All Nodding for 'Nod'.

Sleepless in the Shortlist: MMU Alumnus, Adrian Barnes, nominated for Arthur C. Clarke Award

Words by Neil Harrison

A graduate of an online Master's Degree course run by MMU has been nominated for a prestigious science fiction literary award. Adrian Barnes, who received an MA in Creative Writing, has seen his debut novel, Nod, shortlisted for the 2013 Arthur C. Clarke Award, an annual British event which seeks out the best science fiction novel of the year.

The Canadian based writer, who was born in Blackpool but moved to Canada when he was five years old, is in Britain for only a short time in order to publicise the novel, ahead of attending the awards ceremony on May 1^st. Humanity Hallows caught up with him in West Yorkshire, where his publishing company, Bluemoose Books, is based.

Asked whether he was a writer before receiving his Master's Degree in 2008, Adrian laughs,

"Not in the 'published, having-a-book-out kind of way!' I've always written, and always been an avid reader but the reason I took the [MA] course was to become a teacher. I needed that qualification in order to do that and in Canada, with a family and other commitments, it can be quite difficult to do, so the online course made sense."

As part of the MA, students are required to have completed a novel and in Adrian's case, that novel was Nod. When asked about his approach to writing, the author, who clearly has more than one string to his bow--being a teacher of creative writing and also the proprietor of the Rossland Telegraph media outlet-- says,

"I write fairly quickly, I can have [a first draft] written in around three weeks ... I'm bragging a little there ... but I re-write forever."

The novel itself is an exploration of the consequences of lack of sleep on a mass scale. As well as the award nomination, it has gone on to receive critical acclaim, with The Guardiandescribing the book as "outstanding." The premise seems inspired in its simplicity, so just how did it occur to him?

Adrian Barnes

"I often have difficulty sleeping myself, right at the moment, for instance, due to the travelling. I think what interests me most of all is the way that tiredness, loss of sleep, can begin to affect the strongest relationships, even in a family setting. There's a very thin veneer there when you begin to think about it; how would society continue to function? They say you can only survive for six days without sleep before going mad."

Where, then, does Nod sit within the science fiction genre? Adrian largely dismisses the notion that the book is his journey down the much wandered 'zombie' path. It is, however, an apocalyptic scenario set “just a little into the future," says the writer.

"I would describe the book as being in that sub-genre of science fiction, speculative fiction. It's very much a ‘what would happen if...’ kind of scenario, in much the same way that Cormack McCarthy's The Road is, for instance."

Concurrent to the theme of insomnia, there is an etymological aspect to the book, hinted at in the title itself. The Land of Nod, whilstbeing an almost comforting notion for most who aspire to drift off to it, is in actual fact the biblical place of exiled torment for Cain—banished for the crime of slaying his brother Abel—which is described in The Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Not such a comforting notion. Adrian says,

"I am fascinated with medieval words and their meanings, which have often come to take on different forms through the centuries. The principle character is an etymologist and the dual aspects of certain words, certain notions, begin to take shape and bear relevance as the events of the story unfold."

As well as promoting Nod, Adrian is currently working on other projects; both fiction and non-fiction, and there has been interest from movie companies in the United States, eager to see his debut novel adapted for the big screen. Clearly, Adrian Barnes is a name to look out for in the future.

The 2013 Arthur C. Clarke Award winner is announced on May 1^st.

Nod is available now, published by Bluemoose Books.

Neil Harrison is studying Social History at Manchester Metropolitan University. He is an aspiring journalist and a terrible guitar player. Read his blog LooseRiver and follow him on Twitter @LooseRiver

'Our Country's Good' and so was this play!

Our Country's Good by Timberlake Wertenbaker, Directed by Chris Honer, Thursday, 25th April, Capitol Theatre, MMU

Words and photographs by Kevin Danson

My third time at MMU's Capitol Theatre and once again it leaves me more than satisfied with everything about the performance. The setting, seating and sound adds to the experience of this intense, yet comic play. 

Our Country's Good is a play about the first penal colony in Australia. On the shores of New South Wales in the late eighteenth century, the story concerns a group of convicts and Royal Marines. After noting how putting on a performance might arouse ‘pity and fear’ from the cast and audience of convicts, the Governor of the colony believes the convicts might reach redemption by putting on a show. Over the course of rehearsals of this play within a play, authority within the colony is challenged, relationships evolve, while others dissolve, taking with them communal justice and individual sanity. 

These third-year actors are incredibly talented. The play intentionally has a small cast to its required number of characters, allowing (or forcing) the actors to display their range of skill in one performance, sometimes even in one scene. This bumps up the respect I already have for these artists. Each character they incorporate bears no resemblance to the subsequent one. I know this is expected, but I can imagine how difficult it must be to nail an accent or physical trait every time they make their transformation. 

Left to right: Holly Fishman Crook, 
Simon Jenkins 

There is not one actor I can comment negatively upon, thankfully. MMU’s current third years make a strong ensemble cast. Instead of talking you through the play as a whole, I would like to mention a few actors individually. This is mainly due to the characters ascribed to them, as well as the personal spin they added to their representations.

Rory Thomas’ main character is the comedic Robert Sideway, a role that seems to have been written exactly for him. I follow his absurd, overly dramatic mannerisms as I follow the words of the play—intently. Though we witness his lashings at the start of the play, providing him with the audience’s sympathy, Rory and Robert carry with them a lightheartedness that softens some of the more intense scenes.

Hayley Gowland has been in all three of the plays I’ve seen here, and I have thoroughly enjoyed all of her performances. Hayley’s character; the intimidating convict of Liz Morden, is the main role she plays in this production. Her best scenes are the comedy scenes: Liz awkwardly attempts an imitation of a lady’s upper-class demeanor and hurls her learnt lines for the play at the Lieutenant without pause or necessary emotion. I wait for a stutter or a stumble, but instead I am left with a strong will to applaud.

Another two actors who make the play, for me, are Assad Zaman and Max Henry-Walsh. Assad executes swift changes from a mumbling Scottish Captain, Jemmy Campbell, to the convict, John Ascott, and the suffering midshipman, Harry Brewer. While his mutterings of a Rab C. Nesbitt kind draws in frequent chuckles from the audience, the psychological deterioration of the haunted and tormented Harry make me feel like a spy, as if I am on the shore with him close by, watching as he gradually breaks down. I have seen Assad play a small role in one of the sketches in, Tonight at 7:30 (originally Tonight at 8:30), which did not show his range of acting. I feel like this performance has definitely shown his capability as a professional actor.

Left to right: Max Henry-Walsh, Simon Jenkins 

Like Assad, I have seen Max in a smaller role in, Tonight at 7:30 (originally Tonight at 8:30). Unable to discern his true abilities beforehand, Our Country’s Good has given room for Max to demonstrate his skills by portraying two extremely different characters; Ketch Freeman, an Irishman transported to the colony for killing a sailor, and the Scottish Major Robbie Ross. While the cheeky chappie of Ketch was pleasing to watch, making me want to go for a country stroll and maybe jump in the air and kick my heels together, the Major had me seething. I was once told that if I feel hatred for a character who is meant to be bad, then the actor is doing good work. Kudos to Max! He had me folding my arms, clenching my fists and shaking my head. His accents were infallible as was the mutation between his characters.

In addition to the cast, another part I enjoy is the intertheatricality. References are made to the way in which inequality within the colony—between the convicts and the Royal Marines—is compared to the inequality Socrates expressed in his plays, and was therefore punished for by death. Also present are the undertones of Shakespeare’s Hamlet; a play within a play, these actors acting as actors, and the haunting ghost. My education seems to be paying off.

Left to right: Rory Thomas, Holly Fishman Crook, Hayley Gowland, 
Simon Jenkins, Mabel Wright 

This group of third years is tight and the hours they put into rehearsals obviously pays off. Each one is in the production because of their talents, and although not all have been mentioned individually this time, I’m sure I will get round to bolstering their talents soon.

The Manchester School of Theatre is my new local. These students put on a show well worth watching. Although I was unable (due to periods of lethargy) to follow up the previous performances with a review, the next two; Brontë, (15th – 18th May) and, A Bright Room Call Day, (5th – 8th June), will be.

Students get tickets for £2.50 on Thursdays! 

Kevin Danson is an English Literature student at MMU who likes to share his ramblings. Read his blog Pebbleddash and follow him on Twitter @pebbleddash

UNESCO Chair of Human Rights Fights Case for Humanities.

'Human Rights, Humanities and Higher Education': Jean-Paul Lehners, Geoffrey Manton Building, MMU, Monday, 22nd April

Words by Neil Harrison

Photograph by wwwen.uni.lu

This week's IHSSRresearch seminar sees MMU play host to the first UNESCO Chair of Human Rights and recently retired Professor of Global History at the University of Luxembourg, Jean-Paul Lehners. Professor Lehners, who is a member of the Council of Europe and regularly advises governments on human rights issues, is, during his first visit to the region, at the university to deliver a lecture entitled 'Human Rights, Humanities and Higher Education.'

Professor Lehner begins by explaining the current state of European and global policy regarding human rights and education. He explains:

“In December 2011, the general assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Right to Human Rights Education. The text contains a number of concepts: opportunities, spirit of participation, inclusion, responsibility, equality, freedom of expression, the right to information and the prevention of human rights violations.”

“Human rights, education and training encompasses ... education about human rights, which includes: providing knowledge and understanding of human rights norms and principles, the values that underpin them and the mechanisms for their protection. Education through human rights including learning and teaching in a way that respects the rights of both educators ... and learners. And education for human rights, which includes empowerment of persons to enjoy and exercise their rights and to respect and uphold the rights of others.”

Culminating in a plea for higher education institutions to include explicit human rights policies within their respective mission statements, Professor Lehners cites the 2009 Venice Statement which was partly organised by UNESCO, stating:

“A human rights based approach requires that science and its applications are consistent with fundamental human rights principle. While the enjoyment of academic freedom requires the autonomy of higher education institutions, higher education as a public good ... must be a matter of responsibility and economic support of all governments.”

Therefore, it is clear the council believes that the burden of responsibility for the implementation and upholding of these cited principles should lie, not simply with the academic institutions, but also with the state.

Professor Lehners concludes the introductory section of his lecture with some recommendations for universities in terms of adopting what he describes as “a human rights dimension” when constructing their strategic literature.

“It is already a progress[ion] if some rights are mentioned, for example, freedom of expression. However, a better approach, of course, would be the [explicit] inclusion of human rights in codes of conduct, in mission statements and plans of action.”

From here he believes that universities can make the human rights dimension ‘transversal,’ and ensure it concerns an institution's ‘learning, research, management, and service to society,’ cementing the involvement of teachers, students and staff and “mainstreaming” human rights.

Here the professor begins to focus his discussion on the ‘added value that the humanities can bring to the study of human rights.’ With an emphasis on his personal academic field, namely History, he delves into a historiography of human rights, beginning:

“Research on the concept of human rights has long been dominated by lawyers. Historians until the recent period have made only a few contributions to the subject. Is this linked to the fact that a historical approach to human rights is questionable?”

He acknowledges many of the arguments against the validity of historical research on the subject of human rights, simultaneously countering each with his personal view that this type of research is valuable.

“Is it the aim of history to legitimize [contemporary human rights] through a linear causality? It is the historian's duty ... to identify crucial turning points. Without history I think misinterpretations would be the order of the day.”

“Throughout history,” he continues, “there have been many barriers and limitations on the notion of human rights. From the transplantation of western ideology into different global cultures, to the linguistic and gender limitations which exist to this day, the French catch-all term ‘Droits de l'homme’ (Rights of Man) being a prime example of gender inequality.”

From here we are taken on a journey from antiquity, via the Magna Carta, The French Revolution, the ideologies of Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx and the long shadow cast by both 20th century World Wars and particularly the 1948 Universal Declaration of human rights, which Professor Lehners explains, came about as a direct consequence of the suffering inflicted and experienced during World War II. This phenomenon, he emphasizes, is not without precedent. Human rights declarations appear following both the American and French Revolutions and have traditionally been seen as a reaction to ‘painful experience.’ Furthermore, each author of a particular human rights text is influenced by those that have gone before, which makes the understanding of historical human rights legislation all the more important.

Guiding his audience in the direction of the work of American historian, Lynn Hunt,  he offers her interpretation of the notion:

“Human rights require three interlocking points: Natural;inherent in human beings, Equal; the same for everyone and Universal; applicable everywhere. They will become meaningful when they gain political content. [Hunt's] interpretation induces the paradox of self-evidence: If human rights are self-evident, natural, why do they need to be declared?”

This direction necessarily leads to the philosophical aspects of the debate regarding human dignity, which Professor Lehners duly acknowledges, citing works by Adorno, and more recently, Ruth Macklin. He continues with an unabashed bias towards history, exploring how it came to be that human rights study in the field has gained currency over the last few decades.

“So, what has changed in the human rights discourse in the last years? One new factor is that historians have entered into the debate.”

Lehners discusses at length the work of, again, Lynn Hunt, particularly her book Inventing Human Rights and also that of her contemporary, Samuel Moyn, and his The Last Utopia. According to Moyn, ‘human rights made sense to a large part of the population only after 1968.’ In support of this, Professor Lehners offers examples such as the protests following the Vietnam War, dissidence in Eastern Europe and the peace movement.

The essence of the argument put forth by Jean-Paul Lehners in this lecture, therefore, is that the nature of the discourse surrounding human rights is extremely complex. To highlight this he invokes examples as wide-ranging as court cases involving dwarf-tossing, the argument surrounding the right to wear a bhurka and the rights of a pregnant woman seeking an abortion over those of an unborn child. At every tangent of the debate lies a potential philosophical, legal and political wrangle. The lecture is littered with difficult questions; when discussing the 1948 declaration's 'protection of families' aspect, Lehner immediately asks, “who decides what constitutes a family? Is a family the same now as it was in 1948?” The abstract nature of the concept of human dignity is dealt with in both a philosophical and legal context and the speaker's insights are at once illuminating and perplexing. There are no clear answers here.

One thing that does become clear is the professor's determination to see universities, and specifically the humanities subjects, playing a central role in the future debate:

“In order to understand human rights, we have to contextualise them. Humanities and social sciences have an important part in this process. Human rights...are meant to shift between texts and reality. What can I do with human rights declarations if I am poor and too weak to defend myself? It is…of utmost importance within the context of the financial and economic crisis today.”

“Human rights are the result of the learning process and they respond to experiences of injustice and suffering. Narratives based on publicly articulated experiences of injustice have to be added to the narratives based on written documents.”

It is with this task he charges his fellow humanities scholars.

For information about upcoming research seminars and lectures please visit IHSSR's website hssr.mmu.ac.uk/

Neil Harrison is studying Social History at Manchester Metropolitan University. He is an aspiring journalist and a terrible guitar player. Read his blog LooseRiver and follow him on Twitter @LooseRiver

Celebrate The Need of Humanities In The 21st Century

Do Humanities Matter in the 21st Century? Neil Harrison, Richard Reed, and Sascha Wilts all agree with a resounding and resonating… YES! 

Words by Siobhán O'Toole

Left to right: Richard Reed, Neil Harrison & Sascha Wilts

Today’s award ceremony celebrated three deserving winners who all entered wonderfully diverse pieces in reaction to the above question earlier in the year. 

The competition, launched by MMU’s Humanities Faculty, asked students from all subject areas to enter either an essay of 1000 words, or a three-minute video, which responded to the question: ‘Do Humanities Matter in the 21st century?’ The competition brief encouraged entrants to consider Humanities in regards to new media, new messages, new meanings, values and attitudes, culture, and the rising significance of the digital age. 

Dr. Jess Edwards, Head of the English Department, kindly began proceedings by introducing the significance of such a question, and reminding us that the asking of it today is not a new thought, but one that has occurred innumerable times before, notably so in dark periods of austerity. Such periods encourage societies to defend the study of Mathematics, Sciences, and subjects with clear economic benefits, but question the study of subjects such as Philosophy, Politics, History, English, Sociology, and so on. These are seen as subjects with indistinct economic benefits, despite their immeasurable influence regarding our development and improvement as people and communities. 

To convey this, Jess discussed the role of Patricia Waugh (literary critic and professor of English Literature at Durham University), and her thoughts on this significant question—one notable opinion being that such enquiries regarding the value of Humanities, in no way affect the creative output of a society. On the contrary, Waugh said that it is in times of deep austerity that the greatest works arise. 

Jess supported such views by sharing that, despite national decreases in applications to study Humanities subjects, this is not the case at MMU, which remains resilient and receives encouraging numbers of applications every year. Before introducing the three winners, and presenting them with their prizes, Jess conveyed his pride in his position as Head of the English Department, and ‘defending the role of Humanities every day’. He noted that the work entered by the three winners was, ‘marvellous, passionate, articulate and persuasive’, whilst also presenting a summary of the judges’ views on the entries as, ‘very different in style, approach and message. However, all entries were equally as convincing and stimulating as the next.’ 

It was then time for the presentation of prizes, something highly anticipated by all three winners, due to the fabulous nature of each award. Firstly, Jess presented Sascha Wilts, a German Erasmus student of English, with third prize of a £25 Amazon voucher for his essay: ‘Do Humanities matter in the 21st Century? – A Plea for Humanities’. Secondly, Jess awarded Richard Reed, a combined honours student of International Politics and Marketing, with second prize of a £100 Amazon voucher for his film, entitled with the competition question. Lastly, Neil Harrison, student of History and fellow Student Press Officer, was presented with first prize; a brand spanking new iPad, for his essay: ‘Responding To Threats: ‘Do Humanities Matter in the 21st century?’ The iPad, he said, would go straight to his children, who would know how to use it better than him due to using them frequently at their school. 

Richard’s entry was the only one in video format, all others were essays, and so I automatically assumed that he was adept at filmmaking, to which he replied, ‘it’s something that I’m interested in, but not very good at’, a comment that many academics present would disagree with. 

Of his inspiration, Richard said that a major factor was science and technology, noting that, ‘I come from the 80s, before mobile phones, and I remember that everyone got on and survived very easily without all of these new technologies. They have taken over in a sense, and they are not necessities’. In addition, he explained his love for the Humanities in regards to how they permit you to speak and understand the world in which we live: ‘I love different opinions and learning from mistakes, otherwise how do we grow and develop?’ 

Whilst the room of academics and staff mingled, drank coffee and enjoyed nibbles, Neil added, ‘all Humanities subjects are important, they all have a role to play, and I tried my best to convey the importance of all subjects; Politics, History, Philosophy, English’. This he certainly did, his essay exuded a love of the Humanities and a passionate defence of their inclusion in Education today. 

Today’s event was extremely touching and rousing. In a society where many deem the study of subjects such as my own (English) as rather pointless, it is extremely encouraging to see that there are many who, not only value the study of the Humanities highly, but regard it as a vital component to society. These people silence those who question our studies; the friends who interrogate your future, the taxi drivers who ask, ‘but you speak English beautifully dear, why study it?!’, and the masses who assume that your vocation must be to teach. Discussions similar to the one I was lucky enough to attend today, silence such negativity and closed-mindedness. 

Reviews:

Do Humanities Matter in the 21st Century? - A Plea for Humanities
An Essay by Sascha Wilts

Sascha Wilts’ essay, which examines and argues for the value of Humanities in the 21st Century, is an extremely passionate and convincing piece that provides substantial reasoning for his views. He begins by outlining that, for him, Humanities is questioned due to a modern focus upon statistical results, rather than the critical thinking and analysis that exposure to literature, history, philosophy and the arts provides.

However, for Sascha, in order to change the world and its problems, we must understand it, something only achieved through constant examination and reflection upon our society. In order for society to develop, we must consider others and the differences within society, so that we welcome and celebrate such differences. Only when people are open to communication, reflection, critical thinking and the welcoming of otherness, will society truly flourish and develop. His quote from Einstein says it all, ‘Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.’

Do Humanities Matter in the 21st Century?
A Film by Richard Reed

Richard’s argument for the value of Humanities in society today, begins with an extract from Shakespeare’s Hamlet and his ‘to be or not to be’ monologue. He provides a fitting example of the arts and literature, and their value when contemplating the development and change of our world, ‘and by dream we say mend the heart-ache’, the heartache of society’s lost connection with its true needs. In order to convey his ideas, Richard does so effectively through the attention-grabbing form of video, with informative, and sometimes amusing, discussion of his thoughts. The first of which, is the importance of studying Humanities in reaction to the development of market driven science, and a move away from peace.

With images of wartime cemeteries and poppies, Richard discusses the need for Humanities when taking from the past, and learning from its mistakes. Overall, he argues that in order for an equality of Education, communication in Politics, cultural balance, equality of market forces, understanding of science vs. nature, and development of imagination, love and understanding, we must embrace the study of Humanities. His argument is flawless, intriguing, stimulating, well informed and its format highlights that the Humanities can work in harmony with the digital world.

Responding to Threats: Do Humanities Matter in the 21st Century?
An Essay Neil Harrison

Neil Harrison’s piece on the value of Humanities, in regards to society’s response to threats, provides fervent, insightful and fresh ideas about a day which has been covered innumerable times on a global scale. He analyses the ways in which society responded to 9/11 as conveyable of society’s need of Humanities in order to develop, and most importantly, react against and alter atrocities in the world that need such an outcry from such large numbers of people. Atrocities such as malnutrition, economic crises, consumerism, all of which affect societies on a global scale, and could be altered and banished purely by awareness and the will to change, which for Neil, originates from Humanities: history, the arts, literature and politics. In Neil’s own words, ‘we must understand what has happened in the story so far, and we must communicate our messages creatively and effectively. In other words, we need Humanities.’

Siobhan studies English Literature at Manchester Metropolitan and is an inspiring writer, hopeless optimist and romantic, and a complete technophobe. Follow Siobhan on Twitter @smo_07