A Year in Gaming
It is customary for me to write an end of year summary of my gaming activities but I suspect that on this occasion it will be somewhat short. For me, 2024 has really hammered home the notion of the ephemeral nature of video games as well as their commercial ubiquity. The moment a game fails to satisfy for whatever reason, rather than complain or worry about it, I just move on to something else. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of games out there. I have a substantial back catalogue of games that Epic and Amazon prime regularly giveaway. I have bought numerous discounted bundles in the past, in the pious hope that I’ll play one of the games included, at some point in the future. Games may well be enjoyable and engaging but many are also disposable. That’s not to say they’re bad. While playing them you are indeed “entertained”. However, when you’re “done”, it’s amazing how you quickly find another and forget what you were previously playing.
It is customary for me to write an end of year summary of my gaming activities but I suspect that on this occasion it will be somewhat short. For me, 2024 has really hammered home the notion of the ephemeral nature of video games as well as their commercial ubiquity. The moment a game fails to satisfy for whatever reason, rather than complain or worry about it, I just move on to something else. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of games out there. I have a substantial back catalogue of games that Epic and Amazon prime regularly giveaway. I have bought numerous discounted bundles in the past, in the pious hope that I’ll play one of the games included, at some point in the future. Games may well be enjoyable and engaging but many are also disposable. That’s not to say they’re bad. While playing them you are indeed “entertained”. However, when you’re “done”, it’s amazing how you quickly find another and forget what you were previously playing.
I started the year playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare III, the 2023 entry in the never ending franchise. These games have a 12 month lifecycle and frequently “evolve” during their quarterly updates. Hence many of the aspects of MW III that I liked when I started playing, were altered, nerfed or simply removed, six months later. The community is also vile and seems to be a magnet for the emotionally dysfunctional. This doesn’t help, especially when trying to find information on builds and tactics via the games subreddit. I found myself in a minority as I actually liked the open world approach to the Zombie play mode. The latest iteration of the game released in October has returned to the traditional round based approach, which I don’t like. So roundabout summer, I stopped playing as the game no longer yielded sufficient fun. I uninstalled it a few months later.
I fancied playing a traditional high fantasy RPG this year and found exactly that in Dragon’s Dogma 2. I quite liked the fact that the game deliberately eschews fast travel and is designed so that the player has to travel slowly around the world map, fighting as they go. I also liked the pawn system in which you could hire up to 3 NPC companions from multiple classes. These can be either prebuilt pawns provided by the game itself, or ones that other players had created. I got quite attached to some of them with their quirky names and dialogue, until I outlevelled them. The combat was more challenging than I had expected but I liked the fact that you could climb onto some of the exotic beasts you fought and attack vital areas. Some players were disappointed by the story, claiming it was somewhat generic. I felt it was adequate and often wonder if games such as these, made by international developers, lose something in translation.
I returned to several MMOs this year. Star Trek Online continues to be a mainstay, due to its continuous calendar of short term events. Such an approach is not a real substitute for longer, story based missions which are becoming more infrequent these days. But STO does afford the casual gamer a quick fix and a means to jump straight into some action if you have limited leisure time. I also resumed playing The Lord of the Rings Online having one update and an expansion to catch up with. I reached the new level cap with my primary character and weathered the ill conceived changes that were made to the Lore-master class. When will developers learn that if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it? LOTRO still benefits from well written and innovative stories to underpin all their quests. It also has a knack of creating interesting zones. Overall the game does sufficient to keep me engaged.
For reasons I can’t quite articulate, I decide to revisit Age of Conan. I found my original character from 2011 along with an MMO that is in maintenance mode. It still has players although they tend to congregate in the cities and most of the time, you’ll find yourself alone when out questing. As such, it can be played as an RPG but I decided not to pursue playing any further than satiating my thirst for nostalgia. Instead I opted to dive back into Star Wars: The Old Republic as there were three classes that I hadn’t played. To date, I have now completed the Sith Inquisitor and Jedi Consular classes and am now focusing on the Judi Knight. The great thing about SWTOR is that each class has a unique story, as does each planet in the game. Hence there is always something new to return to.
2024 was certainly not a standout year for gaming, at least from my perspective. Video games still provided an entertaining pastime but nothing really loomed large and made an impact upon me such as Red Dead Redemption 2 or Skyrim. Such games are becoming increasingly rare. MMOs once again proved to be a comfortable form of gaming and I am still enjoying my return to SWTOR. I also have the latest LOTRO expansion to play through, which I am keeping in reserve for the moment. I have my eye on the new Indiana Jones game in the New Year along with the latest instalment of Sniper Elite. However, the cost of buying new titles is becoming quite expensive. Especially if you want the most comprehensive version of a video game. However, I have a potential solution for that problem but that is a blog post for the New Year.
A Year in Movies
The last time I wrote A Year in Movies post was back in 2020. That was naturally an unusual year and it certainly had a radical impact upon the film industry and the way new movies are distributed. In many ways the pandemic accelerated the inevitable move towards cross platform, same day releases. 4 years on and it is quite usual for films to have a short cinema release before becoming available on streaming media. They often appear on physical media at the same time. Effectively you can go to the cinema, or simply watch at home on the platform of your choice if you prefer. Rent, buy or subscribe, the film studios still get their pound of flesh and everyone is happy. Sometimes if a film has failed to gain sufficient traction at the cinema, its release will be cut short and it will go to streaming even quicker. Direct to video from the eighties and nineties has been superseded with direct to streaming.
The last time I wrote A Year in Movies post was back in 2020. That was naturally an unusual year and it certainly had a radical impact upon the film industry and the way new movies are distributed. In many ways the pandemic accelerated the inevitable move towards cross platform, same day releases. 4 years on and it is quite usual for films to have a short cinema release before becoming available on streaming media. They often appear on physical media at the same time. Effectively you can go to the cinema, or simply watch at home on the platform of your choice if you prefer. Rent, buy or subscribe, the film studios still get their pound of flesh and everyone is happy. Sometimes if a film has failed to gain sufficient traction at the cinema, its release will be cut short and it will go to streaming even quicker. Direct to video from the eighties and nineties has been superseded with direct to streaming.
My personal cinema experience has greatly improved of late due to the opening of a new local independent cinema in Summer 2023. The Sidcup Storyteller has three screens which are best described as “petit” and “bijou”. However, this is advantageous as it tends not to attract a youthful audience seeking the latest multiplex fodder. Instead customers tend to be of an older age group who still cleave to old school cinema etiquette. The seats are roomy and the sound system is not turned up to 11 but instead is actually configured so dialogue is audible. Films are shown throughout the day which is convenient if you want to grab something to eat afterwards and still be home at a reasonable hour. Ticket prices are acceptable and on average are about £10, although there are often discounts and promotions that can reduce the price as low as £6.30 which is very reasonable.
I went to the cinema 3 times in 2024, which is possibly an all time low. A decade earlier I would go at least once a month and could always find something that I wanted to watch. Sadly this decline all comes down to the content that monopolises cinema chains these days. I’m tired of being charitable and advocating a live and let live policy. Franchise moves are a blight on quality film making. They indirectly condition their audience towards spectacle, rather than dialogue and story. Furthermore, they foster short attention spans. Through no fault of their own modern audiences are often incapable of watching anything outside of a narrow spectrum of material and are effectively cinematically illiterate. It is a sorry state of affairs and ultimately it’s the audience that loses out.
As for the three films that I saw at the cinema this year, they were as follows. One Life about the British humanitarian Nicholas Winton (Anthony Hopkins) and his involvement in the Kindertransport during World War II. It is a very low key film with the focus on performance. It doesn’t overreach itself by being too epic in scope and makes its point perfectly. Back to Black is a biography of singer Amy Winehouse. The plot is somewhat factually spurious but the central performance by Marisa Abela is sound, especially her singing. Finally, the last film of the year was Paddington in Peru. Not quite as good as the first two movies but it is still entertaining, mainly due to the strong supporting cast. Antonio Banderas being especially droll. I considered going to the cinema to see Blitz, Alien Romulus and Gladiator II but ultimately chose to watch them all at home.
Despite a decline in mainstream cinema, there are still plenty of good quality films available. You just have to look a little harder to find them. They are often buried in the streaming menus and need to be sought out. I find that word of mouth from friends and critics that I know and respect is often a reliable heads up. I found Robot Dreams that way, along with Longlegs. Both are entertaining genre offerings but very different films. Another solid film recommended by a reliable source is Juror #2, directed by Clint Eastwood. This was released without much fanfare but it is a no nonsense courtroom drama, filmed in Eastwood usual matter of fact style. It achieves exactly what it sets out to do, delivering a strong indictment of the US legal system. The fact that films such as these three are still made does give me hope that quality mainstream filmmaking is not quite dead and that good stories still appeal to audiences.
A Year in TV
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
It is fair to say that we live in an age where we do not lack quality TV. There are numerous shows that have garnered critical acclaim or a strong word of mouth following that are deemed “must see” viewing. No doubt you, like myself, have a long “to do” list of programs that you need to “get round to watching” on top of those shows which are staples of your viewing regime. If you didn’t have enough programmes already to catch up with, we all have friends and family telling us about a “great show” that’s on a platform we don’t subscribe to, that we really need to see. It is quite extraordinary and a far cry from my youth when the UK simply had three terrestrial channels until satellite TV became popular in the late eighties. To paraphrase the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “we’ve never had it so good”.
Yet there are downsides. The most obvious one is the fact that most people cannot subscribe to all the platforms they would like to and that there are simply too many competing services. So we all make tough choices based on what permutation of subscriptions offers us the most choice and then use other family member’s login details to cover the shortfall. Then there is the concept of “TV poverty” for those on low incomes who have no other recourse other than what is available for free. Internet access is still poor in some regions of the UK, meaning that streaming is not always the best option available. It has been mooted that the UK government intends to phase out digital terrestrial television by 2030 and replace it with streaming exclusively but until the internet divide is addressed i cannot see this being viable.
Freely, the proposed streaming replacement for UK digital terrestrial TV
TV has always had a curious relationship with cinema. In many ways they have been opposites at different periods of time. In the fifties and sixties cinema was considered the cerebral medium and TV was the poor, populist relation. At present it is the opposite. Film is driven by franchise spectacles, where TV is the home of complex, well written dramas. That being said, TV is not averse to creating franchises with an eye on long term longevity. This can come with its own set of problems. I started watching From on the understanding that this complex sci-fi horror drama would not make the same mistakes as the TV show Lost. Sadly the plot is dragging and there is little progression. One cannot escape the feeling that this show with its interesting premise and strong cast, is deliberately being dragged out for obvious financial reasons at the risk of the public just getting bored and switching off.
Another issue is time that elapses between seasons of a popular show. If more than a year goes by then it can be a struggle to recollect all nuances of the plot. Sometimes, I will have to rewatch the final episode of the previous season to jog my memory. On a few occasions, I have watched YouTube summaries of the previous series to bring me back up to speed. I find it kills your interest in a show if you have to do homework to keep on top of it. Sadly, some shows just drag on too long and end up diminishing their brand. It is argued that the optimal number of seasons is between five and seven. NCIS is a prime example of a popular show that has just gone on for too long. The most beloved characters have gone and it currently suffers from very poor writing. Conversely, its recent spinoff show, NCIS Origins, is the complete opposite with tightly written, well conceived and minimalist episodes.
NCIS Origins is a far better written show than NCIS
I enjoy good television but if left unchecked it could totally monopolise all my leisure time. Therefore I will make the decision to not watch some shows as I would rather spend the time on some other hobby. Unfortunately, just like the film industry, the current business model for television has an element of “fear of missing out” built into its marketing. Do you want to be one of the “cool kids” discussing the latest episode of a show and thus be part of a shared cultural moment, or will you watch it a couple of years later and discover that none of your mates want to talk about it anymore as they’ve moved on? Another cultural change is whether we “accept” that YouTube is a form of TV? I regularly watch YouTube on my lounge TV and for many, this is what they watch instead of “old school” TV. I suspect that 2025 will have more changes in store for us and will therefore be an equally interesting year in television.
A Year in Music
This post is not intended to be a comprehensive review of music per se in 2024. It is simply a few thoughts on what I’ve been listening to over the course of the year and my ever changing relationship with the Terpsichorean muse. As a man in his fifties who has always enjoyed multiple genres of music and it is a comforting presence in day-to-day life. Up to a year ago, I relied upon my own music collection on my PC as the source of music to which I listened. Yet, this meant that I was somewhat locked into my own existing tastes and there was limited scope for me to find new material. This changed last December when I started subscribing to Spotify and since then it has become my primary source of music. It caters to my tastes, which at times are quite niche and it gently introduces me to new material without being too invasive. This has proven most beneficial.
This post is not intended to be a comprehensive review of music per se in 2024. It is simply a few thoughts on what I’ve been listening to over the course of the year and my ever changing relationship with the Terpsichorean muse. As a man in his fifties who has always enjoyed multiple genres of music and it is a comforting presence in day-to-day life. Up to a year ago, I relied upon my own music collection on my PC as the source of music to which I listened. Yet, this meant that I was somewhat locked into my own existing tastes and there was limited scope for me to find new material. This changed last December when I started subscribing to Spotify and since then it has become my primary source of music. It caters to my tastes, which at times are quite niche and it gently introduces me to new material without being too invasive. This has proven most beneficial.
In a world of “big data”, naturally Spotify has crunched the numbers relating to my usage over the last 12 months and has collated a presentation about my listening habits. My top five artists are a strange mix. I was not surprised to see Rammstein at the top of the list as I find their pounding songs to be an excellent form of stress release. Seeing the late, great Slim Whitman so high in the list was unexpected. I “inherited” my love of this man’s yodelling abilities and his three octave range falsetto from my mother. She adored him and hence I became very familiar with his back catalogue. As for Howard Shore and John Barry, their respective presence is due to my love of sumptuous movie soundtracks. With respect to The Stranglers, I consider them an underrated UK band. A band where there’s more than meets the eye.
Slim Whitman
I apparently listened to 10,558 minutes of music this year. If you assume an average running time of 3.5 minutes for a song, that’s a little over 3000. Like most data presented out of any sort of context, I have no idea if that is a lot or a little compared to other users. It averages out at about 8 songs a day which doesn’t seem a lot. Maybe 30 minutes of music each time. I suppose it all depends on your circumstances. I spend a lot of time at my desk using my PC, so I’ll often listen to something while writing or gaming. Plus I did some travelling at the start of the year, which provided additional time to listen to Spotify via headphones. Overall, enjoying music is certainly part of my daily routine. Just like listening to podcasts and watching YouTube channels that I subscribe to. Having what I want, when I want, without any hassle certainly makes things a lot easier.
Rammstein
Perhaps the biggest change I can see with regard to listening to music, is that I don’t take it quite so seriously anymore. I remember my teenage years and being very proud and protective of the bands and artists I liked. Music being such an integral part of youth culture. I no longer see music in terms of being cool or uncool, mainstream or indie. It simply comes down to whether a tune gets a positive reaction or not. If it does, then I’ll add it to a playlist. As to my wider musical aspirations, it has been a long time since I’ve seen any live music. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that being a gentleman of a certain age, I like to sit down. Something that is not always viable at a concert. But I feel it is time to see a big, stadium band next year. Mainly because if I don’t go and see anything in 2025, I’ll probably never do such a thing again.
Strictly Come Dancing: The Fickle Nature of the Public Vote
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
Tonight’s results for week 5 of Strictly Come Dancing (season 22) have once again demonstrated that this show is more than just a dancing competition to UK viewers. If it were just a case of determining who are the best dancers, then JB Gill would not have been in the dance off. The judges may well see things exclusively in such terms but the public clearly do not. I last wrote about this phenomenon in 2019 and I think it appropriate to raise the subject again as this season of Strictly seems to be bucking past trends and I suspect we may be in for further upsets in the run up to the season finale. Broadly speaking, the public usually tends to vote in a manner similar to the official leaderboard. Hence, those who score the lowest usually end up in the dance off. Occasionally an underdog will be championed and kept on the show but that trend seems to have lost its novelty in recent years. This season appears to be quite different.
The departure of Tom Dean in week 2 (the first week the public could vote) was a shock as Tom was patently a better dancer than Toyah Willcox and much higher on the leaderboard. Last week (the 4th in the series) it came as a surprise to see Shayne Ward in the dance off as he was 9 points ahead of Nick Knowles. However, there has been a degree of viewer pushback against The X Factor winner from 2005. On the first episode of this season, Shayne stated he was “in to win it”. A remark that was interpreted by some viewers as being somewhat arrogant, although it may have been an honest statement of intent to work hard. Hence, he seems to have failed to gain much public support and suffered as a result. On this occasion he was saved by the judges and injured Nick Knowles was voted off. Again, in the past a celebrity who has missed a show due to injury, is usually given some latitude by the public. Nick was not, in spite of his wider popularity. He was simply deemed as “lacking” and shown the door.
Which brings me to this evening’s debacle in which JLS vocalist JB Gill found himself in the dance off with ex-professional footballer Paul Merson. JB has consistently scored well over the last 5 weeks and is considered by some pundits to be a “shoo-in” for the final. However, despite having a 11 point lead over Paul, still found himself having to dance again to remain on the show. There is a school of thought that suggests that celebrities who are consistently good can lose public votes because everyone assumes they’ll be alright and someone else will vote for them. Another theory is that the viewers get bored with those who are good, right from the start of the show, as they prefer those who get better over time and thus go on the Strictly “journey”. Let us also take a moment to ponder the fate of Paul Merson, who appeared up to tonight, to have sufficient support to stay out of the dance off. If such a fanbase exists, where was it this week?
I am beginning to wonder if all the talk about mobilising fan bases and tactical voting that we have taken as read over the last 22 seasons of Strictly is spurious. Are fans always wedded to particular celebrities or do they simply vote on a week by week basis? Are the current voting patterns associated with Strictly, in any way similar to those that have recently emerged in contemporary politics, post 2016, where people are no longer loyal to specific causes and are far more volatile in the way in which they vote? If only we could get voting expert, Professor John Curtice, on the show and have the benefit of his insight. In the meantime JB Gill was saved but I suspect that the message from tonight is abundantly clear to all remaining celebrities. No matter how good you are and wherever you may be on the leaderboard, no one is safe. I expect to see an increase in social media output next week, from the remaining contestants, as they actively try and woo the British public.
Strictly Come Dancing: A Controversial Decision
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
I make no bones about the fact that I watch Strictly Come Dancing every year. For those who live outside of the UK, this is the original version of the dancing reality show that you probably know as Dancing With the Stars in your country. It is still a big deal in the UK as far as TV ratings go, getting audiences on average of 6.6 million viewers. There are many aspects of the show that are textbook examples of prime time, popular entertainment but I like it because the “celebrities” that take part are ultimately learning a skill that is genuinely difficult. The latest season of Strictly, as it is known to its fans, is especially interesting as the BBC had a major PR problem earlier in the year, where several previous participants made allegations of bullying and abuse about their pro-dancer partners. An investigation is still ongoing and in the meantime, the two professional dancers that were named have withdrawn from the show. Hence everyone involved with the latest season are all on message, stating that it’s “all about having fun”.
Season 22 of Strictly began in earnest last Saturday 21st September. The 15 celebrities and their professional dancer partners all performed live on TV and were marked accordingly by the judges. As always, there were some contestants who showed ability and talent, straight out of the gate, such as model and TV presenter Tasha Ghouri. Hardly surprising as she has had dance experience in the past. Then there were other competitors who showed potential and may well improve in the weeks to come, as they go on their Strictly journey. Viewers like these individuals as they are the epitome of what audiences want from the show. Strictly has in recent years become a torchbearer for inclusion, with many disabled contestants. This year’s celebrity line up includes blind standup comedian Chris McCausland. The show has also pioneered the partnering of same sex couples, despite complaints from the usual suspects.
Another essential part of the Strictly formula are celebrity contestants with little or no dancing ability. Sometimes, such individuals are championed by viewers, especially if the judges have been especially harsh with their comments. But this is not always the case. Sometimes the less talented participants are dismissed from the show by the public vote, quickly and ruthlessly. And talking of the judges, their opinions are often at odds with the public’s. Viewers tend to vote with their hearts and don’t maintain the same objectivity of the judges, who tend to score purely on technical ability. Furthermore, there is no consensus among the judges regarding this, as they all come from different dancing disciplines. Hence, scoring can be very inconsistent at times. And then, from time to time, the judges make a decision that appears patently absurd and results in controversy. It would appear that season 22 of Strictly has just had its first tonight, which is very early on in the season.
Yesterday, Saturday 28th September, the second show of the season was broadcast. Again the couples were marked by the judges and this week’s scores were combined with last week’s. The public were allowed to vote this time and through a complex mathematical formula, this was combined with the judges scores to produce a simple results table. The bottom two couples then have to performa “dance off” and the judges (not the public) decide who stays and who goes. It came as no surprise to anyone that singer and actor, Toyah Willcox partnered with pro-dancer Neil Jones, was bottom of the leaderboard. Toyah performed two exuberant but technically lacking dances. A Tango and a Jive respectively. I suspect that all future dances will always be through the prism of her unique personal style. However, what came as a surprise was the inclusion of Olympic swimmer and nice guy, Tom Dean. He was ten points ahead on the leaderboard and also had the advantage of being partnered with pro-dancer Nadiya Bychkova, who is well regarded by fans.
Hence many viewers thought that the dance off was all over, bar the shouting. Yet surprisingly, both celebrities didn’t improve their performances. Three of the Judges, including head judge Shirley Ballas, Motsi Mabuse and Craig Revel Horwood, were focused on Tom being out of time with the music, although it didn’t seem immediately obvious.Thus they voted to keep Toyah on the show. Only Anton Du Beke, former pro-dancer from the show turned judge, voted to keep Tom. However, the decision was made and Tom got his marching orders. To say that fans of Strictly were peeved, is a massive understatement. It has become very clear over the course of this evening that many regard this as an utterly wrong decision. Social media erupted into an angry and restless lynch mob and the tabloid newspaper websites have already joined the passing bandwagon.
Now it can be argued that this sort of brouhaha goes hand in glove with reality TV and is part of its fundamental appeal. However, I believe it is in fact symptomatic of several problems arising from the show. Each year, Strictly ups the ante and the overall standard of dancing produced by contestants goes up. Surely, this reduces the potential pool of contestants that the BBC can draw upon? Furthermore, a decade ago, viewers were not quite so demanding in their expectations and possibly more tolerant of those contestants with less ability. This accommodating mindset seems to have diminished. Then there is the wider societal decline of the public being equipped to deal with not getting their own way. A subjective choice that goes against your preference isn’t seen as “bad luck” or “just the way the cookie crumbles”. It is deemed an act of sabotage, a plot and a personal slight. Remember, the internet is where nuance goes to die.
This controversial decision may blow over. The BBC may not even see it in such terms. But as the broadcaster is feeling very protective of the show at present and averse to pad press, it may well make some sort of statement about the situation. This will more than likely take place during tomorrow’s episode of Strictly Come Dancing: It Takes Two. The daily sister show of Strictly that follows all news, gossip and progress of the celebrities and their partners. The couple that were voted off the show over the weekend, always get interviewed on the following Monday and I’m curious to see if there will be any animosity from Tom Dean or Nadiya Bychkova. Time will tell. I’ve been watching Strictly since 2005 and this season seems different in some way that I can’t quite quantify. I think we may be in for an unusual season this year. It has been argued that the format needs revising to bring some fresh ideas to the proceedings. Perhaps this and other controversial decisions may be the catalyst to shake things up.
Blaugust 2024
Every year, Blaugust: Festival of Blogging comes around and I happily participate. I also try to encourage others to do so by giving reasons why writing and being creative in general are worthwhile pastimes. At times it does feel that I’m repeating myself, so this time round I shall keep it very simple. Writing is fun, regardless of how you do it. The benefits of being part of a friendly and supportive community are so obvious, do I really need to list them? Blaugust is always one of the high points of my year and I’ve never regretted the time I’ve spent participating. The “rules” are simple. You do as little or as much as you see fit. You share your content and if you wish to, can interact with others over on the community Discord. There’s no pressure from anyone and if you approach the event with the right mindset, you don’t need to put any pressure on yourself. So follow the link above, read Belghast’s post and consider signing up? To quote Alexei Sayle, “you’ve nothing to lose but your wafers”. No, I have no idea what it means, either.
Every year, Blaugust: Festival of Blogging comes around and I happily participate. I also try to encourage others to do so by giving reasons why writing and being creative in general are worthwhile pastimes. At times it does feel that I’m repeating myself, so this time round I shall keep it very simple. Writing is fun, regardless of how you do it. The benefits of being part of a friendly and supportive community are so obvious, do I really need to list them? Blaugust is always one of the high points of my year and I’ve never regretted the time I’ve spent participating. The “rules” are simple. You do as little or as much as you see fit. You share your content and if you wish to, can interact with others over on the community Discord. There’s no pressure from anyone and if you approach the event with the right mindset, you don’t need to put any pressure on yourself. So follow the link above, read Belghast’s post and consider signing up? To quote Alexei Sayle, “you’ve nothing to lose but your wafers”. No, I have no idea what it means, either.
A perennial statement that is often trotted out with regard to Blaugust is “do people still read blogs”? To which the resounding answer is “yes”. A cursory Google search will show that blogs still enjoy a healthy readership and to suggest otherwise is at the least spurious and at worst disingenuous. Here are a few basic points about the relevance of blogging:
77% of internet users report regularly reading blog posts.
80% of bloggers say that blogging drives results.
50% of bloggers publish weekly or several times per month.
Bloggers who publish the most are most likely to report “strong results”.
Food, lifestyle, and travel niches have the highest percentage of blogs and more than 50,000 blog visits per month.
So, there’s definitely life in the old dog. If you’re writing just for pleasure, then the stats and SEO side of things aren’t that important. However, if you’re writing to build a site or a brand, then Blaugust offers scope to grow, if you put in the effort.
Something that has changed in recent years, that is worth noting, is the advent of Artificial Intelligence. It is now relatively easy to input a few ideas into a site such as ChatGPT or Chat Genie and generate a passable blog post. However, such content is usually easy to spot as it all too often reeks of homogeneity and lacks character. It’s missing all the foibles and quirks that human writers bring to their work. It’s one of the reasons why so much of the content on YouTube is bland and generic. Personally speaking, I would not like to see a world in which real writing becomes a small island in an ocean of AI generated content. It is important that people think and do things for themselves. However, that is another blog post in itself.
Finally, one of the most positive things that has come out of my 17 years of blogging, are the people that I have met along the way. Many of whom I’m still in contact with today. I have always enjoyed reading their blogs and learning about their lives, likings and activities. The thing about writing is that it offers a window into the author’s mindseye. Even if you write under a “nom de plume” and keep your personal life out of your prose, aspects of your personality still bleed through into your content. It is this human quality, be it abundantly clear or subtly woven into your words, that attracts many readers and keeps them returning. This is why I continue to take part in Blaugust. It is an opportunity to make new friends and experience new things. Such as different hobbies or pastimes, life in a country far from your own, or to gain insight into points of view contrary to your own.
And if none of that appeals to you, there’s always pictures of cats. See you around.
