#catherine who's mildly confused about why people enjoy this

[ilkkawhat]

3.18 Precious Metal

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

I complained about it when The Mash Report got canceled, just because I really liked Nish Kumar and I knew the format of the show and I was pretty sure Nish Kumar doing that type of show would be something really good. It was on my list of things to watch, but I hadn’t actually watched it yet. Therefore, when I sat down to watch it this week, I’ll admit I was a bit concerned that if it turned out to be not that great, it would make me a massive hypocrite who’d defended something I hadn’t even seen and would have to acknowledge that it actually got canceled because it sucked.

Fortunately, I was not disappointed. I actually liked it even better than I expected to, and I expected to like it quite a bit. I’m going to go on about that for a while, so I’ll put it behind a “keep reading” link.

I already knew I liked Nish Kumar, but I was not expecting to be so incredibly impressed by Rachel Parris, who absolutely needs to get her own show whether The Mash Report gets picked up by another network or not. I had not realized how many other correspondents they had; I am now even more into Catherine Bohart and more excited to see Desiree Burch on Taskmaster season 12. I already liked Ahir Shah from some News Quiz appearances, and I really enjoyed every single segment he did on The Mash Report (I was pleased to see him on last night’s episode of Mock the Week, apparently his entire BBC television career isn’t over just because The Mash Report got canceled). Andrew Hunter Murray, whom I recognized as a QI elf who’s come onto the stage occasionally during episodes, was amazing in his role as a spoof news correspondent. He put out some Daily Show-level work.

Also Geoff Norcott was there. I could talk about how it felt confusing that he sort of went back and forth between someone playing the character of a parody conservative and just playing the role straight, and how occasionally he actually was mildly entertaining (he even had very brief flashes of being properly entertaining), but sometimes he was also mildly infuriating and mostly he was just sort of there and I looked forward to his segment being over. I could go on for longer about that, but I don’t feel like doing so.

I will say that when this show got canceled, I didn’t fully understand why it was the one to be targeted. The BBC has lots of political shows, and all the ones I’ve seen have been left wing (to be fair I wouldn’t watch right wing ones because I get enough of that shit from the actual news and when I’m looking for comedy I just want to watch people make fun of it, but I haven’t heard of any right wing BBC shows either). Why pick the one show that gives a platform to Geoff “the real institutional bias is against conservatives” Norcott? Why pick this show out of all the other ones?

I understand that more now that I’ve actually seen it. I watched The Mash Report right after finishing all of Russell Howard’s Good News/The Russell Howard Hour, and that’s an interesting comparison. For one thing, it’s worth noting that the BBC did cancel Russell Howard’s Good News; he moved to Skye and re-titled it The Russell Howard Hour due to, according to my limited knowledge about the situation, creative control issues with the BBC. But they first let it run for 6 years, 10 seasons, and 96 episodes - that’s a lot longer than they gave The Mash Report. And I’m not sure, but I get the impression that ending the BBC show was also at least partly Russell’s decision; he had enough capital by then so if he wanted more freedom than the BBC gave him he could easily move to another network. Whereas based on Nish Kumar’s reaction to the cancelation of The Mash Report, I’m pretty sure that was not his choice.

Now that I’ve seen both shows, I can see some clear differences. First of all, one could point out that in general, people who look like Russell Howard are going to have an easier time getting very publicly successful than a show with as much racial and gender diversity as The Mash Report. But also, I think the satire on The Mash Report is much sharper than the satire on Russell Howard’s Good News (if I really wanted to be pedantic I could make the point that technically Russell Howard’s shows are not satire and that term gets applied too broadly these days, but for the sake of simplicity I’m going to conflate “topical” and “satirical”). Russell Howard was definitely not afraid to go after shitty politicians, and he did some well-researched segments on important issues. But when it came to current political issues, The Mash Report got a lot more specific in its criticisms. It had a lot more hard facts to back up the points. Russell spent more time on “safe” issues that already had a fairly wide consensus, while The Mash Report got into more controversial topics. The Mash Report’s sketches were there to drive home political points, and they did that very well. As opposed to the sketches on Good News, which were there to give Russell and his friends and brother a chance to film themselves jumping through windows and things (not that either of those are bad, I hugely enjoyed watching Russell Howard and friends jump through windows and things). Russell also did get rather sharper in his political criticism after he left the BBC, which I’m fairly sure is not a coincidence.

I don’t mean to specifically pick on Russell Howard’s Good News; it’s just the first other political BBC show that came to mind since I just watched it (also, I really do want to be clear that comparing how controversial their political content was does not mean I’m comparing how entertaining they were, they were both very entertaining in different ways). I just watched last night’s episode of Mock the Week, and I think a lot of what I said about Russell Howard’s Good News can apply to that too - making jokes about general topics and not going too far into specific facts. I think that’s the case for most political comedy shows, from any network in any country. Which is sort of how it’s supposed to be. If you want to get detailed information about politics, get it from the actual news. If you’re already informed from the actual news and want to hear people make jokes about stuff you already know, then turn on political comedy and watch people say stuff about Boris Johnson’s hair.

There are a few shows that break out of that a bit and try to be sharper while still being in the comedy genre; I think a lot of people would agree that Last Week Tonight is the gold standard of this these days. Now that I’ve seen The Mash Report, I realize it falls more into that genre of political comedy. Therefore, I now understand much better why The Mash Report was picked over other BBC political shows to get canceled by the new “anti-left wing bias” BBC guy.

Having said that, I still find it hilarious that Geoff “cancel culture silencing the right wing” Norcott has been literally canceled for being on a show that was deemed too far left. Hopefully another network picks it up, with or without their resident voice of the underrepresented conservative middle-aged white men.

[toomanyfamdom]

Kiss me until I’m speechless

For a certain @dannixy on her birthday...

Also, big up @thenameisnoone and @all-my-love-cathy for helping me out big time at the end cause I’m a babey.

TW: None as far as I’m aware

They weren't exactly sure how or why it happened but the queens knew something was up when the survivor found it difficult to hear at times and a certain beheaded queen was almost impossible to hold conversations with.

After a long process of appointments and consultations, the pair were diagnosed as legally deaf. Cathy as mildly deaf, Anne as severely deaf.

Their hearing aids were life savers in their opinion making communicating with their fellow queens so much easier. But as to not be caught out, the pair regularly attended sign language classes.

There were difficulties, they'll admit. Trying to get in ear monitors that would double up as hearing aids was difficult. That being said, when the monitors died on stage, the queens, ladies-in-waiting, alternates and crew were all very helpful. They even went as far as to practically begging the duo to teach them how to sign, making communicating on and off stage easier.

It was also much easier to keep Cathy and Anne's relationship a secret. The couple had been spending so much time with each other and had eventually developed feelings as a result of their 24/7 hangouts. Though, nobody really noticed. They had plans to come out to the queens but they just hadn't gotten to a point where they felt comfortable yet.

That all changed one night at stage door.

It was the end of a long two show day. Anne's in ears had died halfway through the first show, Joan's keyboard just stopped working suddenly, Kat, Jane and Cathy had all missed their 5 minute call, due to taking too long to take some goddamn picture, and Aragon had slipped on the confetti during the megasix and had fallen into Anna. Causing everyone in the audience to laugh thankfully.

Stage door went amazingly. The fans were as enthusiastic as ever and admittedly, the energy was infectious. The girls went from fan to fan, talking, laughing, taking pictures and signing programs. Everyone was lovely but they all agreed there was one interaction that stuck out.

Anne and Cathy had stuck together, Cathy interpreting for Anne at times (not that they liked when she had to because it meant that they couldn't hold hands). No one was surprised, as they had both been very vocal about being deaf and were pleased to see more and more of the queendom becoming able to hold basic conversations with them in BSL.

As they reached the end of the line - one mother and child duo - they knew it was going to be an interesting time. The child looked no older than eight and shrunk into their mothers side when anyone approached. The conversation started of as normal, asking their names, if they enjoyed the show, etc. But still, the kid never spoke. 

The mother, Joanne, caught on to their confusion at this and said, "Oh I’m sorry, my Alex doesn't normally speak to strangers, they're deaf."

The duo brightened considerably and Anne was quick to kneel down in front of them.

"Hello," she signed, not even looking at anyone else around them. "My name is Anne," and she did her sign name, a 'B' sign over her choker, "and this is Cathy," and Cathy's sign name, 'writer'. 

They seemed to respond to her signing, turning towards Anne slightly and studying the pair. Seeming satisfied with what they had observed, they signed "Alex," and their sign name. Palms flat facing the ceiling that closed into a fist as they brought their hands to their chest. Accepted. 

"That's a lovely name," Cathy was quick to compliment, "can I ask your pronouns?" Anne was sure what her girlfriend was doing but wouldn't of asked herself.

Alex, on the other hand, beamed and turned away from their mother and toward the girls as they happily signed that they used they/them pronouns. The pure joy on Alex's face and the link to their sign name made Anne and Cathy's hearts melt and they couldn't help but grin back at them.

"Well then Alex, did you enjoy the show?" Anne smirked.

Alex nodded vigorously, "I loved it! I loved how much of your songs you tried to sign and I loved feeling the vibrations of the music, the bass especially." Joanne looked down at them smiling, happy that her child was being accepted for who they were by the people they looked up to without question.

A shout drew their attention away and Cathy sighed when she saw that Catherine was calling her. "I'll be back as soon as possible," Cathy promised Alex, "make sure Anne doesn't get up to mischief while I'm away will you?" This was said/signed with a cheeky grin but Anne Boleyn being Anne Boleyn had to play with it.

"Me? The great Anne Boleyn? Cause mischievous? Never," They were very glad to see the family of two laughing at their antics, Cathy giving Anne what looked like a rock hand sign.

“Are you two together?” Alex signed as Cathy walked to her godmother.

“Alex!” Joanne exclaimed, “You can’t just ask people if they’re together or not!”

“It’s alright,” Anne laughingly reassured, catching Cathy’s eye over Catherine’s shoulder who agreed with her silent question.  “To anyone else in this room, no. But between us,” Anne winked.

“Wait what?” Anna appeared at Anne’s shoulder, “Since when were you two together?” Anne relaxed at Anna’s grin.

“WHAT?” Ah, they got Kat’s attention.

Cathy slid her arm around Anne’s waist and lay her head on her shoulder.

“Unexpected but cute,” Jane smiled the pair.

Catherine appeared in front of the pair face stern, studying the worried but content faces staring back at her. Any worry alleviate when Catherine just smiled and shook her head, chuckling.

Cathy and Anne turned to each other and wrapped their arms around the others waist.

“Well, looks like we don’t need to hide anymore,” Cathy smirked, eyes sparkling, “what do you think about that?”

Anne grinned, her grip tightening around the shorter girl’s waist, pulling her closer. The mischievous gleam in her eyes made Cathy’s cheeks flush crimson. 

“Oh, I think it’s perfect.” The green queen mumbled, leaning forward and resting her forehead against Cathy’s. 

Both grinned, eyes fluttering closed as the pair of lips met in the middle, moving softly in their own rhythm. The kiss lasted longer than both of the queens planned before Cathy pulled away. Their lips parting with a soft smack, making the blue queen giggle. Her hands caressed Anne’s neck and jaw before moving down to grab her girlfriend’s hands, squeezing softly. 

“I think that was perfect.” Cathy stole a quick kiss before turning to face the other queens with a wide smile beaming in happiness. 

"Oi! Not in front of-" the woman that shouted was cut off by Anne.

"Sorry," she said, reaching up to switch off her hearing aids, Cathy mimicking her actions, "We can't hear you."

The lady probably continued to yell, but Anne didn’t care. The only thing that mattered was the girl right in front of her. Cathy. She turned to look at her girlfriend, who had the warmest smile spread across her face. With a small nod in confirmation, Anne cupped Cathy’s face and leaned forward, gently connecting their lips once again. Cathy happily returned the kiss, carefully caressing Anne’s back as she smiled into the kiss.

It didn’t matter their hearing, gender, or who they were in front o, only that they were together Both knew put this into their kiss as they move their lips in sync.

The kiss only lasted a few seconds, but for them time was stilled. Anne then pulled back with a dorky grin. She then held up her hand that had her thumb, pinky and pointer finger up high and proud. The simple sign they have done multiple times before, but this time it felt different. It was more meaningful as they were finally not holding anything back. It was simplistic, yet at the same time almost brought Parr to tears whenever she saw Anne sign. It was the sign that put their feelings into words. 

Parr happily mimicked the sign as she kissed Anne on the cheek. 

“I love you too,” she signed.

***

Tag list: @augurey-forest @annabanana2401 @thenameisnoone

[kacheeking]

the lost years/months/days

haven’t revisited/thought about things that I’ve been reading on my own terms for a while, but this was the last time I was taking note roughly from July 2015 to May 2016: 

no. 3 shit i’ve been reading: circa march 2016

Fasting Girls: The History of Anorexia Nervosa – Joan Jacobs Brumberg (Found this incredibly illuminating re: sainthood and 16/17th century starvation in the name of religion. Made me think more about the intersections of appetite, power, religion and how this came to a head in that age. The Victorian era sections were also really interesting, I think since I’ve never thought specifically about how food and physical appetite came into the picture even though I’ve known so much about social mores of the time and how that would have been in line? I think reading this overall, esp when they started getting closer to the modern age, I just held this sheer sense of being appalled by medical practice and how eating disorders were treated, viewed and patients subjected to unfair/uncomfortable/even dangerous power dynamics. Feel like it’s so difficult to be a woman, though it’s improving, and my feminist self balked at so much that went on in the book re: this screwed up relationship between physical appetite (sexual and food-related), madonna-whore complexes, freedoms and rebellions and how in the face of so much external pressure women turn inwards and into and on themselves.)

Living Beautifully – Pema Chodron (Last Buddhist book that we had to read for class as part of a course that aimed at understanding the conception of “self” through various lenses e.g. psychoanalytic, evolutionary-biology, religious, etc. Still struggle to reconcile a lot of Buddhist concepts with the reality of a modern nation-state framework that we have to live in. Can see its merits on an individual level but in class, was agitated when the professor seemed to dismiss/relegate discussions of privilege, and power to the sidelines, or equate sufferings that in my mind seem absolutely incompatible. Maybe I’m not “enlightened” yet? Maybe I don’t want to be.)

Brave New World – Aldous Huxley (Liked this more than other sci-fi that i’ve picked up. Can see why it’s a “classic”. also read this at a time when i was very much alone/wanted the experience of solitude. want to pick up more sci-fi in future, wondering why i was biased against this genre in the past??)

Devotional Poems – Joe Hall (didn’t seem clean enough, like some phrases were superfluous/didn’t add anything to the force of a poem. a lot of imagery, sound and fury but with no object or point. cacophonous but i didn’t enjoy this collection)

Once in the West – Christian Wiman (really enjoyed this. at first was disappointed – somehow poems that have monosyllable lines or single word lines strike me as irregular/ineffective (?) but this is unwarranted bias i suppose because a lot of the poems ended up having an unexpected resonance. reading wiman and also other poets in class i think you gain an appreciation for what objectively good poetry is. people say that art is subjective but that’s some bullshit at least at the preliminary stages because being an editor for a creative literary magazine i have read a LOT of bad writing and it is clearly not subjective. anyway, what was i on? always enjoy religious/devotional poetry specifically, and most of the time it is circa 16th/17th century, but wiman combines the modernist poetic aesthetic with something enduring and that always wins me over.)

Why be happy when you can be normal? – Jeanette Winterson (read this over two days, and by that i mean it took slightly over 2+/3 hours to get through it all maybe? incredibly easy to read which was why it went so quickly. liked this a lot and want to read more by winterson)

Nobody is ever missing – Catherine Lacey (read this over three days but grew more exasperated as it progressed. think i’m done with self-indulgence/characters who i perceive as self-indulgent. there is more draw for me, now, i think, to contemplate urgencies to others instead of urgencies only to yourself. i want to read not about escapism but about handling ties to history, ties to others, ties that threaten to envelope you but also uplift. this novel was about a woman who leaves a decent life to stay in a sullen silent space of isolation and somehow i cannot accept that anymore.)

numero dos: shit i’ve been reading circa jan 2016

Completed

The Bone Clocks – David Mitchell (i liked this and the fact that david mitchell writes so comfortably and well about/when placing his narrative in irish/english contexts. re: this book, i guess we handle/respond to mortality differently. the dystopian end made me think about wanting to recycle/be more environmentally-conscious) – January

Civilization and its discontents – Sigmund Freud (read this for class, again with all freud that i’ve read, some resonates and some i call total bullshit on (everything related to his gender theory tbh).

Man’s Search for Himself – Rollo May (read this for class. every time i read something approximating insightful about self-knowledge i somehow find a crack of doubt that then spreads across the text. there was a short segment about physicality and self-consciousness that i could see be true (and even then only in my context), but i lie in the crevice and believe that the self is unknowable so maybe this class is really just an exercise in futility 4 me?)

A General Theory of Love – Lewis et. al. (read for class again. Generally found this interesting, esp because it put a scientific spin on a theory of attachment and human connection. felt like the presence of objective science, though that is debatable, gave credence to the kind of subjective emotions we have all felt, and so was comforting in some small way.)

February: The Moral Animal – Robert Wright (for class again. basically an evolutionary biology perspective/explanation of morality. Interesting to see but idk, something about attributing so many things/our choices, etc. to biology feels inherently…wrong? but maybe that’s his point.)

Mlodinow, Leonard. Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior (fascinating but Mlodinow jumps around a lot when writing and it makes me less inclined to believe him?)

What the Buddha Taught – Rahula (feel like the more I read about Buddhism, the more confused I am esp wrt to its metaphysical concepts. felt like a good introduction to something that’s been familiar all my life but i’ve never gotten to know intellectually. but there is something inherent about “unknowable” concepts that may be just shy of religious concepts, but still unacceptable to me)

Four Quartets – TS Eliot (probably one of the best collections of poetry that i’ve ever read. eliot goes into abstractions but grapples with the heart of the matter and there is anguish and brazen honesty and no hesitance to be ugly if that makes sense. need to reread this, probably aloud)

The Monk and the Philosopher – jean-françois revel, matthieu ricard (complicates/simplifies the ideas of buddhism? I can’t quite make up my mind. but the comparison to philosophy and subjecting it to the kind of ‘scientific’ and dialectical method was useful for me to understand it further. that is, beyond metaphors. side note: am q taken with this format of prose—conversation printed)

shit i’ve been reading circa July 2015 

Not that kind of girl – Lena Dunham (felt pretentious at a lot of points) – July

The diving bell and the butterfly – Jean Dominique Bauby (quite good) – July

Madness – Marya Hornbacher (this made me cry) -July

Eat and Run – Scott Jurek (motivation to run as all books about running are) – July

AWOL on the Appalachian trail – David Miller (gets boring if you haven’t been to the AT)

The Omnivore’s Dilemma – Michael Pollen (liked this. made me think about my choices and the exact ethical structure behind it – read also: consider the lobster by david foster wallace for a similar/alternative perspective) – August

What I talk about when I talk about running – Haruki Murakami (long time coming to read this, perfect short prose about the draw of running. feel like most people who enjoy running and associate it with thinking/contemplation will get it) – August

Bad feminist – Roxane Gay (brutal at points, beautiful mostly) – August

Under the banner of heaven – Jon Krakauer (this was incredible. well-researched and comprehensive but extremely smooth narrative about mormon fundamentalism.) – September

Valley of the Dolls – Jacqueline Susann (enjoyed this) – September

Consider the Lobster – David Foster Wallace (title essay is a gem, the rest ranged from obscure to mildly intriguing) – September

Everything I Never Told You – Celeste Ng (above average) – November

The People’s Republic of Amnesia – Louis Lim (emotional reporting, slated to go one way, but expectedly so) – November

History of Chinese Philosophy – Wing-Tsit Chan (need to reread, slowly, and in detail)

Drinking: A Love Story – Caroline Knapp (well-written and need to stop reading memoirs on vice/transferable behaviours) – November

Modern Romance – Aziz Ansari (ok. choice) – November

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius – Dave Eggers (liked this a lot, eggers has great arrogant style that works) – December

Slade House – David Mitchell (perfect short read. thrilling. fantasy.) – December

Fates and Furies – Lauren Groff (liked this but it ) – December

The Wind-up Bird Chronicle – Haruki Murakami (took a while to get into, but enjoyed this, esp folding routines that appeared in the book into my mind. there is a quietness that steals its way through the pages when the protagonist makes his sandwiches, thinks, goes deep into dry wells) – December