Light on Distant Hills
This is the poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh reading from his recently published memoir . I took the picture today while visiting Cathal's home in Gortahork, in the Donegal Gaeltacht, to record an interview for a new series on Radio Ulster in which i meet writers to talk about their work and the places where they write. I've already interviewed Germaine Greer and Max Hastings, and I'll be recording another two programmes this week.
Cathal's memoir is his first book in English. He describes his upbringing in his ancestral home in Gortahork, his extraordinary parents, his schooling, his travels in London and what was perhaps the most important discovery of his life -- that Irish is his emotional language, the language of his soul. The book ends when Cathal is just twenty years old, so we must hope for further installments because the first volume is quite wonderful.
Cathal loves tea -- we got through two pots in one visit -- and over tea I discovered that he has never owned a computer, not even a typewriter. He writes every poem, and every book, in longhand. He's never accessed the internet either, and when I asked him about Google, he said he'd heard of it but he'd never seen it. He has a television, but that was purchased only recently to enable Cathal to watch Manchester United play. The landline telephone was a distraction from work, so that's now unplugged, but he recently bought a mobile phone and assures me he is now able to send text messages. I expect he'll soon be sending haiku messages to his entire address book.
Comment number 1.
At 14th Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:I know what that light on distant hills is. Scotland's Burning!
Must still be that Megrahi thing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Sep 2009, cavado28 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Sep 2009, sensationaldurante wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Sep 2009, sensationaldurante wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 15th Sep 2009, sensationaldurante wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 15th Sep 2009, Scotch Get wrote:#1 LOL
We've had so much rain recently that even petrol wouldn't burn.
>8-D
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16th Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:I tried to find a recording of it played on the bagpipes but couldn't. You'd think there'd be at least one on YouTube.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 16th Sep 2009, Scotch Get wrote:#7
Kids south of the border sing 'London's Burning' in the playground.
Too English furr the likesay us!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 16th Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Scotch-git
In 1990 shortly after Princess (P&O) bought Sitmar cruise lines I was on the Sky Princess, formerly the Sitmar Fair Sky and made the mistake of asking a Scottish bar waitress how she liked working for the English. Well I got quite an earful, much more than I expected. Never knew up to that point feelings ran so high. Must be considering many Scots seem ready to give up what amounts to a tax subsidy from the English to leave the UK. Feelings went the other way too. There was this English wine stewardess who'd come to our table every night with the sourest most unhappy disposition. Being passengers we could get whatever we wanted so when we found out it was her birthday, we ordered a birthday cake and threw her a party. Changed her completely...at least for the rest of that trip. Why don't you Scots bake a lot of birthday cakes...and throw them at the English :-) They might appreciate something good to eat now that they found out I'm sure to their chagrin that haggis was actually their own invention and responsibility. Hehehehehe. Or was it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 16th Sep 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:Will,
What is the conclusion of the allegations in relation to this story which you mentioned previously on your blog?
/blogs/ni/2009/06/cathal_o_searcaigh_in_his_own_1.html
OT
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 18th Sep 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:I have seen Sunday Sequence sponsor various uplifting discussions challenging taboos on incest and group sex.... have they done bestiality yet?
Don't we need to have some sort of conclusion to the Fairytale of Katmandu before we brush it under the carpet?
Sure, I always get abuse when I say this, but if we will recognise no boundaries for sexual activity, then ultimately anything is acceptable.
This is not legalism for the sake of it... I think biblically it is clear that such activity harms us now and eternally.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 18th Sep 2009, Parrhasios wrote:Just for the record I see absolutely nothing wrong with human-animal sex provided that any animal involved is neither coersed nor harmed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 18th Sep 2009, Heliopolitan wrote:Put your hoof-print here on this consent form please, Flossie.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 19th Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:"I have seen Sunday Sequence sponsor various uplifting discussions challenging taboos on incest and group sex.... have they done bestiality yet?"
-- I've been presenting Sunday Sequence for a few years now, so perhaps my memory is failing me, but I can't recall any discussion challenging taboos about incest and group sex. Perhaps OT can point me to the example he has in mind.
As for the question about ongoing investigations in respect of the film, it is now clear that no laws in either Ireland or Nepal were broken by Cathal O Searcaigh, even though some commentators will challenge his judgement as a consequence of the revelations in the film. Far from brushing this matter under the carpet, I talk to Cathal O Searcaigh about the controversy in the interview that will be broadcast later in the year.
As for the point about not accepting any boundaries for sexual activity, I'm not aware of anyone in this debate who refuses to accept that there are boundaries for sexual activity. People may disagree about those boundaries -- some, e.g., may believe people should not remarry after divorce, while others have no such scruples -- but everyone in the conversation we've been having accepts that there are boundaries. Some commentators seem to think that any difference of opinion about boundaries, in respect of their own understanding, constitutes the abandonment of all boundaries, but that clearly does not follow.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 19th Sep 2009, Parrhasios wrote:Ach Helio - no need to get all legalistic. If a little brown maverick's winking her eye I think we might take a wink as being as good as a nod...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 19th Sep 2009, Scotch Get wrote:NEIGH MEANS NEIGH!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 19th Sep 2009, Will_Crawley wrote:I may have misread OT -- perhaps he means only that Sunday Sequence has had debates on the programme about the legalisation of same-family couples in some European jurisdictions? In which case, yes, we've certainly had that debate. There's a big difference between having a debate and sponsoring a position on the debate, though. The same is true of my interview on TV with Peter Singer, who discussed inter-species sexual contact (bestiality). Merely raising that topic in a debate with a guest is not the same as championing the practice, OT.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 23rd Sep 2009, mccamley wrote:While raising a topic for debate is not the same as championing it, it is a standard media technique to support (almost invariably liberal) causes. You take an issue which is ethically and legally clear, and then say "we need to debate this issue". The purpose of such debates is almost invariably to change the law. Thus we need a debate on extending the 1967 Abortion Act, or euthanasia, or women priests in the Catholic Church.
William, as for "no laws in either Ireland or Nepal were broken" I hope you'll remember saying that the next time some priest or bishop comes out with it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 3rd Oct 2009, Orthodox-tradition wrote:Will
You appear to be muddying the waters, I presume unintentionally.
Nothing you have said refutes my statement, so far as I can see.
SS/W&T has indeed sponsored discussion which have challenged our traditional taboos on incest, bestiality and as you admit in post 17.
Nowehere did I say that SS/W&T "took a position" on the matters, as you put it.
But mccamley is quite right in principle in post 18.
I am saying that if you sponsor a debate on a taboo and intentially give a platform to people who wish to break the taboo you are by definition sponsoring a debate which challenges those taboos.
I feel quite disappointed that I am forced to spell this out on an "intellectual" forum (I am not claiming that title for myself).
If I can be forgiven for blunt talking here Will, ref post 14, but you say Cahal broke no laws in ireland or Nepal.
That seems like weasel words to me.
But I am not assessing Cahal here, I leave it for qualified people to do that.
I am however challenging the attempt to excuse the principle of adult sex with a range of minors (which Cahal openly admits to) on the grounds that it did not break the law.
Many things today dont break the law but are viewed with disdain eg MPs expenses scandal. That doesn make adult sex with a range of minors acceptable or "right". Especially while in a position of trust ie wealthy mature benefactor in a developing country.
It also seems like weasel words to me to say that nobody is suggesting there are no boundaries for sexual activity.
If you are giving platforms to people who argue for incest, bestiality, group sex and adult sex with minors it appears to me that this is exactly what you are doing.
Otherwise, what boundaries ARE being suggested. Again I am all ears, but I dont suspect anyone is going to volunteer any opinion on this. After all, if we welcome incest, bestiality, group sex and adult sex with minors, what boundaries are left???????????
I stand to be corrected on this though, if there is another way of looking at it.
But I am still drawn back to the idea that God created sex for a lifettime relationship between a man and a woman...
sincerely
OT
Incidentally, Will when I am talking about coverage given to a live group sex show on SS/W&T I am talking about coverage given to the film "shortbus" a while back.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)