Zadie Smith: NW

Recently, I won a contest on Twitter for an advanced copy of Zadie Smith's new book NW (thanks to @PenguinCanada!). I was ecstatic to say the very least and I would have posted a review here earlier ... if it didn't take me forever to get through it. I wasn't truly invested in the story or characters until p. 184!!

The image of London (Britain) I grew up with was, as discussed in our earliest post, ancient and filled with (mostly) posh sorts running around in leather shoes and well fitted suits (so mostly men too). Or, I imagined Jane Austen's England - rolling country side, garden parties, elaborate group dances, and sewing in manorial salons. This image was entirely based on PBS/ AE (pre-Dog the Bounty Hunter) tv programming. As I explored British culture in my teens and twenties, I realized that English/ British culture was much grittier and erratic. Never in my television education of British culture (or even my first university survey course) did I encounter workers or immigration (post-colonialism). But, in fact, a whole generation of authors, academics, and artists had recuperated the life of ordinary Britons and declared it to be the more authentic experience/ identity. It was a badge of honour to speak with a thick Cockney/ Mancunian/ Scouse/ Geordie accent and terribly embarrassing to admit that one had a public school education. It's the reason, I believe, that shows like Eastenders, Coronation Street, Life on Mars, and The Only Way is Essex have such a prominent place alongside the depictions of Britain/ England that emphasize the gilded life of the landed aristocrats (Downton Abbey, Upstairs, Downstairs, Made in Chelsea). Interesting fact: in 2001, Foreign Secretary to the Social Market Foundation in London Robin Cook declared that Tikka Masala was the true national dish of the UK!

Zadie Smith has been one of the young British authorial voices that have challenged readers to futher complicate their understanding of British identity by considering the experiences of the different immigrant communities that make their homes in every section of London. In NW, we follow best friends Leah Hanwell and Natalie (Keisha) Blake as they grow up on and each move away from the Caldwell council estate in North London.

Both characters are held as examples of how one "successfully" makes something of themselves coming from disadvantaged circumstances. Natalie, unlike Leah, is determined to escape her humble beginnings. She doesn't waste time with romance or socializing. Like her boring first boyfriend Rodney, she's decided that the law will offer her refuge and nothing will deter her from her goal. This single-minded focus on fleeing a life of poverty, however, leaves her feeling empty and with a lingering fear that she doesn't have a personality. These feelings fester and keep her from enjoying the fruits of her labour (gorgeous posh husband, kids, and financial stability). Leah, in contrast, seems to drift effortlessly away from life on the estates but that doesn't mean she feels any more satisfied with her adult life than her friend. Alongside Natalie and Leah, we also meet car mechanic Felix Cooper who, unlike the other characters in this novel, is an example of someone who tries to leave the housing project through film making but doesn't quite make it.

As the lukewarm review in the New York Times pointed out, Smith's latest effort asks readers to consider questions of luck and choices in one's fate especially as it pertains to class and identity. Unlike the dominant ethos of meritocracy of postwar British politics and society, reality is much more random and class barriers remain. This theme is especially pertinent to a Britain that last year weathered days of riots in the street and continues to hear David Cameron's Tories tell that that Britons "are all in it together."

Smith's depiction of NW London is vibrant but it's also sordid and dangerous. The neighbourhoods in which these characters live are spaces in which the rich and poor (young and old) quite literally fight over space on the streets and in parks. The book opens with a young woman called Shar who knocks on Leah's door supposedly desperate for cab fare to get to the hospital. Only we learn that the story was an elaborate lie employed by the young (dirty) woman to fund a drug habit. This original meeting leads to a much more dangerous physical altercation. Later on, Natalie finds herself amongst a crowd of adults berating a pair of youths who decide to smoke on a playground. These youths are less threatening that those encountered by Leah but they are no less insistent on their right to occupy the public space with these yuppie mums.

Smith's new book is challenging in structure as well as subject matter. She swaps between narrative voices and adopts a stream of consciousness technique for a substantial portion of the book. This method is effective in conveying the real way that people speak, think and live (haphazardly rather than in a clean perfectly organized and poetic paragraphs). It is not as clear, however, why Smith manipulates the text in certain spots to mimic a text or email message a character receives. It's not a method she employs enough (as in Jonathan Safran Foer Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for example) to convince the reader that it's essential to the story that she sets out to tell.

I can't decide if NW is a must-read. It was passed over by the Man Booker prize committee this year and I can't disagree. The story and characters feel half-baked. This is not Smith's most evocative portrayal of immigrant lives in London or modern British identity. However, Smith's insight into modern London life is unique and required reading for those who want a richer understanding of British culture.

@SloaneScholar1

The "People's Games"? Reflections on London 2012

[Note: This is a similiar version of a post on my own blog, here. @IdleHistorian]

Throughout London 2012 I have thought back to the similarities with Vancouver in 2010. They were also presaged by much-hand wringing over the exorbitant cost, doubts over whether it was really worth the trouble, grave predictions about traffic chaos and other doom-saying. This was followed by exhilaration, over-the-top patriotism, joy, triumph, and a long-lasting warm and fuzzy glow. London 2012 has already been all this. On speed.

I follow a variety of Brits from different walks of life and political persuasions on twitter and have witnessed a roller-coaster of emotion since July 27th. It began with outright hostility, Olympic-sized portions of Eeyoreish worry and whingeing ["When Will This Nightmare End?"] about the cost, the G4S security debacle (remember them?), corporate authoritarianism, 81-year-old grannies being forced to withdraw Olympic hand-knitted dolls from church jumble sales and the like.

But then, By Jove, the Opening Ceremonies arrived and Danny Boyle was arranging Freeborn Englishmen (and women) in the green and pleasant land and children were singing Jerusalem and there were dancing nurses in a tribute to the NHS and Mr. Bean being unbelievably hilarious with a Chariots of Fire spoof and, OMG, The Queen and James Bond, and my tweeps were tweeting fast and furiously. These jaded souls who had been complaining only a day before that it would all be "rubbish" were crying, cheering and declaring that Britain was the best country ever in all history [*] and that the Ceremony showed the nation's unbounded humour and individualism and creativity (read: "Take that, Beijing!") and they'd never felt happier in all their lives and Danny Boyle for a Knighthood *this instant* while we've got Her Majesty right here!!!!

Danny Boyle's vision of pre-industrial England, before the"dark satanic mills" - reference: hymn Jerusalem and poem by William Blake

And the waves of emotion haven't let up. Team GB has truly done brilliantly. Of course everyone needed to panic for a day or two that Britain wouldn't win any medals at all, but from the first gold to Dickensian-named Bradley Wiggins dear old Blighty has been running on happy fumes. Even the acerbic and performative-cynic Charlie Brooker has been caught up in the frenzy.

There has been an uncharacteristic showing of collective emotion in Britain and among its athletes. As per one tweet: "@sarasheridan: Another gold! Only 7% of Chinese & 17% of US athletes cry on medal podium @TeamGB win blubbing gold on 37.5% ". One British friend has proffered this explanation for the "blubbering": Chinese and American athletes largely expect to be on the podium. Brits generally, having bought into the national myth of being "rubbish" at sport and inevitable failures, greet victory with these wellsprings of emotion.

There are stories aplenty to provide a backdrop for an inclusive, meritocratic Games - as modern Britain wishes to see itself. All this has left many asking: What does this say about modern Britain, national identity, or the national character? How do these reactions fit with history and received ideas of "Britishness" in this post-Imperial and multicultural landscape?

Differing political factions have been able to read into the Games the narrative they wish. Conservatives like Boris Johnson trumpet the lessons (as they see it) for free enterprise, competition, and other assorted Big Society ideas. (Gratuitous link to Boris-stuck-on-zipline meme.) For The Daily Telegraph it was an opportunity for national regeneration and ascertaining where Britain's "genius lies." For The Guardian and more left-of-centre individuals the Opening Ceremony and the Games itself are a model of an egalitarian, integrated and less class-ridden nation they would wish to realize. As one twitter said after the Boyle opener: "Britain: slightly bonkers and more socialist than some would wish, for 2000 years." There was much chatter about this "socialist" vision in light of current British politics under the Coalition Government.

It is perhaps only correct that there should be (not to sound too postmodern) "multiple meanings" of the Games. Perhaps Britain's "genius" lies in the direction of being able to equally combine both the pre-Games criticism, hatred of authoritarianism and being told what to think and do, and also a plurality of "meanings" inherent in sport and belonging. Britain has been doing its freedom-thing for awhile now. It can cope with contradiction and ambiguity - which strikes me as an exceptionally useful quality. Somehow these elements become spun into positive narratives of national identity. I do think the much-lauded British sense of humour goes a long way in this direction. The Games are now at an end, but one hopes their sense of national belonging and happy after-glow will also continue.

@idlehistorian

On medal count

Team Canada does not typically excel at the summer games. See chart below:
CANADA

Games	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
92 - Barcelona	7	4	7	18
98 – Atlanta	3	11	8	22
00 – Sydney	3	3	8	14
04 – Athens	3	6	3	12
08 – Beijing	3	9	6	18
12 – London*	0	2	5	7

* As of Day 6: Canada has medaled twice in synchronized diving (3 m spring board and 10 m), judo, weight lifting, silver medals in the men's and women's eight, and a bronze in the pool (100 M freestyle).

The team went to London 2012 with a projected total of 22 medals, which according to commentators is not unreasonable given that Canadian athletes have gotten more funding and attention since we found out Vancouver would be hosting the 2010 winter games. 

Without the pressure of having the world on your home turf, I think Canadians are generally content to hang out around the middle of the pack. We know we can't compete with the likes of Team USA or China. Each country had 19 medals on day 3 with China leading in the gold medal count (10). And, to be honest, we're not pushing our athletes to challenge those superhuman automatons. We cheer on our athletes to "do their best." We're genuinely pleased when they come home with a silver (Gasp! That's almost gold!! ) or bronze medal. We are also guilty of salivating at what might have been in an alternative reality. Missy Franklin has Canadian parents, dual citizenship, and loves Nova Scotia. She's basically on Team Canada. right?

I wonder what it must be like to be an athlete from Team Great Britain at these games. Surely, the crushing pressure to perform must be unbearable. How does a much-hyped athlete like Victoria Pendleton, for example, cope with disqualification?! And amid: confusion (from viewers in the New World mostly) about what went on during the Opening Ceremony as well as the organizational debacle of empty seats, the Brits don't need something else to grip over. This is how the Brits historically and currently sit: 

GREAT BRITAIN

Games	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
92 - Barcelona	5	3	12	20
98 – Atlanta	1	8	6	15
00 – Sydney	11	10	7	28
04 – Athens	9	9	12	30
08 – Beijing	19	13	15	47
12 – London*	0	2	2	4

*On day 3 (when I started this post), Team GB has medalled in the pool (Rebecca Addlinton, bronze in the 200 m freestyle), in the road race( Lizzie Armitstead, silver), men's team gymnastics (bronze), and equestrian (silver, team that included Zara Phillips). Now day 6, the medal count has erupted to 16 with FIVE gold medals!! Sir Chris Hoy claimed in FIFTH gold medal in the velodrome and road cyclist Mr. Sideburns (Bradley Wiggins) won the individual time trials on day 5!

There's no panic for Team GB ... yet. Though, sports commentators have noticed that the disparity in performance as compared to Beijing. The team still doesn't have a gold medal! And if we have learned anything about the British tendency/ nature to whinge about things, we should be able to see the wave of criticism about to crash into the shore. I can only this item of British pop culture (which is really how Canadians approach sport competition .... in every case except for the Stanley Cup finals between Vancouver and Boston...) at a moment like this:

You know which Brit is winning big at London 2012? Boris Johnson


@SloaneScholar1

I've been slow off the mark (sports pun there, har har) compared to my colleague, so the lack of gold medals for Team GB (previously alluded to) has been wiped away in 2-3 days of competition, standing at this moment at a glorious five. The first came from the Dickensian-named national hero Bradley Wiggins, who celebrated his victory by pursuing that other British national sport: "getting wasted."

Team GB boosters have scaled back their predictions of 70 medals somewhat, but on the whole the Brits seem on track for a great showing at the Games. The British media and public have since breathed an almost audible sigh of relief and can now get back to the usual hand-wringing about all manner of other issues. Will the weather hold up? The transport? Is London running too smoothly? Did Bumbling Boris scare the tourists all away with his talk of metropolitan chaos and thus utterly ruin businesses?

Canadians, meanwhile, as SloaneScholar1 noted, are pretty much content with a "respectable showing." Hey - Prince Harry visited Canada House ("everyone swoons")! What else does a nation need??

I believe that we still are basking in the reflected glory of Vancouver 2010 during which we *ahem* won more gold medals than ANY previous nation at a Winter Olympics (un-Canadian moment of boasting there). Not only that, but the final competition of the Games saw the famous men's ice hockey "golden goal" against the USA - the one moment that will live in the memory of Canadians of my generation. I was in the streets of Vancouver that day and it was, in a word, incredible.


To put it in perspective for the Brits: It would be like scoring a winning goal in extra time. On the last day of competition. To win a football gold medal. In Wembley Stadium. Against the Germans.


One truly wishes Team GB something approaching this ecstasy and a great remainder of the Games.


@idlehistorian

On berets, red felt poor boy caps, and mittens

Ryan Lochte (Swimmer) in Ralph Lauren 

Last week, American sports wear giant Ralph Lauren was raked though the mud (most hilariously by Fox news ... I mean, Gretchen Carlson is right, "beret" sounds way too "French") for outsourcing the production of  their Olympic wear. That's right, even though Ryan Lochte looks preppy and All-American in the ads, the items were all "Made in China." A slap in the face to American industry? Absolutely. But Harry Ried's (very reasonable?) call to burn everything and start from scratch was perhaps a tad impractical given that the games are literally around the corner. Though the furor that emerged does bring up some interesting questions about the commercialization of nationhood as well as the branding involved in patriotism and the Olympics. 


The choice of Ralph Lauren is an interesting one because its aesthetic has always been "preppy" (NB: American Prep is synonymous with the "Sloane Ranger" in UK") and its clothes out of the price range of most people. By donning these uniforms, Team USA is projecting an image of America that only a select privileged cadre of people actually experience. I know everyone summers in the Hamptons now but really? What message does this send to the plethora of other groups in the United States that count themselves proudly as Americans? Is this all about style and no substance?


Canadian athletes were first dressed by Roots Canada Limited for the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano. Roots, founded in 1973, began making leather footwear in Toronto. The brand has since widened its reach to luggage, fashion accessories and active wear that all evoke a specific image of life in the Canadian wilderness. It is an image that the founders created based on their own camping adventures in Algonquin Park. So, think beavers, canoes, log cabins, and plaids worn by burly lumberjacks. Think cozy. Think rustic. In 1998, the company gained international exposure with those red felt poor boy caps. Remember those?!  I remember being on a 4 week wait-list to buy our hats! Those red hats and patch-covered letterman jackets were a phenomenon and skyrocketed a moderate sized Canadian retailer to global stardom overnight. They were even making Olympic kits for Team USA (2002 & 2004) and Britain (2002). Scandalous! Do all Canadians camp? No. But, the symbols Roots collected in their vision of "Canada" were relatively benign. And it's hallmark items are all made here. More importantly, Roots' overall style is much more low-key, which is something with which Canadians can relate. Roots has been unabashed about the "I love Canada" ethos behind their brand and consumers have happily bought into that.

The ubiquitous red felt cap Image from roots.com

And what about the Brits in 2012? Stella McCartney, in partnership with Adidas, is responsible for the home team's uniforms. Is Stella McCartney the most natural choice? She does have impeccable pedigree. And, she is definitely a shining example of a great generation in British fashion design. But, why not Burberry, Barbour, or (the Duchess' favourite) Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen? What makes Stella McCartney's designs uniquely representative of modern Britain at these games? Shouldn't the athletes be wearing a lot of Scottish wool, deerstalker cap, and Hunter wellies? Crude stereotypes, I know. I wonder whether this McCartney gear is all "Made in Britain." I'm sure Boris is on top of all of that ... right IdleHistorian? Would Britons be up in arms if it were revealed that the items weren't produced in British factories ... or is that terribly un-British? 

Andy Murray, Tennis

What each team wears and the symbols used to represent a country at the Olympics is integral to creating national identity. Consumers are actually buying (into) tokens that represent national pride and patriotism. Some countries seem to understand this better than others.


@SloaneScholar1


I have always been a big fan of the Roots Olympic gear, and I will wear my 2002 Salt Lake City Games merch with pride at the Olympics this year. (I mean, it's still the same country, right? It's not like they changed the name or anything. This whole buying new gear every Olympics thing is firmly overrated. I'm going retro and cheap. There's a recession on! End of aside.)


My big bugbear with the Canadian Olympic Committee is that they have disastrously given the official-clothing-maker contract to the Hudson's Bay Company, a company which couldn't possibly sound more Canadian, but is in fact owned by American Target.

Fits like a glove

So sign me up right there next to the congressmen making a fuss about Ralph Lauren's athletics wear being made in China. The Hudson's Bay Company doesn't come close to representing "Canadianity" in the same way that Roots does. Plus their lame red maple leaf mittens are no where as cool as the Roots beret in its heyday.


H.

On London 2012 & patriotism

Boris in Beijing 2008

With the Olympic games coming up in London 2012, we here at Love (...) in a Cold Climate will have much to muse upon. I thought I'd start things rolling with an informal discussion on "Britishness" and identity. As @IdleHistorian has mentioned in a previous post, when Canada hosted the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics, we celebrated the successes of our athletes with such gusto that we managed to change a lot of minds regarding our "niceness." It's hard to forget all the flag-waving (I'm sure there's video evidence of the entire country cheering when Sidney Crosby scored the winning goal v. USA in the hockey gold medal game) or Nikki Yanofsky's "I Believe" on repeat for 14 straight days (NY's song still triggers a Pavlovian response of tears and swelling pride in me. Congratu-well done CTV). While others grumbled, many in the Canadian media were unashamed of the overt expressions of patriotism. In fact, the consensus seemed to be that those two weeks in February became a pivotal moment in nation-building. Canada emerged from a games with greater national confidence than ever before.


Will we see the same sort of unabashed chest-beating to "Rule Britannia" in August? Will Great Britain emerge from the games refreshed and feeling "all in it together"? It's hard to say. From the moment Boris Johnson received the Olympic flag at the 2008 games in Beijing, the public/ popular discourse seemed to express a sense of dread for 2012 more than any other sentiment. The chorus of doubters predicted doom. How would everyone cope with the eternal queues at Heathrow, the increased traffic congestion, and what exactly will the games cost? Many of these anxieties are on display in the BBC series Twenty Twelve starring Hugh Bonneville (who plays the frustrated and ever diplomatic Ian Fletcher) among other stellar cast members each skewering an aspect of the (poor?) planning and (dis-) organization that goes into making the games possible. It's a sentiment that is so well known that they even penetrated American pop culture as seen in an episode of 30 Rock where Wesley Snipes (Michael Sheen) revisits (reluctantly) his "settling-soul mate" Liz Lemon because he can't face returning to London for the Olympics. 


Are those who are anxious/ grouchy about the Olympics the same contingent that grumble whenever the royals decide to celebrate lavishly a birthday/ wedding? Or, is this like complaining about English weather? If the forecasts are correct, there will be a great deal of talk about the "rainy isles." Is this about managing expectations? Or, is the general population actually quite happy to have the world descend on the capital for two weeks? It will be interesting in the coming weeks to see the narratives that are constructed because, unlike Kate & William's wedding or the Jubilee, the Olympics steer the attention away from the upper echelons of British society to that of ordinary people who accomplish extraordinary feats. What image of Britain/ Britons will be on display? How will these Olympic games change those images for years to come?


@SloaneScholar1


My friend brings up many excellent point about how British character is intersecting with the Games in very interesting ways. (I particularly enjoy "Wesley Snipes" from 30 Rock ...)


I do think that grumbling and a general Eeyore-ish attitude are classic British. However, in reading the news as of late I note that there are many of the same complaints that riddled the pre-Winter Games here in Vancouver in 2010: corporate intrusion and copyright issues, worries about traffic gridlock and resentment at the special lanes devoted to VIPs and Games participants, concerns over security, general preparedness, and the readiness of the venues and logistics. There have also been some unique challenges in the UK - the security debacle with the private firm G4S and the weather to name only two. It all provides the British with reasons for even more hand-wringing; an excuse to decide ahead of time that it will all be rubbish and to make a joke of it. (See this episode of the great BBC segment OddBox about the rather fun Chap Olympics. One of the participants explicitly repeats the received wisdom that Brits are "rubbish" at real sport and therefore must succeed at making humour of it.)


I don't believe the whole enterprise will be rubbish at all, but the British compulsion to disavow all that is too earnest or serious, and to make a joke of everything, is deep-seated. As SloaneScholar1 reports, this approach was evident from the first instance of Boris Johnson's appearance in Beijing (apparently discombobulating his hosts with his unbuttoned suit and the famous disheveled hair). We won't try too hard, was the general feeling, but we will have fun and eccentricity and put a truly British stamp on the proceedings. And why not? "Team GB" may even manage the very unBritish feat of excelling at sport.


One cannot end such a post with anything other than a video of Boris Johnson proclaiming that "wiff waff is coming home to Britain":




@idlehistorian


The Great Exhibition of 1851 is often featured in history books as a singular event that showcased Britain’s pre-eminence on the global stage, while reflecting the state and character of the nation. (Spoiler alert: Britain was imperial, modernizing and ambitious. Oh, and obsessed with free trade capitalism, and not wild about the poor.)

Will future historians use the London Games in the same way? When scholars interrogate and mine this event to learn about the culture and politics of Britain in 2012, will this be they’ll find?

A reluctant patriotism?

Are celebrations of Britishness doused by a general feeling that it is rather ‘American’ to be overly ‘sentimental’ about such things, or is it the ghosts of imperial past that make chants of Rule Britannia seem inappropriate? The Royal Wedding and Jubilee saw Union Jacks out proudly, but those symbols are in keeping with monarchy in a way they have begun to conflict with ‘nation’ – especially as ‘Team GB’ contains three separate nationalisms.

A sense of nation may not be as strong now as in 1851, but neither are the actual workings of the state to physically pull these Games together.

Government Inadequacy

The security failings by the Home Office that have come to light this week are absolutely staggering. After seven years of planning and millions of pounds spent, two weeks out from the Games there are reports of MASSIVE failings in security. After being rushed in from other departments to ease the massive immigration queues at Heathrow, new Border Patrol agents have failed to screen active terror suspects. The Guardian reports that they missed as many as five in one day of actual (not test!) screenings. The G4S debacle would be comical if it wasn’t so potentially dangerous. But the biggest nightmare of all is the impending transport apocalypse that is about to descend on London. One minister said that it would be like 16 consecutive days of New Years Eve, football finals and Royal Weddings.  This can only have a dousing effect on Olympic festivities, and should lead to many outcries about how a system that already operates at nearly peak capacity was expected to cope with such a massive influx of athletes and tourists and journalists. Seeing the ramp up in transit usage two weeks out from the Games has turned me from excited ticket holder to firm believer that Tessa Jowell is The Biggest Moron Ever To Sit In A Labour Cabinet Ever for actually thinking London could host an Olympics. The infrastructure simply cannot cope.  

When the world comes to London, they may just find a city stretched to the brink.

London’s confused twenty-first century identity

I think they will also find a few different Londons competing for definition. There’s the Victorian skeleton of a former-imperial metropolis, an extraordinarily vibrant multi-cultural and multi-ethnic cosmopolis, and a busy hub of neo-feudal, global capitalism.

Whoever selected the terrible LOCOG logo seems to be trying to align the games with my favourite London: the multi-cultural cosmopolis. It kind of looks like it’s supposed to be a graffiti hash tag? Kind of? The fact that it resembles not much of anything points to the difficulty of defining contemporary London. Vancouver used the Inukshuk as its symbol (conveniently overlooking the repression of the native culture that created it) to represent Canada’s history of friendship. But London 2012 doesn’t want to be tied to a lion or union jack or any other symbol of obvious patriotism, it is a place with new ideas and new art and new cultures emerging out of the collision of old ones. Except that every time I look at the logo, I don’t get a sense that it is a genuine reflection of this spirit of the city.  I see the spirit of The City. I imagine a room full of corporate group-thinkers deciding, “Hmm, this looks new and different, and maybe even passably vibrant. This is the deliberate, generic brand we want use to market our city for global consumption.”  

And this is the side of London that will seem preeminent during the Olympics. The vehicles of corporate sponsors will be seen whizzing by the plebs in the designated Olympic Lanes, army officers will confiscate your off brand snacks and gear and credit cards at entrance gates to events. Pubs using the words “Summer” and “Olympics” in their sidewalk signs advertising that the games are playing inside will be liable to suits from theIOC for copyright infringement, and British chips will not be sold on Olympic grounds because they infringe on the rights secured by McDonalds to be the only fried potato vendor on the planet.

With the ominous Shard looming over London, there will be no confusion about who owns this city.

And with that… I’m going to try cheer up before I go see tennis at Wimbledon and get to stuff my face full of corporate sponsored strawberries & cream.

H.