OUR MAN IN . . .
By Clive Anderson
BBC publications, #16.99 (pp 240)
SOMEWHERE within the covers of this TV tie-in lurks the germ of an
idea for an important book and, things being what they are in the
wonderful world of the media, an even more important television series.
Beneath the glossy pictures, the limp gags, and the self-deprecatory
smugness that is Clive Anderson's speciality, the proposition is
advanced that modern life, and holidays in particular, are a very bad
idea.
Environmentalists have been saying so for years, of course, but since
they commence from a position of absolute virtue -- that the least human
beings do by way of existing is the best they can do -- the assault on
leisure has hitherto made little ground among the migratory mob. Now
holidaymakers themselves, desiring nothing more shocking than a
fortnight away from the daily grind, are beginning slowly to notice the
damage they do. Evidence accumulates of a horrible irony: that we
destroy the things we slave and save to enjoy just by travelling to
enjoy them.
Towards the end of his chapter on Goa, Anderson remarks: ''Tourism,
someone told me, is now the biggest industry in the world.'' Someone was
right: the travel trade is all that and more, capable of being
construed, without much hyperbole, as the new imperialism, a continuing
process of invasion and despoliation on a scale more vast than anything
the British Empire ever conceived. Modern tourism will have more lasting
impact than any war, and has more influence on economies and foreign
policies than any ideology. It means no real harm, like a virus without
evil intent, but it kills its hosts.
Television involves a similar contradiction, and as Anderson
shamefacedly admits, ''. . . making a TV programme and writing a book
about a place like Goa, even though they focus on the problems of
tourism, is likely to attract more people than it repels . . . So I am
part of the problem and not the solution.''
That contradiction is also part of his book's problem. This
good-looking volume is part reportage, part jaunty travelogue, and part
a serious investigation of issues with profound implications. What are
we supposed to do? Stay at home? And what then of the countries --
Scotland prominent among them -- living in the belief that only the
tourist dollar saves them from penury? Is development always bad? Must
the world become ever more homogenised? Anderson raises the issues but
prefers, for the most part, to supply the drolleries demanded of his
prime-time TV persona than to address them.
The travel trade pops up again and again as a thread in the book's
general, weary theme of ''trouble in paradise''. Here we have the
encroachment of the modern world on Kenya's Maasai Mara; Dominica caught
in the machinations of the world banana market; socialist Cuba crushed
by America and deserted by its children; the movement for autonomy in
ruined Hawaii; the war between loggers and conservationists in Oregon.
Insatiable Western society is depicted as consuming, literally and
spiritually, the beautiful places and things it most admires.
This is an important idea, largely because its ramifications have yet
to be explored fully, and you get the impression that Anderson might
have preferred to investigate it in more depth than he has -- even the
trite title was a compromise -- but the ''recognition factor''
afflicting a chat-show host overwhelms him. Good, serious passages
invariably give way to the cute, the quaint, and the relentlessly
''entertaining''. Our Man In . . . is itself almost a parable of the
processes it investigates.
The book reads like five long magazine articles. Anderson's TV voice
intrudes continually -- ''The other vehicles . . . are mostly Ladas.
Lada cars, stretch Ladas, Lada taxis. Taken and driven away, no doubt,
by Lada louts.''
In the end, you feel Our Man sensed he was on to something but
couldn't decide quite what it was, how it might be dramatised, or how
the result might be sold to the vast sedentary audience watching while
they planned their two weeks in the sun. The photographs, on the other
hand, are pretty as postcards.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article