Book Review of 'One Hundred Shadows' by Hwang Jungeun

A few weeks ago, I was given the opportunity to read and review One Hundred Shadows by Hwang Jungeun for Minor Literature[s] . My e-copy of the book was kindly provided by Tilted Axis Press, an excellent press group that focuses on bringing fringe, hidden-gem international literature to the fore in English-speaking countries. What a brilliant mission, and one from which we should all be keen to benefit.

I am always excited by the prospect of reading literature from other cultures, and the premise of this novella sounded especially enticing. It blends social critique of modern-day South Korea with elements of the Gothic genre, which both highlight the criticism of society but also add depth to the plot and themes. Without giving away too much, here is my review. Read it, but more importantly, make sure to read the book - I promise it won't disappoint!

Another LNAT: Would you agree that travel and tourism exploit poorer countries and benefit only the richer ones?

It is by now news to nobody that worldwide inequality has reach galactic levels, and is only going in one direction: up.

Here is another LNAT essay which I did the other day on a relevant and highly controversial topic. I found this one difficult to argue, especially in the absence of statistics or a particularly sophisticated knowledge of economics. It was interesting to discover when I was planning the essay, however, that I don't actually see the economic benefits, which poor nations might receive from tourism, as playing any part in reducing the level of exploitation. The fact that neither the government, nor of course the individual citizens themselves, has any real role in dictating the developments, is a far more significant factor in assessing the extent to which tourism exploits their countries.

I have no doubt that some will disagree with my argument. But it is only through putting forward the case for the many different points of view on difficult issues that the fairest and best way forward is realised.

Would you agree that travel and tourism exploit poorer countries and benefit only the richer ones?

There are two issues at stake in this question. The first is whether travel and tourism are exploitative of poor nations. If ‘exploitation’ is understood to be ‘the taking advantage of something without its consent/ in absence of any realistic alternative’, then it is clear that the poor countries are indeed exploited. Such an understanding of the term also nullifies any counter-argument about the economic benefits for these nations, as that is a separate outcome which does not change the definition of this global relationship as an ‘exploitative’ one. The second issue is whether rich nations benefit exclusively from the sector. As suggested, there is a transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor, but not one significant enough to override the growing inequality between them caused by uneven growth in other sectors. Even poor people in rich countries, however, do not benefit as much as the wealthy, and so the more relevant benefit inequality in travel and tourism is stipulated by class issues rather than nationality.

Travel and tourism would be deemed exploitative of poor nations if it can be proved to take advantage of them without them possessing control over preventing this. It is the case that both country, in terms of the ruling government, and individual citizens, have no real choice, and so are exploited. Firstly, those living in a Caribbean coastal village, for example, have no influence over the growth in tourism around them, such as whether a new luxury resort opens up one kilometre away. They could abstain from taking any part in encouraging these developments, such as by refusing to benefit themselves by setting up a shop or restaurant nearby, but this decision does not reverse the fact that their community will be disrupted by tourism. This is clear exploitation as their idyllic homes are being invasively taken advantage of by wealthy people from other countries, regardless of whether the consent of the indigenous people is given.

One may argue that the government holds ultimate responsibility for developments in its country, and so executive power to prevent this exploitation. In opting to allow it, this argument goes, the government is endorsing the action of rich countries and so disqualifies an assessment of that action as ‘exploitative’. This is, however, a misled viewpoint, as whilst the government may technically hold power to veto such developments in the tourism industry, doing so would exacerbate further the existing poverty and extreme inequality between its country and those more affluent. To soldier on, disregarding the economic fillip offered by tourism, would amount to cutting its nose off to spite its face. Inequality between the two groups of countries would increase, and those in the poor ones, robbed of a vital opportunity for income, would become more impoverished and dissatisfied. Potentially, civil disturbance could result. It is therefore patently obvious that the very concept and nature of the international tourism and travel sector is immensely unjust and exploitative of those countries on the losing side of this deal. The governments are arm-locked into consenting to the explosion of the industry on its land, and its citizens are subsequently forced either to swallow their pride and make the most of the situation as best they can, or refuse to do so and suffer. The opportunity to benefit should not in any way be deemed a redeeming factor for the exploitation on show.

It goes without saying that this interaction between nations benefits the wealthy ones more so than the poorer ones. Whilst money is being taken out of the prosperous economies and spent in the poor ones, it is actually on a far more insignificant level than first appears. An example to illustrate would be a luxury Caribbean holiday; the biggest costs are the flight and hotel. On more occasions than not, the airlines and hotels of choice will be owned by companies in the wealthy countries, and so the money actually stays put. Tiny transactions in souvenir shops, or restaurants, provide the only chance of benefit for the poor nations’ economies. In addition, growth in the other sectors in the big economies, such as financial services, is of course enormous, far greater than that in any LECDs. As a result, the inequality margin between them continues to increase. On a macro level, travel and tourism in no way offer the economic benefits to poor countries which might reduce the global wealth gap.

It is also unlikely the individual citizens of these poor nations benefit enough to return the favour and visit other parts of the world. Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule, but international tourism predominantly works one way: citizens from wealthy countries go to less wealthy ones. The sector itself, as has been shown, does not provide the economic means to members of poor countries to reverse this one way traffic. Thus, the spiritual pleasures offered by exploring the world are not feasibly available to everyone.

It is wrong, however, to see the benefits being purely divided by nationality. Although people from countries such as Britain and America, will dominate the tourism market, it will only be a certain group of society that does so. In other words, those living under the poverty line in affluent countries, or indeed floating above it, do not take advantage of the myriad destinations on offer in the same way that the souvenir shop owner in Barbados cannot either. The true benefits of travel are reserved for the top percentile in wealthy countries, who are able to travel as they please and own the companies which profit most from the sector. Middle-income families may go on holidays, but the ultra-luxury, and simultaneously most exploited locations, are limited to the financial viability of a far smaller portion of those societies, let alone the entire world population. Travel and tourism might broadly benefit ‘rich’ countries more than ‘poor’ ones, but the real distinction between those who gain most is based on class.

Travel and tourism is a highly exploitative industry both economically and morally speaking. Its purported wealth equalising is a veneer, and it undermines and degrades some of the world’s most vulnerable, who are given no say in the developments being planned for their own communities and homes. Quite heinously, the more poverty pre-exists, the more exploitation ensues. Whilst this question of exploitation is predicated on a national divide, the benefits are predominantly apportioned by social class. Those surviving on the welfare state in the most affluent countries gain no more from travel and tourism than those living in poor nations – the very ones that their wealthy compatriots are enjoying at this very moment.

Grimms' Fairy Tales Production by the Guildford Shakespeare Company

“Once upon a time”. Four words which never fail to prick up the ears of anyone nearby. The promise of a journey spanning countries and generations, an escape from the surrounding world to the realm of fantasy, a beckoning call to the imagination of all, both young and old. The start of a story, and who doesn’t love a good story?

In 1812, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm published Kinder und Hausmarchen, a collection of 152 tales, in the central German town of Kassel. An 1857 revised edition, the last in their lifetime, would increase that number to 211. By the beginning of the 20^th Century, Kinder und Hausmarchen, or Grimms’ Fairy Tales to us, was the second best-selling book in Germany. Only beaten by? The Bible. Now, 204 years after the brothers unknowingly created a legacy which would travel far beyond the outskirts of their sleepy German town and the span of their own lives, the Guildford Shakespeare Company brings the immortal essence of their tales to the Challengers’ Field in Guildford.

The production brings to life ten tales, mixing classics with the lesser-known to celebrate the variety and flair inherent in the collection. Rather than rattle them off one after the other, however, the team presents an ingenious approach; the stories come and go seamlessly, blending into one another as the layers of story-telling form an intricate web of artistic prowess. Arguably more impressive is the achievement of the sensitive balance of ‘feel-good’ appeal (singing, dancing and humorous moments) and dramatic quality necessary to do justice to the eerie, sinister undertones of the fairy tales.

Although props are used, the style leans on the minimalist, which makes the immersive nature of the production all the more stunning. The way in which the audience can be so absorbed in a re-enactment of ‘Rapunzel’ on a flat stage, with only a few blocks of wood vaguely resembling thorns, and long piece of rope brandished when the knight proclaims “Rapunzel! Rapunzel! Let down your hair!”, is a credit to the staging and acting ability on show.

The overall ambiance complements that of the traditional European feel of the tales perfectly. The production is set in a Spiegeltent (Mirror Tent) erected in a corner of Stoke Park. The Mirror Tent comes from the early 20^th Century Low Countries and was originally used as a mobile dance and performance hall. Historically, its moveable nature only permitted candles, not electric lights, and so the interior lighting is amplified by mirrored-walls. Coupled with the intimate circular-seating around the central stage, the atmosphere is cosy and lively, an ideal setting for a production of Grimms’ Fairy Tales.

Those bottles of wine were most definitely not mine...

The company provides the chance to sit in a booth with a cheese board and bottle of wine. This is a nice touch as it combines the feeling of going out to see a live production with the comforts and hint of luxury normally reserved for staying at home. Once again, it is clear that the production has been tastefully thought-through, as this enhances the appeal of traditional entertainment and showmanship, a slightly different concept to theatre.

On until the 30^th October, the Guildford Shakespeare Company’s production of Grimms’ Fairy Tales is an admirably ambitious effort to bring something unusual to the stage. It is also an exceptionally successful one. A great way to celebrate the group’s decennial anniversary, this is also a great way to spend a dark, autumnal evening. Step into the Mirror Tent, step back in time, and step into the tales – they might have taken place “once upon a time”, but they live on in the present, vivacious as ever, as an everlasting part of human essence.

LNAT, MCB and Mosul

Recently, I have been practising past LNAT essays to prepare for my own admissions test coming up on 2nd November. I am not sitting the LNAT, but the essay part of the AMES test is very similar to that of the LNAT. This blog will include an essay I wrote. Ignore grammatical sloppiness (on an even higher level than normal) as the time pressure in this exam is very, very real.

The last one I wrote was -"We must be prepared to sacrifice our traditional liberties to defeat terrorism" - a fascinating question and one relevant both to my course and current affairs. Yesterday, news broke that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is going to release an anti-radicalisation programme to rival the government's existing Prevent programme. In addition to this, there is of course the ongoing assault on Mosul, one of ISIS's last and largest territories. Experts have widely suggested that, when the group loses this major city in its self-professed caliphate, there will be a shift in the nature of their efforts. In light of their dwindling base, from which to launch a military campaign in the Middle East, more terrorist attacks in the west are predicted, much like a wounded animal flailing its limbs desperately in the moment of its imminent demise. Whilst the approaching possibility of a deep wound in the organisation's heart is a positive development, it will also make efforts to combat radicalisation, and future terrorist attacks, all the more urgent. Underneath is the essay I wrote, which includes an outline of how we might assure that we accomplish this vital mission.

“We must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism”

This question is one which has become increasingly relevant in recent times with the rise of terrorist acts against western powers. It fundamentally pivots on a debate between our liberties (such as the Freedom of Speech) and our safety, and whether the former jeopardises the latter in the current climate. If this were the case, it would be a simple choice to make that the sacrifice of our liberties must be made to defeat terrorism. In reality, however, the act of increasing protection from terrorist acts is not the same as defeating terrorism. The debate over traditional liberties is therefore not as fundamental in the task of eradicating this threat as the statement presupposes.

Much is made of the conflict between western ideals of social liberties and the prevention of future terrorist attacks. On the one hand, some argue that restricting the Freedom of Speech for Muslim preachers suspected (but not proven) to be radicalising, or preventing the wearing of provocative Islamic dress (eg the niqab) would serve to limit the potential for extremism and extremist-driven attacks on home-soil. On the other hand, advocates of liberalism argue that this would amount to a concession that our values are being defeated; instead, we must hold true to them and reject the terror that these acts aim to produce.

The primary responsibility of government, however, is to protect its people and ensure their safety. The protection of lives is surely more important than the maintenance of traditional liberties. A dramatic reductio ad absurdum scenario to prove this would be as follows: would a country in which all the people were killed in terrorist attacks, in the name of upholding their rights, be preferable to a country where every life is protected at the expense of all of their liberties? Whilst neither situation is desirable, the second is clearly more so than the first. Thus, a government ought to prioritise protecting its people over maintaining the sanctity of their rights.

This would provide a satisfactory response to the statement “we must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to prevent terrorist acts”. This, however, is not the task at hand. To decide whether the benefits of relinquishing liberal values in defeating terrorism outweighs the sacrifice, an understanding of how terrorism can be defeated is necessary.

Although producing a blueprint of this kind is no easy feat, as each specific war with each specific terrorist group is different, broadly there are three necessary steps to ‘defeating terrorism’: rout them out in their own territories; work with local powers to strangle them and prevent regional survival in a cohesive effort; defeat/undermine their ideology. The importance of step one is obvious in that, without military pressure on the group’s supplies, forces or leadership, they are free to perpetuate their acts at will. The importance of step two is seen in the absence of its application regarding ISIS, which was aided in its early years by the Gulf and Pakistani funding of Wahhabism. Without working with these regional powers, the West was unsuccessful in preventing its growth into a potent force. The third step is the ultimate, and perhaps hardest goal, essentially the ‘nail in the coffin’ action. In defeating the ideology, the beliefs which drive radicalisation and recruitment become extinct, and the wasps’ nest dies.

It is now apparent that, of the three steps to defeating terrorism, only one is relevant to home-soil ‘traditional liberties’; foreign military intervention and regional cooperation do not implicate the need to sacrifice these liberties. The suggestion in the statement of such a sacrifice’s centrality to efforts against terrorism is misleading. Its importance is only relevant to the step of defeating their ideology.

The question, then, is whether we could defeat terrorism whilst upholding our traditional liberties. A better way of asking this is as follows: would sacrificing our traditional liberties be an act of surrendering to the illiberal views of terrorism? If so, then it is imperative to uphold them obdurately in order to prove their superiority to those of our foes. To stand tall in the face of such danger, and permit Freedom of Speech, Dress, and Belief, could amount to a rejection of the threatening ideology and rob it of its impact and support. In seeing that their assault on western society, and its foundational values, is drawing a blank, they will be starved of propaganda victories and morale, the very effect which their attacks aim to have on us.

This stance, however, is predicated on the assumption that restricting social liberties (in order to improve the safety of civilians), symbolises an admission of their inferiority and so prevents the conquering of terrorist ideology. It seems a strange assertion to make that nationwide limits to preaching hatred, or searching the internet without state observation, would single-handedly perpetuate the belief that all non-Muslims must die, as well as the constant stream of converts to this belief. Surely such measures would only aggravate already-radicalised Muslims? All other Muslims, who are just as opposed to terrorist beliefs, and indeed just as at risk to their actions, would benefit from and support such protective measures. The notion that such limits to the liberties of the whole nation stand in the way of defeating terrorism is therefore a flawed one.

Indeed, the real risk for further radicalisation presents itself in the persecution, either by state or the public, of Muslims. Discriminatory treatment of Muslims, simply because they are Muslims, turns them towards radicalisation, or at least newfound sympathy for the terrorist mentality. It is, therefore, not the sacrifice of liberties which risks perpetuating terrorism, but the excessive restriction of these liberties to a targeted group of society.

After assessment, it is now clear that the statement, expressing the need to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism, is somewhat misleading, but ultimately accurate. Western society could defeat terrorism by upholding all of its western values, which would represent a rejection of terrorist ideals and a refusal to bow down to their will. Such resistance, however, would come at a cost – namely that of future terrorist attacks which are, to an extent, made more likely by these very traditional liberties. This would be negligent to the state’s number one priority to its citizens: their protection. It is also clear that sacrificing these liberties would not hold back the effort against terrorism as some fear it would. The real hindrance to this is posed by indiscriminate persecution of all Muslims. Thus, to strike a balance between an effective endeavour to defeat terrorism, and enforce civilian safety as best as possible, we must be prepared to sacrifice some traditional liberties.

The Brexit Bog

It is representative of the continual disarray surrounding the Brexit fallout that, on the day after a parliamentary debate ended with broad agreement that there would be no vote in the Houses on triggering Article 50, a legal case began challenging this very notion.

In addition to the rather farcical nature of this turn of events, it also reflects badly on the British political elite's competence, especially vis-a-vis the generally consensual tone emanating from the members of the EU bloc: in the words of Donald Tusk, there is only one option - "hard Brexit or no Brexit".

But, ignoring this patent lack of direction (or, to put it in the less mild words of a friend of mine, "any bloody clue"), still on show almost 4 months after the referendum, the main source of my frustration is the very real risk that democracy is to be brazenly undermined by those whom we trust with upholding it. In baying for the necessity of parliamentary approval of Article 50, MPs claim the right to control and monitor the very general will from which their power and privileges derive.

I wrote an article spelling out my views on this threat, which was published in 'The London Economic'. I hope I am not the only one who feels alarmed as these state of affairs develop.

Article on Dubai's economic strength during the current oil slump resulting from Sheikh Mohammed's Vision

In September I went to Dubai. One day, on a tour of the emirate, including a visit to Sharjah and Fujairah, its neighbouring emirates, I was struck by the modernising projects going on all around. One place in Fujairah in particular - the port of Dibba - was striking. It was an immense undertaking which had literally just finished when I went there and, gazing out at the blue sea, glittering with a million diamonds in the midday sun, you could hear the an incessant, desultory sound, like plastic flapping in the wind. Wondering what it was, I drew my eyes away from the Gulf of Oman and looked around me. The long, orderly row of streetlamps were so new, their protective wrapping had not even yet been taken off them.

Back home, I could not get this image out of my head, and was eager to look into the exact nature of the Dubai project. Everyone has vague ideas of it being something of a Middle Eastern Las Vegas - a playhouse of the rich, materialistic, and narcissistic - but this image of mercantile expansion at Dibba hinted at more profound and important ambitions being realised and funneled feverishly in the region.

I therefore read Sheikh Mohammed's "My Vision: Challenges in the Race for Excellence" which he wrote in 2006, setting out an astoundingly bold and pioneering plan for the emirate. Reading it, it was not longer before one question formed in my mind and kept returning as I turned the pages: 10 years on, how is this dream faring? Much reading and research later, I wrote an article on exactly this topic, which can be found in 'The London Economic'. The link is underneath.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/is-the-current-oil-slump-exposing-concrete-evidence-of-the-realisation-of-dubais-ambitious-vision/03/10/