Search
  • Journal
  • Portfolio
    • Editorial
    • Copywriting
    • Blogs
    • Poetry
    • Liner Notes
    • Unpublished
  • Radio
  • Film
  • Events
  • About
  • CV
  • Contact
Close
Menu
Search
Close
  • Journal
  • Portfolio
    • Editorial
    • Copywriting
    • Blogs
    • Poetry
    • Liner Notes
    • Unpublished
  • Radio
  • Film
  • Events
  • About
  • CV
  • Contact
Menu

I make sense

Missives on media, marketing and more. Edited by Amar Patel

December 17, 2022

Talking it out

by Amar Patel in books


front cover of Faith, Hope & Carnage, written by Nick Cave and Sean O'Hagan
front cover of Faith, Hope & Carnage, written by Nick Cave and Sean O'Hagan

The mark of a book’s wisdom – in this book anyway – is the number of dog ears. As you see here, Nick Cave and Sean O’Hagan collaboration Faith, Hope & Carnage has provided meaningful thoughts and lightning-bolt revelations front to back.

The fruit of a series of lengthy phone conversations between 2020 and 2021, it examines Cave’s loci of inspiration, open-ended practice, personal theology (an approach to religion he describes as “spirituality with rigour”) and his incredible resolve like never before. And that’s saying something, given the length of his career and all the interviews he’s given.

Cave is probably one of the most generous, open and articulate public figures in music, an artist whose creations are always intimate and true reflections of his being. Considered, even poured over. And yet he sees his work as incomplete in a sense. As a vessel into which others pour meaning. “What I do is entirely relational,” he says, “actually transactional, and has no real validity unless it’s animated by others.” Wisdom, in this regard, is knowing how far we have to go as Anthony Bourdain noted.

Cave puts himself out there. It’s a compulsion. He was the distraught father who took to the stage in a series of public ‘inquisitions’ (Variety called it “group therapy”) without having many answers to his own grief. Cave also attempts to address the curiosities, frustrations, ills and injustices of society through his weekly liturgical Red Hand Files, which have “created a kind of ever-creeping transparency by slowly prising me open”, he explains. “They freed me from myself”.

I and thousands of others across the world have come to rely on this correspondence, this antiquated exchange, to make sense of a world that tips ever closer into chaos and conflict on multiple fronts (a “collective lunacy”, in Cave’s eyes). Though he is also happy to answer the comparatively banal (“Who would you like to win Love Island?”) and silly (“Have you ever met Nicolas Cage?”).

screen shot of nick cave's hand as he reachs out to the crowd at a gig
Screenshot of a painting of a face

On grief, in particular, he offers great comfort and ballast. Having now lost two sons, his mother Dawn and close friend/ex-partner Anita (“an astoundingly valuable human being”), he lives in defiance as much as anything. I can certainly relate to that impulse. Read more about his intentions for the book here.

Don’t expect copious ‘behind the scenes’ insight, an encyclopaediac trawl through the discography or a VH1-style retrospective complete with backstage gossip. But we are transported to the conception of the bruised and bereft Skeleton Tree (which became a form of “radical connectivity” when played live) and, in fleeting moments, feel relative release in the imagery of its follow-up Ghosteen. We are also invited into the endearing bromance with right-hand man Warren Ellis, who also has a book out.

When O’Hagan presses him about songwriting and the purpose of music, Cave uses words such as salvation, absolution, forgiveness and healing. And with real intention. In the context of personal disappointment, catastrophe or devastation, art becomes a means of survival. In Cave’s hands, the song is an act of transformation or transference – a form of supplication, at times – a way to pick up the pieces and move beyond.

Those are the stakes at play in his world, a life in which he has learned to live in uncertainty and by divine possibility. In that time he has gone from running on the burning intensity of youth and rebellion to a form of spiritual audacity or zeal as he puts it. Cave’s depth of faith, in both the religious and quasi-religious sense, is what makes him such a compelling and crucial artist. Perhaps it’s also what’s allowed him to withstand so much and still be alive to raw experience.

Nick Cave with Sean O’Hagan (c) Lynette Garland

When talking about his hands-on passion for ceramics, he offers this advice to budding creative folk: “Learn as much as you can about their craft … but ultimately trust your own impulses. Have faith in yourself, so you can stand beside what it is that you have done and fight for it, because if you invest in it with that faith, then it has its own truth, its own honesty, its own resilient vulnerability and hence its own value.”

Credit to writer and critic O’Hagan for facilitating these lengthy discussions, giving Cave space to expand on opinions and observations, while lightly steering the course and challenging him along the way. He is a sparse yet elucidating presence. Well, that’s how it feels on the page anyway, post-edit. They have known each other for more than 30 years, so there is mutual respect and a rapport they can build on. But that familiarity can breed an overly casual or easy exchange. Not here.

The pandemic must have been a double-edged sword: offering the chance to talk at length amid the enforced isolation of lockdown, with fewer distractions, but then straining to make sense of the shared tragedy of it all as COVID ruptured our sense of time and space.

Chew slowly and savour all that comes to mind. And come back to it when you need it. Faith, Hope & Carnage is restorative and will galvanise your spirit.

BUY

PS I recommend watching this Newsnight interview about the book. Cave’s conversation with Kirsty Wark in the theatre is interspersed with atmospheric performances on piano.



Amar Patel

TAGS: Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Nick Cave, Sean O'Hagan, Faith Hope and Courage, Anthony Bourdain, Warren Ellis, Skeleton Tree, Ghosteen, Red Hand Files, Nicolas Cage, Kirsty Wark, BBC Newsnight, spirituality with rigour, personal theology, nick cave on grief


October 15, 2012

Free speech under fire

by Amar Patel in law, technology, media


street art_free speech.jpg
street art_free speech.jpg

Keir Starmer is a busy man. Besides being pulled into the increasingly sordid Saville scandal (more on that another time), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) finds himself in the midst of one of the most contentious debates in history of media law. 

It all revolves around the huge popularity of social networks and the potential for unfettered users to persistently harass or incite hatred. Facebook now has more than one billion users and there are more than 250 million tweets posted each day. In turn, there are more offensive comments about others being made than ever before. For this reason it is even more important to review legislation and the limits on freedom of speech in light of new technology.

In the UK alone, the number of social media-related harassment cases has risen from 2,347 in 2010 to 2,490 in 2011. And that number could rise sharply. Yesterday, Starmer addressed a gathering at London School of Economics (LSE), explaining that "if you retweet, you commit an offence under the Act." The legislation in question is Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which outlaws sending a tweet that is "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". According to the Act, a person can also be prosecuted if he or she "causes any such message or matter to be so sent". 

This has set alarm bells ringing in the ears of the Twitter community and libertarians nationwide, many of whom believe that the right to free speech should be absolute. In fact, Alex Macgillivray, the general counsel for Twitter, is known for describing the microblogging service as "the free-speech wing of the free speech party". For how much longer though… At the beginning of this year the micro-blogging service announced that it would now be able to selectively block tweets on a country-by-country basis, acknowledging that "different countries would have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression".

So far, courts in the UK have erred on the side of caution, but that isn't to say that they have ruled with consistency. In 2010, Paul Chambers was arrested for tweeting: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" He was found guilty at Doncaster magistrates court, and went on to lose his first appeal and a High Court appeal, before a second High Court appeal finally saw his conviction quashed on July 27 2012. Chambers' tweet was retweeted thousands of times by sympathisers; based on Starmer's view at LSE today, those people would theoretically be liable for prosecution.

In March, Swansea student Liam Stacey was sentenced to 56 days in prison for racially offensive comments on Twitter about the seriously ill Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba. The judge described the comments as "vile and abhorrent" and added that "there is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence". The decision was welcomed by a mass of sympathisers, but it was not without its fierce critics, who claimed that Stacey was not guilty of a public order offence and that the sentence was highly excessive. Others point to regularly outspoken tweeters such as Frankie Boyle and wonder how he gets away with half the offensive things he says. Perhaps it's because he's a comedian; it's a joke so he doesn't mean it…

Last month the CPS decided not to take action against Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional footballer at Port Talbot Town FC, who posted homophobic messages on Twitter relating to the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) stressed the importance of the sender's intention and ruled that his actions, "however misguided", were intended to be humorous to family and friends, and not grossly offensive to the divers.

Earlier this month, 20-year-old Azhar Ahmed was sentenced to 240 hours of community service for a Facebook post saying, "all soldiers should die and go to hell" following the deaths of six British soldiers. Soon after, Matthew Woods, also 20, was jailed for 12 weeks after posting "sick jokes" about missing girl April Jones on Facebook.

Whether you are aggrieved by the curbing of free speech or alarmed by the number of people casually causing offence, one thing is clear: the situation is getting out of hand and the Communications Act, conceived at a time when few could imagine just how instantaneous the transition from private thoughts to mass communication would become, is not comprehensive and clear enough to address the myriad situations that arise.

Starmer's position is quite clear. On BBC's Newsnight a fortnight ago he acknowledged a person's "right to be offensive and insulting" as well as 'the chilling effect" that an amendment to legislation could have on free speech. But he wants guidelines to be drawn up that will help to clarify the situations where prosecution is justified. He has mooted two categories: where there is a "campaign or harassment or a general credible threat" and " where communications are merely offensive or grossly offensive". (The former would require a high threshold of criminality and the latter would not necessarily be ring-fenced from prosecution.)

Over the next few months the CPS will consult lawyers, academics and representatives from social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook – both of whom are keen to be very hands off, relying mainly on community policing – as well as leading sports bodies including the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union and the British Olympic Association. The results will be shared before Christmas.

Ultimately, the aim should be to preserve democracy, outlining how the law will be clearly and consistently applied when an individual oversteps the mark. That is the challenge for Starmer and his colleagues – which words or deeds would most of us consider to be grossly offensive? We have all seen how revolutionary an advancement the internet, more affordable technology and the creation of social networks have been in giving a voice to those who were once disregarded or, worse still, suppressed. Look at the legitimate battle against "The Great Firewall of China", the toppling of dictators in Egypt and Tunisia (not that I am disregarding the power of the human spirit) or one "anonymous cyber-dissident's" exposure of corruption in Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, the internet is not a parallel universe where people can roam free, attack, threaten or defame others and not expect there to be consequences. The inhibition-loosening age of the internet and rapidly advanced remote communication have made many of us intemperate and uncivil. People don't think hard enough before they act: that comment on YouTube or under a news article; Tweet exchanges that quickly escalate.

You may not be seen but you are heard nonetheless, and you're not necessarily taken less seriously, as lawyer Keith Ashby recently claimed, just because you're not face to face. Social networks have amplified people's voices, sometimes for the good, other times less so. One person co-ordinates troops for a riot and mass looting; another organises a mass clean-up operation in their neighbourhood. For that reason those who misuse social networks must be held to account if they act with malice or embark on a campaign of abuse and incitement to violence.

It is not in anyone's best interests to have more prosecutions and a more litigious society in the UK. So let's combine efforts to avoid any more nasty incidents: responsibility for policing social networks should be shared between the community, the courts (where necessary) and above all, the service providers. Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, speaking in relation to a review of the Defamation Bill, has said that, "Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users." I would extend part of that responsibility to highly successful companies such as Facebook and Twitter, encouraging them to invest more in moderation and work more closely with government or police departments. The privilege of being able to voice your opinion to millions should be taken away from those who don't act respectfully towards their peers.

Meanwhile, this debate plays out across the world. In India this August, extremists in two rival communities provoked a full-scale sectarian conflict by using Twitter to spread rumours that each side is attacking the other, supporting the charges with falsified pictures of purported victims. Violence erupted in Assam where both communities are based, killing 80 people and displacing 300,000. The rumours on Twitter quickly followed, causing tens of thousands of people elsewhere in India to flee for fear of their lives. After a tense stand-off between Twitter and the government, the social network agreed to remove six troublesome sites but not the spoof accounts of those impersonating and ridiculing the prime minister.

I do hope that Starmer and his team take this opportunity to lead the way and formulate a just and pragmatic set of guidelines that others can adopt. Common sense should prevail, together with an inate sense of right and wrong. Chambers' airport outburst did not constitute a "credible and genuine threat" in my view, although perhaps he should have chosen his words more carefully, but the comments of Stacey, Ahmed and Woods were indefensible in their context.



Amar Patel

TAGS: Michael Woods, Tom Daley, Communications Act, CPS, Fabrice Muamba, social media, Ken clarke, Azhar Ahmed, Keith Ashby, Keir Starmer, BBC Newsnight, Facebook, Twitter