Adventures in England Part 1: Oxford

I just got back from a trip to England, so I thought I'd share some of the highlights with you.

Our first stop was Oxford, one of my favourite places in the entire world. 

I love these lanterns. They had battle-axes on the pole under the lights. 

I thought this was a lovely, picturesque alleyway, and snapped a photo. Then my husband looked it up in our travel guide, and turns out this was where all the ladies of the evening plied their trade in the 1300s. Back then it was called Gropecunt Lane.

Yup.

Seriously.

I sure can pick 'em, right?

Here's the main reason I fell in love with Oxford: the Bodleian, one of the oldest libraries in Europe. We took the tour again, and it's worth it just to get into the old library. The smell of old books is intoxicating. Yes, I'd like to live there. Maybe pull a Phantom of the Opera, and move into the passages below the libraries:) Okay, okay, maybe I'll just write a story, or something. I'm so jealous of the university students, who actually get to use the library and study in the Radliffe Camera.   

We also took a picnic cruise on the river Thames, which went down a length of the Isis, too. Did you know that the name Thames means 'dark water'? The name 'Isis' has nothing to do with the Egyptian goddess, the Oxonians just didn't want the word 'dark' in the name, so they dropped the 'Tham' part. (Originally it was Tamesis, Celtic for dark one according to the online etymology dictionary.)

We also saw Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" performed by the Globe Theatre on tour in the Bodleian Library courtyard. This was kind of funny, because the guide on the tour said that Sir Thomas Bodley, the man who built the library, despised Shakespeare and thought his plays were vulgar and low-brow. (The walls didn't quake or fall down, if you're wondering.)

I found out another fun tidbit about the play. In addition to the pun about 'nothing' and 'noting' (as in gossip), apparently the word "nothing" also referred to a lady's private parts in the 1500s. Oh, Shakespeare, there you go again.

Maybe Sir Bodley had a point?  

Anyway, a wonderful performance, especially the actor playing Benedick was great. I saw the production with David Tennant and thought that no one could do a better job, but this guy came close.

Cabinets of Wonder

Cabinets of Wonder by Christine Davenne explorers those strange precursors of modern museums: wunderkammer, grottoes, or cabinets of curiosities. Cabinets of wonder have been around since the Reneissance, and the book explores those collections, old and new.

These fascinate me partly because they were very much in vogue in the Victorian era as well, so I bought this book mostly for inspiration, but it's a work of art in itself. Beautiful. I especially enjoyed the section on modern cabinets of curiosities.

I feel like I got my money's worth.

Terribleminds Challenge: Why Do You Write?

Last week's Terribleminds challenge was an essay this time. I did the challenge, but didn't have any way of posting it from my trip, so here goes. Better late than never, right?

Why I Write

I’ve always loved stories. I think that’s where it began. I haven’t been a writer that long, but I’ve been a reader as long as I can remember.  To quote George R. R. Martin: “A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one.”

This.

This is what it’s all about.

Reading is an escape, an adventure, a drug. I don’t understand people who don’t read. If I go a day or two without reading, I get antsy. Difficult to be around. I need my books. My favorites tend to be sci-fi and fantasy. They’re the books that got me through some tough times growing up. And why read hundreds of pages about someone’s dreary existential angst described with absolute realism? Wouldn’t you rather ride a dragon or meet some aliens?

I would.

At first I wrote fanfiction. Actually, I didn’t even know what fanfiction was when I wrote my first Start Trek story. Fanfiction is a great way to begin writing, because you know the world and you know the characters, so it’s easier to start with. Of course you don’t own that universe, so you shouldn’t be making money off it, but I don’t think that’s much of an issue. I, like other fans, wrote fanfiction because I loved the characters and the world.  Then I gradually moved on to writing my own stuff.

I’ve always suffered from an overactive imagination, and I sometimes have very vivid dreams. There was one particular one that started recurring every night, and it didn’t stop before I started writing the story down. When I get a story idea, it feels like an itch inside my skull that gets worse and worse if I don’t do anything about it. So I write to get the stories out of my head, I guess.

On the macro scale, writing is a way to make sense of the world; why do people behave like they do? Why did this awful thing happen? On the micro scale, it’s a way of coping with your own issues and personal tragedies, the little injustices and cruelties of daily life. Writing is therapy. I’m a happier person when I write. For that alone writing is worth it. 

I think a lot of writers have a sense of not belonging. I was a socially awkward, chubby kid in a Star Trek t-shirt. You can guess what happened. Suffice to say that I felt like an outsider and escaped into books. The scars have faded but they’re still there. Maybe it’s true that happy people don’t write? Why would they?

I also think that most of us have a need to do something creative. My mother is awesome at sewing and my grandfather did oil paintings. Writing is my way of relaxing.  My day job is stressful and draining at times, and writing provides much-needed relief.

Having said all that, mainly I write because I enjoy it. It’s fun. I love the rush you get when you finish a first draft, the tingly, bubbly feeling of writing a funny scene, and even the nitpicky joys of editing. I love creating something from nothing, something that would have never existed if it weren’t for me. I write for myself, but it’s pretty great if someone else reads a story of mine and likes it.

I write because I can.

I write because I need to.

I write because it helps me be a happier person.

But above all, I write because I love to.

  

Etymology Expeditions: Coolest Name Ever

Paracelsus aka Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim.

Wow.

If I ever have a kid, that's what I'm naming him.

*Husband crosses arms, shakes head.*

No? What about just 'Bombastus' then?

*Husband: facepalm.*

Okay, okay. Jeez.

Well, at least I can explore the names a little.

Paracelsus (1493-1541 was a Reneissance physician, alchemist, botanist, and occultist.  He was known for insisting on using observation of nature in medical practice, instead of just looking at ancient texts, and he was the first to note that some medical conditions have their roots in the mind, and he founded the branch of medicine called toxicology. He also gave zinc its name, zincum. So, pretty cool guy, all around.

The name "Paracelsus" means next to, or beyond, Celsus. (Referring to Roman encyclopedist Aulus Cornelius Celsus, who was known for his tract of medicine.) So, basically this name is about bragging rights. He had a reputation for being arrogant. Somehow I don't doubt it:)

Philippus comes from Philippos, meaning fond of horses, from Ancient Greek philéō, “I love” +  híppos, “horse.”

Aureolus from Latin, meaning "golden."

 Theophrastus From Latin theos from word-forming element theo "god, gods" and phrazein  "to speak" Speaks to gods?

Bombastus from bombast "cotton padding," from Latin bombax "cotton," a corruption of Latin and Greek Bombyx "silk."  From the 1580s on bombastic also referred to pompous speech, probably because of the meaning of stuffing and padding for upholstery and clothing the word had.

So "bombastic" doesn't come from Paracelsus then...

I think old Bombastus was probably quite bombastic, don't you?

von Hohenheim this is the last name, from hoch "tall, high" heim "home."

Quite a word-picture we're painting here: golden horse-lover who speaks to gods from his high home. (And then disses poor Aulus Celsus across the centuries.)

I still think it's a pretty great name.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of my mind, there is a poor fictional character about to receive a very unfortunate, pompous name.

You might even say bombastic.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
http://www.memidex.com/theophrastus#etymology
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=theo-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page

The Anatomy of a Hero

I saw this documentary recently called 10%: What Makes a Hero? It's by Yoav Shamir, and it explores heroes, trying to find a common denominator from genetics to psychology. There are some very stirring images in this. The one that really stuck with me was a black-and-white photo of a Nazi rally, where the crowd is giving the Nazi salute, but if you look closely, there's one man who stands with his hands crossed. I might be imagining it, but I think he looks uncomfortable and a bit defiant. That must have taken guts to do.

The ten percent in the title refers to an old psychology experiment where they took people and split them into students and teachers, or so the teachers thought. The experiment had the "teachers" give electrical shocks to the "students" when they gave the wrong answers. The shocks grew progressively higher, up to life-threathening levels. The students were really actors, and they weren't really getting shocked, but their responses had been pre-recorded. The hypothesis was that most people wouldn't give the shocks when they knew they were hurting another person, even though the guy in the white coat (i.e. authority figure) pressured them to continue. Imagine their surprise when only 10% of people refused. This has been seen as proof that good people can do contemptible things when the environment encourages it. Everybody wants to think that they'd be part of the 10% who refused, but really? The odds are that most of us would have done what The Man said. Shamir postulates that maybe the 10% who refused are the heroes.

He goes on to interview heroes, takes a gene test for a gene that is associated with altruism (turns out 70% of the population has it?!), and interviews psychologist Philip Zimbardo about his study to find out what traits heroes have in common. He is also the scientist who conducted the (in)famous "prisoners and guards" experiment in the seventies.

The interesting thing is that the study actually turned up seven things that the heroes they interviewed had in common:

- attachment to a male parental figure at an early age
- having been through some kind of trauma, working through it, and growing as a person
- some kind of practical realisation or growing up, maturing. (Things like a gang member realising that he wants to get married and have kids, and seeing that his lifestyle stands in the way of that.)
- ideology
- separating oneself from the group
- role models
- being a born leader/rebel

In the interviews of real-life heroes, the thing that separated them from the rest of us was that when the opportunity for helping someone came, they saw a choice, and then chose to help.

I find this fascinating from a writing perspective. We writers know what makes a hero, right? We make them up every day. I started thinking about how this relates to the writing advice on creating characters, heroes in particular.

According to most writing books, to make a hero, you take a likeable character, mix in some personal quirks and flaws, and then add a "ghost" or "wound" (traumatic secret or event), and bring to a boil. Then you send him on the hero's journey. Usually the character is pretty happy with the status quo at the start of the story, then something happens, and he gets reluctantly dragged on a quest of some sort, usually by the mentor, who is often an older male figure. Usually there is some lie the hero believes about himself, and he spends the first half of the story banging his head against the wall, trying to solve his problems the wrong way, because he still believes the lie. At midpoint, he usually realises the truth, and then goes on through tons of conflict to use it to defeat his antagonist/complete his quest. This usually involves great sacrifice and a hard choice between the lie and the truth. The hero changes in some fundamental way during the story, that's important, too.

Sounds kind of familiar, right?

Let's look at that list again:

- attachment to a male parental figure at an early age  -> The mentor?
- having been through some kind of trauma, working through it, and growing as a person -> the ghost or the wound?
- some kind of practical realisation or growing up, maturing. (Things like a gang member realising that he wants to get married and have kids, and seeing that his lifestyle stands in the way of that.) -> The Lie He Believes vs. the Truth?
- ideology -> The Truth?
- separating oneself from the group -> going on a quest?
- role models -> the mentor again, or other characters like the best friend, the love interest etc?
- being a born leader/rebel -> most fictional heroes are, at least the traditional ones.

Heroes also have to make that hard choice at some point. In the documentary, one hero was a Palestinian woman, who tried to commit suicide by a terrorist bombing on an Israeli military checkpoint. She ended up as a peace activist.

That's some change arc right there. I bet she had to make a hard choice to get where she ended up, too.

 So turns out that writers have been using these heroic traits all along.

That's kind of awesome, if you ask me.

Here's to all the heroes, real or fictional. We need more of you in the world.



 

Memento Mori: The Dead Among Us

Memento Mori: The Dead Among Us is a gorgeous book by Paul Koudounaris, who is an author and photographer specialising in the visual culture of death. The book explores ossuaries, burial caves, and mummies, and the ways people around the world revere their dead. Some might find this macabre, but that's not how I felt about the book. As the writer points out in the introduction, the message is more memento vitae, reminder of life.

Seeing different burial customs from around the world also serves to illustrate how narrow the Western idea of death is. Many cultures see it not as a boundary or border, but a metamorphosis. There's an account of a mummy of a little girl discovered in a cave in the Toraja region of Indonesia, and how she was taken in as a part of a local household. Why? Because they sensed it felt lonely and abandoned. Doing that in a Western country would get you a visit to a psychiatric ward.

Here's the mummy girl.

An interesting and thought-provoking read, with beautiful pictures (fyi, this is a coffee-table book, so it's quite picture-heavy.). I heartily recommend this to anyone with an interest in the subject matter.

      

SpeckLit: Midsummer Snow

Just a heads-up, I'm on SpeckLit again!

Check it out at:

http://specklit.com/blog/2015/07/23/midsummer-snow/