A Year in Podcasting
2017 didn’t quite go to plan with regard to my personal podcast output. Brian and I decided to stop producing the Burton & Scrooge Podcast and return to creating material under the Contains Moderate Peril brand. This was a good idea in so far as consolidation, but it was ill timed as both of us were somewhat fatigued with podcasting per se. Ultimately Brian decided to take a break and pursue some projects of his own. I decided to push on with podcasting in my usual idiom and I was pleased with the three new shows that were produced. Sean, Brax, Jaedia and Wolfy were extremely obliging and great guests, but ultimately my schedule just couldn’t sustain a regular show. Hence, I re-released some “classic” shows to fill the gaps in the run up to Christmas. As a result of all these changes and the delays, the overall numbers for the show have been disappointing. Although statistics are not the only reason why I podcast, they are important as I was hoping to grow the audience this year. That has patently not happened although it is nice to know there’s a loyal core group of listeners. Therefore, I now have to think long and hard about my podcasting plans for 2018.
2017 didn’t quite go to plan with regard to my personal podcast output. Brian and I decided to stop producing the Burton & Scrooge Podcast and return to creating material under the Contains Moderate Peril brand. This was a good idea in so far as consolidation, but it was ill timed as both of us were somewhat fatigued with podcasting per se. Ultimately Brian decided to take a break and pursue some projects of his own. I decided to push on with podcasting in my usual idiom and I was pleased with the three new shows that were produced. Sean, Brax, Jaedia and Wolfy were extremely obliging and great guests, but ultimately my schedule just couldn’t sustain a regular show. Hence, I re-released some “classic” shows to fill the gaps in the run up to Christmas. As a result of all these changes and the delays, the overall numbers for the show have been disappointing. Although statistics are not the only reason why I podcast, they are important as I was hoping to grow the audience this year. That has patently not happened although it is nice to know there’s a loyal core group of listeners. Therefore, I now have to think long and hard about my podcasting plans for 2018.
Although I’ve enjoyed many of the topics that have been regularly discussed on the Contains Moderate Peril podcast, I find myself tiring of the failings of the game industry and the iniquities of many of its fans. However, my passion for movies and the cinema per se is still strong and it’s a subject I would like to pursue at some depth. Sadly, I have yet to find someone who would like to co-host such a show, so the alternative is to produce a solo podcast. This requires writing a detailed script for each episode, which is time consuming and complex. Such a format would then have to be a monthly undertaking to allow the time to produce it. After some experimentation and due consideration, I don’t think I can accommodate such a project in conjunction with my regular blogging and the book I’ve decided to complete. I suspect that I may have to take a sabbatical from podcasting in 2018, which is frustrating to say the least.
Thankfully, many of my friends and colleagues have not been stymied by their production schedules and have continued to produce regular good quality show throughout the course of the year. Pixels & Dice, Aggro Chat and Battle Bards, as well as How is the Movie? remain the backbone of The Gaming and Entertainment Network. Outside of our own collective it’s been an exceptionally good year for the Geek to Geek Podcast. Hosts Void and Beej have consistently covered a broad range of subjects and are happy to differ in opinion on many of them. Their enthusiasm and dedication has been constant over the last twelve months. Mike Muncer’s Evolution of Horror was another great discovery this year and has proven to be fun, engaging and extremely knowledgeable about its subject. I’d also like to congratulate Will Ross and Mike Taylor who continue to explore quality literary horror in their aptly named A Podcast to the Curious. Despite there being a perceived dumbing down in other media, many podcasts still maintain extremely high standards. In many respects we are spoilt for choice at present as the medium really does seem to have come into its own. Therefore, I am confident that 2018 will be a good year of quality shows and entertaining content.
A Year in Blogging
My blogging goal for 2017 was to write a post every day. Due to family illness, I’ve missed approximately 10 days during the course of the year, however considering the circumstances I feel I have done well to maintain such a schedule. Compared to 2016 which saw the website decline and even go offline for a while, 2017 has been far more productive. Traffic has increased, and I feel that Contains Moderate Peril is finding an audience once again, as it did during it’s heyday in 2014. Broadening the scope of subjects that I write about has proven a sound decision and one I would recommend to other bloggers. It certainly allows for greater freedom of expression and technically, if nothing is off the table, then there’s always something to write about. Subsequently, I can see from my website statistics that the readership is becoming increasingly diverse and global in nature. As a writer, I therefore feel that it has been a successful year and I am satisfied with what has been achieved. My writing process has improved, and I can order my thoughts and structure a blog post far quicker than I use to.
My blogging goal for 2017 was to write a post every day. Due to family illness, I’ve missed approximately 10 days during the course of the year, however considering the circumstances I feel I have done well to maintain such a schedule. Compared to 2016 which saw the website decline and even go offline for a while, 2017 has been far more productive. Traffic has increased, and I feel that Contains Moderate Peril is finding an audience once again, as it did during it’s heyday in 2014. Broadening the scope of subjects that I write about has proven a sound decision and one I would recommend to other bloggers. It certainly allows for greater freedom of expression and technically, if nothing is off the table, then there’s always something to write about. Subsequently, I can see from my website statistics that the readership is becoming increasingly diverse and global in nature. As a writer, I therefore feel that it has been a successful year and I am satisfied with what has been achieved. My writing process has improved, and I can order my thoughts and structure a blog post far quicker than I use to.
Outside of my own writing, there are still many fellow bloggers who continue to write on a regular basis, sharing their thoughts and expressing their views. I try to read as broad a spectrum of writing styles and opinions as possible, as this is not only entertaining but can often provide an invaluable source of material to reply to or debate. I also follow one blog whose author’s world view is the complete opposite of mine. This is mainly to see how others think, irrespective of whether their views have been formed through analysis or critical thinking. Again, it can provide some interesting prompts for writing. Furthermore, as my gaming horizon inevitably contracts many of the blogs I follow, keep me informed about games I no longer play or aspects of the industry that I no longer focus upon. Then there are a few that I read just because I enjoy the author’s writing style or personality. Gaming can become awfully serious at times. I like those writers that still remember it’s also about having fun.
Sadly, there were some bloggers that decided to hang up their spurs this year. Real life demands, and pressures are usually the main reason for this. However, for some writers, there were less pleasant factors that led to their decision. Negative comments, abuse or the sheer blinkered zealotry of certain fans can certainly erode one’s pleasure in writing. Misogyny and prejudice still abound online, and the current political climate seems to have emboldened certain parties. Then there is the matter of blog post comments per se, which are few and far between these days. I have given up trying to encourage them. What responses I do get to my writing are often via Twitter. This situation just seems to reflect the changing nature of online social interaction. And it would also be remiss of me if I didn’t mention how I miss writing based online events such as the Newbie Blogger Initiative and Blaugust. Perhaps we will see someone else pick up the baton in the next twelve months and arrange something.
I intend to keep blogging in 2018 but it will be less frequent. I haven’t decided on my new schedule as of yet, but it will no longer be daily. I have a non-fiction book that remains unwritten, despite a great deal of preliminary work and planning. This will be my primary writing focus in the months ahead. I have a clear timetable and an end date that I wish to achieve. Perhaps I can blog about the process of writing something more substantial than a blog post? We shall see. In the meantime, I’d like to thank everyone who has visited Contains Moderate Peril in 2017 and helped make it such a good year. If you are thinking about writing in 2018 I would certainly encourage you to do so and stick with it. Google loves a website that posts new content regularly. Writing is also a very rewarding pastime and a great way to improve your written and analytical skills. We also need more rational and measured voices contributing to our online community.
A Year in Movies
I have always enjoyed the experience of going to the cinema and I still consider it a great night out. Watching an engaging film with good company and then discussing it afterwards over drinks or a meal is one of life’s great pleasures. Sadly, over the course of 2017 I’ve only gone to see a movie at my local multiplex three times. This has nothing to do with audience behaviour or the standard of my local cinema. Both are surprisingly good. This is all down to the films that dominated cinemas at present. Although I have no major axe to grind with the fantasy genre, I do not wish an exclusive cinematic diet of such material. I have seen sufficient Super Hero movies for the present and have become tired with high concept, blockbuster, CGI driven actionfests. It concerns me that viewers who predominantly watch such movies are missing out on a wealth or broader material that could expand their tastes and horizons. I could also argue that mainstream cinema is becoming increasingly infantilised but perhaps that is best left for another blog post.
I have always enjoyed the experience of going to the cinema and I still consider it a great night out. Watching an engaging film with good company and then discussing it afterwards over drinks or a meal is one of life’s great pleasures. Sadly, over the course of 2017 I’ve only gone to see a movie at my local multiplex three times. This has nothing to do with audience behaviour or the standard of my local cinema. Both are surprisingly good. This is all down to the films that dominated cinemas at present. Although I have no major axe to grind with the fantasy genre, I do not wish an exclusive cinematic diet of such material. I have seen sufficient Super Hero movies for the present and have become tired with high concept, blockbuster, CGI driven actionfests. It concerns me that viewers who predominantly watch such movies are missing out on a wealth or broader material that could expand their tastes and horizons. I could also argue that mainstream cinema is becoming increasingly infantilised but perhaps that is best left for another blog post.
A ticket at my local cinema costs between £9 and £12. Prices vary often according to the movie and its distributor. I paid several pounds more than usual when seeing Star Wars: The Last Jedi for example. There is also the additional cost of travel as well as food and drink to be considered. So, it is not unusual for me to spend £25 even if I just go on my own. Although this is not an exorbitant sum, I do think long and hard about whether the film being seen will be sufficiently entertaining, before committing to buying tickets. All too often the movies do not inspire or enthuse me enough to justify a visit. Furthermore, the gap between a movies theatrical release and its availability for home viewing, seems to be getting shorter and shorter. Blade Runner 2049 was shown in theatres from October 6th. It became available on iTunes on December 26th, less than two months later. Furthermore, some titles if they perform poorly in certain regions will subsequently bypass the cinemas elsewhere and go directly to streaming services. This also happens for films that have faired well at the box office. Sometimes services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime will pay a premium to have access to certain titles early. I was surprised to find The Foreigner starring Jackie Chan appear on UK Netflix from December 15th.
So, bearing all the aforementioned points in mind, I have managed to select three movies I feel are good examples of quality film making in 2017. Of this three, the first one I saw in the cinema upon its release. The other two I saw via VOD. First off, there was Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk. A minimalist (in so far as dialogue) retelling of the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940, narratively framed within three simple, yet absorbing tales of heroism. An Intelligent and thought-provoking piece of cinema without any nationalist or political posturing, although some tried to erroneously couch it in those terms. Next was Edgar Wright’s old school action thriller Baby Driver. This is a film that works well on multiple levels. It is a wonderful homage to sixties and seventies heist movies. It also a well-crafted thriller and human drama. It has great performances, prefect editing and pacing with an eclectic yet innovative score. Finally, I was surprised and immensely impressed by Vince Vaughn’s performance in Brawl in Cell Block 99. Directed by Craig Zahler (Bone Tomahawk), this character driven drama about a prisoner who is forced to extremes to protect his family and settle a debt, features worryingly credible fights, all framed and edited in a style that flies in the face of the contemporary cinematic aesthetic. Yet it is still the story and acting that dominate the proceedings.
Setting aside the issue of the respective quality of mainstream Hollywood film making, there is another issue that has reached a head in 2017. Professional movie criticism has found itself increasingly at odds with fandom. Furthermore, fandom has become more adversarial in its relationship with film makers. The subtlety and nuance of a well-considered review, written by a cinematically literate critic, has been eclipsed by the arbitrary and two-dimensional nature of review aggregation websites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Distilling a movie into just a mark out of five is not exactly good for engendering balanced and broad cinematic appreciation. Also, such aggregation services can be manipulated to make “a point”. Furthermore, the recent fan furore over Star Wars: The Last Jedi shows that for many viewers, their relationship with film is inherently different from others. They see big movie franchises as vehicles for fan service; things to be crafted to their specific desires. The notion of cinema as art and as such being subject to the vision and whims of its makers, does not sit well with them. This perspective has odd parallels with that erroneous crowdfunding mindset and the misguided notion that simply because you like and financially support something it somehow guarantees creative input. Fandom may well end up being a contributory factor to the death of the blockbuster franchise movie.
It is customary to make prediction regarding the forthcoming year. The only one I feel confident in making is that I shall probably go to the cinema less in 2018. Despite some high-profile failures, the main studios seem to still have nothing but sequels, reboots and big budget tentpole releases lined up for the next twelve months. Thankfully, there is a healthy market for older, obscure and cult movies on home media and streaming. Furthermore, these are often remastered and released in high definition. So, although I may find myself absent from my local multiplex, I doubt if I’ll want for quality entertainment. As for titles that I’m looking forward to, I await Paddington 2 to be released on VOD. I’m also intrigued by Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water. I suspect that this may well be a serious Oscar contender. Then of course we should not overlook that both Netflix and Amazon Prime are now making their own feature films. They have both the budgets and the market research to entice known directors to work for them. Again, this change in consumer habits has scope to have a major impact upon film in 2018.
A Year in Gaming
As 2017 draws to a close, it is time once again time to reflect upon the subject of gaming as it has remained a primary form of entertainment for me over the last twelve months. I have enjoyed most of the new titles that I’ve bought this year but not all of them. There’s been some that have failed to please and others that have proven to be flawed. Then there has been my ongoing relationship with the MMO genre as I still have a handful of these games installed on my PC. Let it suffice to say that only one of these titles has managed to maintain my interest. I suspect that the MMO genre per se is in for a year of change in 2018. As for the wider aspects of gaming, I wouldn’t say it has been an especially edifying year for the game industry or the associated fan culture. The “goodwill” based band-aid that has remained in place for the last few years was finally torn off in 2017, exposing a festering self-inflicted wound.
As 2017 draws to a close, it is time once again time to reflect upon the subject of gaming as it has remained a primary form of entertainment for me over the last twelve months. I have enjoyed most of the new titles that I’ve bought this year but not all of them. There’s been some that have failed to please and others that have proven to be flawed. Then there has been my ongoing relationship with the MMO genre as I still have a handful of these games installed on my PC. Let it suffice to say that only one of these titles has managed to maintain my interest. I suspect that the MMO genre per se is in for a year of change in 2018. As for the wider aspects of gaming, I wouldn’t say it has been an especially edifying year for the game industry or the associated fan culture. The “goodwill” based band-aid that has remained in place for the last few years was finally torn off in 2017, exposing a festering self-inflicted wound.
I started off the year by purchasing The Elder Scrolls Online Imperial Edition, as I fancied spending time in an MMO. Sadly, the game failed to grab my attention. This was mainly due to having spent so much time playing Skyrim and being somewhat burned out on the entire Elder Scrolls vibe. I also found the requirement for mods somewhat troubling, feeling that a game should have adequate UI facilities present. It’s also a very solo friendly MMO, which in some way negates its multiplayer status. Why not just play a fully customised version of one of the earlier games in the franchise? I also tried in 2017 to make a sustained return to LOTRO. Northern Ithilien held my interest but once the game moved onto the Black Gates it soon waned. Mordor is a great zone on paper but its grindy requirements and relentlessly dour environment killed my passion. STO remains a casual friendly experience and due to there being regular events throughout the year, it facilitates setting goals and achievements. I also jumped on the Destiny 2 bandwagon and was surprised how agreeable it is. Its genre spanning nature scratched several of my gaming itches.
My single player experience was also varied in 2017. For Honor proved to be exactly as I expected; gripping in principle but beyond my personal skillset to play to any degree of success. However, Sniper Elite 4 proved to be a sound buy. The main game and DLC were well conceived and their extensive game maps allow for multiple and varied play throughs. I also dabbled with co-operative play which proved a very interesting experience. Overall this was rewarding purchase as I clocked up over 91 hours in-game. Thanks to discount key sites, I managed to purchase several titles at low prices. I bought Mafia III after it was reduced by 75% and enjoyed the games central story. I also pre-ordered the Gold Edition of Middle-earth: Shadow of War and secured a discount. Although the structure of that game has been compromised to accommodate microtransactions, I still liked the gameplay and the preposterous lore-breaking narrative. 2017 also included some minor surprises. I was not expecting further DLC for Two Worlds II but Topware released both new single player and co-op content. I was also intrigued by the recent update to Star Trek: Bridge Crew, allowing the game to be played in conventional desktop mode, rather than VR.
Of course, it wouldn’t be a year in gaming without some sort of controversy and man did 2017 have one. The blight that is microtransactions which has been slowly spreading from mobile gaming to the so-called Triple A scene, reached a head November. Star Wars: Battlefront II received such a backlash from its customer base that the story even appeared in mainstream news. Disney eventually intervened and ensured that EA suspended the real money loot boxes in the game. It would appear that the genie is finally out of the bottle and loot box culture is now coming under the scrutiny of legislative bodies all over the world. Apple has recently waded into the debate as it wants loot box odds to be fully disclosed. What happens next is anyone guess but I think that game developers may have to rethink the monetisation of their games. I also think that the tide is slowly turning with regard to early access and games that launch in a patently broken state. I avoided buying Friday the 13th: The Game until six months after it’s problematic release and I still feel that it is very much a work in progress. Several high-profile gaming commentators are loudly advocating a boycott of this trend and I think it may be getting some traction. Time will tell.
2017 once again validated my position of distancing myself from parts of the gaming community. The past twelve months have shown that a substantial number of gamers remain unreconstructed, self-centred, emotionally illiterate man-children. Developers, journalists and You Tube personalities are still regularly threatened and abused if something that is vaguely controversial is said. Outdated and blinkered views about gaming and its culture still abound. You only have to see how Jim Sterling’s Commentocracy has raised the hackles of the usual suspects, to recognise that gaming culture is still far from united. However, I believe this stems from a broader malady that seems to be permeating all aspects of modern life. But the hate, bile and stupidity are not the total picture and there are still many bloggers, streamers and content creators that celebrate and promote the positive side of gaming. I intend to make such individuals my focus in 2018. I’m not one for making predictions but I have a feeling that 2018 may be a milestone year for gaming. Potentially it presents an opportunity for the industry to either get on track or alternatively implode and suffer a slow long death. Perhaps next year’s review will have the answer.
A Year in Social Media
Although Twitter has changed a great deal since 2010, when I first joined, I still find it very enjoyable experience. It is my primary social media platform compared to Facebook and Instagram. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had to mute several people (including some whom I like) and a ton of keywords over the last twelve months, so my timeline doesn’t become a portal into the seventh circle of hell. Contrary to the usual arguments that get trotted out, I don’t live in an echo chamber. I follow a diverse and eclectic group of people with a broad range of view and opinions. I simply filter out those who hold a binary view on all major issues and have with a predilection for being bellicose, bombastic and crass. If your default reaction to everything is get angry first and ask questions later, I think I can live without your opinions. Be that as it may, 2017 has been an especially rewarding year with my Twitter friends and I have greatly appreciated their company.
Although Twitter has changed a great deal since 2010, when I first joined, I still find it very enjoyable experience. It is my primary social media platform compared to Facebook and Instagram. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve had to mute several people (including some whom I like) and a ton of keywords over the last twelve months, so my timeline doesn’t become a portal into the seventh circle of hell. Contrary to the usual arguments that get trotted out, I don’t live in an echo chamber. I follow a diverse and eclectic group of people with a broad range of view and opinions. I simply filter out those who hold a binary view on all major issues and have with a predilection for being bellicose, bombastic and crass. If your default reaction to everything is get angry first and ask questions later, I think I can live without your opinions. Be that as it may, 2017 has been an especially rewarding year with my Twitter friends and I have greatly appreciated their company.
Like many people of my age, I’ve found that my personal social circle has shrunk over the years. It is simply the reality of growing older. I have a handful of close friends who I endeavour to see every few months, but my social life isn’t anything like it was when I was twenty. But I’m fine with this because I regularly interact with like minded individuals on Twitter. Through the process of day-to-day banter, I’ve got to know a lot of people. Despite being from various corners of the globe and different backgrounds, there is so much common ground. I like to check in with folk on Twitter, exchange ideas and post pictures and anecdotes about the absurdity of life in the UK. It’s great fun when others do the same and I find out about some minor cultural difference where they live, that I wasn’t aware of. Also, like some others out there, it’s been a difficult year for me. There’s been a lot of illness in my family. Sometimes the odd kind remark on social media can really make the difference. It has for me.
Although I still write and podcast, I no longer look to social media to drive traffic to my work. It actually makes up a small percentage of my blog traffic. Persistently posting material every day seems to be the best way to raise your profile but that’s a separate matter. Twitter now is mainly for fun and that is the way it will remain until it ceases to be so. However, I have learned a few things this year about the foibles of social media. I tweeted a minor political post to the TV and Radio broadcaster James O'Brien in Autumn, which he then subsequently retweeted. For the next two days my timeline was swamped by notifications of further retweets and comments that I was automatically copied into. It made conducting my usual badinage difficult. I also made the mistake of correcting someone who had misinterpreted something I had written. Sadly, as it was to do with an ongoing political demonstration, you can guess how it ended. For the next six hours I was copied into an argument that grew exponentially between so many people, that ignoring or muting them all became impossible.
I have two old friends that have moved to the US and we have a private Facebook page where we catch up. Apart from this one activity my relationship with this social media platform has declined. Frankly I’m bemused why it remains so popular with people, however a casual perusal of Facebook groups and pages has shown me why it is such a great tool for political propaganda. With regard to Instagram I’m afraid I have turned into one of those persons who just posts picture of his grandchildren. But this is the nature of social media. You use the platforms that suit you in a manner that fits your needs. If I were thirty years younger and embarking upon a career as a professional writer, I would certainly look into how to harness these powerful tools to my advantage. But I’m not, so I’ll more than likely just continue to post my own “unique brand” of humour online and hang out with my Twitter chums in 2018. And why not, as the late, great Barry Norman use to say.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 8
In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.
In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.
All that remains now is for the tabloid press to pick over the bones of the last 13 weeks in tomorrow’s newspapers. I’m sure they’ll still manage to dredge up some alleged sexual improprieties or imply that certain contestants where sabotaged. I’m sure they’ll be claims of bias, vote tampering and racism, as per usual. It’s a shame that every year when this show arrives to entertain a somewhat drained and fatigued British public, quarters of the UK press blight it with their “journalistic” race to the bottom and need to sell newspapers. But berating a parasite for being parasitical is foolhardy. Let us therefore put aside this unseemly facet of Strictly culture and focus on the wealth of good cheers that can be found online regarding the show. Like myself, there are countless of thousands of fans who have been thoroughly entertained this year.
Which leads me neatly to my final points. It is not a cliché but a fact to say that each year, the standard of celebrity dancing improves significantly on Strictly. 2017 has once again raised the bar even higher and it does make you stop and pause when considering where we go from here? Will we ever see a season where the standard of contestant is considerably lower and exactly how would the public react to such a situation. Also, will the producers and showrunners tweak with the format again, as they have this year? The four-pair finale worked well but would get a little clumsier if expanded any further. And it would be remiss of me not to mention Head Judge Shirley Ballas. I have enjoyed her measured, fair and supportive input this year and hope she does return in 2018. She compliments the existing team perfectly and has dispelled the memories of Len Goodman and his pickling proclivities. So as this year’s Strictly Come Dancing ends, it just remains for me to say “rest” and “shake it all out”. Or if you prefer “keep dancing”.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 7
Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.
Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.
But this is the nature of Strictly Come Dancing. Although not a true dance competition, it still is a very demanding experience both physically and mentally. It also comes with a great deal of tabloid scrutiny. The rumours and gossip that stem from the show fuel a great deal of hyperbole and sensationalism in the popular press. Mollie’s alleged relationship with her professional dance partner AJ Pritchard has been a major “talking point” this year. Now this is not a problem as long as it remains external from the show. One can choose whether to read such tittle tattle or ignore it. Yet this year, the so-called “showmance” between the couple has bled through into the live show, being referenced by both hosts on several occasions. Was this done to try and gain leverage with the viewers and boost her support? If that was the case, it strikes me as being somewhat crass and arbitrary. A bit like playing the terminally ill grandparent card on The X Factor.
Either way, it’s a redundant point now as Mollie faced Gemma in the dance off and it became immediately clear that the judges would vote her off the show. Cue a tearful farewell and the standard claims that Mollie is an “amazing person” or some such other superlative. How that label has lost its value in recent decades. Now it’s just a case of preparing for next week’s final. Although I have a lot of time and respect for Debbie McGee and would be happy to see her win, I think Joe and Katya are in a strong position to take this year’s trophy. Katya has a knack for creative choreography that provides Joe with a character to explore and project. I have a suspicion that their show dance will be something spectacular and will win the hearts of viewers. Then again, I could be completely wrong. That is the nature of the show and the public vote.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 6
Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off. Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off. Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.
I'm of the opinion that despite being favoured by the judges and quarters of the press, Alexandra doesn't enjoy as big a fan base as some would surmise. The fact that she has been consistently good since week one may actually be working against her. Viewers like the narrative of progression and growing artistically. They want to champion a celebrity who blossoms and tire quickly of those who are good from the get go. It's a pattern we have seen before. There is also a school of thought that those at the top of the leader board will automatically attract votes, although this theory is often wrong. So, after considering the foibles of viewer voting and the precedents set by previous shows I think it is unlikely that Miss Burke will win Strictly Come Dancing 2017. I fully expect her to be a finalist but not lift the trophy. But winning is not necessarily everything. I would not be surprised to see her starring in a hit West End show a year from now.
Certainly, the dynamics of the remaining two episodes has now changed considerably. Davood’s departure is potentially good news for Debbie and Giovanni as well as Joe and Katya. Both of these pairs are now strong contenders to win. Voting by the public tends to increase in the final stages of the competition as people realise the importance of their vote. As for Mollie and A J, as well as Gemma and Alijaz, there future is somewhat less predictable. Mollie is steadily improving but still seems to lack a degree of stamina and more importantly confidence. Gemma has veered between exceptionally good performances and those that have been problematic. It is this inconsistency that presents a weakness. Can she put her own doubts behind her and produce a more polished performance? This is why It Takes Two is such essential viewing, during the week, as I believe it provides a good indication of how well the celebrities are taking to their new dances. It’s also a litmus test as to their state of mind, which is integral to their success.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 5
No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.
No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.
However, let us take a moment to reflect upon the departure of Susan Calman. Susan was one of the reasons I have returned to actively watching Strictly Come Dancing. Unlike other celebrities Susan has absolutely no prior dance experience and at first glance could have been labelled the “fun” contestant. Yet she has surprised us all, as well as herself, by her progression and improvement. Not only has she learnt how to dance but she has brought an unbridled joy to the show. In many respects she has embodied the essence of Strictly and represent all that is good and rewarding about the journey. Each year, the public will champion a celebrity that they perceive as an underdog and keep them in the show. Sometimes this is done for entertainment value and on occasions I believe this is done simply as pushback against the judge’s formal approach to marking performances. But I believe this year that Susan stayed on the show for so long simply because the public loved her and her genuine outlook. She will be missed.
Next Saturday is the Quarter Final of Strictly Come Dancing as well as being Musical Week. It presents the celebrities with an opportunity to really to sell themselves. Up and till now I’ve been voting intermittently, for those who have impressed me. But I haven’t consistently supported a specific couple. I believe from now that the voting will start to get very tribal and if you have a favourite celebrity, then your support will be essential for them. As I’ve said time and again over the years, Strictly Come Dancing is an entertainment show and the winner does not lift the trophy purely buy being technically the best. It often comes down to who the public thinks deserve to win, which puts a very different complexion on things. Both Joe and Davood are potential champions, whose good nature and self-improvement could prove a challenge to technically excellent front runner, Alexandra. Yet I still feel that Debbie McGee is a wild card and personally I would like to see her succeed and shatter the myth about Strictly always being the prerogative of the young. Roll on next Saturday.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 4
Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.
Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.
And once again there was an element of surprise when recent front runner Debbie McGee found herself in the dance off with people’s favourite Jonnie Peacock. However, I did feel that the outcome was somewhat arbitrary so didn’t feel that Debbie’s place on week ten’s show was under threat. But what this situation does demonstrate is the importance of public votes and that the potential distribution of them is possibly far closer than what people imagine. I suspect that although fans and supporters vote in large numbers there may not be anyone who has a demonstrable lead. I also suspect that some members of the public vote for multiple celebrities, having a clear favourite yet also acknowledging those who have done well and those they feel are being “picked on” by the judges. Public votes are often driven by emotion rather than an adherence to technical dance quality.
In the last few years, the BBC have been asked several times as to why they don’t release details of the public voting figures. I must admit, it would be very interesting to see such an analysis and to determine whether there is a clear pattern or whether it’s a far more reactionary process. However, when this question was last raised in 2016, a spokesperson for the show said “releasing voting figures could affect the way that people vote, and also have an impact on the participants. We therefore do not disclose the exact voting figures”. Both are good points. Knowing a contestant’s standing in a voting league table could indeed lead to tactical voting, plus it would add an additional layer of pressure for the celebrities to deal with. Ultimately, it is probably a sound decision to withhold this kind of information, at least during the duration of the current season.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 3
Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.
Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.
Last week, Aston and Janette were second from the top of the leader board with a robust score of 38 out of 40. Janette had cleverly choreographed a Paso Doble that blended traditional dance moves with more contemporary techniques. It was well received because it was a bold move that found the right balance between old and new. However, head judge Shirley Ballas did remark that she would have liked a little more traditional content, which is an important point to note. This week Janette took a similar gamble with a Viennese Waltz to Who’s Loving You by The Jackson 5. Again, she created a routine that placed a somewhat modern spin upon what is seen by some as a formal, traditional dance. If it was performed as a show dance, then I’m sure it would have fared better but as ever the judges scrutinised it on its technical merits. Both Craig and Shirley were not happy about its lack of Viennese Waltz content and thus marked accordingly. A view that the public may have also shared if you consider their votes.
So, Aston had little room to manoeuvre when he found himself in the dance off. He could obviously address some of the technical aspects of the routine but he couldn’t change the choreography. Mollie did give an improved performance second time round and the mistake that was made on Saturday’s show was not repeated. Furthermore, AJ wisely elected to keep her in-hold for as much of the routine as possible and minimised the potential for mistakes. Thus, there was no major reason when it came to decision time for judges Craig and Shirley to change their mind regarding Aston. I’m sure there will be those who disagree and even those who will trot out the usual arguments of subterfuge and prejudice. However, I believe the reality of the matter lies in the fact that approaching the Viennese Waltz in such a fashion was a fundamental mistake. Certainly, Aston’s departure at this stage alters the potential outcome of Strictly Come Dancing 2017. I’m thinking the smart money may should perhaps now be on Debbie McGee.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 2
I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.
I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.
This evening (well technically the show was recorded Saturday night), Mollie and AJ found themselves in the dance off along with Simon and Karen. Simon’s presence was far from a surprise. Despite his steadfast “have a go” attitude and pleasant manner, his level of attainment has plateaued of late, so it was only right, being bottom of the leader board, for him to be up for elimination. However, Mollie had scored a healthy 27 points, with her Cha Cha to "Better the Devil You Know" by Kylie Minogue. Furthermore, Mollie has shown improvement in her technique and is by no means one of the weakest celebrities in the show at present. Hence, the judges were somewhat surprised to see her in the dance off, although it can be clearly attributed to the public vote. However, this does raise the question why did the public not support her?
There are numerous reasons and potential theories as to why celebrities that perform well, still find themselves in the dance off. It has happened often enough over the last 15 seasons of the show for it not to be such a surprise, although it can still be quite jarring. The most obvious one that comes to mind is that the public assumes that those celebrities that perform well also have a strong fan base that will naturally support them. “I don’t need to vote for [insert series front runner here], they’ll be alright. I’ll vote for [insert name of alternative, possible underdog here], co’s they deserve a helping hand”. Then if we consider broader and possibly less charitable possibilities, people may vote tactically because they do not want someone to succeed. As I mentioned earlier a lot of viewers do react to the show very emotively. Furthermore, Strictly Come Dancing is reported heavily in the tabloid press which is happy perpetuate rumours and gossip. It could be a case that Mollie King doesn’t find favour with certain core viewer demographics.
I heard some people argue that Strictly Come Dancing is skewed by the public voting and it would be fairer if the judges to simply decide. I won’t discount such ideas but if that were the case, then the show would be far less popular. It is the public vote and audience interaction that is part of the program’s success and appeal. At a time when many people feel marginalised and having little control over their lives, the importance of a tangible public vote that demonstrably delivers results should not be discounted. The other thing that we shouldn’t ignore is the significance of the “journey”. Although it is great to see celebrities that take to dancing quickly, it does make for dull viewing if someone is habitually great every week. People like to see the celebrities grow and blossom. It’s a winning formula and accounts why some of the winners haven’t always been the bookies favourite. So, I suspect we may see a few more upsets like tonight’s in the weeks to come.
Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 1
Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).
Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).
Now I have watched Strictly Come Dancing since 2005. It is ideal family viewing and is better than other reality shows because at its core, it's about people learning a very difficult artistic skill. As long as you accept it for what it is, which is an entertainment show rather than a straight dance contest, there is a great deal of fun to be had. Or that's the theory. I’ve been somewhat burned out on Strictly Come Dancing for the last three years and the prospects of watching another season was not especially appealing earlier on in the year. Because of the nature and more importantly, the popularity of the show, it has become a somewhat slickly oiled machine which follows an established formula. As a result, the last few seasons have left very little impression on me. There have been some outstanding dances but the celebrities have been somewhat bland and there has been a lack of anyone having a distinctive “journey”.
The judges until recently, have all become caricatures of themselves, which is exactly what the audience wants. However, the recent replacement of Len Goodman with Shirley Ballas has somewhat redressed the balance. Shirley seems to be both technically astute, as well as understanding of the human factor. So far, she has shown no penchant for pickling walnuts. However, we have seen in the last three shows, a broad spectrum of scores. And as ever the judges tend to have their favourites and seem to be encouraged to show this. So, if you’re expecting a broadly non-partisan experience from Strictly Come Dancing then you’re barking up the wrong tree. Nothing goes down better with the Great British public than binary choices and believe me, this show can get very tribal when it comes to public support of the dancing couples.
Another facet of the Strictly formula are the celebrity contestants, who also seem to follow a clear pattern. To date, those from a sporting, musical or TV background seem to have the best chances of claiming the trophy. Age and physical fitness is also plays a key part. So, it becomes very easy to guess which specific role each of the celebrities will play. Who will be the front runner (s) exhibiting a natural ability right from the get go. Who is wild card and which non-professional will assume the role of the self-improver. It is these individuals who often have the best “journey”. Then there is the pivotal position of the crowd-pleasing fool with no sense of rhythm. As long as they give it their all they usually remain on the show as far as Blackpool. And of course, let us not forget those who just can't dance and aren't even amusing. Plus, the show offers a great opportunity to judge people for the heinous crime of ageing without due care and attention.
Until this year, I thought that even Schadenfreude has its limits, so I was expecting to end my love affair with Strictly Come Dancing. But we live in proverbial “interesting times” and the world of late has become a very bleak and dark place. Hope is a scarce commodity at present and it is in such circumstances that I see the virtue in populist entertainment. That and the fact I absolutely adore Susan Calman and her entire approach to the Strictly phenomenon. Plus, I have a gut feeling that we’re going to have a controversy of some kind, shortly. I do like a controversy, especially if it’s of the magnitude of Sargent-gate. If a crap performer is kept on the show by the public at the expense of a more talented dancer, then there is scope for a national tabloid meltdown. Questions may well be asked in parliament. Then there’s the whole celebrity tittle-tattle of who’s having a sordid sexual dalliance with whom. It’s worryingly entertaining. So just to re-iterate, I'm not yet done with Strictly Come Dancing despite what I initially thought. I look forward to this year’s wardrobe choice that pushes the boundaries of "public decency" and live in the pious hope that someone will slap the smug grin of A J Pritchard’s face. Long live prime time, Saturday night, light entertainment.
"Make a New Plan, Stan"
“If something's important, you'll make the time”. Montgomery Scott.
I enjoy writing. I find the process helps order my thoughts. Then there’s the pleasure of communicating with others and being part of a community. Therefore, writing is something that I wish to do regularly. Up until 2015 I use to post content on Contains Moderate Peril every day. However, I began to find it a bit of a chore (because I had followed this schedule for 5 years), so subsequently reduced my output. Then in 2016 I had to make further changes due to real life issues, so my writing became even more infrequent, as did my podcasting. However, in recent weeks I cannot help but reflect upon Scotty’s wise words. I do have some leisure time and a degree of flexibility in my weekly schedule. I suspect that although time has been a factor in my reduced content output, motivation has also played a part.
“If something's important, you'll make the time”. Montgomery Scott.
I enjoy writing. I find the process helps order my thoughts. Then there’s the pleasure of communicating with others and being part of a community. Therefore, writing is something that I wish to do regularly. Up until 2015 I use to post content on Contains Moderate Peril every day. However, I began to find it a bit of a chore (because I had followed this schedule for 5 years), so subsequently reduced my output. Then in 2016 I had to make further changes due to real life issues, so my writing became even more infrequent, as did my podcasting. However, in recent weeks I cannot help but reflect upon Scotty’s wise words. I do have some leisure time and a degree of flexibility in my weekly schedule. I suspect that although time has been a factor in my reduced content output, motivation has also played a part.
My blog posts, like many other writers, reflect what my current interests are. As I’ve mentioned before my relationship with gaming has changed in recent years. So, it’s been harder to write meaningfully about them of late. Despite having often extolled the virtues of writing for yourself, I do feel I have been reticent about varying the core content of Contains Moderate Peril to drastically. So, I’ve decided to take the plunge and simply write about whatever I want. Contains Moderate Peril is no longer to be a site just about gaming, movies and other aspects of popular culture. It’s effectively going to be a vehicle what’s in my head, what I’m currently interested in, enthused or outraged about. That may be Overwatch, Sam Pekinpah or my love of Cheese. Readers can either join me on the journey or take their leave.
Stop me if any of the following sounds familiar to you. Whenever you decided to implement a new project or plan, rather than just focus on the core idea, you find yourself bogged down in the periphery. For example, because I want to write more and take Contains Moderate Peril in a new direction, part of me wants to rebrand, change blog template and generally mess around with superficial stuff that really isn’t that important to the overall scheme. I spent some time last night pondering such things before realising that such an approach really was unnecessary. So, I’m just going to leave the site as it is. I made some tiny changes to backgrounds and such like but that’s it. The idea is for me to write and that’s what I intend to do. Not everything will be long form criticism or the like. Some posts may well be nothing more than streams of consciousness or immediate thoughts and reactions. However, if I modify my approach to my writing I feel I can do more.
I also spoke with Brian last night regarding the Burton& Scrooge Uncut Podcast. It’s getting put on “the shelf” to be returned to later. The show has become unfocused, irregular and ticks over mainly because our listeners very kindly indulge us. However, I have a specific podcast project that I really want to focus on in 2017, so I am going to sideline any possibly distractions. As to the new show, well I’ll talk about that when it’s ready. That way I hopefully won’t paint myself in to any corners. In the past, I’ve made the mistake of being to specific or changing my mind about something quite quickly, causing confusion among listeners and overall panic in the ranks. Oh, and I’m also quite prepared to gatecrash other people’s podcasts in 2017. I like being a guest. I may also reach out to those other podcasters who find themselves currently at a loose end. You know who you are.
Those who regularly visit here know that I do not set myself tortuous and unrealistic New Year Resolutions. I prefer to set credible goals that can be achieved. Therefore, I’m going to endeavour to keep abreast of more quality blogs this year and strive to comment, retweet and generally provide input and feedback to my fellow content creators. The reasons for this are simple. Such interactions foster a sense of community and I also want the bastards to help me promote my crap as well. Let’s be grown up about this. Life is effectively based upon the notion of quid pro quo. I do feel that the blogging community that I have been part of for five years, has changed a lot but that is to be expected. However, I think with some mutual encouragement we can raise our collective online profile. Mind you, I’m going to leave the Newbie Blogger Initiative to others in 2017.
So, there you have it. My new plan for 2017 as advised by Paul Simon. I sure a lot of you out there may well have similar schemes in development or have thought at least about making some changes. On a serious note, I don’t think it is an appropriate time to retreat into our own respective bubbles. We need to respond to what we see, hear and read. If you have an opinion, then damn well share it. If you want to call someone or something out, then do so. Don’t let others stop you from expressing yourself just because you don’t fit into their world view. We live in an age unparalleled for and sharing ideas. Don’t squander such a golden opportunity. Happy New Year.