Year: 2010

  • The Convenience Marriage of Fundamentalism and Perversion

    In a 2003 essay for Daedalus, Christopher Hitchens wrote that, “religious absolutism makes a good match with tribal feelings and with sexual repression—two of the base ingredients of the fascistic style.”

    There’s no doubt that repressed sexuality is a feature of most religions, and the cause of many an unhappy union made under god’s banner. But less often discussed is religion’s facilitative role to sexual perversions. The more fundamentalist the dogma, the sicker the stuff taking place in between the sheets.

    Take the bacha baz of Afghanistan for instance. The bacha baz are men who take boys as lovers, or more accurately, as repeated rape victims. Over the years I’ve worked in Afghanistan, there has always been hushed gossip in dark corners about prominent, powerful men who keep boys, whom they literally own, as their personal sex slaves, some as young as nine years old. Or there are the late-night dancing parties where boys dressed as girls, smeared with make-up and bells jangling from their ankles, perform before their male-only audience before then being raped by one or more of the adults. The dancing boys of Afghanistan were the subject of a recent PBS documentary, which marks one of the first and only times the practice has been exposed candidly, or internationally.

    Older men sleeping with younger boys is not an isolated occurrence, but an epidemic stretching so far back in time that it’s considered a widely accepted cultural practice. Joel Brinkley of The San Francisco Chronicle, in asking,how did Afghanistan become the pedophilia capital of Asia?” reported recently that, “some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz”.

    It is not a coincidence that the systemic sexual abuse of boys is most widespread in Afghanistan’s most religiously conservative areas, where contact between unrelated men and women is extremely restricted. Brinkley notes, “sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law.”

    Women and girls are put strictly off limits to unrelated men until they are good and married- usually when they are still technically children (the average marriage age for girls in Afghanistan is 15 years), while the men are usually well into adulthood. In this waiting period, sexual activity nonetheless inevitably occurs among the bachelors, including sex with other men, incest, rape and abuse, visits to prostitutes and according to popular anecdote, bestiality.

    An interpreter of mine once laughingly told me about his bed-ridden friend who was kicked in the shins by an annoyed donkey while in mid-zoophile coitus. He told the women of his family he had been in a car accident, but admitted to his close friends, unembarrassed, what had really happened. They all had a good laugh over it.

    Let me pre-empt those who will accuse me of making Afghans out to be primitive and backward. This doesn’t only happen in Afghanistan, though it is happening there and let’s face that instead of being polite about it. Of course, not all or even most Afghans partake in such behaviour, nor sanction it. In any culture or place where you have excessive and bizarre rules dictating the kinds of relationships that humans can have with each other, you will find perversions beneath the thin front of sexual purity. You will find people acting out sexually in the cramped, seedy spaces left to them by the excessive rules of their culture.

    The defenders of such systems will say that their society is organized in such a way as to protect women, to keep the society “pure”; or to stop the spread of sinful behaviour, defined as sexual relations outside of marriage.

    This is nonsense. The systems exist for the sexual gratification of the abuser. The statutory rape of under-age girls in ‘celestial’ marriages in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for instance, allows aging men to do as they please to their child victims. Their church sanctions their behaviour, which would otherwise be considered abusive and abnormal. The Catholic Church, for all its blind obsession with sin and sexuality, gave clerics utter impunity for centuries to molest and rape children. And in many of Pakistan’s madrassahs, religious seminary boarding schools which served as dumping grounds for children from hungry, poverty-stricken families, boys were kept deprived of any female contact while they memorized a religious text in a language they didn’t understand, learned how to use small arms and rockets, and were routinely raped. All of this amounts to a very effective machine for churning out violent, unstable young killers. Cheryl Benard, in her 2001 book Veiled Courage, wrote of the devastating impact on these young rape victims whose untreated trauma and rage was easily channeled into the violence they were then sent out to commit as jihadists.

    An environment overrun by religious extremism helps sanctions forms of sexual abuse like bacha baz. Sex is taboo, so victims find nowhere to turn after their traumatic experience. The dictates of the religious establishment keep the adherents strictly divided into grossly unequal categories of the hunter and the prey. Sexual violence spreads from generation to generation, as a whole society becomes complicit in the rot, by the silence that surrounds, and ultimately endorses it. It all amounts to a dynasty created and managed by perverts, whereby they’ve ingeniously preserved the unchallenged right to act out their every wacko fantasy on the otherwise unwilling, all under the guise of something sanctioned by god. Decrepit, horny men need not earn the attraction of their object of desire; they can simply take it.

    Religious fundamentalists are not god-fearing, devoted or sacrosanct. They’re just perverts.

    About the Author

    Lauryn Oates is a Canadian human rights activist, gender and education specialist. She is currently Projects Director for Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, and a doctoral student in literacy education at the University of British Columbia.
  • Zeal of the X syndrome

    I googled zeal of the convert syndrome, out of curiosity, even though it’s pretty self-explanatory. The meaning is pretty self-explanatory, but I was curious about what and whom it’s applied to. The answer is: lots of things. Islam, Zionism, Bush/Fox News/Palin derangement, Stockholm syndrome, Yvonne Ridley syndrome (funny that one syndrome refers to others, but apparently it is so).

    So anyway, does new atheism fit? Sure, probably. Clearly a lot of things fit, so why wouldn’t gnu atheism? It has aspects of “a movement,” it is in some ways political, so sure, it probably has aspects of zeal of the convert syndrome too.

    But I don’t think that’s the source of my “zeal,” at least (assuming for the sake of argument that I have zeal – that zeal is the right word for what I have). I’m not a convert, for one thing…at least not to atheism, though I may be a convert of sorts to a more overt or active atheism. But even that dates back to the mid-90s, and I don’t think a mere “conversion” from quieter atheism to noisier atheism counts as much of a conversion for the purposes of syndrome-ascription.

    So I’m not really a convert in the relevant sense, so my zeal, if such it is, isn’t really that of the convert. What is it then? I think it’s the zeal of the person who is chronically surprised at the malice and mendacity of the (for want of a better term) other side. I think what keeps me interested in this, and commenting on it, is the steady stream of dishonest enraged polemic issuing from the people who detest gnu atheism. Without that – I just wouldn’t keep commenting on the subject, because what would there be to say?

    So we have a perpetual motion machine here. The other side keeps offering up its fury and scorn and misrepresentation, so people like me keep pointing out the disproportionate fury and the misrepresentation, so the other side does what it does some more, and so on, ad infinitum. Ironic, innit.

  • The smugness files

    The Telegraph is rubbing its nasty hands in glee (yes I know newspapers don’t actually have hands – they have gills) about yet another scientist saying ew ick about yet another scientist who missed an opportunity to credit god for making something out of nothing.

    [Susan Greenfield]  criticised the “smugness” of scientists who claim to “have all the answers”… in a BBC Radio 4 Today programme discussion about [Stephen] Hawking’s views. Last week he angered many religious believers by saying science “can explain the universe without the need for a creator”.

    Says the Telegraph, self-righteously and bullyingly – and in fact smugly. The Telegraph smugly assumes that scientists and others are not supposed to “anger religious believers” by attempting to describe the world as it is. The Telegraph smugly reports the putative “anger” of religious believers as if it were important, and deplorable, and someone’s fault. There’s something more than a little Talibanish about that – ironically enough.

    Greenfield said: “Science can often suffer from a certain smugness and complacency…What we need to preserve in science is a curiosity and an open-mindedness rather than a complacency and a sort of arrogance where we attack people who come at the big truths and the big questions albeit using different strategies.”

    Meaning what? That scientists shouldn’t point out (which is apparently the sort of thing Greenfield means by “attack”) that certain strategies for getting at “the big truths” (as well as the small ones) are bad strategies because they don’t get at any actual truth? That seems to be what she means, but she’s dressed it up in the usual cozy patronizing PR-speak that disguises the frank anti-inquiry purport of claims like that.

    Asked whether she was uncomfortable about scientists making comments about God, she said: “Yes I am. Of course they can make whatever comments they like but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable. I think that doesn’t necessarily do science a service.”

    Oh yes? Does she have the same sort of concern about popes and priests and mullahs? They generally assume they have all the answers, in a much more Taliban-like way than scientists do, so is that a problem too? If it is, the Telegraph doesn’t report the fact.

    [Greenfield] added that his statement that God was not needed was “surprising”.She said: “All science is provisional and therefore to claim to have the definitive answer to anything is a hardline view. It would be very great shame if young people think that to be a scientist you must be an atheist.”

    But it isn’t surprising at all, it’s utterly routine, and she must know that perfectly well. It’s also not the case that he claimed “to have the definitive answer,” and she probably knows that too. The whole thing is just yet more of the predictable party line, and it’s as inaccurate as the party line pretty much always is. It’s also as one-sided as it almost always is – telling off scientists for making claims but never telling off clerics for doing so with much less to back the claims up.

    Her remarks are likely to be interpreted as a criticism of Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and bestselling author of The God Delusion who helped to pay for buses emblazoned with adverts declaring “there’s probably no God”.

    Says the Telegraph pruriently, shit-stirring for no obvious reason except that it can.

  • Congo rape victims estimate rises again

    The estimate has risen from 150 to 240 to more than 500.

  • HRW says India should ban degrading rape “test”

    Many Indian hospitals routinely subject rape survivors to forensic examinations that include the unscientific and degrading “finger” test.

  • Jesus and Mo discuss that wack guy in Florida

    What to do about such intolerance and barbarity? Mo has a suggestion.

  • Joseph Hoffmann asks: should atheism be studied?

    We are enshrining mystery when there is no mystery. We are saying “Who could possibly know?” when there are plenty of people who know.

  • Susan Greenfield calls atheist scientists “smug”

    “When they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable.”

  • Open letter to the BBC

    BBC Sunday Live invited me to join its debate on whether ‘it is right to condemn Iran for stoning’ on 5 September 2010 via webcam. During the debate, the programme allowed only two interventions via webcam (that of Suhaib Hassan of the Islamic Sharia Council and Mohammad Morandi of Tehran University – both of whom were in support of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s stoning and/or execution). I (who had presumably been invited to defend Ms Ashtiani and oppose stoning in the debate) was never given the opportunity to speak.
     
    To the BBC’s Sunday Live Programme
     
    I am writing to ask that you rectify gross inaccuracies regarding Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s case and that of stoning in Iran in your upcoming programme.
     
    Presenter Susanna Reid repeatedly provided misinformation on Sakineh’s case and on the practice of stoning in Iran during the 5 September debate on whether it was ‘right to condemn Iran for stoning.’
     
    The first major inaccuracies were regarding the practice of stoning in Iran.
     
    In the clip preceding the debate, Susanna Reid said that ‘the Iranian government says it is stopping stoning as a punishment for adultery and homosexuality.’ During the debate, she said: ‘Officially the Iranian government does not condone stoning. There has been an official moratorium since 2002. Officially it has been dropped from the penal code.’ Obviously these two statements contradict one another – either the Iranian government has stopped stoning or it is stopping it, but has not yet done so.
     
    In fact, stoning is still part of the penal code. Moreover, despite a 2002 moratorium (which is not the same as officially dropping stoning from its penal code), 19 people have been stoned since and including 2002.
     
    And far from being rare, as Ms Reid stressed on a number of occasions, there have been 150 known cases of death by stoning since 1980 with more than 20 people awaiting death by stoning in Iran right now, including Azar Bagheri who was 15 when she was arrested (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty). The list of those stoned or awaiting death by stoning compiled by the International Committee against Executions can be found here: http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/SList%20_1980-2010__FHdoc.pdf.
     
    Furthermore, contrary to the comments provided by the Islamic Sharia Council, stoning sentences are issued not only when there are four witnesses but also as a result of confession, thus explaining why Ms Ashtiani was forced to ‘confess’ on TV, clearly under duress.
     
    The other important inaccuracy was that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has been sentenced to execution for the murder of her husband. This was mentioned a number of times in the programme without providing information to the contrary.
     
    In fact, Ms Ashtiani has been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery and not for murdering her husband. At a 30 July press conference in London, Mina Ahadi of the International Committee against Execution and International Committee against Stoning and I provided evidence of the stoning verdict (http://iransolidarity.blogspot.com/2010/07/help-me-stay-alive-and-hug-my-children.html). You can see a copy of the actual court judgment of stoning for adultery here: http://www.iransolidarity.org.uk/act_now.html.
     
    Sakineh has never been found guilty of murdering her husband in an Iranian court. Even the man who was found guilty of her husband’s murder has not been executed. In Iran, under Diyeh laws, the family of the victim can ask for the death penalty to be revoked. Sakineh’s 22 year old son, Sajjad, explains why he and his 17 year old sister spared the man’s life in an interview with French writer and philosopher, Bernard-Henri Levy: http://stopstonningnow.com/wpress/3618.
     
    The reason the Islamic regime of Iran is branding her a murderer and denying sentences of death by stoning for adultery is because of the international campaign in her defence and against the medieval and brutal punishment of stoning. It hopes to provide legitimacy for her execution now that it may not be able to stone her because of the public outcry. Unfortunately your programme has done the same.
     
    Given that a woman’s life is at stake, it becomes all the more urgent for your programme to rectify its inaccuracies.
     
    I look forward to your immediate response and action.
     
    Notes:
     
    1. The programme can be seen here until next Sunday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sy9fl and begins at 47.00 minutes.
     
    2. Every day from today until next Sunday’s programme, I will write a post on my blog addressing other issues raised in the debate, which never received a response.
     
    3. For more information:
    Maryam Namazie
    BM Box 6754
    London WC1N 3XX, UK
    Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
    maryamnamazie@gmail.com
    www.maryamnamazie.com
    maryamnamazie.blogspot.com

    About the Author

    Maryam Namazie is a rights activist, commentator and broadcaster. She is the Campaign Organiser for Iran Solidarity, which was formed in July 2009 to mobilise support and stand with the people of Iran against the Islamic regime of Iran. She is also spokesperson for Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.
  • Robert Fisk on a vicious patriarchal system

    Forced to marry her own rapist, Hanan now lives in terror of losing her son – and of being murdered by her family.

  • “Psychic” says a sanctuary croc ate 2 missing children

    So many of the crocs in the sanctuary were killed, and the sanctuary was demolished. Good work.

  • Robert Fisk on “honour” killings

    How should one react to a man who rapes his own daughter and, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the “honour” of his family?

  • Muslim stonemason models for church gargoyle

    A far-right group pitches a fit; no one else is perturbed.

  • Bernard-Henri Lévy updates news on Ashtiani

    Only one thing, in fact, is sure. The stoning has been suspended, not canceled.

  • What about evidence?

    I don’t understand what Tim Crane is trying to say. Maybe it’s just the usual (the ingredients of which are present): religion isn’t science, it’s about meaning; the end. Maybe, but Crane says more than that, and some of what he says doesn’t go well with “religion isn’t science, it’s about meaning.”

    Atheists, he says, ask for evidence for religious claims, and reject the claims when the evidence is not forthcoming. Yes that’s right. Then he says in their view those claims are

    a bit like scientific hypotheses. In other words, they are claims — like the claim that God created the world — that are supported by evidence, that are proved by arguments and tested against our experience of the world.

    Yes, but it’s not just scientific hypotheses that match that description. Crane at one point admits this.

    It is absolutely essential to religions that they make certain factual or historical claims. When Saint Paul says “if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain and our faith is in vain” he is saying that the point of his faith depends on a certain historical occurrence.

    Theologians will debate exactly what it means to claim that Christ has risen, what exactly the meaning and significance of this occurrence is, and will give more or less sophisticated accounts of it. But all I am saying is that whatever its specific nature, Christians must hold that there was such an occurrence. Christianity does make factual, historical claims. But this is not the same as being a kind of proto-science.

    But it doesn’t need to be “a kind of proto-science,” whatever that may mean; but it is still a matter of evidence. Factual, historical claims depend on evidence, and if the evidence is not there, then the claims are just bogus. If the evidence is disputed, the claims are disputed. If the evidence has been faked, the claims are blown out of the water and the claimant may be disgraced, or may just be suspended for a year with pay. At any rate the evidence matters, and without it, all you have is stories. This is an important point, and Crane has put it at the center of what he’s saying, but he never actually makes it again. I don’t understand why.

    He turns the whole thing into a false choice between science on the one hand and religion on the other, ignoring the great swath of empirical inquiry that’s not science but nevertheless depends on evidence. Why does he? I really don’t know.

    It is true, as I have just said, that Christianity does place certain historical events at the heart of their conception of the world, and to that extent, one cannot be a Christian unless one believes that these events happened. Speaking for myself, it is because I reject the factual basis of the central Christian doctrines that I consider myself an atheist. But I do not reject these claims because I think they are bad hypotheses in the scientific sense. Not all factual claims are scientific hypotheses.

    But they don’t have to be; you still reject them, when there is no evidence, for reasons. You reject these claims – don’t you? – because you think they are bad hypotheses in a broader sense, and you think that because there is no evidence to back them up…don’t you? You say it is because you reject the factual basis of the central Christian doctrines that you consider yourself an atheist, and you reject the factual basis of the doctrines because there is no evidence for them – don’t you? So why make such a point of the “scientific” aspect while not mentioning the lack of evidence?

    Religions do make factual and historical claims, and if these claims are false, then the religions fail. But this dependence on fact does not make religious claims anything like hypotheses in the scientific sense. Hypotheses are not central. Rather, what is central is the commitment to the meaningfulness (and therefore the mystery) of the world.

    Maybe so, but the claims are false (in the sense that there is no evidence for them) and so, according to Crane, the religions fail. Saying the commitment to meaningfulness is what is central doesn’t change that.

    So, I don’t understand what he’s getting at.

  • 52 victim cards per deck

    The Catholic church is pitching another fit, this time complaining that the BBC is anti-Christian and liberal and secular when it should be pro-Catholic and reactionary and theocratic like – well like the Catholic church.

    Cardinal Keith O’Brien said the BBC’s news coverage is contaminated by “a radically secular and socially liberal mindset”…

    “Senior news managers have admitted to the Catholic church that a radically secular and socially liberal mindset pervades their newsrooms. This sadly taints BBC news and current affairs coverage of religious issues, particularly matters of Christian beliefs.”

    They certainly do think they’re owed a great deal of deference and air time, don’t they, especially for people who are mired in an institutional scandal about pervasive child-rape and obstruction of justice. Perhaps they would like the BBC to spend more time on that subject?

  • Cardinal says BBC has anti-Christian bias

    Complains of “a radically secular and socially liberal mindset”; demands more air time for clerics.

  • Tim Crane on religion, mystery and evidence

    Science and religion are different, yet religions rest on historical claims, but – uh – whatever.

  • Vatican tools say gay marriage is like decaf coffee

    “A gay relationship is like decaffeinated coffee, you do not wake up,” said a priest/bioethics professor at Regina Apostolorum U.

  • Lose Your Illusion: Essays by Joumana Haddad

    Here are a few statistics you may or may not be familiar with. The 2002 Arab Human Development Report estimated that the Arab world translates around 330 books annually, one fifth of the number translated by Greece. Taking the long view, the authors also estimated that the Arab world had translated 100,000 books since the Caliph Ma’mun in the ninth century. This is just under the average number translated by Spain in a year. How many books are actually produced? We don’t really know. While they admitted that there were ‘no reliable figures’, the researchers indicated that ‘many indicators suggest a severe shortage of writing; a large share of the market consists of religious books and educational publications that are limited in their creative content.

    The Arab world was a civilisation of great literature and creativity before it got hijacked by an absurd and stupid religion. Like all Arab independent voices, Joumana Haddad lives under the constant thread of murder and acid attack. Yet a muscle unused won’t always atrophy and something that’s choked won’t always die. There are sentences and paragraphs in Haddad’s book of which no British intellectual is capable. One of the many reactions to read I Killed Scheherazade is a kind of embarrassment at the poverty of Western liberal thought. There’s more insight and poetry in these 160 pages of Haddad, than there is in a pulped rainforest’s worth of Armstrong, Eagleton, Gray, and all the other quacking equivocal voices on the op-ed pages and panel shows.

    I Killed Scheherazade is mainly about the hypocrisy and ugliness of separation. The theocratic world incorporates the most extreme kind of puritanism in its scripture and policy, yet allows its male citizens to carry out appalling acts of sexual degeneracy that would never be tolerated in the decadent and godless West. As Haddad puts it, Islamic governments will burn copies of Lolita but won’t prohibit child brides. The theocratic world denies sexuality yet also magnifies it to a degree far beyond the Western supermodel and billboard culture. Its clerics claim to be above base desire, and yet their laws on vice and virtue are detailed to a prurient and ludicrous degree (the Iranian artist Marjane Satrapi remembers being told off by the Revolutionary Guards for running in the street; the officers were concerned that the pistoning motions of Satrapi’s buttocks could arouse passing males). Haddad quotes an old Lebanese saying: ‘We want something and we spit on it.’

    Sexual schizophrenia stretches far beyond Islam, of course. We portray ourselves as strong, high-minded men and women, and never betray the amount of imagination and thought devoted to the beast with two backs. Sex is something that most people think about a great deal, yet culturally it’s left to the admen and the stand-ups. In Arab poetry and prose, Haddad says, sex is described mainly in geographic or botanical metaphor (flower of paradise, bud of heaven, etc) and she recalls her father’s distress when Haddad, then in her mid twenties, used the word ‘penis’ in a poem. ‘How can you write such an atrocity, and publish it under your own name?’ he cried. ‘Couldn’t you have used the word ‘column’ instead?’

    Haddad went on to set up an erotic magazine, Jasad, with the aim ‘not to help men ejaculate when masturbating, rather to inquire intellectually into the consciousness of the body, and its unconsciousness.’ She questions the Christian separation of body and soul: ‘Life, to me, is a physiological, physical, instinctual, sensory experience, in as much as it is also an emotional, psychological and intellectual one.’ Contra the poet, you are not a soul strapped to an animal: the animal is the soul. And it’s because we are made of matter that we can experience the great rushing moments that we call spirituality.

    Many feminists hold on to the convention that vanity is a sin: think Germaine Greer, denouncing the British journalist Suzanne Moore for her ‘fuck-me shoes and three fat inches of cleavage.’ There’s an impression in Western liberalism that you can be beautiful and intellectual but not both. For Haddad, the symbol of powerful feminity is ‘the Sonia Rykiel boutique in the St Germain neighbourhood in Paris: extremely beautiful, stylish and seductive dresses can be seen side-by-side with selections of books and new releases by novelists, thinkers, poets and philosophers.’ Yet feminists in the West tend to downplay sexuality, seeing it as contaminated by males. This attitude only reinforces the stud/slut double standard that endures to this day: ‘If a woman writes of sex among other things, she is described as a daring ‘erotic writer’… If a man writes of the same subject, it is just a topic among another, completely normal.’

    In I Killed Schehezerade such lazy assumptions fall like blasted ducks. To those who claim that religious dress is liberating: ‘isn’t the defeminisation of women an act of surrendering par excellence to men’s blackmail and their shallow view of the female entity as a sum of thighs, tits, asses, lips, and so on and so forth?’ To those who believe that progress only comes through diplomacy: ‘The person who courts consensus has no colour, no taste, no smell. We shouldn’t need an obsequious court to feel safe. We shouldn’t need to please ALL the others to feel pleased about ourselves.’ To those who encourage people to believe in an afterlife:

    What could paradise be other than a wonderful illusion invented by a few geniuses (sometimes they are called prophets, other times saints and mystics, depending on the cultural and social contexts) in order to control the masses, promising them a reward that they will never be able to grant?… Do you really want to bet your life, and principles, and behaviour, and choices, on THAT? Wouldn’t it be healthier, and more rewarding, to set for yourself an earthly life ethic and morality, based on decency, respect and universal humanistic values?

    To read Joumana Haddad is to lose your illusions and discover your dreams.

    I Killed Scheherezade: Confessions of an Angry Arab Woman, Joumana Haddad, Saqi 2010

    About the Author

    Max Dunbar was born in London in 1981. He lives in Manchester and writes fiction and criticism.