Strictlywatch 2008: Week 5 Results

So I was almost right - Heather was in the bottom two, only with Don rather than Andrew, and pulled off a better-performed dance in the dance-off, leaving Don to go. Lilia seemed genuinely upset and so was I, I will miss Don's manners and the smile that makes him look like a small boy. Otherwise, the results show was mainly notable for the return of Alesha Dixon, singing a very catchy though not exactly good song (a sort of cross between Bills Bills Bills and Mambo Number 5) and dancing in the kind of platform heels I wouldn't even be able to stand up in.

Next week Paso Doble. I LOVE Paso Doble. Sadly I am scheduled to be in Uganda, but as long as my PVR cooperates I will review it on my return.

Meanwhile, note the rumours over on Strictly TV that either Len or Bruce is leaving. An explanation for the appearance of John Barrowman perhaps? Who would you like as the new judge, or the new presenter?

Strictlywatch 2008: Week 5

Strictly Come Dancing? More like Slickly Come Hair Oil. I first noticed it on Tom Chambers. His tidily combed barnet reminded me of when Calvin in Calvin & Hobbes clones himself as a goody-goody. Hang on let me see if I can find a pic...


Hmm - well that's the best I can do. Anyway, then I noticed it on James. And then I realised that all the men dancing the American Smooth had had their hair Smoothed down in maximum unflattering fashion, like that episode of Seinfeld with the ineffectual shower heads:



Believe me, it must have been pretty bad to distract me from Mark Foster in THAT mesh shirt. And I don't mean that in a good way.

But to the dances - I believe that is what I am here for.

First up, Rachel and Vincent dancing samba. Is Rachel bribing wardrobe to get the only decent dresses? Anyway this dance didn't get much love from the judges which surprised me because it was probably my favourite of hers so far. Having said that I essentially mark her and Vincent on sleaze, and as each week Vincent is getting less slimy, each week I like them more. Rachel still needs to get more charismatic to really convince me with her dancing though.

Next, Brendan and Lisa's American Smooth. Judges went wild over this which surprised me again, because although I did like it, much more than any of their other dances, it pales next to to the obvious comparison of Brendan and Kelly's, even with the legitimate number of lifts. I can't quite see Lisa as a real contender for the top spot, more a steady middle of the table player.

Then Heather and Brian dancing the samba. Brian's Latin is so phenomenal that he may be taking over as professional I'd most like to dance with. However I don't think it's doing Heather any favours because she just looks so wooden next to him. Her training videos always look great but she's terrible on the dancefloor, which is making me wonder if nerves are a factor. Anyway I expect to see them in the bottom two again this week, though there is a lot of competition for that spot.

Cherie and James up next, dancing an American Smooth to an acoustic version of Layla. Weird choice of music - the dance is lovely but the song sort of deads the whole thing out. If they'd danced to some gorgeous old showtune I'd have loved it, but to this I was a little bit bored. Tess couldn't resist making a comment about Cherie's looks again this week. MY GOD YOU'RE OLD - SO OLD! AND YET NOT GROSS! read my own personal subtitles.

Then Mark Foster, dancing a samba, apparently in fetish wear. In the training video, Mark was told he needed acting lessons, and so John Barrowman was called in. Acting lessons from *John Barrowman*? John Barrowman of *Torchwood*?? Did anybody think this through? Anyway, cynical old me can't help but feel that this plus the mesh shirt was a coded message to gay Strictly fans, as in: you may not be aware that Mark Foster is gay, but he is! Look at his clothes! Look at his friends! Vote for him! Sadly acting lessons have only succeeded in turning Mark from a shy man who can't dance to a shy man who can't dance but has been taught how to pretend he is not embarrassed shimmying in public. He looked less as if he'd been getting lessons from John Barrowman and more as if he'd been possessed by Gary Rhodes. But I think he will stay in this time, as a reward for his enthusiasm.

Don and Lilia followed this up with an American Smooth which served mainly to make me think that the tango was Don's finest hour and it isn't getting any better than that. Don is endearingly nervous and has a lovely smile, but that might well not be enough to save him. Still, I am going to stick my neck out here and say that there's no room at the bottom for him this time.

Austin next, with a samba. I am going to have to stage an intervention to get Erin to dye her hair black again. And maybe to eat some pies. I miss the old, dark, normal-sized Erin. Anyway, I find Austin puzzling, because he is blatantly really good, and yet I still haven't quite fallen in love with his dancing. Could this be the first year that my favourite doesn't win Strictly?

Then Andrew and Ola with an American Smooth. I actually can't remember a thing about this except that I didn't like it, despite the fact that one of the people dancing was Ola, and I love Ola. Andrew is one of those people who makes my skin crawl for reasons I can't elucidate. It's interesting, or possibly not, that this is also a description of every single other man I can think of who has played Tennis for England. Also, Ola did him no favours choreographing to "You know I'm no good". I think these things work subliminally on the audience. Last week Jessie went out having danced to Help. Anyway, the other spot in my predicted bottom two is reserved for them, and I'd like to see them go home.

Next up, Christine and Matthew's samba. Christine is good, but she's not good enough to stand out, and even though I adore Matthew his choreography is never show-stopping, so this is another of those ones I can't remember. In fact, when Bruce announced that Christine was up next, I was like: Oh, I had completely forgotten about her.

I had not completely forgotten about Jodie and Ian however. I love them. I love them as a couple, and I love Jodie, who talks cheerfully about being a talentless, graceless dancer, and sort of gallumphs around the rehearsal room like she's waltzing in wellies, and yet sort of gets on with it without too much fuss and then, tonight, comes out and dances a really lovely American Smooth. I particularly like Jodie's dancing face, and I'm not being sarcastic for once. She has a really charming natural smile. I don't think she's any kind of dark horse, whatever Arlene says, and she's bound to go out in a few weeks, but I'd like her to stay in as long as possible. And consider the evidence: she improved! She's being called a dark horse! Yup, it's a Strictly Journey all right.

John and Kristina then took to the floor with their Samba. Got to hand it to Kristina, choreographing to Papa Loves Mambo, a song about a rubbish old bloke dancing. They sort of walked around the floor, except one bit when John did lots of tiny little steps. It was, as you'd expect, completely charming, and you've got to love John's offhand remark that the public will save them. Indeed they will.

Last up Tom and Camilla with a great American Smooth. I am enjoying Tom so much that it's rubbing off on Camilla and I am starting to like her too. I know! Despite the cardinal sin of wearing culottes, Camilla had been dressed in a white-and-sepia-coloured outfit which made it actually look as if they were in a black and white movie. Tom's dance was lovely, and he is using acting faces to great advantage. Much was made of Tom's getting married tomorrow, but I think it's next week rather than this week which could show the strain of that, especially as Camilla is going on honeymoon with him. Would we like that, ladies? No we would not. What about you, gents? Any thoughts?

So there we go! Definitely much more exciting this week now that the blokes and girls are dancing together, even Tess's enthusiasm seemed genuine. Dances to be found in the usual place.

Here's One I Wrote Earlier

By the time you read this post I will be on my way to the Frankfurt Book Fair, to be interviewed by German and Swiss journalists for the release of "Gotter Ohne Manieren", available in all good German and Swiss-German bookshops now, schnell schnell! But happily Blogger allows me to post in advance, which is a nice little feature. (Another nice little feature is my new-style blog-roll with snippets from recently updated blogs, over there on your right. How much are we loving that? How much time are we going to waste now? Per-lenty.)

Anyway, seeing as I am headed to a book fair, I thought it was a good time to update you on my book purchases from this recent post, and let you know what's on my new to-read pile.

First up, The Position by Meg Wolitzer. This is the one about the kids who discover that their parents have written and posed for the illustrations for a Joy of Sex style book. This is one of those state-of-America-through-one-family books, exploring different aspects of modern love and sex (very much not the same thing) by switching viewpoints between the four kids - now grown up - and their parents. The nearest touchpoint for tone and content that I can think of is Jonathan Frantzen's The Corrections. Like that book, it's sharp, insightful, intelligent and funny - though maybe a little less funny than I expected - and pleasingly broad in scope. It's also of the most convincing novels about sex (as opposed to novels featuring lots of sex) that I've read. My only disappointment was that there wasn't more of it - which is the best kind of disappointment to have, as it tends to mean you enjoyed everything there was. The story leaps forward thirty years after the first chapter, and you gradually discover what has become of each member of the family in the interim, but with so many characters and so much time covered what you get can feel sketchy. Having said that, this comes highly recommended from me.

Next is The Girls Guide to Hunting and Fishing by Melissa Bank. This was the biggest surprise of the three. It's marketed as chick lit - consider the blurb:

When it comes to the mating game, Jane's still learning how to play. As a teenager she tried to understand relationships by watching her elder brother falling in and out of love, and now, older and wiser, she embarks on her own affairs. There's the boyfriend with the irritatingly beautiful ex; the witty and worldly older man; the commitment phobic who calls her 'honey' but never uses her name. Plenty of fish in the sea - but how do you meet a man worth catching? When she finally resorts to 'How To Meet And Marry Mr Right', a hilariously old-fashioned guide to hunting out and reeling in the man of your dreams, Jane discovers that with love, life and men, a girl doesn't need rules...

OK. Stop there. THIS BOOK IS NOT CHICK LIT. The usual caveat: there's nothing wrong with chick lit if that's what you like. There's a lot wrong with marketing things as chick lit when that's not what they are. What happens when you do that is loads of people who would love the book never read it, and an equal amount who want chick lit leave baffled comments on Amazon saying it wasn't what they expected. Anyway, what this book actually is is a portrait of a young woman told through interlinked stories about her relationships with the men in her life: not just her boyfriends, but her brother and father. It's thoughtful and considered, a character study most of all, honest and truthful about the roles men play in our lives, and how confusing and difficult it can be to figure out when and whether love should be lasting. Yes, it's about relationships, and yes, it is funny, and yes, it is written by a woman, but it doesn't conform to the tone or any of the conventions of the chick lit genre. It's a very good book which needs a different audience to the one it's going to get.

Last of all Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban. This book is set in a post-apocalyptic England steeped in a mythology that has evolved from a combination of Christian myth and the history of the cataclysm that has broken the world. Narrated in an idiosyncratic English that has evolved - or deteriorated - from our tongue, it's a technically demanding but richly rewarding story of one boy trying to make sense of his life, his heritage and his place in the world. It's an excellent, unique book, linguistically brilliant - at the author's request, it has never been translated, because the language is so integral to the storytelling - and worth every effort that you are asked to make with the prose. So yet another enthusiastic recommendation from me.

Three from three! I wonder if my latest haul will prove so rewarding? On the new pile:

- Michal Ondaatje 'In the Skin of a Lion' - the predecessor to 'The English Patient'
- Margaret Atwood 'Moral Disorder' - her latest, a book of interweaving stories telling one woman's life
- E.M. Forster 'Where Angels Fear To Tread' - a classic that I know very little about
- Penelope Fitzgerald 'The Blue Flower' - set in 18th Century Germany, based on the true story of Friedrich von Hardenberg's engagement to a twelve year old girl.

Questions of the Day

Is leftover apple crumble the nicest breakfast in the world?

Did they deliberately choose the most depressed sounding woman they could to do the station announcements on London Overground, because otherwise the constant delays would sound smug?

Speaking of which, do the staff at Marks and Spencer in Camden get special training to cope with the looped announcement telling you to hold the handrail while travelling on the extremely slow and non-steep moving walkway, which can be heard echoing throughout the clothes department at all times without a second's rest between announcements?

Would Richard and Judy's new show be getting higher ratings if it wasn't called "Richard and Judy's New Position", thus forcing you to imagine them having sex?

And so say all of us.

Here's something I hate: the use of the Royal We in reviews*. Take, for example, Sharon O'Connell's recent write-up of Antony and the Johnsons in Time Out:

"This may be verging on the sacrilegious, but we like the idea of AATJ rather more than we like their music and, if we focus too much on Hegarty's voice... its mannered wobble does our head in."

Who is this we? Ms O'Connell and the whole of the staff of Time Out? Ms O'Connell and her mates? Ms O'Connell and her dog? Ms O'Connell and the Queen? I think "we" should be told. In any case it's a bit weird that they only have the one head between them.

This is on my mind of late because the same Sharon O'Connell delivered a devastating attack on the Ting Tings back in January, which employed the same "we" tactic. At the time I had never heard the Ting Tings, but the viciousness of the review, coupled with the use of "we" implying the weight of multiple concurring opinions, caused me not to bother to listen to their album until I heard it at a friend's house and realised that it was, in fact, great. I had been so subconsciously convinced by the use of "we" in the review that everyone was on the same page about the shitness of the Ting Tings that I didn't even have the confidence to seek out my own opinion. Sad. Last Friday I went to their gig and absolutely loved it - they're brilliantly energetic live and push their album tracks up to the proverbial eleven. Had I not heard the album by chance, I wouldn't have had that great night out. And it was a great night out. Even if the mythical "they" disagree.

Ultimately using the "we" is a bit of a cheat, hiding your opinions in a group in order to make the reader feel like the left-out fool should he or she disagree. It totally defeats the notion of a review being just my opinion, no more valid than anyone else's. WE think so. Therefore YOU are wrong.

Special prize to the first person to comment saying that the Ting Tings really are shit**.

*Of course I have probably done it myself at some point. But we do love that David Tennant, now, don't we?

**Not really.

Help required!

You lot are amazing. I write about having trouble with my computer, you post detailed instructions on how to fix it. I write about my mind turning to mush, you post links to interesting free lectures at UCL. I write about not being able to find Dick in a Box, you post Dick in a Box. It's like being friends with Google.

So here's another one. (This may not be my most interesting post ever.) I currently own a pair of Sennheiser PX200 headphones. I love them in almost every way. They are small. They are light. They are folding. They are comfortable. They give good sound. They are closed, so no noise leakage, and they don't bother other people. However, they have a loose wire, so one ear keeps cutting out unless I hold the cable at a certain angle. That's the second time this has happened with this model of headphones - the first was within a week, so I sent them back - and a perusal of the cheaper Sennheiser phones on Amazon throws up at least one "cable got loose" review per model so they are obviously all poor quality. Which means I really don't want to waste money on another pair like this.

Here's the question: can you recommend some decent headphones, not too pricy, which have many or (dare I dream it) all the qualities of my px200s, aside from the lousy cable?

Strictlywatch 2008: Week 4 Results

Another five minutes off the running time, corresponding to not getting the boys to trot out their Rueda again. There's still a fair bit of padding flying around (and I don't just mean the female dancers' bras, tiddy boom) and this week the guests were SIMPLY RED for Pete's sake, who not only are ghastly eighties throwbacks but I thought had broken up, though I couldn't actually be sure they weren't being fronted by Jon Culshaw, so maybe they have. But I loved all the celebrity dances - the American Smooth is my favourite dance anyway, the Latin guests were fabulous and so quick they looked as if they were on fastforward, and Ian and Camilla's was brilliantly cheesy with so many BIG FACES that it actually made me like Camilla. I'm so fickle.

As for the result, I'm with Len - on the strength of the dance off I'd have sent Heather home and kept Jessie. I'm still in shock at the public by and large voting off the couples who deserve to go - is this a result of not being allowed to vote all week any more, so it's less about popularity and more about the dances? If so it's an excellent development. Though having said that I was so glad to see Jodie and Ian stay in, perhaps slightly undeservingly, because they are such a great couple. (I get to be a hypocrite - it's my blog.) And I think Jodie is top candidate for going on a Strictly "Journey" this series. Hurrah!

Strictlywatch 2008: Week 4

Another slightly meh night from the girls. So far this season I've definitely been finding the men's nights more entertaining, because there are greater extremes, not only of ability, but of personality, so the characters are either more charming or more abhorent - illustrated in part by their terrifyingly chaotic group rueda tonight (bottom IN, Andrew Castle, bottom IN). The girls' brigade on the other hand seems full of types who are nice but not terribly interesting. I am very much looking forward to them combining next week.

But anyway, to the dances, which is what matters after all.

Matthew struck what I considered to be a bit of an own goal by choreographing his and Christine's quickstep to "She's So Lovely" by Scouting for Girls - which, quite aside from being an irritating song, was a bit self congratulatory, a la: "Isn't she lovely though? Isn't she?" Which just invites you to go: "No, not really". Actually Christine is more lovely than not, but she comes across as a bit dull, so it's too early in the season to hymn to her loveliness. More to the point, the song is rhythmically weird, and there seemed to be moments where they stopped dancing entirely to sort of point Christine at the camera as if to say: "Yes, she IS lovely. Vote for her. Or if you don't vote for her, at least remember her. Please."

Next up, Jodie and Ian. Crikee, the rhumba is not Jodie's dance. And I speak as a Jodie fan. She had a few nice moments in the dance but overall was stiff as a priest in a bordello. I liked the kiss on the lips from Ian, who can get away with it, as a member of the gays. Judging by It Takes Two, Jodie and Ian get on like a house on fire, and it terms of sheer relationship dynamics they are my second favourite couple after John and Kristina. I don't want them to go out, but fear they haven't done enough to stay in.

Next up Heather and alien-faced Brian. I still can't get over the transformation which happens to alien-faced Brian when he gets on the dancefloor and suddenly gets all fluid and sexy and charismatic. Perhaps it is to do with him being part alien? Sadly no similar transformation with Heather, despite some great choreography from Brian. Brian is something of a Strictly genius in that he is gimmick-tastic: the start of Heather's salsa right up again the judges' table, and this week's business on the stairs. I am a bit in love with alien-faced Brian, but only on the dancefloor. At all other times in our relationship he would be forced to walk a few steps ahead of me so that I could only see him from behind.

After that Cherie! Thank god for Cherie. She really is amazing. Her rhumba was beautiful, and I write as someone who, bluntly, hates the rhumba. The dance of love? The dance of sleaze, the 1980s, and asymmetrical dresses more like. That's not love in my book (seriously, read my book: that is definitely not love in it.) A GBB reader, whose email address I lost in the recent computer meltdown, so I never wrote back (sorry, if you're reading this), wrote to me telling me that Cherie has had dance training, and to that I say the following: (a) not in ballroom - I checked, and no more than any other actress, and (b), as long as she keeps producing dances as brilliant as this, I don't care. Cherie FTW (which is for the win, in internet parlance, apparently.)

Poor Jessie Wallace had to dance after that and if her quickstep was never going to be much cop (and it wasn't), it seriously suffered in comparison. Choreographing it to "Help!" really didn't help (so to speak) - lyrically it was far too apt, and rhythmically it seemed almost impossible to dance a quickstep to. (Also, as an aside, they made her do it in some kind of diaphanous white potato sack, one of any number of viler than vile costumes for the night - Christine in queasy acid yellow, Cherie in some kind of sex toga, Jodie in a burst purple balloon, and some of the female pro dancers apparently in fishtail bikinis. Am I imagining things or are the costumes the most hideous this year than they have ever been? They made the Kids From Fame fancy dress outfits in the men's group training video look tasteful in comparison.) Anyway, it was clunky and awful, and Jessie burst into tears afterwards, and Darren said it had been much better in training which it probably was, and I suddenly realised how foul Strictly must be if you can't pull it out of the bag on the night. Having said that, Jessie was the worst, and really should go home, but having deployed the nuclear option of tears may well be saved by the public for another shot.

Then Brendan and Lisa's rhumba. Brendan choreographs great rhumbas because, as mentioned, it's the dance of sleaze, and he is sleazy. I don't think he can help it; it's something to do with his skin. Anyway Lisa was much better than last time, and even though I'm not a massive fan of Lisa she's definitely doing enough to stay in for a few more weeks at least. Perhaps she will go on a "journey" and win me over. (No sign of any journeys yet in Strictly this season, which is perplexing. The closest we have come so far is Tess telling Cherie that she has a magnificent figure - she may as well have said "Oh my god, you're old and yet not decrepit.")

Last up, Rachel and Vincent. A quickstep, to "Little Green Bag", which struck me as yet another odd choreography choice - odd choreography being one of the three themes of the evening, alongside bad outfits, and, well, see below. Anyway this was a good dance, and there was actually a moment of genuine niceness between Rachel and Vincent in the training video (her crying, him saying "am I pushing you too hard" with real concern) which almost make up for the slimy hand-kiss at the top of the stairs at the very beginning of the show (please stop it Vincent, please stop.) I'm not wild about them as a couple yet though, perhaps because Rachel has a sort of bland niceness that's hard to get passionate about.

So what is the third theme of the night? Well, did anybody else notice that the judges seem to have swapped personalities? Craig just gets nicer and nicer, Len was scoring lower than Arlene, and Bruno was actually quite grumpy (I blame jetlag from flying back and forth between Strictly and Dancing With The Stars in LA.) What is the world coming to when Craig is giving helpful constructive criticism and decent marks while Bruno describes Heather's dance as "like she was being chased around the floor by Russell Brand" (and how much do you love that this is his idea of the worst creature you could be chased by?) Next week, Bruce and Tess swap personalities, so Tess makes terrible jokes about her age while Bruce shows off a series of metallic belts and sympathetic eye-rolls.

All dances here.

UPDATE: I forgot to predict the dance off! Very tricky this week. I think Jessie might be saved by the public vote, which probably means Jodie and Heather in the dance off, Jodie to go?

Strictlywatch 2008: Brucie Bonus

Alien-faced Brian greets his mother on live TV with a kiss on the lips and the words "I love you."

Spongebob Lunchbag

How ineffectual is the British Library bag search? You may be wondering why the British Library has a bag search at all. You might imagine that it is not exactly the number one target for terrorist attacks. Apparently, the reason for the bag search is that the library is in such close proximity to St Pancras station that it makes it the ideal place from which to detonate a really big bomb. That there are no other bag searches in any other buildings in close proximity to St Pancras station, that indeed there is no bag search to go into St Pancras station itself unless you are taking the Eurostar, is an irrelevance. Anyway, there is a bag search, which I suppose by the above logic would make the British Library the safest building in the King's Cross area, were the bag search of any use whatsoever. That it is in fact completely desultory is illustrated by the following: on the way into the library the other day I had my overnight bag with me, including a sponge bag full of toileteries. The security guard opened my overnight bag, felt the closed sponge bag without opening it, and said, "Lunch?"

LUNCH? Who carries their lunch in a sponge bag? A sponge bag that is in the same bag with a pair of pyjamas and some clean underwear? How unobservant is this security guard? How lacking in common sense, and even a basic bit of curiosity? When I said "Er, no", without elaborating on what was actually in the sponge bag, he just handed it back. He didn't even look inside to make sure that it wasn't lunch-shaped bomb-making equipment. If you're going to have a bag search, at least open the bags!

(It occurs to me as I write this that the secirity guard might have been asking me if I wanted to have lunch with him, but I don't want to eat meals with a security guard with no sense of security.)