I work in community development, in the culturally diverse city of Birmingham, UK, where civil tensions are presently very high, where whole communities have been left behind by a society entranced by capital. I must say, as a long time Ballard reader, I travel a fine line between advocating his freudian pessisism, a post-modern Schopenhaurian view of the world, whilst still maintaining a quite hope and a fragile belief that I can make some positive difference in my city, or at least retain the belief that it is meanigful to do so. It is therefore comforting to hear Ballard not completely writing off social unity, and striving to achieve it. I do think a lack of imagination or vision is partly responsible for the many tensions in Birmingham, from urban regeneration to the blanket capitalism that invites us to stare idily in massive shopping malls, akin to manequins.

I do, however, wish Ballard would become more politically active, do you all agree? or would he cease to become powerful? Its not as if he subcribes to this aloof vision of an artist, hes become one of the most powerful artistic critics of society, he’s said himself that his literature is less about form, than social critisim. In my opinion therefore he has a responsibilty to actively take part in changing a society?. Anyone agree? I mean his words alone are influential, its just it would be nice to see him leading a protest to the many proposed giant Asdas they want to build in my city. There is a distinct line between, as Bouroughs said above, to admitting an attraction to chaos, and actually wanting it to happen. Ballard knows this more than anyone.