two observations

(now that final papers are starting to come due, you'll probably see a lot more posts!)

Okay, so first of all, there seems to be a tendency in British advertising and media to use puns in very unfunny contexts.  Is it a result of the pun-heavy style of the tabloids?  Do they not think puns are necessarily jokes?  Maybe "puns" is the wrong word, because a lot of the ads don't technically use puns, but wordplay for sure.  Here are two examples of ads that struck me as off - one really disturbing one about rape and minicabs and one about road deaths.   Both have been hard to avoid on the tube, and both are graphic and upsetting.  And use wordplay.

I'm not saying American ads don't use puns for serious PSAs - and maybe I just see more ads here - and maybe I'm reading too much into it.  Do either of those ads bother anybody else?

Secondly, I was reminded of my objection to this serious use of wordplay when I read the final line of this Guardian article, about the Afghan woman who was featured on the cover of Time after her husband and the Taliban disfigured her for attempting to escape her marriage.

The article had several moments that made me do a reading-stutter - you know, where your eyes skip back up a few lines and try again - including one passage that made me almost want to write my postcolonialism final paper on nationalism and feminist postcolonialism:

In an obvious sense Aisha's story conforms to a traditional feminist reading of the struggle of women against patriarchal society. Consigned to the status of a domestic slave, she rebelled and felt the brutal force of male-dominated tribal society. And there is no doubt that this is the context in which this vicious crime against a teenage girl took place.

However, it's not the only context, and for many critics of the Time cover, it's not the most significant context. Because, of course, Afghanistan plays host to tens of thousands of foreign troops, most of them American, and as such any efforts to remove the troops are seen by critics of the occupation as all part of a legitimate anti-imperialist cause. From this perspective, to put it crudely, national liberation always trumps female emancipation.

Oh, yes, the feminist reading is obvious and undoubtedly true but WHATEVER, not interesting!  Let's talk about nationalism instead!

Anyway, the article actually featured two separate bits of wordplay that I found inappropriate.  The first was a pun that, as an act of journalistic impropriety, wasn't too - well, wasn't too bad -

She had been given to her husband when she was 12, as payment to settle a dispute – a practice in Afghanistan that goes by the fitting name of "baad". 

I mean, if, say, I were writing an essay on the subject, I would put a pun like in a rough draft for sure, but guess what?  I would take it out during my first rewrite, because one of the first things I do during revision is remove the wordplay that I think is amusing but doesn't add anything substantive.   Unless I think it is splendidly good.  Which, obviously, this isn't.  And especially if I'm discussing a serious subject.   Which, obviously, this is.

But whatever, this appears to be a feature/column-style story - although linked under World News - so that can certainly be excused as wry irony rather than somebody taking the piss.  But - but!!

The Taliban, who have minimal support in Afghanistan, understand the deep yearning for peace in the country after decades of fighting. That's why they are prepared to commit the most monstrous violence, particularly against women, to force the Afghans to submit to their order.

Anyone who is serious about challenging misogyny in Afghanistan is required, at the very minimum, to acknowledge this depressing reality. Equally, regardless of whether the troops stay or are withdrawn, it's important, if only for the sake of honest debate, to state clearly what's at stake. Aisha's experience is not the whole story, but it does symbolise a critical subplot that ought not be neglected. That much, at least, is as plain as the nose that is missing from her face.

All right, let's set aside the idea of women's rights being a "critical subplot" because obviously that's the thing to do...

As plain as the nose that is missing from her face?


You wrote that, Andrew Anthony?  And you published that, Guardian and Observer?

I am, as the kids say, "shaking my head."  smh.  smh.  smh 'till it freaking falls off.  But by the way, I wouldn't write that if we were discussing decapitation.  When murdering groups of soldiers rip somebody's organs out, like, say, their heart, you don't call that "a heart-rending act of crime" in a news story in a major newspaper.  Electrical torture should never be intentionally referred to as a "shocking act."  The fact that women set themselves on fire to escape agonizing marriages?  Not "an issue of burning importance."

Common decency, people.

[But is it a British thing?  Do they not find this incredibly disrespectful and distasteful?  Or is it even just a me thing?  Surely not!  Somebody back me up here!]