On the Difference between Meaning and Translation

With all the language studying and teaching I'm doing this year, I noticed that there is one problem that just keeps popping up again and again. That is the misconception among many language learners that the meaning of a sentence is it's translation. People keep asking what something means, when they are really asking for a translation. I tend to get a lot of puzzled looks when I ask them to make the distinction. Because people who are not fluent in a language tend to extract the meaning from the translation rather then the original word or sentence. They take a detour, if you will. And they don't grasp that their native language is a tool in that process, not the objective. I guess it is especially hard when you learn your first foreign language, to wrap your head around the idea that your native language is not the ne plus ultra of communication.

The thing is though, that any given language system encodes meaning independent of another language system, which is why at a certain point in learning you won't need the help of your mother tongue to decode the meaning. And despite the fact, that we tend to equate grammatical phenomena as much as possible across languages, there are in every language certain things that you can't quite imitate in every or most other languages. This is what gets lost in translation.

For example, when I want to greet someone in German by saying “Hello, nice to meet you,” unlike in English, I have to convey meaning about the nature of my relationship to that person. I have to decide whether or not to address them formally or informally. And this can have far reaching consequences. Say, for example, I meet someone in a business setting and he uses the informal pronoun “du” (which is something that happens all the time because I'm female and look a little younger than I am). Well, big deal you might say, it's just a tiny little word. But with that tiny little word he has just put me in somewhat of a loose loose situation. He is basically patronizing me. I can now either say nothing and let him patronize me or call him out, which will probably have a negative impact on my future relations with him and everyone to whom he communicates that I'm kind of 'difficult'. This is even more detrimental when said person is above me in the hierarchy. Because in that case I still have to address him formally regardless of how he addresses me and if my male coworkers - whom he is addressing formally - take note of that, they'll assume superiority regardless of our job descriptions or performance. And there you have your worst case scenario. So tiny word – major implications.

Long story short to really understand a language you have to grasp these nuances and be aware of them regardless of whether or not you can recreate them in translation. Because it's the meaning your after.

On The Manic Pixie Dream Girl Trope and Paper Towns

Paper Towns by John Green

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I've heard quite a few people criticize Paper Towns for being the cliche manic pixie dream girl story. Having read it myself, that kind of makes me wonder … have we read the same book? I mean, of course it is all ABOUT the manic pixie dream girl trope, since the whole thing is an attempt do discredit this trope. And Green could hardly have been more obvious about it. If anything, I would criticize him for this obviousness. That's somewhat of a reoccurring theme of his (among others). And it might stem from crafting a novel around a concept or idea – like fables or fairy tales – rather than letting the story evolve from the characters. But lots of people do this, and you can usually tell. It's a matter of personal preference whether one likes one or the other approach better. I personally enjoy both kinds of stories.

The most interesting thing about his endeavor is the approach Green took to attack the trope. He could have done it in loads of different ways. But he chose to basically build Margo up as a manic pixie dream girl, only to reveal in the end that it's all just been in Q's head. I think that's why a very cursory reader might mistake this for the actual trope. And in fact, one might wonder what the big difference is? Because that sounds like she basically serves the same purpose that every manic pixie dream girl does: helping “broodingly soulful” Q learn a life lesson that is going to be key to finding his own happiness. Now how's that for a conundrum? A manic pixie dream girl dispelling the myth of the manic pixie dream girl. Except, that's not quiet it, because unlike other manic pixie dream girls, Margo also learns a valuable lesson from the whole fiasco.

I think there is a rather strong indication – indication as in Green spells it right out (That's the obviousness I've been talking about.) - that Margo herself is initially somewhat infatuated with the idea of being someone's muse or manic pixie dream girl. And she initially sets herself up as one. She makes an effort to plant the idea in Q's head, and thinks the thing is done. She thinks she did something to effect an important change in someone's life, meaning that by extension she herself was important in this life she left behind – something she's been doubting for obvious (again) reasons.

What she doesn't reckon with, is how this idea evolves inside Q's head, leading him to recreate her into this larger than life “precious thing” that he needs to save, effectively making him her hero. So essentially they both want the same thing. And that's a problem. Because in order for one of them to be the hero and safe the other, one of them will have to be the damsel in distress. Neither of them identifies as such.

So when they finally meet again, they're both confronted with the implications of what they attempted to create. They learn to see each other as real life people rather than mere tropes and means to an end. And they both realize – Margo a little sooner than Q actually – that a muse or manic pixie dream girl is not what an actual person is, but merely the two dimensional unattainable thing another person makes them out to be – unattainable because real people in all their complexity can never achieve the level of simplicity a fantasy needs to be unambiguously positive.



View all my reviews

On the Supposed Demigods in White

It's been way too long since I have written a post – two weeks now, in fact. Two weeks in which I have sadly been way too preoccupied freaking out about the dentist appointment I've just had ... looking up the procedure and all possible complications ... imagining all kinds of horrible scenarios … you get the picture.

The blog wasn't the only thing I neglected for this, but it thankfully didn't affect my studies too much. Yeah, the summer is over and classes have resumed. The good news is that I started off rather well, because when it comes to reigning in obsessive thoughts, it's much better to give my brain something to focus on – like language studies – than to let it roam freely – like I do when I write. And it just so happens that I'm doing a lot of language studies this year.

However, the more interesting question here is, where this panic comes from. Because weirdly enough it doesn't stem from some horrible dentist experiences. I haven't really had those. Thank god! In fact, I haven't experienced much on the doctors front at all – much less than most people I know – as has been repeatedly pointed out to me these past weeks.

I have, however, time and time again seen doctors employ diagnostic processes that looked a lot more like guessing games than educated opinions. Not only that, but when I look at my circle of friends and acquaintances there is hardly anyone who hasn't been subjected to some kind of medical malpractice. But even though they might still suffer the consequences, their trust in doctors seems unshaken - a lot less shaken than mine at least.

To most of them doctors are still demigods in white. I just can't muster this kind of blind faith. What comes to mind when I think about doctors are their failures, both in the here and now and in historical times - because history major, you know. And most infuriating thing is that despite all this evidence they still got this disgustingly condescending air about them. Think 'doctors are gentlemen, and gentlemen's hands are clean.' Also, they may have studied medicine all they want, but what good is that, if they don't even know how to listen to what their patients tell them – if they don't even ask the right questions?

Speaking of studying medicine, seeing medical students in their natural habitat didn't help much to strengthen my trust either. Because at university they look as much as demigods as you and I. And in fact, when it comes to academic bulimia they're among the worst offenders. So long story short, even though I might be kind of a hypochondriac, when it comes to doctors, I'd rather keep my distance and double check everything before I commit to anything.

On Really Bad Advice

When I hear people apologizing for how lame of a phrase “It'll get better” supposedly is, all I can muster is a rueful smile. Because you know what I always got to hear? Something along those lines: “The time will come when you're gonna wish yourself back to this very time of your life.” Well, if that doesn't make you cheer up and appreciate what you have. What it did was make me feel kind of guilty for being unhappy in the first place. And then there is the implication in this statement that it is - apparently - only gonna get worse – much worse. So that should make you wanna get up in the morning or, you know, like just put an end to it right away.

But the thing is, that this is - of course - not quite what the folks were saying. In fact, they weren't talking about me and my problems at all. They were essentially projecting the feelings they had about their own schooldays onto me. Apparently they did fare a lot better than I did. Go figure. And it seems like they couldn't even imagine that it might be different for me. I did realize this back then, but that didn't make the statement any less annoying and hurtful. I mean it would have helped a lot, if someone had just acknowledged my experience for starters.

Now I at least get the triumph of saying that they were wrong. It didn't get worse. It got infinitely better - even though I'm still sort of in limbo at the moment. But I wouldn't wanna go back to this time of my life if you gave me a truckload of cash for it. And I'm damn well never ever gonna be going to any reunion. I just hope there will never come a time when I'd wanna do go back because I'd pretty much have to hit rock bottom to get to that point.

On Language Learning and Self-fulfilling Prophecies

A while back I wrote a post about how it's not your teacher's responsibility for you to learn something, but your own. So for the past few weeks I've been following my own advise and tackled my french, which after four years of language learning in school was rudimentary at best. I'm happy to report that it's going quite well. Much much better than it ever did in school. And along the way I have formed some ideas about why that is.

There are of course some technical drawbacks to the approach we took in school. The focus on grammar at the expense of exposure being a major one of those. I believe we never even got to hear a native speaker until we were already about two or three years into our studies. And it turns out our teacher's pronunciation was anything but decent. Another one would be the lack of context clues when it came to vocabulary learning. Because lists of pretty much random words are an unnecessarily inefficient form of learning material.

These are some of the reasons that usually get cited when we wonder why kids are doing so poorly in their language studies. But I think that's only scratching the surface. I believe these wouldn't actually be that much of a problem – or rather that students could easily remedy those themselves. The thing is, though, that the root of the problem goes much deeper.

I just now discovered what the two biggest obstacles to language learning I faced back in school actually were: the class environment and the low expectations of our teacher and subsequently of ourselves. I think those two were actually reenforcing each other. Let me paint the scene for you.

It was just after our advancement to secondary school. I was one of the few who had actually chosen the science program because it came with the french classes and not the other way around. And some kids, I think, were just there because their parents had forced them into it. So you could say that roughly two thirds of this class had no motivation at all to learn french and our teacher didn't provide any either. On the contrary, she greeted us with an introduction on how difficult this class was going to be and how much hard work we were required to do. Needless to say this speech probably did more harm than good for the few of us who had up to this point actually been somewhat enthusiastic about the endeavor.

Also, since we were all still in the process of finding our place in this thrown together group of kids, you can imagine that there was a lot of disruptive behavior going on. Some kids tried to distinguish themselves by being very loud and wisecracking, others thought it was cool to act up to authority figures. You get the picture.

So this coupled with the very inefficient grammar focused approach to language learning led to very poor results. These in turn frustrated both the students and the teacher, and lead to the latter thinking very poorly of her students' abilities in general, which she didn't attempt to hide. All this served to create the illusion that language learning in general and learning french in particular was much harder than it actually is. In this kind of environment and the mindset it creates it is no wonder that people wouldn't even dream of achieving fluency.

So long story short the problem with school was not so much what I didn't learn than what I did. Namely that language learning is hard and I couldn't expect more of myself than merely scraping by – like most kids were doing. After all this was the general consensus not only in school, but in the whole of society. It essentially became a self-fulfilling prophecy until I – pretty much by accident – became fluent in English. Because if you spend a lot of time on the Internet, you'll have a hard time getting around it. After all more than 50% of online content is in English. And if you're too impatient to wait months longer for the translation of your favorite book series' next installment than the English speaking world does, you might just consider to get the freaking thing and figure out what's in there. But even then the lesson was so internalized that I thought of English as more of an exception – a sort of fluke. After all it didn't feel like I had put all that much effort into English learning. It just sort of happened?!

What this little tale ought to show is that teaching methods aren't the only problem here. There are other things at play that are much much more destructive, because they are so deeply engrained in the system and play on your subconscious to create mental barriers. And language learning isn't the only school subject to suffer this curse. I'd say that almost all of them are afflicted in varying degrees. When have you first heard how hard math is?

It has taken me years to even begin to repair this damage and find my way back to the curious, hungry for knowledge girl that I once was. And although I am well on my way now, I'll probably still have a long long way to go. After all you don't just cast off that kind of conditioning over night.

On the Demystification of the Artist

Most of us, at some point or another, have probably found ourselves truly awestruck regarding a work of art or a piece of writing, thinking “I wish I could write or draw or think like that.” Some pieces are just that remarkable. They lead us to imagine their creators – and by extension all of their peers – as higher beings, more enlightened than us mere mortals, who could never live up to that kind of standard.

Like so many of us I used to live with this kind of mindset. I was so in awe of artists and writers. It was ridiculous. Without ever being conscious of doing this, I made them out to be some kind of demigods. Never in a million years would I have thought that I myself might be able to create something as beautiful and meaningful as they did. There were just worlds and worlds between us. And so I never really let myself try essentially holding myself back.

I don't even remember exactly when that changed, but somewhere along the way I realized that writers and artist weren't that much different from us, and that I didn't have to be Shakespeare or Leonardo freaking Da Vinci to express myself and create something. I think might actually owe a lot of this epiphany to Stephenie Meyer of all people. When I saw her in the DVD extras, she seemed like such an unlikely person to be capable of being an author. And lets face it, her books are not that well written either – but she is an author nonetheless. So I thought, why not just try? So I did, and it was fun. People even liked what I did and some of them even started looking at me like I actually was one of them writers now. Who would have thought? Without even the ambition of ever getting published people thought of me as a writer.

Somewhere along this process I started thinking about us rather than them. It turns out as small as this shift of perspective seems, it was actually a quantum leap. Being able to imagine writers – and consequently artists in general – as complex mortal beings didn't just help me with my writing. I also feel like I understand a lot better what they or their works could be saying.

Because by placing the artist in some kind of divine sphere, I apparently perceived their works as a lot more mysterious than they actually were. I as a mere human being was just not supposed to understand – I was to merely admire and praise. Taking the creators out of this sphere, allowed me to get over this mental block and really think. Before that I would probably not even thought of writing reviews and blog posts.

Since then I also tackled art again – which I had been neglecting for quite some time – and it is actually fun, now that I don't hold myself to such ridiculous standards anymore. Not only that, but it also seems much easier. I still don't think that I or something I create will ever be god's gift to humanity. But that doesn't mean that the things I think or feel are not worthy of being expressed or shared.

On The Fault in Our Stars and False Beliefs About An Author's Authority

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I was a bit wary at first, because, you know, cancer book usually equals depressing and/or preaching. But no, this is definitely not your typical cancer book. Thank god for someone who doesn't use a serious illness to show healthy people the worth of their lives and yada yada yada. And though it is sad, it's not as depressing as one might expect from a cancer book. As usual John Green's wit serves to lighten the mood – even if that means that his characters sometimes sound a lot like him. What I love most about his books, though, is that they always give me something to think about. And because of that I will readily forgive him all of his minor short comings.

What kept me thinking long after I read this particular book was the question about whether or not authors are the one and only authority to their books. In the book Van Houten clearly holds the opinion – as does John Green – that the text is the authority and it's readers are free to interpret or build on it. There are, however, authors who would beg to disagree. (I won't name any names, but I hazard the authors who won't have you write any fan fiction of their works are some likely candidates.)

My stance is that fictional stories are ideas, and – even though copyright law might disagree with me there – ideas are not property per se. They didn't use to be thus and neither should they be. Of course you can't copy and paste, but you should be able to think and build on ideas. I admit that it is difficult to draw the line, but the way today's copyright law draws it is just beyond ridiculous. Re-imaginations, recreations and reincarnations are the surest ways for ideas to survive in posterity and that is what we risk losing.

But this wasn't supposed to be about the can of worms that is copyright law. The question is whether or not what the author imagines outside or even inside the text does have any more weight than what you would. And I'm with John and Van Houten on this one. It doesn't. You might read things into the story that the author didn't intend or the ending of a book disappoints you, and you decide to pretend it never happened or come up with a different one instead. By all means, knock yourself out.

You shouldn't view books and stories as holy scripture and the author their prophet, because conversations have much more creative potential than lectures. And though even authors themselves might confuse authorship with dictatorship, that doesn't make it any more right. Thinking for yourself is a skill that needs to be cultivated – as it should be, otherwise you'll be much too susceptible to manipulation. So yeah, you should go ahead and make reading your own experience. Let creativity bloom - even if it is in opposition. Posterity might just thank you for it.



View all my reviews

On the Lack of Romance and Lots of Selfish Belief in the Letters of Abelard and Heloise

Letters of Abelard and Heloise by Pierre Bayle

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I must say that these letters were not quite what I had expected. That was because Abelard and Heloise didn't exactly live up to their reputation. I'm not sure how they ever ended up on the most-romantic-tragic-love-story-list. Don't get me wrong, I found the letters to be profoundly interesting on many different levels. A treasure for historians. Interesting character studies. But romantic? Not so much.

Abelard strikes me as too much of a narcissist to raise much sympathy for his misfortunes – especially since he basically does everything in his power to turn everyone against him. And the sad thing is, he doesn't even notice it – because he's just too damn full of himself. Lot's of self serving bias going on in there, I'd say.

And what about Heloise? Well, I've got a little more sympathy for her and her situation. What I find strange though – and maybe that's just my modern mind - is that among all those lamentations neither of them writes a single word of their offspring? All they talk about is themselves and their miserable lots. And that brings me right to the topic of their faith. You don't need to read much between the lines to notice that their so called piety and religious career, if you will, is a purely selfish endeavor. There's none of the nobler motivations. No ambition to make the world a better place and what not. All those I could tolerate within the proper framework – even as an atheist. For them, though, religion is but a means to an end. And I'm quite repulsed by that.

What strikes me as very ironic is that they feel oh so bad about having chosen their paths for the wrong reasons and about their lingering love for each other. So they apparently come to the conclusion that they should embrace their roles and try harder in order to – here it comes – receive absolution and save their own souls. They don't even seem to grasp the fact that this very foundation of their belief essentially turns everything they do into a selfish act. Yeah, they probably should feel bad, but they do so for all the wrong reasons. And the saddest part is Abelard's self-righteous attitude that people like him so often tend to display.



View all my reviews

On the Evolution of Dr. Dolittle

Have you ever thought about what has become of the good old Dr. Dolittle? I mean how many kids and young adults today still know the original story rather than the watered down version from the 1998 movie with Eddie Murphy? Not very many, I find. And that is too bad, because I would go as far as to say that this newer version in it's message is not only shallow, but potentially harmful. My point is this: it stifles ambition by perpetuating the nefarious myth that genius is something your born with – or (most of us) not.

Remember the Doctor from the book or the 1967 movie with Rex Harrison? He actually made an effort to learn the languages of animals – hundreds of different languages, in fact – because he prefers their company to that of his fellow humans and wants to understand them better to be more able to treat them right.

And what about the Doctor from 1998? He just magically has the ability to understand and communicate with all animals, but resents this gift and the animals, since he just wants to be normal and accepted by his fellow humans. He eventually learns to appreciate his special gift (sort of), but not before it is validated by other humans and helps him earn their praise.

So while the Doctor from 1967 used to illustrate how genius is forged through concentrated work and effort in the direction of one's natural inclination, the newer version perpetuates the myth that genius is something you have to be born into – and not work for to achieve. Not only that, but it also makes the point that it is actually a burden you have to bear, because it's not considered cool by your peers. I mean, what the hell?!

This just goes to illustrate the widespread desire in today's society to not only be effortlessly special, but most importantly to have this validated through praise. Where would we be had Socrates or da Vinci or Einstein or Tesla or any great mind in history worked under this assumption?

I would even suspect that this frame of mind and its close relatives are largely responsible for the impression (or maybe reality?) that people are getting dumber. Faith in your own abilities is a huge part of the learning process. If you take that away and substitute it with messages like the born-to-genius-myth or the math-is-so-hard-myth and stuff like that, you'll have yourself a nice self-fulfilling prophecy.

On Monstrosity, Talent, and Perceptions of Reward and Punishment in The Phantom of the Opera

The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I must say that with all the names being thrown around right from the beginning and the references to the complicated architecture of opera house I was very confused at first. That, however, got a lot better with the progression of the story and long after I was finished, I found myself pondering the implication that monsters may or may not be born to look the part, but ultimately made by humans/society.

I've never thought about this much before and it certainly awoke a whole new sympathy for Grendel. Did they – the phantom and Beowulf's Grendel that is – really have a choice or where they rather forced into the role of the monster by society. And if so, who is worse – they for embracing it or us for forcing this role upon them?

What's also interesting is that negative roles seem to be more reenforced than positive ones. While negative aspects like a monstrous appearance are likely to be found indicative of a person's character, positive ones like talents are often attributed to an external force. Take Christine for example. She and the Angel of Music where somewhat reminiscent of Dumbo and his feather. Like Dumbo even she herself didn't belief in her own abilities. Now, that might be good to keep a person humble and prevent them from becoming a megalomaniac or narcissist, but the underlying concept does have a serious downside.

What it comes down to is reward and punishment. Christine's talent is believed to be a reward for being good and working really hard, while the phantom's appearance is considered a punishment for being bad. The difference being that the reward is given after she put up a lot of effort, whereas the phantom's supposed punishment is received at birth. What horrible crime could he have committed in his mother's womb to deserve this? Sabotage a brother that we never heard of in a less ambivalent fashion than the biblical Jacob? Or do we believe in past lives here? And why is this punishment so permanent, when the rewards are so fleeting? Or are they fleeting because their source is corrupted?

Like Dumbo Christine only believes that she needs the Angel of Music to shine, while all she needs is really within her. And what she thought to be the Angel of Music is actually nothing of the sort, but a hoax. However, the demystification doesn't lead to her believing more in herself like it does with Dumbo. Instead it seems to make her lose her passion for music, because it now evokes negative associations – like the things linked to your psychopathic stalker will naturally do. Now, to sum this up, a book that gives you so much to think about is always well worth a read.



View all my reviews

On Truth and Perception

Isn't it funny that while most everyone thinks they're somewhat unique and special, they simultaneously assume that everybody experiences the world like they do? Everybody is so much in their own world that they rarely even consider that the world might look, taste or feel different to someone else's senses. I'm talking about the perceptions that you can't directly compare - only through the faulty filter of language. 

For example people agree that something that looks blue is blue. Because they've both learned, that the hue they see is called blue. But how can you be sure that what you see there is exactly what somebody else sees? This definition is not based on your actual perception. Think about it. How would you describe blue if not with itself. I guess you can't really. Maybe some of our differences in taste can even be attributed to differences in perception. Who knows?

However, there are other things that you can communicate better, but rarely ever think to do. I've had my fair share of experiences with those. When I was in elementary school, for instance, I first got glasses. Before I got them I naturally thought that everybody's eyes worked like mine did. But when I got the glasses, I was amazed at how much there was to see all of a sudden, and I kept wondering at what I've been missing all this time. This babbling of mine about all that sure did freak my mother out. Maybe I even owe some of my character traits or at least some of my interests to this.

Then there was another much more recent experience with this type of thing when I had an argument with my friend about him forgetting a doctors appointment - yet again - and always messing up his scheduling. When I told him how I keep track of my schedule, he looked at me like I had just grown a second head. Of course I thought he was the one that was weird. After all wasn't he the one who was lucky if he didn't forget his own freaking birthday? So I started asking around, and it turned out that it really was me. Bummer.

So - nerd that I am - I went looking for it on the Internet. But how do you google something like this when you don't already know what it is called? The faulty filter of language again. So that is why, when I finally stumbled upon the answer, it was purely by accident. Turns out it's called visuo-spatial synesthesia. It's not an illness or anything, just a different way of making sense of the world. It's still hard to grasp how all these other people can function without an inner calendar like mine or how they calculate without number forms, since I rely on them so much.

The point here is, you can never know that other people see the world like you do. Have you ever noticed how different people tell the same story, but apparently they don't remember it the same way. Does that mean somebody lied? Or did he just experience it in a different way? And doesn't that overthrow the whole concept of truth as we generally envision it?

Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night's Dream and the Dynamics of Female Friendships

A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


I absolutely adore this play! It's fun, it's got romance and magic and lots of wisdom. But the best thing about it is that amidst all the magic and strangely bewitching scenery there are - even roughly 400 years after it's creation - certain aspects that are still very relevant today.

The one that stood out to me – at least in this latest reading - was the relationship between Helena and Hermia, who have the kind of friendship or rather 'frenemyship' that sadly still seems to be the predominant kind of relationship between female friends. That they are more frenemies than friends is rather obvious right from their very first encounter in the play, wherein Hermia claims to be totally blameless in attracting Demetrius attentions. Yet, when the tables are turned, she immediately accuses Helena of having bewitched Lysander.

O me! you juggler! you cankerblossom!
    You thief of love! What! have you come by night,
    And stol'n my love's heart from him? (III.ii.282-284)

This is a common phenomenon that I never quite understood: that somehow when a man is unfaithful, the other woman gets much more of the blame than the guy does. The justifications for this all seem to lead to the implication that men are driven by their needs and women are responsible for enticing them - however intentional or unintentional that might be. What is really sad about this is that this kind of rational - that also leads to victim blaming in cases of rape - is so widely propagated and accepted by women.

But turning back to the play, we can see how this dynamic comes about. Notice how Hermia becomes increasingly insecure about her appearance as soon as Lysander's change of heart dawns on her.

And are you grown so high in his esteem
    Because I am so dwarfish and so low? (III.ii.294-295)

This is a telling indication that Hermia is a woman, who measures her own self-worth via external reassurance – especially but not exclusively through male attention. She then turns right around to direct her attacks on Helena. This is because when women define their self-worth like Hermia does, every other woman is essentially a rival and a threat – even and most especially their female friends. This unfortunately doesn't only make Hermia a sad and tragic figure, but also someone with whom meaningful friendship and solidarity are just not possible.

Helena, on the other hand, did handle the same situation in a much different way. She, unlike Hermia, didn't become insecure about her appearance.

Through Athens I am thought as fair as she.
    But what of that? Demetrius thinks not so;
    He will not know what all but he do know. (I.i.227-229)

She also didn't blame Hermia for his change of heart, but Demetrius himself, and was frustrated with her own still lasting obsession with him. She - instead of attacking Hermia - sought her advise, thinking that Demetrius might love her again, if she could just be more like Hermia. The latter, however, in correspondence with her understanding of self-worth misinterprets this as an attack.

His folly, Helena, is no fault of mine. (I.i.200)

She is just too preoccupied with the reassurance of her own self-worth to even manage unimpaired communication with her friend.



View all my reviews

On John Green's Latest Video

In his latest video John Green talks about the just-world fallacy and that apparently whoever has an advantage isn't only prone to fall victim to it, but will also behave in pretty much the same way. Which makes him question the concept of power and whether or not someone in power is actually wielding it or wielded by it. Now there is undeniably some truth in there, but the problem with this short and oversimplified way of presenting it, is that it leads to possible misconceptions. For one thing, the reception of study results and the validity of statistics is a can of worms that I'm not even gonna open up here.

The thing I'd like to suggest is rather that the concept of anyone wielding power is actually more of an illusion, because nobody can ever achieve or even hold any level of power all on his own. It always takes the support of a whole bunch of other people and organizations, who in turn need people and organizations to provide their power. The thing is, these structures are not as linear as you might think, but complex and interconnected. They are a whole network of relationships. Power, then, is not anything that can be wielded by any one person or organization. I'd say it's rather a complex global system of interests that does provide different limits and obligations for everyone involved. Power therefore is almost as unpredictable a machinery as the weather. One thing is for certain, however, that change from top down is something that just doesn't really happen. Even if it might appear like it's coming from the top down, it has always been spurred by mechanisms that go much deeper and involve a number of elements to support it.

Now this might be disheartening for some people and make them believe that it doesn't really matter who is on top, but that is actually not the case. While any specific person might not be all that significant, the network of connections and interests behind them actually do matter a great deal. That is why, when voting in an election, knowing the supporters of any given party or candidate will probably be a much better indication of their agenda, than their promises or personal conduct.

As to how one might enact change in this system, I'd say you'd have to create a sufficient level of interest. That naturally has a lot to do with money. But that doesn't mean you necessarily have to be rich in order to change the world. Rather, I'd say, that if you manage to spread an idea far enough, it will gain monetary interest all on it's own. And spreading ideas today is much easier than it has ever been. The Internet provides so many tools for you to make yourself heard and to inform people in so many different ways. Whether you're better at expressing yourself verbally, artistically or in writing, you can easily and with minimal expenses make a difference and/or help others to do so. This is what makes me rather hopeful for the future. I'd like to believe that focusing on all the little things you can do, will in the end make much more of a difference, than rallying against the things that you really can't change.  

On Pets as Presents

I've recently come across some people who claimed that pets made great presents. That claim always manages to disturb me for a number of reasons. Of curse they tend to romanticize it. They say things like 'Giving someone a pet is like giving them unconditional love'. They think they're being very thoughtful, while statements like these just show how they did not think this through.

They have apparently failed to realize that pet ownership comes with not only joys, but also a lot of responsibilities. That's why giving pets as presents usually doesn't work out. You can't fully appreciate the joys when you didn't sign up for the responsibilities. Whether or not to adopt a pet is a decision to be thought through carefully. And it is a decision people have to make for themselves. It requires research to find out a pet's needs and correlate them with one's lifestyle. Otherwise they will sooner or later be faced with responsibilities they are not equipped or willing to handle.

I believe that when this decision is made on someone else's behalf and they're confronted with the responsibilities or inconveniences they didn't sign up for, they are much more likely to feel resentment towards the animal and the one who gave it to them. Often the new owners are not adequately informed about the animal's needs and might make fatal mistakes. Either way, the animal is the one who's most likely going to suffer. It is very likely to not be taken care of properly, however intentional or unintentional that might be. The unwilling owners might even rationalize their actions to get rid of the pet. How many dogs are left on the side of the road or in dumpsters each year? Their owners were not adequately prepared to take care of them and many of them were presents.

Even if someone has expressed the desire to adopt a pet I would still caution against giving them one as a present. Simply because people are not good at admitting failures. If say they fail to properly train a dog, they might rationalize that that's because they were given an especially difficult specimen. Again they are likely to feel resentment and the one that is going to suffer is the animal.

The underlying issue here is that by using animals as presents they're being reduced to commodities. That's just not right. They're living breathing things just like we are. They feel joy and fear and pain and therefore should not be treated like things - even though sadly the law views them as such. I think that we'd fare much better, if we thought of taking in a pet more along the lines of an adoption rather than a purchase. You wouldn't give anyone a child as a present, would you now?

On Teaching and Language Learning

I've been asked a couple of times to teach people to speak English, and there are a few curious things I noticed in that regard. So, before I waste my time, I sort of put them to a test. I just point out some simple starting points and what usually happens is, they go like this: "Yeah, yeah, no that sounds like so much work ... Couldn't you just teach me?" Interesting idea of teaching they have, don't they? I mean, how do they think this is going to go down? I do all the work, perform some kind of magical dance and beam the knowledge from my brain to theirs?

Where does this conviction come from that with just the right teacher they would magically learn what they should, and of course the counter conclusion that if they don't, it's obviously the teacher's fault, not their own? Don't get me wrong I think there are some lousy teachers out there - hell knows I've had my fair share of those, but you can't blame it all on them. In the end nobody's going to care about how bad your teacher was. They're going to care about whether or not you know what you are supposed to know and if you don't, that's your own fault. If you've got a bad teacher, well tough luck, that means you're gonna have to put in some more effort, not sit back and blame it all on them. All the information is out there and you don't even have to pay a fortune to get it, if you only know where to look. That's the beauty of the Internet.

But even if you've got a good teacher, you're still gonna have to put in some effort. Or have you ever seen someone learn to walk just by watching other people walk? No, because the muscles have to practice this movement themselves and so does your brain - especially when it comes to language learning. The teacher's job, in my humble opinion, is just to show you how and where to start, guide you while you go, and correct you when you make a mistake. That sort of thing.

The first thing I would advise any language learner to do though, would be to get some good motivation. Because if you don't know what you're doing this for, you're gonna fall off the wagon as soon as the road gets a little bumpy. They all do. Now, that motivation better be something a little more feasible than saying you always wanted to learn another language, because you want people to think you're smarter or something along those lines. Good motivations are the person you really want to be able to communicate with or the book that is going to take months to be available in translation. Those are motivation, practice and reward all in one package. Once you've got that kind of motivation, you just stick to it and practice. That's all there is to it.

On Identity and Origins

Has anyone watched the English Patient? Because I recently have, and it got me thinking about identities and the role of nationality. There's this theme when it comes to defining someone's identity in this movie, that is a stark disparity between who someone is according to their name or their papers and the person that stands behind all that. Although there is a lot of international mixing an mingling - or precisely because of that - the primary aspect people in this movie seek when defining any person's identity is apparently their nationality. That is natural in that sort of situation - I suppose - but it forces a role upon the characters, and while some seem to embrace this role others seek to escape it.

Weirdly enough in a western world that seems to have bound together to some extend I can still relate to that. Now, I don't suffer it as much as say Almásy does - thank god - but every now and then when I interact with people from other places, I feel how they are trying to force a role on me based on where I come from. You'd think that nowadays that we westerners eat food and use products from all over the world, watch movies from Hollywood to Bollywood, and converse with people from every which country via the Internet, where you come from wouldn't really make that much of a difference. Now, I'm not saying that my origin didn't leave it's mark on me, but I definitely wouldn't consider it to be among the primary aspects of my identity.

But what then does define my identity? To what extend is identity even definable? Isn't any attempt to "define" someone's identity a fundamental error? Not just because of the multitude of facets, but also because such an attempt usually presupposes the false assumption that identity is a static concept. And am I really gonna relate more to people of my geographic region, religion, gender, age, academic degree or job? Or aren't all of these mere conversation starters? The parts of the Venn diagram that is you and them. But that I think might be the very crux of the matter. Because in the end it seems like who ever attempts the definition is as vital to defining your identity as you yourself are. In a way then how your identity appears to someone is inevitably defined by their own point of view. So once again it all boils down to perspectives, and that means that the role they seek to force on me is probably revealing more about them than about me.

On Empathy and Perspective

When people ask what I do, and I tell them that I'm majoring in ancient history, they tend to look at me funny. They tend to sport an expression that might best be described as a curious mix of disbelief and pity. Some of them even ask how I ended up there - like something must have gone really wrong for me to land in what they consider to be some form of purgatory. But if I'm really being honest, I would probably have had a similar reaction - were history classes from school my point of reference, that is.

Curiously though, history in school was worlds away from the way we approach it at university now. Back then it was a very simplistic picture. A string of dates and facts. Knowledge neatly packed into little labeled boxes, ready to be checked of on formulaic tests. History fell into the category of memorization subjects.

No one ever mentioned that dates particularly in antiquity are often anything but certain, that what was sold to us as facts might still have been up for debate, and that sometimes in view of recent studies those 'facts' become outdated. Because in reality history as it is studied and reviewed is actually a quite fluid concept and it revolves a lot around empathy and perspective.

My parents used to allude to that when they told us that what they had learned in their history classes differed quiet considerably from what we learned - or from what our grand parents had learned for that matter. That is because perspectives tend to change over time. And not to burst your bubble, but none of these perspectives were ever objective, nor are they ever going to be. Some tried more to be objective than others, but I don't think there even is such a thing. Our zeitgeist influences our view of historical events as much as new discoveries do.

Look at the world today. The very same events are experienced in such a variety of different ways. There never is only one truth. Do you really think that looking back from the future is gonna change anything about that? If you tell only one story you're telling the truth as much as you're telling a lie. That, by the way, should also answer those pesky questions about whether or not there are still new things to discover in the study of history or any academic field for that matter.

Anyway, many people instinctively use empathy when they try to understand the lives and experiences of other people and so do historians. Admittedly that can get you a long way, but you'll have to ask yourself, if sometimes you're not too much of a child of your own time and place to really relate. The question is, how much of our nature and experience is fundamentally human and therefore translatable and how much of a role does our culture play in that. In order to answer that, you need to take a step back from your own perspective and that's the hard part. Unfortunately a lot of people can't really do that.

But I don't think you're doing those people from the past justice, if you don't at least try to take into account the full spectrum of their experience and assume that they felt just like you do. An awareness of the flexibility of the human mind and the resulting multitude of perspectives is what will take you to a whole new level of understanding, not just of past cultures but present ones as well.

On Great Expectations

As I alluded in my previous post, I recently had a birthday and as usual that got me thinking.

I remember when I was younger I had such high hopes for my birthdays and my birthday parties. I used to be all giddy and exited for weeks in advance. On this very day life was going to be so much better than ever before and the party was going to be spectacular, downright transcendent and yada yada yada. Then the big day finally came and needless to say ... it never lived up to my expectations. So I always ended up being sad and frustrated, building up even higher hopes for the next year. A classic vicious circle. Eventually this pattern let to me simultaneously hoping for this magical birthday and dreading the inevitable disappointment. So this day even manifested itself as one of the turning points of the year for me.

However, when you reach a certain (or not so certain) age (because it is different for everyone) other aspects come into play. At some point you are gonna get very nervous about being yet another year older. You start to fret about what you have achieved so far - which is never enough - and where you're gonna end up and all that jazz. If you have reached that point in your life, you will know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, lucky you or not so lucky as you're about to find out.

Because in an ironic turn of events this very anxiety now seems to counteract the ridiculously high expectations for *~the~magical~birthday~* and makes this day a much happier event for me than it ever was. Sure, there is some anxiety about the future but on the very day it's much more about what I managed to accomplish the past year and the happy memories I made along the way.

A New Adventure

This Journey started about a year ago between the four walls I live, work and sleep in. I don't exactly remember what specifically roused the desire to have a voice, but at some point I knew I wanted to write a blog, talk about the things that I care about, and share the things I create - maybe even find some like-minded people, because they don't seem to dwell where I usually attempt to socialize.

So, as you do when you're an overly insecure person like me and rarely ever leave the house, I've been doing a lot of research on how to get this thing off the ground. I read about content strategy, layout, platforms, illustration and copyright issues - you name it. I've even prewritten some posts. But there's only so much you can do without actually doing the deed. So, I come to this party late and totally over prepared in theory, yet probably totally clueless in practice - the usual.

I've set myself a deadline to get this thing going before my 27th birthday. It wasn't a bad feeling to see it pass by - maybe because the stage fright somehow went along with it and I finally got up the courage to really put myself out there. So this, in a sense, is an ending as much as it is a beginning - the ending of preparation and fretting and the beginning of the actual adventure. I'm leaving behind the safety of those snugly four walls and step out into the big wide world of the Internet with all it's perils and temptations. I'm still somewhat apprehensive, but I'm putting one foot in front of the other and keep my eyes on the price i.e. gaining confidence and meeting some like-minded people along the way or getting some different perspectives to enrich my understanding of the world.

I know I might just be talking to myself here, but if anyone were to ever reads this - because it's out on the Internet now and this kind of thing tends to happen sometimes when things are out on the Internet, feel free to talk back - in a civilized manner, please.

Farewell fellow hermits