'
Alice felt her head going round: first it was the subjestive, now it was the Spadge.
'It will not be left out of the Spadge!' shouted the Gibblet, his giblets shaking with rage.
'But sir...' said the Wombat, 'we cannot ask children to find a subjestive when some of us don't think it's there.'
'Oh yes we can,' said the Gibblet, 'it'll be there if I say it's there.'
'Oooh,' said Alice excitedly. 'Sometimes I say my Boojum is there. And then it's there.'
'That is nothing like subjestives, girl,' said the Gibblet, 'I'm beginning to find you very, very annoying.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'what are subjestives like then?'
The Gibblet went red.
It all went quiet. The Gibblet got out a little leaflet which was called 'The Spadge'. The Gibblet studied it, turning it over and over.
After a silence that seemed to Alice to be much too long, the Gibblet said, 'Subjestives are things that you find in the Spadge when it says, ' Here are four sentences. Underline the sentence that has the subjestive'.'
Alice got excited again.
'Oh I love those, because when you don't know the answer, all you have to do is guess one of them, and one time out of four you'll be right!'
The Gibblet stood up.
'You will not repeat what you have just said anywhere ever, ever, ever!' he said sternly.
'Don't worry,' said Alice, 'I don't need to. We all do that choosing-any-one-of-the-four trick every time we play parlour games. Everyone does.'
'Do they?' said the Gibblet in a shocked voice.
'Well not everyone, actually,' said Alice. 'It's just a trick that some people know. People who don't know end up not choosing any. Then they'll never find the subjestive, will they? So they'll be wrong. It's a shame really. Quite often when I do it, I end up with the right answer.'
'But - but - ,' spluttered the Gibblet, 'you might not know which one really is the subjestive.'
'And clearly, you don't either,' laughed Alice.
'And while we're doing 'and',' said the Frog, 'can I ask why the subjestive is in the Spadge when we haven't finished advising you on what should be in the Spadge ?'
'You people make me sick,' shouted the Gibblet. 'Borogove was right. You are the Blob. You are all the Blob.'
And he stormed out.
Alice looked at them all.
'Are you the Blob?' she asked, looking for something blobby.
'It's like your Boojum, ' said the Frog, 'if the Gibblet and the Borogove say the Blob is there, it is there.'
-------------
3.
The Blue Queen was sitting with her scribes.
Alice sat watching them.
'Today,' said the Blue Queen, 'I'm telling you how it works.'
'Oh good,' said the First Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Second Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Third Scribe.
'I know what you're going to say,' said Alice to the Fourth Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Fourth Scribe.
'How does it work?' said the Queen to the Gibblet.
'You're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets,' hissed the Gibblet.
'Why?' whispered the Queen back to the Gibblet.
'So that they'll play chess better,' said the Gibblet.
'Will they?' said the Queen.
'Not necessarily,' said the Gibblet.
'So why are we doing it?' asked the Queen.
'Because we hate the black and white chess sets,' said the Gibblet furiously.
Alice heard all this and wondered what the Scribes would make of it.
'Now,' said the Blue Queen to the Scribes, 'we're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets.'
'Hurrah,' said the Scribes, 'this will make chess better. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.'
'Not necessarily,' said Alice.
Is what that girl said true?' said the Scribes to the Blue Queen.
'Say 'We're making chess better!',' whispered the Gibblet to the Queen.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen.
'But will turning the black and white sets into brown and white sets make chess better?' said Alice.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen staring into the far distance.
Alice suddenly realised something: something can look like an answer, sound like an answer but not actually be an answer.
The Blue Queen is making chess better,' chorused the Scribes.
Alice picked up a very large stick and....
[here the manuscript is indecipherable
----------------------------
4.
As Alice walked along she could hear the sound of soldiers being drilled. At least, that's what she thought it was.
She came round a corner and saw something that looked to her like an octopus marching to and fro.
The Gibblet was calling out the orders, while the Blue Queen looked on with a fixed stare into the middle distance
"Standards RAISE!' shouted the Gibblet.
The octopus raised its standards, two large flags on which were written 'Standards'.
'Not YOURS!' shouted the Gibblet, 'The Rabble's. Raise the Rabble's standards!'
The octopus now ran towards the Rabble. Alice could see that the Rabble was made up of groups of people - children and grown-ups reading books together.
The octopus was on to them in a flash, snatching the books off them with four or five of its tentacles and handing them brightly coloured little booklets with its other tentacles.
Alice walked over to the Blue Queen.
The Blue Queen nodded at her and said, 'That's my elite squid. 1500.'
'1500?' said Alice, 'But there's only one.'
'!500,' said the Queen.
'It's got 8 legs,' said Alice.
'!500,' said the Queen.
The Gibblet came slithering up.
'And you see what the Rabble have got now?' he said to Alice.
'Brightly coloured booklets?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'brighty coloured booklets full of dry gaffes.'
'Dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'how else can you read, if you don't learn your dry gaffes?'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'I learned to read without learning my dry gaffes.'
'Then you didn't learn to read PROPERLY,' said the Gibblet.
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'No,' said the Gibblet.
'So you didn't learn to read PROPERLY, either,' said Alice to the Gibblet.
The Gibblet hissed loudly.
Alice turned to the Blue Queen.
'What are dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
The Blue Queen looked into the middle distance and said, 'Dry gaffes are gaffes that are dry.'
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
'The elite squid will raise standards,' the Blue Queen replied.
At which, the squid once again raised the flags marked 'STANDARDS'.
'Not YOURS!!!' screamed the Gibblet, tearing at his giblets in rage.
Alice walked on.
---------------------------
5.
As Alice walked along, she was delighted to see that on one side of the road there was a beautiful old building with the word 'Library' on it. Oh, that's just what I need right now, she thought. After all these awful conversations, she was beginning to feel tired and irritated. I could just go inside, sit down on a comfortable chair and read a book.
But just as she walked up the steps to the Library, a frightening creature with big jaws and claws and a giant pair of scissors in his hands, jumped out from behind one of the pillars and roared:
'You can't come in. I have locked the doors. This library is closed.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'that's a pity. Are you saying that the library is closed for now, or forever?'
'For forever,' said the frightening creature.
'Do you have a name?' said Alice, who had learned that when people say that you can't have something it's always a good idea to find out who they are.
'I am the Georgerwock,' it said, 'don't you know the poem? “Beware the Georgerwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch, the scissors that cut, snip, snip, snip!"'
Alice thought for a moment. Yes, she did remember a poem that went something like that but something was different...
'Well, Georgerwock, I think it's a great shame the library is closed. I wanted to read a book. Did you close the library?"
I did,' said the Georgerwock, 'we have to live within our means.'
'What does that mean?' said Alice.
'It means we can't spend more money than we have,' said the Georgerwock.
'That seems very sensible,' said Alice, 'but a shame all the same I can't read a book.'
The Georgerwock was just about to say something when they both heard a clinking sound. It came from a building next door to the library. Alice looked across to it. It had a big sign outside saying, 'The Counting House.'
'What's that?' said Alice.
'No need to worry your little head about that,' said the Georgerwock.
'Oh I'll look for myself, then,' said Alice and she walked over to the Counting House with the Georgerwock flapping along behind her.
Inside was the King and he was counting out his money.
I'm sure I've heard about that before, thought Alice.
Alice looked through the window at the pile of money sitting on the table in front of the King. It was enormous. And there were sacks more of it sitting behind him and piles on the floor too.
'Are you going to spend all that?' said Alice through the window.
'Good Lord, no,' said the King.
Alice turned to the Georgerwock, 'So why can't we use some of that money to open the library?'
The Georgerwock and the King looked at each other and laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.
'What I mean,' said Alice to the Georgerwock , 'is when you said 'we', 'we' had to live within our means, did you count the King in with that 'we'. Is he part of 'we'?'
Again the two of them laughed and laughed and laughed.
'Of course not,' said the Georgerwock, wiping tears of laughter from his face.
'Now you run along, little girl' said the King, 'and don't...'
'....bother my little head about such things?' said Alice in a mocking sort of a way.
'Exactly,' said the Georgerwock.
But Alice thought she would like to find out more about all this.
'You're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets,' hissed the Gibblet.
'Why?' whispered the Queen back to the Gibblet.
'So that they'll play chess better,' said the Gibblet.
'Will they?' said the Queen.
'Not necessarily,' said the Gibblet.
'So why are we doing it?' asked the Queen.
'Because we hate the black and white chess sets,' said the Gibblet furiously.
Alice heard all this and wondered what the Scribes would make of it.
'Now,' said the Blue Queen to the Scribes, 'we're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets.'
'Hurrah,' said the Scribes, 'this will make chess better. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.'
'Not necessarily,' said Alice.
Is what that girl said true?' said the Scribes to the Blue Queen.
'Say 'We're making chess better!',' whispered the Gibblet to the Queen.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen.
'But will turning the black and white sets into brown and white sets make chess better?' said Alice.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen staring into the far distance.
Alice suddenly realised something: something can look like an answer, sound like an answer but not actually be an answer.
The Blue Queen is making chess better,' chorused the Scribes.
Alice picked up a very large stick and....
[here the manuscript is indecipherable
----------------------------
4.
As Alice walked along she could hear the sound of soldiers being drilled. At least, that's what she thought it was.
She came round a corner and saw something that looked to her like an octopus marching to and fro.
The Gibblet was calling out the orders, while the Blue Queen looked on with a fixed stare into the middle distance
"Standards RAISE!' shouted the Gibblet.
The octopus raised its standards, two large flags on which were written 'Standards'.
'Not YOURS!' shouted the Gibblet, 'The Rabble's. Raise the Rabble's standards!'
The octopus now ran towards the Rabble. Alice could see that the Rabble was made up of groups of people - children and grown-ups reading books together.
The octopus was on to them in a flash, snatching the books off them with four or five of its tentacles and handing them brightly coloured little booklets with its other tentacles.
Alice walked over to the Blue Queen.
The Blue Queen nodded at her and said, 'That's my elite squid. 1500.'
'1500?' said Alice, 'But there's only one.'
'!500,' said the Queen.
'It's got 8 legs,' said Alice.
'!500,' said the Queen.
The Gibblet came slithering up.
'And you see what the Rabble have got now?' he said to Alice.
'Brightly coloured booklets?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'brighty coloured booklets full of dry gaffes.'
'Dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'how else can you read, if you don't learn your dry gaffes?'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'I learned to read without learning my dry gaffes.'
'Then you didn't learn to read PROPERLY,' said the Gibblet.
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'No,' said the Gibblet.
'So you didn't learn to read PROPERLY, either,' said Alice to the Gibblet.
The Gibblet hissed loudly.
Alice turned to the Blue Queen.
'What are dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
The Blue Queen looked into the middle distance and said, 'Dry gaffes are gaffes that are dry.'
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
'The elite squid will raise standards,' the Blue Queen replied.
At which, the squid once again raised the flags marked 'STANDARDS'.
'Not YOURS!!!' screamed the Gibblet, tearing at his giblets in rage.
Alice walked on.
---------------------------
5.
As Alice walked along, she was delighted to see that on one side of the road there was a beautiful old building with the word 'Library' on it. Oh, that's just what I need right now, she thought. After all these awful conversations, she was beginning to feel tired and irritated. I could just go inside, sit down on a comfortable chair and read a book.
But just as she walked up the steps to the Library, a frightening creature with big jaws and claws and a giant pair of scissors in his hands, jumped out from behind one of the pillars and roared:
'You can't come in. I have locked the doors. This library is closed.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'that's a pity. Are you saying that the library is closed for now, or forever?'
'For forever,' said the frightening creature.
'Do you have a name?' said Alice, who had learned that when people say that you can't have something it's always a good idea to find out who they are.
'I am the Georgerwock,' it said, 'don't you know the poem? “Beware the Georgerwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch, the scissors that cut, snip, snip, snip!"'
Alice thought for a moment. Yes, she did remember a poem that went something like that but something was different...
'Well, Georgerwock, I think it's a great shame the library is closed. I wanted to read a book. Did you close the library?"
I did,' said the Georgerwock, 'we have to live within our means.'
'What does that mean?' said Alice.
'It means we can't spend more money than we have,' said the Georgerwock.
'That seems very sensible,' said Alice, 'but a shame all the same I can't read a book.'
The Georgerwock was just about to say something when they both heard a clinking sound. It came from a building next door to the library. Alice looked across to it. It had a big sign outside saying, 'The Counting House.'
'What's that?' said Alice.
'No need to worry your little head about that,' said the Georgerwock.
'Oh I'll look for myself, then,' said Alice and she walked over to the Counting House with the Georgerwock flapping along behind her.
Inside was the King and he was counting out his money.
I'm sure I've heard about that before, thought Alice.
Alice looked through the window at the pile of money sitting on the table in front of the King. It was enormous. And there were sacks more of it sitting behind him and piles on the floor too.
'Are you going to spend all that?' said Alice through the window.
'Good Lord, no,' said the King.
Alice turned to the Georgerwock, 'So why can't we use some of that money to open the library?'
The Georgerwock and the King looked at each other and laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.
'What I mean,' said Alice to the Georgerwock , 'is when you said 'we', 'we' had to live within our means, did you count the King in with that 'we'. Is he part of 'we'?'
Again the two of them laughed and laughed and laughed.
'Of course not,' said the Georgerwock, wiping tears of laughter from his face.
'Now you run along, little girl' said the King, 'and don't...'
'....bother my little head about such things?' said Alice in a mocking sort of a way.
'Exactly,' said the Georgerwock.
But Alice thought she would like to find out more about all this.
YET ANOTHER PAGE FROM THE ALICE MANUSCRIPT
ANOTHER PAGE FROM THE ALICE MANUSCRIPT
As Alice walked along, she was delighted to see that on one side of the road there was a beautiful old building with the word 'Library' on it. Oh, that's just what I need right now, she thought. After all these awful conversations, she was beginning to feel tired and irritated. I could just go inside, sit down on a comfortable chair and read a book.
But just as she walked up the steps to the Library, a frightening creature with big jaws and claws and a giant pair of scissors in his hands, jumped out from behind one of the pillars and roared:
'You can't come in. I have locked the doors. This library is closed.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'that's a pity. Are you saying that the library is closed for now, or forever?'
'For forever,' said the frightening creature.
'Do you have a name?' said Alice, who had learned that when people say that you can't have something it's always a good idea to find out who they are.
'I am the Georgerwock,' it said, 'don't you know the poem? “Beware the Georgerwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch, the scissors that cut, snip, snip, snip!"'
Alice thought for a moment. Yes, she did remember a poem that went something like that but something was different...
'Well, Georgerwock, I think it's a great shame the library is closed. I wanted to read a book. Did you close the library?"
I did,' said the Georgerwock, 'we have to live within our means.'
'What does that mean?' said Alice.
'It means we can't spend more money than we have,' said the Georgerwock.
'That seems very sensible,' said Alice, 'but a shame all the same I can't read a book.'
The Georgerwock was just about to say something when they both heard a clinking sound. It came from a building next door to the library. Alice looked across to it. It had a big sign outside saying, 'The Counting House.'
'What's that?' said Alice.
'No need to worry your little head about that,' said the Georgerwock.
'Oh I'll look for myself, then,' said Alice and she walked over to the Counting House with the Georgerwock flapping along behind her.
Inside was the King and he was counting out his money.
I'm sure I've heard about that before, thought Alice.
Alice looked through the window at the pile of money sitting on the table in front of the King. It was enormous. And there were sacks more of it sitting behind him and piles on the floor too.
'Are you going to spend all that?' said Alice through the window.
'Good Lord, no,' said the King.
Alice turned to the Georgerwock, 'So why can't we use some of that money to open the library?'
The Georgerwock and the King looked at each other and laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.
'What I mean,' said Alice to the Georgerwock , 'is when you said 'we', 'we' had to live within our means, did you count the King in with that 'we'. Is he part of 'we'?'
Again the two of them laughed and laughed and laughed.
'Of course not,' said the Georgerwock, wiping tears of laughter from his face.
'Now you run along, little girl' said the King, 'and don't...'
'....bother my little head about such things?' said Alice in a mocking sort of a way.
'Exactly,' said the Georgerwock.
But Alice thought she would like to find out more about all this.
Saturday 7 November 2015
More sheets from newly found 'Alice' book
MORE AND MORE SHEETS FROM THE NEWLY FOUND ALICE COMING UP FROM UNDER THE FLOORBOARDS
Alice, the Gibblet, the Piggy Bank and the Owl were having a tea party.
The Gibblet was talking to the Owl.
'Little owls can't fly unless they can calculate the speed of the wind.'
'And we desperately need owls who can fly,' said the Piggy Bank. 'Owls nowadays are much worse at flying than they used to be. Owls in China are much better at flying than our owls.'
The Owl scratched her head.
'In my experience,' said the Owl, 'little owls generally learn to fly. They practice, then they fly.'
'But,' said the Gibblet, 'some don't. They die. They fall out of the nest and along comes a rat and eats them.'
'And dead owls are no good for me,' said the Piggy Bank.
'This is sadly true,' said the Owl, 'but do we know whether, if they learn how to calculate the speed of the wind, this will make it less likely for those little owls who fall out of their nests to NOT fall out of their nests?'
'Why should I care about such a stupid question?' said the Gibblet.
'It didn't seem like a stupid question to me,' said Alice.
'Who asked you?' said the Gibblet.
'No one, ' said the Piggy Bank.
'Can I have some more tea?' said Alice.
'No,' said the Gibblet.
'Do we even know,' the Owl went on, 'whether little Owls can calculate the speed of the wind ?'
'We'll test them,' said the Gibblet, ' and those that can will pass.'
'But will those that pass be able to fly?' said the Owl.
'Why should I care about much a stupid question?' said the Gibblet.
'It didn't seem like a stupid question to me,' said Alice.
'Who asked you?' said the Gibblet.
'You can't fly, can you?' said the Piggy Bank.
'No,' said Alice feeling a big ashamed.
She thought for a bit, then she said to the Gibblet, 'can you fly?'
'Another stupid question,' said the Piggy Bank.
'Can you fly?' said Alice to the Piggy Bank.
'I'm a Piggy Bank,' said the Piggy Bank.
'I'm off now,' said the Owl, and she flapped her wings and flew off.
'Very bad flying,' said the Gibblet.
'Doesn't know how to calculate the speed of the wind,' said the Piggy Bank.
'Can you?' said Alice to them.
'Another stupid question,' said the Gibblet.
'I'll pour myself some tea,' said Alice.
'What a horrible girl,' said the Piggy Bank.
---------------------------
The Blue Queen was sitting with her scribes.
Alice sat watching them.
'Today,' said the Blue Queen, 'I'm telling you how it works.'
'Oh good,' said the First Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Second Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Third Scribe.
'I know what you're going to say,' said Alice to the Fourth Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Fourth Scribe.
'How does it work?' said the Queen to the Gibblet.
'You're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets,' hissed the Gibblet.
'Why?' whispered the Queen back to the Gibblet.
'So that they'll play chess better,' said the Gibblet.
'Will they?' said the Queen.
'Not necessarily,' said the Gibblet.
'So why are we doing it?' asked the Queen.
'Because we hate the black and white chess sets,' said the Gibblet furiously.
Alice heard all this and wondered what the Scribes would make of it.
'Now,' said the Blue Queen to the Scribes, 'we're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets.'
'Hurrah,' said the Scribes, 'this will make chess better. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.'
'Not necessarily,' said Alice.
'Is what that girl said true?' said the Scribes to the Blue Queen.
'Say 'We're making chess better!',' whispered the Gibblet to the Queen.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen.
'But will turning the black and white sets into brown and white sets make chess better?' said Alice.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen staring into the far distance.
Alice suddenly realised something: something can look like an answer, sound like an answer but not actually be an answer.
'The Blue Queen is making chess better,' chorused the Scribes.
Alice picked up a very large stick and....
[here the manuscript is indecipherable]
---------------------------------------
Friday 6 November 2015
UNBELIEVABLE: Another sheet of Lewis Carroll's newly found manuscript comes to light
UNBELIEVABLE: YET ANOTHER SHEET OF LEWIS CARROLL'S NEWLY FOUND MANUSCRIPT OF AN 'ALICE' BOOK COMES TO LIGHT:
As Alice walked along she could hear the sound of soldiers being drilled. At least, that's what she thought it was.
She came round a corner and saw something that looked to her like an octopus marching to and fro.
The Gibblet was calling out the orders, while the Blue Queen looked on with a fixed stare into the middle distance
"Standards RAISE!' shouted the Gibblet.
The octopus raised its standards, two large flags on which were written 'Standards'.
'Not YOURS!' shouted the Gibblet, 'The Rabble's. Raise the Rabble's standards!'
The octopus now ran towards the Rabble. Alice could see that the Rabble was made up of groups of people - children and grown-ups reading books together.
The octopus was on to them in a flash, snatching the books off them with four or five of its tentacles and handing them brightly coloured little booklets with its other tentacles.
Alice walked over to the Blue Queen.
The Blue Queen nodded at her and said, 'That's my elite squid. 1500.'
'1500?' said Alice, 'But there's only one.'
'!500,' said the Queen.
'It's got 8 legs,' said Alice.
'!500,' said the Queen.
The Gibblet came slithering up.
'And you see what the Rabble have got now?' he said to Alice.
'Brightly coloured booklets?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'brighty coloured booklets full of dry gaffes.'
'Dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'how else can you read, if you don't learn your dry gaffes?'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'I learned to read without learning my dry gaffes.'
'Then you didn't learn to read PROPERLY,' said the Gibblet.
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'No,' said the Gibblet.
'So you didn't learn to read PROPERLY, either,' said Alice to the Gibblet.
The Gibblet hissed loudly.
Alice turned to the Blue Queen.
'What are dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
The Blue Queen looked into the middle distance and said, 'Dry gaffes are gaffes that are dry.'
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
'The elite squid will raise standards,' the Blue Queen replied.
At which, the squid once again raised the flags marked 'STANDARDS'.
'Not YOURS!!!' screamed the Gibblet, tearing at his giblets in rage.
Alice walked on.
As Alice walked along she could hear the sound of soldiers being drilled. At least, that's what she thought it was.
She came round a corner and saw something that looked to her like an octopus marching to and fro.
The Gibblet was calling out the orders, while the Blue Queen looked on with a fixed stare into the middle distance
"Standards RAISE!' shouted the Gibblet.
The octopus raised its standards, two large flags on which were written 'Standards'.
'Not YOURS!' shouted the Gibblet, 'The Rabble's. Raise the Rabble's standards!'
The octopus now ran towards the Rabble. Alice could see that the Rabble was made up of groups of people - children and grown-ups reading books together.
The octopus was on to them in a flash, snatching the books off them with four or five of its tentacles and handing them brightly coloured little booklets with its other tentacles.
Alice walked over to the Blue Queen.
The Blue Queen nodded at her and said, 'That's my elite squid. 1500.'
'1500?' said Alice, 'But there's only one.'
'!500,' said the Queen.
'It's got 8 legs,' said Alice.
'!500,' said the Queen.
The Gibblet came slithering up.
'And you see what the Rabble have got now?' he said to Alice.
'Brightly coloured booklets?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'brighty coloured booklets full of dry gaffes.'
'Dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'Yes,' said the Gibblet, 'how else can you read, if you don't learn your dry gaffes?'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'I learned to read without learning my dry gaffes.'
'Then you didn't learn to read PROPERLY,' said the Gibblet.
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' said Alice.
'No,' said the Gibblet.
'So you didn't learn to read PROPERLY, either,' said Alice to the Gibblet.
The Gibblet hissed loudly.
Alice turned to the Blue Queen.
'What are dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
The Blue Queen looked into the middle distance and said, 'Dry gaffes are gaffes that are dry.'
'Did you learn your dry gaffes?' Alice asked her.
'The elite squid will raise standards,' the Blue Queen replied.
At which, the squid once again raised the flags marked 'STANDARDS'.
'Not YOURS!!!' screamed the Gibblet, tearing at his giblets in rage.
Alice walked on.
Thursday 5 November 2015
For Children Writing
Writing is part of the human conversation. We have to show children they are entitled to join in. No passport required.
One of several good ways to learn to write is to compare in detail examples of good writing.
We have to stop indicating to children they have nothing to say and don't know how to say it.
One of several good ways to learn to write is to compare in detail examples of good writing.
We have to stop indicating to children they have nothing to say and don't know how to say it.
The politics of writing in schools
Are physicists asked to help the Curriculum get physics right?
Yes.
Are writers asked to help the Curriculum get writing right?
No.
The interesting question to ask, though, is why not?
I think it's because 'writing' is political.
It's seen as owned by people in power.
They want to control how it's learned, what kind of child/student should write what. They don't want to leave it to teachers and they don't want to leave it to writers. They don't want to leave it to writers and teachers to talk about it together.
And they want to use it for end-point, high stakes, centralized testing. This means controlling writing so that it is written in very specific ways, and only the controlled things are written about.
Yes.
Are writers asked to help the Curriculum get writing right?
No.
The interesting question to ask, though, is why not?
I think it's because 'writing' is political.
It's seen as owned by people in power.
They want to control how it's learned, what kind of child/student should write what. They don't want to leave it to teachers and they don't want to leave it to writers. They don't want to leave it to writers and teachers to talk about it together.
And they want to use it for end-point, high stakes, centralized testing. This means controlling writing so that it is written in very specific ways, and only the controlled things are written about.
"No private reading in English allowed"
A Letter I received:
"Dear Michael Rosen
I am writing to you because I am so concerned with what is happening in a secondary school of my acquaintance.I used to be a Head of English there some years ago and we always had one lesson devoted to private reading in Years 7-10. For the good reader, such lessons are of course a delight. The teacher can model enjoyment of reading by reading herself, or can use the time to help a struggling reader.
However a friend of mine has told me that private reading has now been 'banned' in English lessons.
Senior Management has decreed that there must be no private reading in English lessons. Reading aloud is permissible (on occasion) but the teacher must be active and teaching at all times in the lesson and private reading can only be set for homework. The educational and enjoyment benefits of private reading in class are completely ignored.Any teacher 'caught' allowing students to read quietly on their own may be subjected to disciplinary measures.
I obviously can't name the school or give you my friend's name. I am sure you will be horrified by this policy. To downgrade private reading in this way is disgraceful.Why not trust English teachers to know what is best for their students? I hope you will be able to give this issue some publicity.
I can't give you my name (to protect my friend) but I assure you that all these reported remarks are genuine."
"Dear Michael Rosen
I am writing to you because I am so concerned with what is happening in a secondary school of my acquaintance.I used to be a Head of English there some years ago and we always had one lesson devoted to private reading in Years 7-10. For the good reader, such lessons are of course a delight. The teacher can model enjoyment of reading by reading herself, or can use the time to help a struggling reader.
However a friend of mine has told me that private reading has now been 'banned' in English lessons.
Senior Management has decreed that there must be no private reading in English lessons. Reading aloud is permissible (on occasion) but the teacher must be active and teaching at all times in the lesson and private reading can only be set for homework. The educational and enjoyment benefits of private reading in class are completely ignored.Any teacher 'caught' allowing students to read quietly on their own may be subjected to disciplinary measures.
I obviously can't name the school or give you my friend's name. I am sure you will be horrified by this policy. To downgrade private reading in this way is disgraceful.Why not trust English teachers to know what is best for their students? I hope you will be able to give this issue some publicity.
I can't give you my name (to protect my friend) but I assure you that all these reported remarks are genuine."
Wednesday 4 November 2015
Incredibly: a third sheet from the newly found 'Alice' manuscript
Another sheet found under the floorboards of Christchurch Oxford.
The Blue Queen was sitting with her scribes.
Alice sat watching them.
'Today,' said the Blue Queen, 'I'm telling you how it works.'
'Oh good,' said the First Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Second Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Third Scribe.
'I know what you're going to say,' said Alice to the Fourth Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Fourth Scribe.
'How does it work?' said the Queen to the Gibblet.
'You're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets,' hissed the Gibblet.
'Why?' whispered the Queen back to the Gibblet.
'So that they'll play chess better,' said the Gibblet.
'Will they?' said the Queen.
'Not necessarily,' said the Gibblet.
'So why are we doing it?' asked the Queen.
'Because we hate the black and white chess sets,' said the Gibblet furiously.
Alice heard all this and wondered what the Scribes would make of it.
'Now,' said the Blue Queen to the Scribes, 'we're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets.'
'Hurrah,' said the Scribes, 'this will make chess better. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.'
'Not necessarily,' said Alice.
'Is what that girl said true?' said the Scribes to the Blue Queen.
'Say 'We're making chess better!',' whispered the Gibblet to the Queen.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen.
'But will turning the black and white sets into brown and white sets make chess better?' said Alice.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen staring into the far distance.
Alice suddenly realised something: something can look like an answer, sound like an answer but not actually be an answer.
'The Blue Queen is making chess better,' chorused the Scribes.
Alice picked up a very large stick and....
[here the manuscript is indecipherable]
The Blue Queen was sitting with her scribes.
Alice sat watching them.
'Today,' said the Blue Queen, 'I'm telling you how it works.'
'Oh good,' said the First Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Second Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Third Scribe.
'I know what you're going to say,' said Alice to the Fourth Scribe.
'Oh good,' said the Fourth Scribe.
'How does it work?' said the Queen to the Gibblet.
'You're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets,' hissed the Gibblet.
'Why?' whispered the Queen back to the Gibblet.
'So that they'll play chess better,' said the Gibblet.
'Will they?' said the Queen.
'Not necessarily,' said the Gibblet.
'So why are we doing it?' asked the Queen.
'Because we hate the black and white chess sets,' said the Gibblet furiously.
Alice heard all this and wondered what the Scribes would make of it.
'Now,' said the Blue Queen to the Scribes, 'we're going to convert all the black and white chess sets into brown and yellow chess sets.'
'Hurrah,' said the Scribes, 'this will make chess better. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah.'
'Not necessarily,' said Alice.
'Is what that girl said true?' said the Scribes to the Blue Queen.
'Say 'We're making chess better!',' whispered the Gibblet to the Queen.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen.
'But will turning the black and white sets into brown and white sets make chess better?' said Alice.
'We're making chess better,' said the Blue Queen staring into the far distance.
Alice suddenly realised something: something can look like an answer, sound like an answer but not actually be an answer.
'The Blue Queen is making chess better,' chorused the Scribes.
Alice picked up a very large stick and....
[here the manuscript is indecipherable]
More pages from the newly found 'Alice' manuscript.
INCREDIBLE: ANOTHER FEW PAGES OF THE NEW ALICE MANUSCRIPT HAVE COME TO LIGHT:
Alice came to an old stone building. She walked in and saw some people sitting round a table. On the table were books and papers, and the people had put rings round some of the words.
One of the people, a friendly-looking Wombat pointed at one of the words and said, 'It's a subjestive!'
Some of the people in the room clapped.
A Frog, just as friendly, looked at it and said, 'It's not a subjestive.'
All the others who hadn't clapped before, clapped now.
Alice came over and looked very hard at the word.
'What do subjestives do?' she asked.
'They subjest,' said the Wombat.
'Is it subjesting now?' Alice asked.
'Yes,' said the Wombat.
'No,' said the Frog.
Just then the Gibblet walked in.
Everyone went very quiet.
'Have you done it?' the Gibblet said in a very disagreeable way.
'Yes, we have,' said the Wombat, 'it's all done except for the last one: the subjestive, so because it's not done and we can't agree on it, we would recommend, sir, that we leave it out of the Spadge.'
Alice felt her head going round: first it was the subjestive, now it was the Spadge.
'It will not be left out of the Spadge!' shouted the Gibblet, his giblets shaking with rage.
'But sir...' said the Wombat, 'we cannot ask children to find a subjestive when some of us don't think it's there.'
'Oh yes we can,' said the Gibblet, 'it'll be there if I say it's there.'
'Oooh,' said Alice excitedly. 'Sometimes I say my Boojum is there. And then it's there.'
'That is nothing like subjestives, girl,' said the Gibblet, 'I'm beginning to find you very, very annoying.'
'Oh,' said Alice, 'what are subjestives like then?'
The Gibblet went red.
It all went quiet. The Gibblet got out a little leaflet which was called 'The Spadge'. The Gibblet studied it, turning it over and over.
After a silence that seemed to Alice to be much too long, the Gibblet said, 'Subjestives are things that you find in the Spadge when it says, ' Here are four sentences. Underline the sentence that has the subjestive'.'
Alice got excited again.
'Oh I love those, because when you don't know the answer, all you have to do is guess one of them, and one time out of four you'll be right!'
The Gibblet stood up.
'You will not repeat what you have just said anywhere ever, ever, ever!' he said sternly.
'Don't worry,' said Alice, 'I don't need to. We all do that choosing-any-one-of-the-four trick every time we play parlour games. Everyone does.'
'Do they?' said the Gibblet in a shocked voice.
'Well not everyone, actually,' said Alice. 'It's just a trick that some people know. People who don't know end up not choosing any. Then they'll never find the subjestive, will they? So they'll be wrong. It's a shame really. Quite often when I do it, I end up with the right answer.'
'But - but - ,' spluttered the Gibblet, 'you might not know which one really is the subjestive.'
'And clearly, you don't either,' laughed Alice.
'And while we're doing 'and',' said the Frog, 'can I ask why the subjestive is in the Spadge when we haven't finished advising you on what should be in the Spadge ?'
'You people make me sick,' shouted the Gibblet. 'Borogove was right. You are the Blob. You are all the Blob.'
And he stormed out.
Alice looked at them all.
'Are you the Blob?' she asked, looking for something blobby.
'It's like your Boojum, ' said the Frog, 'if the Gibblet and the Borogove say the Blob is there, it is there.'
Stunning literary find: new Lewis Carroll 'Alice' book.
Stunning literary find: under the floorboards of a room at Christchurch College, Oxford, an electrician has found a manuscript thought to have been written by 'Lewis Carroll' (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). Some of it is hard to decipher and it's clearly incomplete. Here's one passage:
"Come in,' said a woman in a loud voice.
Alice walked in to a large room at the Compartment of Edification.
Sitting in front of her, staring into the middle distance was the Blue Queen.
'How old are you?' said the Blue Queen.
'I'm seven years old,' said Alice politely.
Sitting next to the Queen was the Gibblet.
'Seven?' said the Gibblet, 'Seven? Test her.'
'Test her,' said the Blue Queen.
'Test me?' said Alice, 'but we've only just met.'
'And be robust,' said the Gibblet.
'And be robust,' said the Blue Queen.
Alice heard a scratching sound.
She looked round and observed a row of scribes scratching the word 'robust' on their scrolls.
'Why are you doing that?' enquired Alice.
'To tell the world the good news about robust tests,' they chorused.
'But how do you know 'Robust Tests' is good news?' asked Alice politely.
'Because the Blue Queen said it is,' chorused the scribes.
'Just because someone says something is something, doesn't mean that it is the thing they say it is,' said Alice.
'Test her!' shouted the Gibblet.
Test her!' shouted the Blue Queen.
'Robustly,' said the Gibblet.
'Robustly,' said the Blue Queen.
'Why do you keep repeating what he says?' said Alice.
'How else would I know what to say?' said the Blue Queen.
'You could think for yourself,' said Alice.
'No, no, no!' screamed the Gibblet. 'That's why we have the tests.'
'What? To help people think for themselves?'
'No, the opposite, you little ninny,' screamed the Gibblet.
'I like opposites,' said Alice. 'I like thinking of things that don't have opposites, like a cupboard, or a coal scuttle.'
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Gibblet.
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Blue Queen.
'As far as I'm concerned you've both failed,' said Alice. She turned round and walked out.
"Come in,' said a woman in a loud voice.
Alice walked in to a large room at the Compartment of Edification.
Sitting in front of her, staring into the middle distance was the Blue Queen.
'How old are you?' said the Blue Queen.
'I'm seven years old,' said Alice politely.
Sitting next to the Queen was the Gibblet.
'Seven?' said the Gibblet, 'Seven? Test her.'
'Test her,' said the Blue Queen.
'Test me?' said Alice, 'but we've only just met.'
'And be robust,' said the Gibblet.
'And be robust,' said the Blue Queen.
Alice heard a scratching sound.
She looked round and observed a row of scribes scratching the word 'robust' on their scrolls.
'Why are you doing that?' enquired Alice.
'To tell the world the good news about robust tests,' they chorused.
'But how do you know 'Robust Tests' is good news?' asked Alice politely.
'Because the Blue Queen said it is,' chorused the scribes.
'Just because someone says something is something, doesn't mean that it is the thing they say it is,' said Alice.
'Test her!' shouted the Gibblet.
Test her!' shouted the Blue Queen.
'Robustly,' said the Gibblet.
'Robustly,' said the Blue Queen.
'Why do you keep repeating what he says?' said Alice.
'How else would I know what to say?' said the Blue Queen.
'You could think for yourself,' said Alice.
'No, no, no!' screamed the Gibblet. 'That's why we have the tests.'
'What? To help people think for themselves?'
'No, the opposite, you little ninny,' screamed the Gibblet.
'I like opposites,' said Alice. 'I like thinking of things that don't have opposites, like a cupboard, or a coal scuttle.'
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Gibblet.
'You go on like that, you'll fail the test,' laughed the Blue Queen.
'As far as I'm concerned you've both failed,' said Alice. She turned round and walked out.
News just in: Robust tests for ministers
Robust tests for ministers: In the run-up to an election, I will/will not tell the truth about which policies I will follow in a new government.
Robust tests for ministers: I will/will not benefit directly from the legislation I have created when I leave this job to a directorship?
Robust tests for ministers: I do/do not know anything about the field that I govern?
Robust tests for ministers: I have/have not declared all my earnings....
Robust tests for ministers: I will/will not benefit directly from the legislation I have created when I leave this job to a directorship?
Robust tests for ministers: I do/do not know anything about the field that I govern?
Robust tests for ministers: I have/have not declared all my earnings....
Nicky Morgan does 'robust' testing. Robust? Do we need 'robust'?!
Nicky Morgan says the new tests for 7 year olds will be 'robust'
Here's an online entry for 'robust'
ro·bust
adjective
strong and healthy; vigorous.
"the Caplans are a robust, healthy lot"
synonyms: strong, vigorous, sturdy, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, strapping, brawny, burly, husky, heavily built; healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle; informalbeefy, hunky
"a large, robust man"
antonyms: frail, weak
(of an object) sturdy in construction.
"a robust metal cabinet"
synonyms: durable, resilient, tough, hardwearing, long-lasting, sturdy, strong
"these knives are robust"
(of a process, system, organization, etc.) able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions.
"California's robust property market"
-------------------
Note from me: You'll notice none of these definitions includes 'useful', 'helpful', 'interesting', 'needed', 'popular', 'evidence-based', 'intellectually sound', 'based on well-thought-out intellectual principles', 'philosophically justifiable', or 'much in demand from those with an interest in the well-being of others'.
Here's an online entry for 'robust'
ro·bust
adjective
strong and healthy; vigorous.
"the Caplans are a robust, healthy lot"
synonyms: strong, vigorous, sturdy, tough, powerful, solid, muscular, sinewy, rugged, hardy, strapping, brawny, burly, husky, heavily built; healthy, fit, fighting fit, hale and hearty, lusty, in fine fettle; informalbeefy, hunky
"a large, robust man"
antonyms: frail, weak
(of an object) sturdy in construction.
"a robust metal cabinet"
synonyms: durable, resilient, tough, hardwearing, long-lasting, sturdy, strong
"these knives are robust"
(of a process, system, organization, etc.) able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions.
"California's robust property market"
-------------------
Note from me: You'll notice none of these definitions includes 'useful', 'helpful', 'interesting', 'needed', 'popular', 'evidence-based', 'intellectually sound', 'based on well-thought-out intellectual principles', 'philosophically justifiable', or 'much in demand from those with an interest in the well-being of others'.
Tuesday 3 November 2015
The SPaG test NOT introduced to test language but in order to select schools for conversion to Academies
Ultimately, the SPaG test (Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar test for 10/11 year olds in English schools) was NOT introduced for reasons of giving children opportunities. It was introduced because it was deemed to have 'right and wrong' answers. This, the argument went, would enable the examiners to grade the children 'accurately'. In turn this would enable the DfE to grade the schools 'accurately'. In turn, this would enable the DfE to determine more 'accurately' which schools would have to be compelled to convert to academies, even though there is no evidence that conversion will make the school better.
So, in a way, none of this is about 'grammar' and everything to do with creating academies, i.e. giving 125 year leases of publicly owned property to private companies and charities.
So, in a way, none of this is about 'grammar' and everything to do with creating academies, i.e. giving 125 year leases of publicly owned property to private companies and charities.
Sunday 1 November 2015
Thoughts on testing, more testing, earlier testing, later testing, testing testing...
1. The great struggle over testing is about 'validity' and 'reliability'. The tests move more and more towards being 'valid'. To do this they have to be narrower and narrower i.e. testing things on the basis of right and wrong answers (as they claim). This makes the tests more 'reliable' (as they claim). However, as the tests do this - and they do - so do they become less 'valid'. That is, they discriminate between the tested people on narrower and narrower grounds. This wouldn't matter if the tests were quick guides for teachers and pupils on what to work on, say. But they aren't. They are increasingly a matter of high-stakes: ranking schools, determining the outcome of schools, determining teachers' livelihoods, children's routes through education, and leading to the setting up of schools which are not accountable to local democracy or scrutiny of accounts. It is all linked. It is in the interests of those who advocate more and more testing to deny or ignore these links. To them, these are just 'unintended consequences'. Not so. There is a system and 'highly reliable' and not 'valid' testing are part of a system.
2. Tests for 4 year olds are tests of parents. The first direct consequence will be a rash of 'booklets' for parents to 'improve' scores.
3. All testing exhibits a world view...even of the validity of testing itself! When we test 4/5 year olds we immediately impose a value-system that when you are asked something you mustn't ask for help! Aha, say the testers, this only applies to the test itself! Not so, because the tests set up a tailback into education and parenting. Because that question-answer relationship is set up by the test, so inevitably teachers and parents imitate it in the lead-up or indeed more generally as part of practice: if there's something you don't know, just sit there, sweating; you cannot ask for help. I've heard myself doing it with my own children in order to 'help' them do the test! This is a value-system imposed by testing itself.
4. One test I saw for 4/5 year olds (some years ago) asked children to distinguish between a 'spade' and a 'shovel'. According to the pictures, the spade had no upturned edges. The point here is that there would be cultural reasons why some children would be able to get this 'right' and others wouldn't know. This has nothing to do with 'intelligence' or 'language ability' and a lot to do with whether your parents have a garden, or indeed if your parents were farmers! This is an example of being 'reliable' but not 'valid'. There is only one answer but the answer is ludicrously culturally biased.
5. If we want to analyse and understand what is going on in 'education' today, we have to get to grips with the implied and actual philosophies of the tests and testing principles.
6. A crucial part of testing is to know how to be tested! In the KS2 SPaG test (sample online at Gov.uk) you can see that some of the questions are 4-way multiple choice. If you have any doubt, best thing to do is tick any old square. If you're right, the test will have tested your ability to know how to be tested not in any SPaG knowledge. Ultimately, what you're tested here though is whether your teacher has told you this.
2. Tests for 4 year olds are tests of parents. The first direct consequence will be a rash of 'booklets' for parents to 'improve' scores.
3. All testing exhibits a world view...even of the validity of testing itself! When we test 4/5 year olds we immediately impose a value-system that when you are asked something you mustn't ask for help! Aha, say the testers, this only applies to the test itself! Not so, because the tests set up a tailback into education and parenting. Because that question-answer relationship is set up by the test, so inevitably teachers and parents imitate it in the lead-up or indeed more generally as part of practice: if there's something you don't know, just sit there, sweating; you cannot ask for help. I've heard myself doing it with my own children in order to 'help' them do the test! This is a value-system imposed by testing itself.
4. One test I saw for 4/5 year olds (some years ago) asked children to distinguish between a 'spade' and a 'shovel'. According to the pictures, the spade had no upturned edges. The point here is that there would be cultural reasons why some children would be able to get this 'right' and others wouldn't know. This has nothing to do with 'intelligence' or 'language ability' and a lot to do with whether your parents have a garden, or indeed if your parents were farmers! This is an example of being 'reliable' but not 'valid'. There is only one answer but the answer is ludicrously culturally biased.
5. If we want to analyse and understand what is going on in 'education' today, we have to get to grips with the implied and actual philosophies of the tests and testing principles.
6. A crucial part of testing is to know how to be tested! In the KS2 SPaG test (sample online at Gov.uk) you can see that some of the questions are 4-way multiple choice. If you have any doubt, best thing to do is tick any old square. If you're right, the test will have tested your ability to know how to be tested not in any SPaG knowledge. Ultimately, what you're tested here though is whether your teacher has told you this.