Thursday, May 29, 2008

Brooker on Miliband

Via Politicalog (welcome back, Allan!), I find Charlie Brooker writing his usual tripe, but contained within said excretion are a few lines of amusement. [Emphasis mine.]
According to tradition, you're supposed to get more rightwing as you grow older, as wide-eyed youthful idealism is gradually replaced with growling, frightened, fat-arsed self-interest. I say "gradually", but what worries me is the thought that such a transformation could occur with terrifying speed, a real Damascene conversion. I came close once after glimpsing David Miliband on TV: I couldn't hear what he was saying, but something about his face—just his sodding face—revolted me on a deep and primal level. It was chilling, unsettling—like watching a haunted ventriloquist's dummy slowly turn its head through 360 degrees. "Who is this grinning homunculus," I thought, "and what does he want from me?"

This either means my genes are shifting, or Miliband is a rightwing imposter. Or maybe he's simply not of this world. Perhaps I merely behaved like a farm animal reacting to an extraterrestrial intruder—howling in distress without knowing why.

Ghastly and nightmarish though Miliband may be, he's got nothing on gloomy Gordon Brown, who increasingly resembles a humourless, imposing old butler slowly creaking the mansion door open in a Frankenstein movie. Prime Minister Igor, the shuffling fun-free zone.

Strangely—although it is hinted at in the article's title: "Labour leaders are starting to revolt me as much as Tories always have. Am I becoming rightwing?"—young master Brooker makes no mention of the many rumours of Miliband challenging the Gobblin' King for the leadership of the Labour Party.

But should that day come, I look forward to Charlie's fucking head exploding...


Anonymous said...

I always find myself a bit puzzled whenevr reading your diatribes against Brooker, as normally even if I disagree with what you're saying and who you're attacking, it always raises a smile and I can see where you're coming from.

But Brooker isn't really a political columnist (they're usually few and far between when he does pen them) and often flags up some of his views are completely irrational - plus he usually makes no bones about being a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter and doesn't pretend any level of intellectual analysis. I'd much rather have him than Polly or Jackie Ashley any day, even if, again, I don't always agree with his political views. He's really not

So, with all that, why does it matter whether he mentions the leadership or not? Most writers I can see the rational behind having a pop at, but Charlie Brooker? No, I really don't quite get the level of hatred behind this one :s

(That said, it was probably one of his weaker columns).

Devil's Kitchen said...

It's not really hatred. But the trouble with Brooker is that you have to find him funny in order to forgive his stupidity. And I don't find him funny.


Anonymous said...

I used to quite like Brooker but his last few politically themed articles are god awful, unthinking, smug works of shit. He seems to turning into supercunt Marcus Brigstock but with a wider range of humourous verb combinations such as dogtits or pisscriminal.

Longrider said...

"That said, it was probably one of his weaker columns"

Interestingly, I've seen that comment made about every one of his recent articles. It would appear to be somewhat consistent (i.e piss-poor writing is now the norm). Like DK, I find him about as funny as a road accident. Frankly, I fail to comprehend his following. His writing is weak and the feigned cynicism and misanthropy without quality humour behind them merely irritates.

Seriously over-rated. Sure, he's no Toynbee or Ashley - but so what? He was a one-shot gag that's dried up and now he's just not worth bothering with.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...