The pen is mightier than the sward

Press, 2 September 1980, Page 19

The pen is mightier than the sward

Review.

Ken Strongman

'■ “These are your actual lame .. • brains.” ' “They mightn’t be very bright, but they remember the odd thing.” "This little. bitch did a marvellous job-” So far you might be ■forgiven for thinking that these quotations are from a commentary on televised Parliamentary proceedings. Have another couple of clues.; “Can he bend those metal-brained morons into the pen?” "No; he’s-not as fast as his dog.” You’ve got it; .'this is the elegant, pithy, and entirely descriptive language of John Gordon’as he guides us through the bewildering intricacies of . “A Dog’s Show” -.(One), the final programme of which added to • the tensions of. Sunday evening. It is terrific television, being set in beautiful country and featuring some very characterful - -beings, human and otherwise. Although it is a delightfully visual programme, it is made by .its language. “Gome behind; stand; geddinf stay down; siddown.” Plus various gutteral,' polysyllabic utterances which are quite unfathomable. One suspects that shepherds buried in the wilds of Southland or Hawke’s Bay pass their time by developing an inimitable style of blasphemy, and this is'it. The names of their dogs add yet another verbal dimension and also permit a ’’slight insight into ' their owners.. Wag

and Paul, Geordie and Lynne, Bruce and Trump. Those unhappy persons who do not like sport are wont to argue that all sports i 'are . pointless and their rules arbitrary. 30 (or 26, or 22) men (or persons) chasing a ball all over the paddock . ... etc. You’ve heard the argument no doubt, or even made it. Fine; with bared teeth and raised hackiesone leaps to the defence. It is more difficult with dog trials though. Why those particular manoeuvres? Why must the shepherd keep one finger on the gate of the pen, not unlike keeping one foot on the bedroom floor? Why can’t he walk up. the hill after his dog? Why .do the single dogs bark, but the pairs not? It is all a matter of commitment and knowledge. If one has both then perhaps things no longer seem arbitrary. But “A Dog’s Show’ contains an odd set of conventions, perhaps. because it is the only sport which brings together three different species. -At times they_

seem to vie in stupidity. The dogs are alert but seem always to be just out of phase with the instructions, while giving the impression that they know best. The shepherd in his turn seems to be out of phase with the dog and often does not know whether to shout, swear, or use his whistle, or possibly all three. The sheep of course, are always completely thick; not in a way which one /simply notes in passing, but in an excruciating, terrible way which leaves one trembl-, ing in frustration and boiling with anger. It would be a sheer delight to boot them all over the fields, round the hurdles, through the gates and into the pen. The problem with Sunday’s final programme of the series was that it featured the big competition between the North and South Islands. It was rigged so that the North Island won. It is easy to fix; there is no nobbling involved, nor any drugs. It is just a-matter of choosing the sheep. Although they are all. thick, some are more bolshie than others. The obviously partisan judges selected the bolshiest for the South Island shelperds. Does this make them-crooks? It is to be hoped that next year’s “A Dog’s Show” is . programmed at the same time as it has • been this year. Wondering whether or not the sheep will end up in the pen generates almost as much tension as “Fawlty Towers.” The only reliable way of relieving this is to watch those appalling but droopily tranquil semi-reli-gious programmes which follow- It is one technique for getting them an audience. On a bad night though, it’s still possible to hate those bloody sheep ■hours later.