Quick on the draw: Jonathan Meades (right) in 1955
Show Hide image

A bugging device in boy form: Jonathan Meades, the early years

Little Jonathan records every stain on his mother’s apron, every item of rubbish in the stream where his father went fishing.

An Encyclopaedia of Myself
Jonathan Meades
Fourth Estate, 352pp, £18.99

Among the loyal army of Meadesites – whose ranks I joined relatively late in life but for whom I have been a passionate recruiter ever since – there is a sizeable minority who argue that the film-maker’s multi­farious talents have been wasted on TV. Back in the 1990s, Meades was allowed to front expansive five-part documentaries for BBC2: wonderfully rambling explorations of anything from fast food to Stalinist architecture, from surrealism to the cultural kinship between Holland and the Fens. As unashamedly highbrow in their language as they were unashamedly buffoonish in their presentation, these programmes set a new benchmark for the TV essay.

Nowadays, he is frequently palmed off with the graveyard slot on BBC4. Meades’s admirers claim that had he concentrated solely on his novelistic output, such as 1993’s Pompey – showcasing his Sterne-esque imagination and lexical dexterity – he would be revered as one of his generation’s greats. They will be cheered to find that An Encyclopaedia of Myself, a “petit-point memoir” of his childhood in 1950s Wiltshire, has been published by Fourth Estate, the kind of big-gun house that has previously lacked the guts to publish his more eccentric offerings (a recent collection of his essays had to be crowdfunded).

Memoirs are tricky undertakings, however, especially to someone with an ear as finely tuned to the bum note of cliché as Meades. “What’s this obsession with roots?” he asked in a 2009 programme about Scotland, Off-Kilter, complaining that the internet had made amateur genealogists of us all, obsessed with tracing our bloodline back to “your grandmother’s father’s father’s father’s Christmas mug, with the dent from the Big Bang”.

An Encyclopaedia of Myself, too, starts with a list of what kind of memoir this is not. Not a sentimental evocation of innocent days skipping over Wiltshire meadows, because, in modern western Europe “childhood is a by-product of industrial revolutions, thus an invention of adults”. A rummage around a cupboard full of childhood toys and Eagle annuals triggers no Proustian rush. No misery memoir, for there was no abuse, no “lissom-fingered groin-pirate” to point the finger at. And no tale of a faith aborted, because Meades, now an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, says he was born without the requisite talent for religion: “Faith demands a gene, a credulous gene, that was not passed to me.”

Even the title is a bit of a red herring, for the book is more of an encyclopaedia of postwar rural Britain than of Mr Meades. Born in Salisbury in 1947, he attended a public school in Taunton which spoke “multiple idioms of Anglican joylessness” and provided resistance for a pre-teen to rebel against: the author did so by projectile-vomiting half a pound of melted butter in class and deliberately trailing dog shit through the school corridor.

But one of the paradoxes of Meades’s essays is that even though they are caustically opinionated, you never get the impression that he finds himself unduly interesting. More effort is invested here in exploring the drama – or non-drama – of his parents’ emotional lives. John Meades Sr was a sales rep for a biscuit company who had once been a British army major stationed in Basra and forever remained what his son calls “an undertaker of emotions”: “The names of the dead were dropped from conversation, as one might drop that of a disloyal friend.”

Yet death waited at every corner in the Wiltshire of Meades’s youth: small children succumbing to pneumonia, people falling off bikes and ponies, capsizing in their skiffs and drowning in the sea. Rural Britain is recast as a bleak landscape pockmarked by tragedy, even more horrific because it is never talked about, though it remains unclear whether Meades ultimately admires or frowns on the stiff upper lip of his parents’ contemporaries. (He certainly has inherited a distaste for “special pleading”: that generation, he writes, “had every right to behave as they did and to expect more of their pampered children, every right to despise the minoritarian tyrannies of PC, anti-racism, the compensation culture”.)

The memoir, organised alphabetically and non-chronologically, leaves the reader trapped in murderous Wiltshire and cuts short just as its author moves to London. In all this, Little Jonathan is the perfect bugging device, recording every stain on his mother’s apron, every item of rubbish in the stream where his father went fishing, like Funes the Memorious in Borges’s story, the man who remembers everything including every time he remembers it.

“Memorious”, incidentally, is a classic Meades-ism: what makes programmes such as Abroad in Britain still so remarkable is the way they threw words like that at the viewer in a way broadcasters normally wouldn’t dare to do. It worked because they were often appropriately complicated words to express complicated ideas, and because TV can offset prolix narration with visual tomfoolery.

In An Encyclopaedia of Myself, where he often isn’t pursuing an argument but merely describing the world of his childhood, the Meades sound can grate. Occasionally, as in the short chapter about a culinary experiment with whale meat, it spins out of control, like an electric coffee grinder whirring into delirium as it runs out of beans: “It was a scuddy billowy day when I ate the whale. Not the whole whale – I was only four – but enough whale to get the idea of the whale’s quiddity, to get a mnemonic fix, which persists down the years and is ocular and palatal and olfactory and haptic.”

Meades is too original for this to matter much, his achievements already too great for failed experiments to cause much damage among his fans. But for anyone interested in joining his admirers, television remains the place to start.

Philip Oltermann is the author of "Keeping Up With the Germans: a History of Anglo-German Encounters"

This article first appeared in the 04 June 2014 issue of the New Statesman, 100 days to save Great Britain

CBS.
Show Hide image

Star Trek: Discovery shows promise. 'ach qatlh bID 'oH neH Klingon?

And the English dialogue is, if anything, worse. 

rut, 'AY' bravest laH je rav Dogh. roD mu'mey chong tu', 'ej SoH qaStaHvIS Segh Star Trek: Discovery, wa'DIch cha'-episode-baS DaH lupoQ Netflix UK.

But it’s also a good description of that show, the first scene of which is conducted entirely in Klingon. Indeed, though I haven’t timed it, I’d guess that not far short of a third of its entire run time so far is in that most mucus-logged of made-up languages. Given that the point Star Trek stopped being huge coincided almost exactly with the point it disappeared up its own mythology’s arse, this feels like a strange choice to me, but I guess that’s why they don’t pay me the big bucks.

It has at least helped prevent copyright theft. One friend in the US who got sick of trying to make the official CBS All Access player do its job told me that he’d downloaded an illegal copy, only to find that the subtitles for the Klingon sections were in Russian. That forced him to watch the traditional, legal way, adverts, long periods of buffering and all.

'ej maHvaD ghu'vam yuDHa' vIHtaHbogh ghu'vam: qIm vagh tup Qap je subtitles, qar ghojwI'pu'lI' vIHtaHbogh DujlIj Klingons' Da'elDI' bImejnIS. chu' ghewmey jIH, mo' DeSDu' wa' lang, naQ cha' tup staring DeSDu' Twitter ngejtaH 'e' nuq tlher-nach SuvwI' qawlu' vIghaj vay' qech jIH lop jImejbej mojpu' jatlh Doch.

In some ways, all this is a shame, as the plot is actually quite promising. Most iterations of Trek have been entirely episodic: whatever happens to the characters or their ship in their 45 minutes on screen, it won’t affect their mood next week in the slightest. And so long as you’re not the sort of nerd who obsesses about how many pips these people have on their collars, you can watch the episodes in pretty much any order.

That made sense in the age when US TV was made for syndication, when most people would watch the episodes in an essentially random order, but it’s not so great in a world when people are used to ongoing plots and developing characters. So Star Trek: Discovery diverges from that format. I’ve no idea where it’s going, but it’s already clear by the end of episode two that what we’ve seen will affect the characters we’re going there with.

That’s the good stuff. The bad includes the fact that much of the dialogue spoken in English is, if anything, worse than the Klingon. As a journalist who primarily writes about transport and housing policy but occasionally dabbles in TV criticism, one thing I found uniquely irritating was the way characters kept explaining their backstory to each other. It reminded me of that John Finnemore sketch about a Radio 4 play, called “saying the plot out loud”.

Then there’s the fact that we keep flashing back to the protagonist’s childhood, as a human raised by famous Vulcan Sarek, which we’re clearly meant to understand as the key to understanding her character. All the way through those sequences I kept thinking of the lesson my childhood English teacher imparted to me, so many years ago: “Good drama should show, not tell.” (It’s strange she had such an impact on me. We came from such different cultures.)

'ej vaj pa' fucking Klingon. laH buS 'Iv jawbe' maHvaD vagh tup Qap vIHtaHbogh politics tlhIngan, HeghDI' mojpu' qach 'oH fucking Klingon?

There are good things. The cast is diverse, probably more than any previous Trek series (although since it’s not entirely clear who the regular cast will be yet, it’s hard to be certain). The refrain of “Remain Klingon” – the idea that the aliens hate Starfleet because, when they say they come in peace, they actually mean it – is a neat piece of retconning, and one which feels like it might say something about our world, rather than the made up one on screen. It’s got enough good stuff to keep me watching.

Nonetheless, it feels a bit too obsessed with Star Trek for its own sake, rather than as a vehicle for telling stories with broader resonance. The fact it’s a prequel series, set before Kirk and Spock flew off into the void, makes me suspect that problem is likely to persist. I sort of wish they’d gone for a different bit of the future, just to give themselves a blank state.

The worst thing, though, the absolute worst thing, is the names. The lead character is called Burnham, which is obviously a huge problem if you pay even the slightest attention to British politics. There’s another character called “Brett Anderson”. And the name of the series as a whole has the acronym STD.

jupwI'. tu'lu' pagh quvHa'ghach neH Google lo'.

Klingon sections courtesy of Bing Translate. The New Statesman takes no responsibility for any grammatical errors which occur in the Klingon sections above, or the offence that they might cause. 

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.