I demand caffeine

I nearly slept through Euston this morning, which would have been embarrassing. Since I moved to the Athenaeum Club I have not missed a stop on the Tube through tiredness, but this morning was nearly the first. One Starbucks’ latte with an extras shot, and two standard coffees later, I still just want to go to sleep. To add to the fun, I left my glasses at home together with the various cold remedies I acquired yesterday (except for the Olbas inhaler).

It’s going to be a long day; I need to get to sleep earlier tonight.

The Monster is arsing around again, though I can’t bring myself to care and tonight, instead of watching the European Cup Final, which I should rather have liked to have seen (I missed last year’s classic wasting my time and money enduring the last Star Wars movie), I have committed to going to this ukulele orchestra thing found by colonel_maxim. I hope I can stay awake. I believe the aim is to meet himself and ellefurtle somewhere in Camden Town, an area with which I am notoriously unfamiliar and go to a pub. Tiredness, alcohol and a lack of area knowledge conspire to make me less than confident of my ability to arrive on time, pay attention or even stay awake. We shall see.

Oh well. Back to work: let’s see if I can think of a fourth way of saying the same thing to keep the Monster happy; another redraft. Oh joy.

I demand caffeine

I nearly slept through Euston this morning, which would have been embarrassing. Since I moved to the Athenaeum Club I have not missed a stop on the Tube through tiredness, but this morning was nearly the first. One Starbucks’ latte with an extras shot, and two standard coffees later, I still just want to go to sleep. To add to the fun, I left my glasses at home together with the various cold remedies I acquired yesterday (except for the Olbas inhaler).

It’s going to be a long day; I need to get to sleep earlier tonight.

The Monster is arsing around again, though I can’t bring myself to care and tonight, instead of watching the European Cup Final, which I should rather have liked to have seen (I missed last year’s classic wasting my time and money enduring the last Star Wars movie), I have committed to going to this ukulele orchestra thing found by colonel_maxim. I hope I can stay awake. I believe the aim is to meet himself and ellefurtle somewhere in Camden Town, an area with which I am notoriously unfamiliar and go to a pub. Tiredness, alcohol and a lack of area knowledge conspire to make me less than confident of my ability to arrive on time, pay attention or even stay awake. We shall see.

Oh well. Back to work: let’s see if I can think of a fourth way of saying the same thing to keep the Monster happy; another redraft. Oh joy.

Video nasty debate for the 21st century

The Times has the first review of the movie of the Da Vinci Code. It is assessed as pleasingly entertaining claptrap and says the film is a cat’s cradle of lunatic ideas with lashings of religious psychobabble, but it’s infinitely easier to forgive than the book that begat it.

Three stars out of five.

I find the whole furore quite funny, really. The book is an ordinary thriller: not particularly well written, but far from being the worst thing out there. The main point of the controversy is simply that it’s been read so widely and generated so much income for its author. Had the Catholic Church just sat down and shut up, I doubt it would have sold a quarter as many copies. Call me an old cynic, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some retirement fund for aged clerics isn’t a shareholder in Random House publishers.

I have entirely failed to understand the outbursts of outrage. A church is an institution with the purpose of purveying faith according to its preferred dogma. It’s a business, that’s all, its business just happens to be spirituality. It shouldn’t hope to hold a position of privilege preventing it from being portrayed in any negative light in a novel.

What price the Reformation if that was still true?

Equally, while I’m not a religious bloke – I hover somewhere on the edge of agnosticism and atheism – I have a lot of friends who are religious. And they seem to have enough faith and common sense to know that all this controversy over the Da Vinci Code is just claptrap drummed up by the chattering classes and the media.

Only a member of a congregation who is already harbouring serious doubts is going to be worried by a novel and a movie; everyone else either recognises it as a bit of diverting tosh, or is calmed by the knowledge that God can look after Himself if He feels the need.

It’s a poor church that can’t withstand the onslaught of a poorly constructed novel, and a weak faith that crumbles in the face of the Da Vinci Code.

I have no idea if I’m going to see the movie or not. I’m torn between the thought of giving a portion of my hard earned cash to Dan Brown (it will only encourage him) and going to see what the fuss is all about.

In the meantime, what gives me the fear is not the thought that the Roman Catholic Church might have suppressed the “truth” for 2,000 years, or that Opus Dei is composed of a bunch of mad albino monks. No, it’s none of that. What gives me the fear is Tom Hanks in a wig.

Video nasty debate for the 21st century

The Times has the first review of the movie of the Da Vinci Code. It is assessed as pleasingly entertaining claptrap and says the film is a cat’s cradle of lunatic ideas with lashings of religious psychobabble, but it’s infinitely easier to forgive than the book that begat it.

Three stars out of five.

I find the whole furore quite funny, really. The book is an ordinary thriller: not particularly well written, but far from being the worst thing out there. The main point of the controversy is simply that it’s been read so widely and generated so much income for its author. Had the Catholic Church just sat down and shut up, I doubt it would have sold a quarter as many copies. Call me an old cynic, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some retirement fund for aged clerics isn’t a shareholder in Random House publishers.

I have entirely failed to understand the outbursts of outrage. A church is an institution with the purpose of purveying faith according to its preferred dogma. It’s a business, that’s all, its business just happens to be spirituality. It shouldn’t hope to hold a position of privilege preventing it from being portrayed in any negative light in a novel.

What price the Reformation if that was still true?

Equally, while I’m not a religious bloke – I hover somewhere on the edge of agnosticism and atheism – I have a lot of friends who are religious. And they seem to have enough faith and common sense to know that all this controversy over the Da Vinci Code is just claptrap drummed up by the chattering classes and the media.

Only a member of a congregation who is already harbouring serious doubts is going to be worried by a novel and a movie; everyone else either recognises it as a bit of diverting tosh, or is calmed by the knowledge that God can look after Himself if He feels the need.

It’s a poor church that can’t withstand the onslaught of a poorly constructed novel, and a weak faith that crumbles in the face of the Da Vinci Code.

I have no idea if I’m going to see the movie or not. I’m torn between the thought of giving a portion of my hard earned cash to Dan Brown (it will only encourage him) and going to see what the fuss is all about.

In the meantime, what gives me the fear is not the thought that the Roman Catholic Church might have suppressed the “truth” for 2,000 years, or that Opus Dei is composed of a bunch of mad albino monks. No, it’s none of that. What gives me the fear is Tom Hanks in a wig.