Freak powered brunch

I saw a competition recently to win a year's supply of coffee.  As a famous non-drinker of coffee -- with notable exceptions of a holiday in Rome last year, and very occasional after a meal -- it seems like a strange contest to want to enter.  The simple explanation is, of course, it's about a girl.  And not just any girl, but the girl, for whom I'd do most things.

To win this grandest of prizes you had answer a simple question -- what 3 people, living or dead, would you like to have brunch with, and why.  Not as simple as the ones where you copy and paste an answer from a block of text you have to read, but worth a go.

The trouble is, the competition expired before I was able to think of three people.  And I still can't.

I thought of the first one easily: Carol Ann Duffy, the poet laureate.  An openly bisexual Scottish single mother, who just happens to write some of the best poetry I have ever read -- and I include Pablo Neruda in this.  I would expect her to be opinionated and interesting and intelligent, and I know from having met her she is a warm person.  She would be able to comment on contemporary issues, both domestic and foreign, and share interesting stories of her own life and travels.

I figure that's a great place to start, someone who brings controversy to one of Britain's most conservative roles, and with whom I have a great personal affection.

A contrast, then, would be the late Hunter S. Thompson.  I have no less affection for Dr Thompson, in case that is unclear, and I suppose in many ways he shares key traits with Ms Duffy -- both being talented, engaging writers, and both being controversial figures.  But I wonder if they would get along?  Thompson who spent years on the campaign trails, the pioneer of "freak power" and who saw into the hearts of the Hells Angels and the American Dream.  What would he make of a contemporary Scottish poet?  What did he feel about poetry at all?  What would Duffy think of Thompson's writing?  Would the two of them fight like cat and dog, or would they get along famously?


A third guest is even trickier.  Having two literary figures -- however different -- surely means the third has to be someone completely different.  Ideally it would be interesting to have someone with whom I disagree or dislike, but it seems pointless to try and pick someone on that merit alone.  All the usual targets I know or imagine would be disliked just as strongly by existing guests as by myself.  I can't think of a worthy adversary, someone I disagree with but respect. 

On the other hand, I wouldn't want it to be a circle jerk of mutual appreciation and adoration.


Considering my first two are also both white and English speakers, I feel as if I should have some kind of diversity -- not for its own sake, but to bring a different angle and different discussions.  This suddenly makes me realise how little I know outside of my own comfort zone, speaking only English fluently -- but that's no excuse, when major works are frequently offered in a variety of translations. 

So instead, I open it up to my readers -- in an effort to avoid this whole thing descending into an exercise in complete pretentiousness by citing thinkers or writers or rebels of places I know little about, who would you suggest as a third person?  Someone that would react or complement in some way with the existing two I have chosen, but also widen the cultural net?  I'll invent some award to give to whoever comes up with the ideal third guest, and hopefully in the process give me someone whose life I should know more about.


Perhaps there should be a scientist or a soldier?  Maybe I should have an astronaut or a farmer or just a relative of yours?  There needs to be more audience participation around these parts -- since I appreciate anyone coming here at all, I should maybe involve you more.


It must be said at this point I can't imagine either of my guests having "brunch", but that's by the by.