Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover

They say don’t judge a book by its cover; so why do the Harry Potter books have separate child and adult covers?

The phenomenal success of J.K. Rowling’s boy wizard series has meant that the Harry Potter debate is no longer relevant. The books are now read by such a large audience that they have become as much a part of contemporary popular British culture as Big Brother.

The debate was that Harry Potter is clearly a children’s book and therefore should only be read by children. ‘Aah, but adults can read it too!’ cried the slightly embarrassed legal drinking age fans of the series. This in itself was a baffling statement; because of course adults can read children’s books. An adult can read Spot Says Woof perfectly easily but it doesn’t make it OK for them to shamelessly display it in public. ‘Well, Harry Potter’s quite dark you know’ they responded. As if to legitimise its adult readership, each book is heralded as being ‘the darkest one yet’. Of course this is all relative – get a Harry Potter fan to read a chapter of American Psycho and them let them say which one is darker.

However, the merits of reading Harry Potter are no longer debatable. Despite a large part of its (mainly young) audience seeing the series as an escape to another world and a symbol of individuality; it is conversely a symbol of conformity. This is why so many readers of the book proudly display their copy of the novel in public. There they sit, on trains or on park benches, proudly holding copies of their new book, like a teenage boy wearing his club’s new home shirt. It is a statement that says ‘I am part of something popular, I am part of something that is now, I am part of IT’.

So why are there separate adult and child covers for the book? The reason for there being alternative covers is, quite frankly, baffling. Yet at the same time it is a stroke of marketing genius. The buyers of the adult cover are, unsurprisingly, adults; keen to display to the surrounding public that what they are reading is an acceptable adult’s book. This of course, totally misses the point.

Everyone knows that it is a children’s book and almost everyone (including this once cynical writer) accepts that it’s perfectly OK for adults to read the novel. Yet the marketing people at Bloomsbury know that the general public cannot help but to judge someone/something on its appearance and this is why the adult covers are published. So buyers of the adult cover are arguably buying the book for its status as much as they are for its content. The very fact that the adult cover may actually outsell the children’s edition says something about our society. It says that it seems that millions of people, quite literally, do judge a book by its cover.

Music as a Commodity

The latest indie rock compilation has declared itself ‘the only album you'll need to buy this year'. So just where does music stop being an art form and start becoming a commodity?

Art and commerce have a very intimate yet separate relationship with each other. Like illicit lovers there is a feeling of wrongdoing, yet they rely on each other for their own existence. Artists pour their creative heart and soul into making an object of art; yet that object (and the future creative life of the artist) is essentially worthless unless someone wants to buy it.

Essentially creativity is measured in terms of commerce; for artists it is the monetary value of their work; for musicians it is record sales. Without a product to sell the music industry wouldn’t be able to function. Without record companies to finance their musical creations, bands would not be able to exist; not in a full-time rock ‘n’ roll way, anyway. Therefore a delicate balance has always been struck between the artists and the companies that bankroll their creativity. Artists naturally want creative freedom and likewise record companies want a large return for their investment.

Now the internet is changing that balance as artists are free to give their music away and promote themselves online. A popular example of the MySpace music revolution is Lilly Allen; yet she was only able to properly play the game by signing for Parlophone, a major record label. Today it seems like everyone has a copy of the Lilly Allen album; her modern and cool take on catchy pop music appeals to NME teenagers and Q reading dads alike.

In the recent and excellent final episode of the Seven Ages Of Rock series, Noel Gallagher admitted that it wasn’t until ‘the squares’ started buying (What’s the Story) Morning Glory? that he became seriously rich. ‘The squares’ are the people who buy one record a year. Lilly Allen has sold so many copies of her debut album because her music has appealed beyond the music magazine reading fans; last year her album was the one that people who only buy one album a year bought.

For the single album buying public there is a hole in the market. If they just buy one album by the year’s biggest “alternative” act then they end up missing out on all of the songs that they hear on mobile phone and car adverts. This hole is filled by the compilation album; the major record label executive’s wet dream: a collection of hits that is directly aimed at the Chris Moyles listening masses.

The latest in a long line of indie rock compilation albums is the simply titled Just Great Songs. Now there’s a product that promises to do what it says on the tin; a collection of 40 songs that all the family can listen to. On the promotional advert Jamie Theakston enthusiastically exclaims that it’s ‘the only album you’ll need to buy this year’. Not that this is a collection of great songs, but it’s the only album that you (the annual solo album buyer) will need to buy this year. Essentially it is a perfect example of music being a commodity; something that is produced on a large scale in exchange for money. Therefore by packaging a song with a group of others as an item for monetary exchange, it ceases to be a work of art. Compilation albums therefore represent the ultimate example of the commodification of music.

But their large sales mean increased funds for the artists on the album, thus meaning that they can carry on creating music that will be potentially loved by an audience of millions. And at the end of the day that’s what every musician wants. 99% of the unsigned bands on MySpace Music aren’t on there so that they can give their music away for free. Like Lilly, they hope that their music will reach a large audience and they’ll get a record deal. Being on a compilation album might not be an aim, but it does signify that you’ve made it.

Guns Kill People

Yes it's true...

Like many non-Americans, I find the USA's obsession with the right to own a lethal weapon quite baffling.

Whilst the merits of gun ownership have been widely debated elsewhere, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you the wisdom of Bill Hicks.

In the following ironic statement the dark poet prince of darkness perfectly answers all those who naively believe that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Over to you Bill:

"There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone."

I rest my case.

Don't Blame the English Supporters

Fed up of hearing 'Football violence once again rears its ugly head' stories, I ask: can we have all the facts for a change please?

This morning my peaceful slumber was once again broken by the annoying chimes of the brash breakfast television program GMTV. Whilst I’m not a fan of morning television, 'Europe’s biggest breakfast show' is my girlfriend’s getting-ready-for-work-program of choice. This morning’s mundane mutterings dressed up as ‘news’ included a story about Edwina Currie complaining about rude service from a well know baby store. This is a typical GMTV news article (i.e. it’s not news) and one which usually sends me back to sleep.

However, just as I was about to re-enter the half-awake/half-asleep zone, I was suddenly alerted by the show’s reporting of the violence that occurred prior to Manchester United’s emphatic 7-1 victory over Roma. The disturbances were compared to the ugly scenes that took place in Rome during the first leg and the troubles that were witnessed during Tottenham’s recent defeat in Seville. The conclusion: English football has a problem with crowd violence and once again it has ‘reared its ugly head’. Admittedly, GMTV’s reporter did not say these words exactly, but it was clear that this was the spin that the program had put on this story.

It is a sentiment that was clearly repeated by the Italian politicians who blamed the violence in Rome on the English fans. Let’s make things clear: English football does not have a problem with football violence anymore. Or at least no more than any other country in Europe does. Through crowd control measures, all-seater stadiums and intelligent policing, English football grounds are amongst the safest and most hospitable in Europe.

It is no coincidence that the most violent scenes witnessed in Europe this season have occurred outside England. Manchester United fans were nearly crushed to death in France in their match against Lillie, and were attacked by baton-waving police in Italy in the game against Roma. Meanwhile Tottenham have accused Spanish police of hitting a disabled fan during their match against Seville in Spain.

I was beginning to worry that these facts were being ignored in favour of the lazy journalism conclusions of media such as GMTV. Thankfully UEFA no less, have criticised European policing and highlighted the good work of the English police and football authorities. Will this story be reported by GMTV? Of course it won’t.

And whilst the show’s target audience probably won’t be interested in such a story, I just wish that people were presented with all the facts for a change. Biased reporting is what causes the general ignorance of millions. Perhaps I’d better go back to sleep next time: ignorance after all, is bliss.

Everything Must Go

“Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can.” - Imagine, John Lennon.

Why do we collect things? There is a basic human need (at least in the western world) to surround ourselves with our possessions. We all do it and as Mr Lennon says, life without possessions would be hard to imagine.

Why do we feel the need to amass a collection of CDs, DVDs, books, records and magazines? I have been an avid collector of all of the above for the last ten years but now – through necessity as opposed to any Zen-like pretensions that I may have – I have decided that everything must go – for a price.

I have decided that two life changing purchases – a first car and a dream holiday to Kenya – far outweigh my collection of stuff. Because that’s what it is: stuff. It may have given me hours of solitary pleasure over the years but it’s all just stuff. Stuff that I don’t use; stuff that I don’t need; stuff that is gathering dust but some reason I have decided to hold on to until now. Why have I been so inclined to keep hold of this stuff?

Well, it’s the same reason as anybody else – the things we own become a part of who we are. Think about it – why on our MySpace pages do we write what music/books/TV programmes/films we are in to? It’s because all of these different interests make up part of who we are.

But it’s not enough to say that you like something – if you’re really serious about it then you buy it. It doesn’t matter if you’ve seen every episode of your favourite TV programme, you’ll want to watch it again but most importantly you want to HAVE IT. You don’t need it but you certainly want it – it’s capitalism in full effect.

Why else do DVD box sets of television series like Lost or The Sopranos sell so much? So if I was to sell all of my stuff would I lose a part of who I am? Or would I simply be creating more space on the canvas that is my life in order for something new to be painted?

I’m hoping the latter. It would be a great shame if at the end of this sale of the century I felt hollow and meaningless. That highlights how much emotional attachment we give to our possessions: It goes back to when you were at playschool and you wanted all the toys to yourself.