Elegantly Wasted
Is no nouse good nouse?
It’s virtually 40 years since students first perused nouse in 1964 for sixpence an issue. So, in the interests of enlightenment, and for the sake of a diversion from my dissertation, I have attacked the archives with the skill and zeal that my history degree frequently requires but rarely receives.
My first thought ran along the lines of, ‘haven’t we come along way from our typewritten exercise book with hand drawn headlines format?’ Hardly surprising given the technological evolution becoming available eventually over nearly half a century. But, having read a cross section of papers from across the decades, it occurred to me that the thematic and stylistic fundamentals of student journalism have barely altered from nouse’s noughties to its forties.
Give some thought to common preconceptions of the campus press. Typical conclusions will contain words like ‘pretentious’ and ‘self indulgent’. A preoccupation with putting a pejorative slant on union politics is another predictable theme, as is the great left-wing right-wing mudsling. All of these were as prevalent in 1964 as they are today in 2004.
Two issues ago nouse ran an article entitled, ‘How to spot a cliché’ which set out to define students by their apparel. Amongst its conclusions was the assertion that “Those with heavy allegiances to the right tend to dress… in shirts, smart jumpers and equally smart shoes”. Ironically a piece published in the very first edition renders the whole concept clichéd: “(conservative) people this winter are wearing black boots tucked into black trousers and brown shirts, untucked to conceal any evidence of corpulence.” This ‘student stereotypes’ idea has in fact been returned ad nauseam since, most recently in 1992.
In 1974 nouse’s frontispiece proclaimed a “massive show of strength on grants” featuring images of student protest march in London. Fast forward 30 years and they’re still marching, still demanding grants and still adorning the front page. So far, so consistent.
The SU, we were informed at the time of their election, is the most boring and non-identifiable ever. So was the last apparently. Assuming a correlation of ingravescent officers, then have pity on the current incumbents, because they are 39 years down this spiral from the, “polite, amiable and undynamic” president of 1964, whose, “victory was as predictable as his address” and, “opponents were indistinguishable”. They could, at least, manage quorate UGMs, which is a difficulty faced by modern Unions, emphasised by James Doughty’s comment last November. Not so modern, however, that nouse weren’t asking, “Why doesn’t anyone go to UGMs?” ten years ago. Doughty evokes an SU characterised by, “backstabbing” and “cliques”, intimidating to, “normal students”. In 1994 it was felt that, “the most factional groups are often the most vociferous… that puts people off.”
So much evidence is there of dogmatic disagreements between the doctrinally inclined that I shan’t comment except to say that the rows with which we are all so familiar remain unfaded by the weathers of venerability. Tories oppose the left blindly, the left opposes the USA with equal myopia and I take on a collective responsibility for expressing everyone else’s opinion by yawning.
So to my conclusion. Four decades of self satisfied, student smugness, ineffective demonstrations and pointless political posturing. Has nouse been even close to worth the time and money that have rendered it this apparently inauspicious history? Back to 1964. Issue one. Page eight. The call for a “reserve system” whereby, “to retain any of the basic textbooks in the library would mean that these would be available at all times… thus resulting in the maximum utilisation of resources”. Some of you might recognise this as the ‘key texts’ system. Others might remember that until two years ago it was even known as “reserve texts”. An actual, practical improvement for all students. Some such articles do exist!
So my suggestion now is stop reading my onanistic dross and go back through the paper to one of the few articles which actually means to achieve something worthwhile.
Sketch Watch: Better, Closer, Warmer…
Congratulations to ‘The Sketch’ whose response to my well placed kick up the arse has been to produce the finest work of their post-Harris oeuvre. B+ for effort but I’d like to see evidence of a sustained improvement in the future. It would also be unfair of me to take all the credit for this qualitative upturn as the real inspiration came from my editors, alerting me to their original oniony indiscretion.
I remain left, however, masticating on a vague sense of injustice, feeling not quite abused but definitely mistreated. My previous editor Ben Crawley appears in ‘The Sketch’ as ‘Ben Creepy’, SU President, Chris Jones becomes ‘Chris Mole’. In fact, everyone honoured with a place on the page has a pithy pseudonym except me! For the service I have already rendered in resurrecting their dignity and comic credibility it would surely not have killed them to call me ‘Deadgrave’, ‘Redrum’ or even ‘Bedslave’?
So here’s the sting to this waspish moral fable: if you’re going to try harder, why not try your hardest?
Loading ...