Gideon Hallett

Jan Moir: adding insult to injury

2009-10-25T01:14:33Z

So, much as we expected a week ago, Jan Moir has published a clarification of sorts; how sorry she was to cause distress to those near and dear to Stephen Gately; how shocked, nay horrified she was to have people misinterpret her words; how sinister and unnamed groups were engaged in a campaign to silence any brave journalist who dared to voice a dissenting or contrary view.

Right. And I am, as the saying goes, a monkey's uncle...

Jan,

According to your view of events, you meant to say the following:

1) That you felt that the death was in some way bizarre and possibly drugs-related, therefore worthy of public scrutiny.

2) That Stephen Gately was engaged in a hazardous (or sleazy!) way of life and that this may have in some way contributed to his death.

3) And that this should be marked down as an example of the fact that same-sex partnerships could fall apart as easily as heterosexual partnerships.

And somehow everyone took your words to be vile anti-gay slurs and worthy of a flood of orchestrated hate by 'pressure groups and those with agendas of their own'; you also claimed that many of the people criticising you hadn't read the article fully; and that many of the silent majority supported you.

To start, let's talk about point number three.

I've never heard anyone talk about a myth that same-sex partnerships are somehow automatically fabulous just because the couple are both male or female. Relationships are complex, often go through rough patches and can fail on short notice and in spectacular fashion.

This myth simply does not exist in the head of anyone with a mature view of personal relationships.

That said, if you weren't exclusively aiming those comments at same-sex partnerships, then why were your stated examples solely of such partnerships?

Would you really have written an article talking about the sudden failure of all marriages, something that exploded the myth of the nuclear family? - and can you really see the Daily Mail publishing it if you did?

The messy breakdown of celebrity relationships is after all a staple of the tabloid newspapers - it's hardly difficult to find examples if you want them.

Take, for example, the tragic deaths of Natasha Collins and Mark Speight last year. The same Mark Speight that you compared to a forgotten Christmas tree decoration.

An apparently happy heterosexual couple torn apart by drugs and the celebrity lifestyle. Did you simply forget about them? - after all, it was last year, rather than a couple of weeks ago!

You say that you would have said the same about the death of a heterosexual.

So why didn't you?

Point two: the sleaze. Funnily enough, that is a matter of personal opinion. It is not news.

Are you really under the impression that the world at large gives a fig about what you think is or isn't sleazy? - after all, a goodly number of the British populace would describe your reporting of such events as sleazy - and in the worst tradition of the gutter press.

Are we therefore to expect that you will suddenly drop dead of causes related to your journalism habit?

(And would you mind if we then speculated publicly about what textual depravities you must have committed to have earned such a strange and troubling death?)

Point one: what you perceived to be an unnatural end to a life. You were roundly castigated by various qualified bodies and individuals who pointed out that, yes, previously healthy thirtysomething men do sometimes drop dead.

Did you actually take the trouble to familiarise yourself with the medical details of the case before you ventured your opinion on the matter? - even if it would have meant delaying your comment until it was no longer headline news?

Or is forming an opinion on something without having read the text acceptable when you do it - and unfair when you're on the receiving end?

You are apparently quite shocked and surprised about the resultant storm and the speed with which it engulfed yourself and the Mail. The simplest explanation for this is your apparent ignorance concerning the new media, especially services like Twitter; and the responsiveness of the Internet to news. I am not saying that Twitter covered itself in glory in its response to this particular case - and I said so on the record at the time.

However, the response was most definitely not orchestrated in the manner that you are suggesting. The news of your column spread around the grassroots at the speed of rumour; from friend to friend, from contact to contact - they linked to your article, read it, saw red and commented on it to their contacts. And eventually, biggish Twitter names like Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker caught wind of it; and duly commented as well.

Perhaps you underestimate the scale of Twitter. If, for example, Stephen Fry's Twitter feed was printed on paper and distributed in this country, it would be the fourth largest newspaper in the UK. And it would be free.

Any Twitter user has a potential audience of millions and the ability to disseminate news in seconds - and that's what happened here.

You set the grassroots alight; they caught fire, and you and the Mail got burned.

No management of media, no direction by hidden figures and groups with agendas.

Just ordinary people with the freedom to give their opinion in public.

And while retweeting someone else's pithy comment is hardly akin to taking to the streets and rioting, it is a public act; and it is one that accompanies a genuine feeling. People talked about it, the PCC was suggested, the Daily Mail's corporate sponsors were alerted; and within hours, the online debate caused rapid and effective reaction in the real world.

You have (of course!) cited the myriads of supporting emails you received from those who agreed with you. The thing about support sent to a private email address is that, in the public eye, it's functionally identical to ... no support at all.

The collective term used online (for over twenty years!) for such silent but supportive multitudes is lurkers; and they are chiefly renowned for their choosing to support anyone who can't seem to find public support any other way. However, their support is entirely useless unless it is made public; which is where such self-proclaimed popular spokespeople tend to fail.

(Hence the sarcastic comment used: 'The lurkers support me in email!')

For all that most of the Twitter storm was a few seconds spent retweeting the opinions of others, it was done by real people who were prepared to commit their opinion to the public arena; and such actions, however small, will always carry the day against an unspecified number of people who simply aren't prepared to speak out.

Anyway, enough geekspeak.

The simple fact of the matter is that you caused massive offence to a large number of people with your original article.

And in response to this, you have issued a half-hearted, ambiguous, self-justifying opinion piece hinting heavily that you were being shouted down for saying the unpopular-but-true.

You say:

'Can it really be that we are becoming a society where no one can dare to question the circumstances or behaviour of a person who happens to be gay without being labelled a homophobe? If so, that is deeply troubling.'

Are you really suggesting that your original article, laden with innuendo and implication, that mentioned only the behaviour of failed gay couples, celebrity usage of drugs and other 'sleazy' lifestyle behaviour - could be interpreted as an even-handed treatment of the subject?

Regardless of your target market, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?

Do you seriously think that a disingenuous not-quite-apology overlaid with a well-developed martyr reflex comes across as anything but a calculated move on your part and a deliberate withdrawal behind smokescreen?

Frankly, your response looks intellectually dishonest. And that's putting it in the best light.

The alternative interpretation is the one you have hinted at: that you honestly and genuinely had no idea that people would react to your words in the way they did.

Which is worse on many levels.

You are a print journalist, Jan Moir.

Words should be your tools, your craft - and your bread and butter.

Certainly, the subs will sometimes carve your precious text up, correct inaccuracies and fit it to the page.

However, if your audience and the wider world misinterpret your intentions to such a degree; if such a massive failure of communication takes place; then it is ultimately your failure as a professional writer that is the root cause.

So would you rather be seen as economical with the truth, two-faced and evasive under pressure - or profoundly, memorably and spectacularly incapable as a journalist?

If you are genuinely sorry for causing offence to people (whether family, friends, or the general public); then a simple and unqualified apology will do nicely. It doesn't have to be long, it doesn't have to be ornate; a simple 'Sorry' will do.

The response you have given to date is grudgingly reminiscent of a schoolchild told to apologise for feuding with their peers - whatever may be said, the tone is one of resentment and persecution.

It fails to convince the audience of any contrition.

If you're genuinely sorry, don't quibble over it. Apologise unreservedly, learn from your mistakes and move on.

If you're not, don't bother trying; just learn to live with the fact that people will regard you as a two-faced bigot with a prurient interest in the private lives of others.

Good news.

2009-10-19T08:44:09Z

I didn't want to mention this before it was made public, but as of Friday evening, our family has a younger generation; my cousin Tom and his wife Marie-Sophie have had a bouncing baby girl named Evangeline.

Much quiet celebration is in progress.

Minor rant-ette.

2009-10-16T13:17:53Z

Just a quick one, but it's something that bugs me slightly about the great and good getting publicly outraged en masse by Jan Moir's nasty little drivelling.

Yes, it's nasty. Yes, it's laughably absurd - or would be if people didn't get killed for being GLBT. Yes, she's pretty obviously a bigoted and thoroughly unpleasant little moron.

Last I heard, that wasn't so unusual.

Throw half a brick without aiming and you could probably hit one.

(Throw half a brick without aiming and you quite possibly are one, but that's by-the-by.)

However, her position is not worth dignifying with outrage. She writes for a newspaper that engages in frequent deliberate provocation of what it sees as the wooly liberals.

Generating a massive chorus of outrage going is likely to achieve nothing more than making Moir and her ilk feel courageous and validated, for speaking out against public opinion and challenging the liberal establishment.

There is absolutely no useful comparison to be made between this affair and the Carter-Ruck/Trafigura injunction - which was an attempt to set a dangerous legal precedent and in so doing, threaten the freedom of all speech.

So: laugh at her. Satirise her with venom and mockery.

Make the absurdity of her views absolutely clear to all and sundry.

But don't abrogate her right to make a fool of herself and her employers.

If what she said is so wrong and disgusting (which it is), then she's not likely to win over anyone who doesn't already support her - but if her critics can be portrayed as trying to stifle her, then she and her supporters can invoke the Trafigura comparison as evidence of her critics' hypocrisy; which would be all the victory she wants.

gmh @ 2009-10-13T10:49:00

2009-10-13T09:56:36Z

Courtesy of the Statute Law Database:

'Freedom of Speech.

That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.'

(From 'An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.' - a.k.a. The Bill of Rights 1688)

This is not optional. This is a basic necessity for democratic government.

Any court transgressing this needs to be smacked down hard.

Rant over.

Sorry for intruding upon your day.

gmh @ 2009-10-08T23:26:00

2009-10-08T22:33:14Z

I am quite astonishingly relieved to notice that the brouhaha of the last few days has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all parties.

No con needs negative publicity, considering how hard it is to run the dratted things in the first place; and it is truly heartening to see possibly damaging situations resolved well.

Thanks to both parties for being big enough to compromise, and especial thanks to James Bacon for his role in resolving this.

I hope this year's Octocon goes swingingly and builds up well to next year's big one!

Avast!

2009-09-19T16:47:55Z

So, in light of the date, I'm going to a friend's club night on the Tattershall Castle tonight; of which the theme is (unsurprisingly) 'pirates'.

I was asked to go as a gothic pirate.

Voila.

I made the mask, the sash and bandana, the scabbard (and the 'tache!); everything else was obtained from various places.

I'm happy with it; it's the first time I've tried to do a set costume, and it's about as close as I can get without making my own clothing.

Thanks, of course, go to clanwilliam and sundry others for various conversations and tips during the planning stage.

Where do I start...?

2009-08-06T09:09:27Z

There are days when you have to suspect the Daily Mail of being an absurdist satire on their perceived target market.

Apparently, teaching boys that hitting girls is wrong is radical feminism. Who knew?

The article contains many juicy quotes such as:

'Feminist agenda: Under controversial plans, schoolboys will be taught not to beat their partners or any other female'

'Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.'

'In a document peppered with the language of Miss Harman's equalities-agenda...'

(and the quote they use as an example:

'Our vision is a society where women and girls feel safe and confident in their homes and communities so that they can develop fully, live freely, contribute to society, and prosper in their daily lives. We want to overcome women's and girls' fear of crime and the gender-based violence that they experience.'

Shocking stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.)

Really, where do you start, when faced with journalism of such calibre...?

Hitting people of any gender is wrong.

Hitting women as a means of control - especially those women who you ought to love - is an especially unpleasant species of wrong.

Why is teaching this even remotely controversial?

Life's like mayonnaise soda.

2009-07-22T00:28:57Z

What is there to say that hasn't been said before by others in considerably more loquacious tones?

There are times when the entirety of life seems to be blundering half-arsed from incident to accident; and counting yourself lucky because at least this time you have some idea of what you did wrong or how to avoid the same pitfall in future.

And there are times when, regardless of circumstance, you do your best to rise above it all - even if it still hurts - because of who (and what) you are.

To cling on to the cliff face, because any alternative is far worse.

Is it a victory? - if so, it's a Spartan one; one that you can only really celebrate in the most muted of tones; to survive and to remain yourself regardless of circumstance.

gmh @ 2009-07-16T01:04:00

2009-07-16T00:24:58Z

That was a lot of fun. I'll write more tomorrow about it, but quick highlights include:

The area around the Dome turning into a giant goth'n'alternative convention; thousands of people wearing black of various sorts from the casual to the very ornate.

Meeting clytemenstra and her friend Vicky for coffee beforehand as well as bumping into d_floorlandmine outside Greenwich North tube.

Seeing Jane's Addiction, the original lineup - still amazingly enough alive and capable of rocking hard after two decades of bad behaviour.

Special NIN guest Gary Numan coming on and playing 'Cars' with NIN.

Just going out and listening to evilly loud music with friends, even in a barn like the Millennium Dome; it's been too long.

Walking home on my own from Bethnal Green tube and watching people look at me nervously; I don't often wear makeup, but it's fun to watch people react when I do.

gmh @ 2009-07-07T10:24:00

2009-07-07T10:35:36Z

Have been reading clanwilliam's copy of Geoffrey Robertson's The Tyrannicide Brief - a book aimed (at least in part) at setting the record straight on John Cooke, the prosecuting counsel in the trial of Charles I, as well as giving a rounded picture of the moral and political background to the trial.

I would recommend it to m'learned friends; as Robertson points out convincingly, the trial of Charles was anything but a kangaroo court; rather it was significantly fairer and more lenient than any other treason charge in the 17th Century (especially the show trials that the regicides were themselves subjected to in 1660); and that the only obstacle to Charles receiving a fair trial was Charles himself, who was unable to countenance the idea that he be subject to the common law as head of state.

Also pointed out are the ways that the Commonwealth's public trials were instrumental in moving British trial procedure towards a level playing field for both sides; the right to silence, the cab-rank rule, the use of English in court; all of which Cooke was a key figure in advocating.

(Not to mention such wacky ideas such as poverty being a key factor in criminal conduct, free representation for the poor and mitigation of sentences for those who stole to feed their families.)

I would say that it is written by an advocate and is a work of advocacy; Robertson obviously has a certain axe to grind; and some of the parallels he draws with modern international trials such as Milosevic are a little laboured; he knows his stuff and I would find myself broadly in agreement with his arguments, but there were occasions when I felt that he was begging the question to a certain degree; obviously, a full treatment on differences and similarities in the International Criminal Court and the Commonwealth's trials would be academic and turgid.

It's a good and readable book, however, regardless of any prior legal knowledge. It's about an important subject, about a figure maligned by historians - and about a legal establishment ready to forget about those 'activist judges' who gave their lives for justice in Britain.

Oh and Charles II? I've never been particularly fond of the Merrie Monarch, being naturally disposed against parasitic Hooray Henries; but his conduct with regard to the regicides was particularly vindictive and petty - there never was a Stuart who could hold a candle to Cromwell or Ireton.

I think the best epitaph for the regicides is the fact that the direction that they pushed the courts in is still recognisable today; whereas their prosecutors' methods seem more akin to the Middle Ages. Even as the Royalists tried to purge all memory of their Civil War defeat in 1660, so they consigned themselves to history; and the Commonwealthmen who tried to break new ground for the benefit of all England - though largely forgotten or slighted post-mortem - are the architects and progenitors of today's legal rights and freedoms.

gmh @ 2009-06-13T10:51:00

2009-06-13T09:56:19Z

*boggle* of the morning:

'Suitable for vegetarians'.

On the side of a jar of freeze dried coffee.

Leaving aside all images of vast herds of coffee beans sweeping across the wide Serengeti, I now have this terrible urge to start producing absurdist consumer notifications.

I think every housebrick would be improved by a little sign saying "warning: may be harmful if inhaled."

Such a perfect day.

2009-05-30T20:29:01Z

There are days, long hot sunny summer days and the light is sharp and brilliant, when the best thing you can do is wander around with no set purpose; no goals, no clocks - just letting yourself go walkabout.

I am now feeling quite astoundingly relaxed.

Bright light! Bright light!

2009-05-20T07:51:33Z

Oh my goodness my head hurts.

Still, it was a very fun evening and it was lovely to see everyone who turned up.

Next time: a slightly bigger room, perhaps.

Happy Birthday, monstrous!

2009-05-19T10:00:57Z

You are (as always) fiendish, terrifying and horrible.

I love you very much.

G.

A good bit of news.

2009-05-15T23:28:38Z

California's Supreme Court bitchslapping the haters.

Now here's hoping that they can make it stick.

To say that love is somehow invalid simply because of your gender is an absurdity and an insult.

gmh @ 2009-05-11T09:51:00

2009-05-11T09:08:35Z

Following the weekend's celebrations, I now have about 600 photos to process.

Of those, I'd say about 200 are actually not bad (a surprisingly high strike rate for me, and something I'm quite chuffed by). The rest of you will probably get to see edited highlights after the bride and groom have been consulted (so not until well after the honeymoon!) and I've had a sit-down with rhythmaning.

However, there is a shot that I hope they will forgive me for airing early ; it is pretty much as it came out of the camera, and is I think one of my favourite shots of the day.

It was, quite simply, a day I will always remember with pleasure; and a hell of a good party to boot!

gmh @ 2009-05-10T09:42:00

2009-05-10T09:14:03Z

I'd like to report that the wedding of liadnan and pashazade can best be described as a joyful celebration - it didn't just go off without a hitch, it was consistently brilliant throughout.

A substantial part of this is due to frankie_ecap's awesome competence; who was possibly the most level-headed and organisationally gifted best man I have ever seen.

The thing that struck me as the zeitgeist was the sheer level of affection everyone had for the happy couple; everyone wore their delight openly, unmitigatedly and without reserve, regardless of age or social background.

All the best, you two; we'll remember that day as a very special one.

update: ... and some of the photos are pretty good, though I say so myself!

Flash!

2009-05-04T18:05:55Z

(Aa-aa...)

So, last week, I decided to buy myself an external flash unit; I'd been half-meaning-to for ages and as it happens I have a wedding to go to next weekend, so I took advantage of the excuse to buy a shiny new toy.

The last few days have involved meeting various people in various pubs; I confess, I have taken the new toy out and waved it at people.

(Specifically including clanwilliam, liadnan, oursin, legionseagle, pashazade, coughingbear, hano, frankie_ecap, rhythmaning, dorcas_gustine, fluffcthulhu, autopope, feorag, major_clanger, rozk and various others. I hope I wasn't irritating anyone too much.)

I now have some quite promising shots of people to work on; I'll clean them up and post them to my gallery at some point this evening (probably!).

Right...

2009-04-30T22:07:44Z

It has been announced that dorcas_gustine is going back to Italy.

This is all things considered a ver' bad thing and we are ver' sorry to lose her; even if hopefully only temporarily.

(What's so all-fire-wonderful about Italian coffee, when it comes down to it?!)

Fortunately, the augury for this weekend is good - deo volante - so it seems fitting that we have some sort of shindig to give her a decent send-off.

Which calls for a pub, really.

...the pub in question being the Black Friar (postcode: EC4V 4EG) - it's on the river (if the weather is good) and has an unique interior (if the weather isn't good) and does decent beer (because after several pints, who cares about the weather anyway?).

Timing? Glad you asked.

How does 17:00 on Saturday 2nd of May sound?

Depending on time, inclination and the continued of existence of life as we know it in the shadow of the Aporkalypse, there might be food afterwards (I'm always open to suggestions!), but at the very least, beer and sun would be good.

gmh @ 2009-04-22T13:48:00

2009-04-22T12:48:29Z

If you can make it outside this lunchtime, do so.

To call it a lovely day is a gross understatement.

The Panopticon Strikes Back.

2009-04-16T10:47:23Z

More and more videos of excessive use of force by the police at the G20 are emerging.

This could be very interesting, especially given the implications for future policing of such demoes; the entire world is now able to watch the watchmen.

I hope that media coverage of such events will no longer consist of the top cop saying how proud he is of his officers' exemplary conduct interspersed with footage of dreadlocked soapdodgers smashing up private property - what we can see from the footage is that many of the people who were assaulted by the police were themselves 'normal'; and that they got belted simply because they didn't get out of the way of the police in time.

This clip is a particularly clear demonstration of elements of the police engaging in the use of force against a group of people who were (for the most part) not even trying to defend themselves!

Operation Glencoe was intended to be a test case for policing the 2012 Olympics. It may yet be - but not, I think, in the way the police may have originally intended.

(Of course, this only applies in First World countries at the moment; and only in crowds where the density of cameras among the demonstrators is sufficient to challenge the official record; for every such protest in globally-recognisable places like the City, there are many that go unrecorded simply because the people protesting are not of interest to the world's media.)

gmh @ 2009-04-07T10:22:00

2009-04-07T09:36:35Z

From major_clanger, a link to a superbly-written article about the flip side of Dubai's economic miracle.

Caution: it is not easy reading in any way; and if you're anything like me, you will very probably be quietly seething at the end of it.

Nonetheless, this is real news; the sort of stuff that needs to be spread around the airwaves for all to read.

...and back.

2009-03-30T23:32:17Z

Gosh, that was good.

P-CON VI was a weekend of funfunfun. And more fun.

Alcohol, food, chitchat, panels, flirting, geeking and generally hanging around with Many Fine People.

(...and an Elder God.)

Seem to have purchased: the complete graphical works of Leonardo Da Vinci in Hardbound Monolith Edition (seriously; the book is hardbound and weighs about 8 kg), a book on ancient Cretan civilisation and a book on Persia and its role in the Great Game. Must somehow find shelf space for them.

Herself may have won something or other for a bit of writing. Naturally v. proud.

Now have to resign self to the fact that tomorrow will involve going back to the stupid trivial bits of life that involve actually earning a living.

Go to P-CON. P-CON is more fun than can usually be had without ingesting sundry addictive substances.

In fact, P-CON is probably an addictive substance in its own right.

ETA: also, desperance has Designs on my coat.

A life of dissipation and frivolity.

2009-03-22T23:12:12Z

I think I've been out on the town (to some degree) every day for the last week and a half.

Culminating in liadnan's stag weekend in Ludlow; which was one of the most fun weekends I've had in a very long time (even if my liver would now like to crawl off and suffer somewhere in peace).

All must salute the fearsomely impressive organisational skills and sheer hard work that frankie_ecap used to make this a weekend to remember for all concerned.

(Frankie, you rock. Srsly. Thanks for a brilliant weekend.)

Photos exist and will go up on my gallery when a) my attention span is longer than 5 seconds and b) I can see straight again.

Also: I now have a fez of my very own.

Conversation with a dead cat.

2009-03-03T19:23:55Z

This is a warning; there is a certain amount of sentiment behind the cut (though not, I hope, sentimentality); if such things horrify you, then you might want to skip this.

Background: in spring 1983, a half-starved and stray black female kitten turned up on the doorstep of the house in Radstock where I lived with my mother. We took her in, fed her and she came to live with us. We named her Dinah (due to a slight brainfart on my mother's part with regard to the names of the cats in 'Through The Looking Glass').

In time, she grew; though never very large; she was possibly part-Burmese or part-Siamese as well as having been a malnourished kitten; but she was healthy, highly intelligent, elegant, talkative and the most affectionate cat I've ever met - she obviously loved us as people, not just meal tickets.

Here she is.

(A particular trick of hers; she would walk up the arm of a chair; perch on the top, purr in your ear and nibble very gently on your earlobe.)

Ten years later, she died; nephritis. Over the course of a week, she became shy and unsociable; I eventually persuaded her in, we took her to the vet, who nodded and said that there was really nothing we could do but wait for the end.

The day before her death, while I was stroking her, I broke down in tears at the knowledge that she was on the way out; and she, who by that time was barely capable of standing, stood up, purred in my face, and nibbled my nose gently; she knew I was upset; and I think she knew why - and she was trying to comfort me.

Five years or so later (1998 sometime); I dreamed of her; an incredibly vivid dream; the sort in which you can picture everything perfectly; not just the way she looked, but how she acted and who she was; her essence if you like; I remember being heartwrenchingly overjoyed in my dream, because I thought I'd never see her again; yet here she was, apparently alive and happy.

Waking the following morning and realising that she was still dead was incredibly painful; the dream was so strong and clear that I could remember everything; and how it made me feel - I still can to this day.

Last night, I dreamed of her again; and the impressions were undimmed with the passing of time; her way of behaving; her soft black fur that looked slightly chocolate brown in strong sunlight; the way she just emitted happiness and how much she enjoyed our company.

I was incredibly pleased to see her again; to enjoy her company - but at the same time I knew this time that she was dead; and that when I woke she would still be dead; and so I was looking at her with a mixture of joy and deep distress - I knew that I was dreaming; and that I was also crying in my sleep.

She looked squarely at me; and I heard a voice in my mind:

"Of course I'm dead. I had a good life; a happy life, and it ended. What you're seeing here is something you constructed; your facsimile of me; and that will remain as long as you remain. Enjoy these meetings; take whatever you can from the memory of our companionship, but get on with your life!"

At which point my mind obviously decided that this was enough, and brought me close enough to awake to be aware of where I was.

I still feel oddly privileged, though, that my memories are solid enough to give me so strong and convincing a picture of my friend Dinah.

Needless to say, however, I've been feeling a little fragile today as a result; but I felt I ought perhaps to share this one.