New:
1. A Better Man by Louise Penny
2. Tilly and the Bookwanderers by Anna James
Reread:
1. Purity in death
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Flaws in my education: treating anti-racism readings like any other literature
I blogged before about how the books used in the anti-racism unit in my Grade 9 English class didn't serve us well.
Another aspect that didn't serve us well was that they treated it like any other English class unit. We did discuss racism (I don't think we managed to get as far as anti-racism, given that I didn't know the nuance until I was well into my 30s), but there was a lot of writing and talking about symbolism, "compare and contrast", etc., and that got in the way of learning actual anti-racism.
An educational trend in that time and place was letting students arrive at conclusions themselves (in either Grade 9 or Grade 10, I had a whole-ass science textbook that used the socratic method FFS!), but a bunch of ignorant white 14-year-olds who may or may not be able to name a racial stereotype are not going to arrive at any sort of useful conclusion about anti-racism without a lot more guidance and context! (And having to sit in the classroom while we fumbled around trying to do so probably wasn't a very safe experience for the few racialized students in our school!)
Literature is an excellent tool for teaching students about all manner of people and lives and experiences and ideas, and English class seems like the sensible place for some literature. But anti-racism isn't just a regular old English unit like "poetry" or "Shakespeare". It's meant to equip us to function in society and right the wrongs of our ancestors and overcome the negative influences around us that we, at the age of 14, might not even recognize as negative influences. We certainly need a lot more structure and guidance than "what do you think?" and "Discuss themes!"
I wonder if approaching anti-racism in a way that's parallel to other, more abstract literature topics might also be exacerbating the unfortunate trend of some people think it's a good idea to "debate" or ask for documentary evidence of others' lived experiences, or trying to broadly apply philosophical theory to others' lived experiences, and then saying their lived experiences are inapplicable when they don't fit into the theory. When anti-racism is presented as though it's up for exactly the same kind of theorizing as things like the symbolism of the green light - and when ignorant white kids like me are specifically asked to write about it this way - the students might come away with the idea that their theorizing is useful and welcome.
There's also the fact that, like it or not, literary analysis is rather esoteric, with not so many direct, immediate applications to the practicalities of everyday life. And, because of that, it's seen as useless by many people who aren't huge fans of it. Treating anti-racism so similarly risks leading students who are less fond of literary analysis to see anti-racism as esoteric and inapplicable, rather than being a crucial part of living ethically in the world.
Some people will point out that students "should" be able to do both literary analysis and anti-racism.
But the fact of the matter is that, in that Grade 9 classroom 25 years ago, being new to the concept of literary analysis and being new to the concept of anti-racism, we weren't all able to do both effectively.
If our curriculum and our teachers had prioritized the anti-racism aspect, even if it meant we didn't read the readings like we did our other English class readings, perhaps I and others like me would be better people today.
Another aspect that didn't serve us well was that they treated it like any other English class unit. We did discuss racism (I don't think we managed to get as far as anti-racism, given that I didn't know the nuance until I was well into my 30s), but there was a lot of writing and talking about symbolism, "compare and contrast", etc., and that got in the way of learning actual anti-racism.
An educational trend in that time and place was letting students arrive at conclusions themselves (in either Grade 9 or Grade 10, I had a whole-ass science textbook that used the socratic method FFS!), but a bunch of ignorant white 14-year-olds who may or may not be able to name a racial stereotype are not going to arrive at any sort of useful conclusion about anti-racism without a lot more guidance and context! (And having to sit in the classroom while we fumbled around trying to do so probably wasn't a very safe experience for the few racialized students in our school!)
Literature is an excellent tool for teaching students about all manner of people and lives and experiences and ideas, and English class seems like the sensible place for some literature. But anti-racism isn't just a regular old English unit like "poetry" or "Shakespeare". It's meant to equip us to function in society and right the wrongs of our ancestors and overcome the negative influences around us that we, at the age of 14, might not even recognize as negative influences. We certainly need a lot more structure and guidance than "what do you think?" and "Discuss themes!"
I wonder if approaching anti-racism in a way that's parallel to other, more abstract literature topics might also be exacerbating the unfortunate trend of some people think it's a good idea to "debate" or ask for documentary evidence of others' lived experiences, or trying to broadly apply philosophical theory to others' lived experiences, and then saying their lived experiences are inapplicable when they don't fit into the theory. When anti-racism is presented as though it's up for exactly the same kind of theorizing as things like the symbolism of the green light - and when ignorant white kids like me are specifically asked to write about it this way - the students might come away with the idea that their theorizing is useful and welcome.
There's also the fact that, like it or not, literary analysis is rather esoteric, with not so many direct, immediate applications to the practicalities of everyday life. And, because of that, it's seen as useless by many people who aren't huge fans of it. Treating anti-racism so similarly risks leading students who are less fond of literary analysis to see anti-racism as esoteric and inapplicable, rather than being a crucial part of living ethically in the world.
Some people will point out that students "should" be able to do both literary analysis and anti-racism.
But the fact of the matter is that, in that Grade 9 classroom 25 years ago, being new to the concept of literary analysis and being new to the concept of anti-racism, we weren't all able to do both effectively.
If our curriculum and our teachers had prioritized the anti-racism aspect, even if it meant we didn't read the readings like we did our other English class readings, perhaps I and others like me would be better people today.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Sanditon fanfic bunny, free for the taking: "I Will Toil and You Can Blossom"
This post is a full spoiler zone for the Sanditon miniseries.
I recently finished the Sanditon miniseries, and was pleased to see that my ship of Charlotte/Arthur is still a possibility.
I have a massive fanfic bunny and lack the skills to write it, so I'm posting it here in case someone else wants to write it. Steal this idea!
Premise:
Charlotte and Arthur enter by mutual consent into a companionate marriage (in the sense of companionate love as opposed to consummate love.)
This puts Charlotte in a good position to continue her work with the Parker family's business, which she found so self-actualizing in canon. (After all, it's much more respectable for a Mrs. Parker to be acting on behalf of the Parker family than a Miss Heywood.) She gets to be married to someone who is pleasant and harmless and respects her.
Meanwhile, Arthur gets to continue enjoying the simple pleasures of life without having to work too hard, because Charlotte is pulling their share of the weight in the family business. He gets to be married to someone who is pretty and personable and accepts him for who is he is without playing games. He can spend his days enjoying his port wine and buttered toast and getting down on the floor to play with the children.
(Despite it being a companionate marriage, I do imagine that Charlotte and Arthur would consummate their marriage. They've both shown themselves eager to try new experiences (e.g. sea-bathing) and sex is a new experience that's now available to them. And they may well continue to make sex part of their lives, either to have children, simply because they think it's fun.)
So where's the conflict in this scenario? From the whole rest of the town of Sanditon! Nearly everyone we've met in canon has some kind of drama, and with Sanditon being a resort town all kinds of personalities could pass through. And meanwhile, Charlotte and Arthur build themselves an oasis of peace in the midst of all the drama.
Interesting notions this fic would explore:
- A mutually-satisfying and mutually-respectful companionate marriage. In fiction, we see explorations of passionate marriages, unhealthy marriages, abusive marriages, bickering marriages. I've never seen a portrayal of a marriage between two people who like each other and respect each other and get along well, but aren't in love with each other and are okay with that.
- Sex as fun, but not passionate. I do think if Charlotte and Arthur were married, they would explore sex. They've both shown themselves game to try new experiences (sea bathing, horseback riding), and I think they would have a go at consummating their marriage in a similar spirit. After all, they're allowed - even encouraged! And if it turns out to be an enjoyable experience for both, they'd probably make it a regular part of their life. Sex in fiction tends to be portrayed as imbued with great emotion and meaning (as it often is in real life) - either positively or negatively depending on the character being portrayed. But some people must find it just...fun. (After all, friends with benefits is a thing.) It would be interesting to see that explored in fiction.
- The value of a harmless husband. We normally see the notion of a "safe option" in marriage portrayed negatively, or as a person in a safe marriage yearning for something more. But in a historical era where a wife is entirely at her husband's mercy socially, legally and financially, a harmless husband like Arthur would be quite the catch! He's cheerful and happy to be pleased, he's happy to cede the floor to Charlotte when she knows better, and he's not going to bankrupt them (c.f. he's hardly touched his inheritance).
(Charlotte is also harmless and I'm sure that has value for Arthur, but given the realities of the era, I'm more interested in how Arthur's harmlessness enhances Charlotte's life.)
- Young newlyweds growing up together. Once upon a time, I read something that said that in the 21st century, people expect to finish growing up and then to get married. But in the past, when people married younger, they'd get married and expect to finish growing up together. I haven't a clue whether that's true as a general societal attitude (I've only heard it once from a source that is lost to history), but it must have happened in some cases, and it would be an interesting thing to explore. Charlotte and Arthur, while of marriageable age in their historical context, are both very young and both still have some growing up to do. At the same time, living and working within the extended Parker family would give them a context in which they can safely do this growing up together.
I recently finished the Sanditon miniseries, and was pleased to see that my ship of Charlotte/Arthur is still a possibility.
I have a massive fanfic bunny and lack the skills to write it, so I'm posting it here in case someone else wants to write it. Steal this idea!
Premise:
Charlotte and Arthur enter by mutual consent into a companionate marriage (in the sense of companionate love as opposed to consummate love.)
This puts Charlotte in a good position to continue her work with the Parker family's business, which she found so self-actualizing in canon. (After all, it's much more respectable for a Mrs. Parker to be acting on behalf of the Parker family than a Miss Heywood.) She gets to be married to someone who is pleasant and harmless and respects her.
Meanwhile, Arthur gets to continue enjoying the simple pleasures of life without having to work too hard, because Charlotte is pulling their share of the weight in the family business. He gets to be married to someone who is pretty and personable and accepts him for who is he is without playing games. He can spend his days enjoying his port wine and buttered toast and getting down on the floor to play with the children.
(Despite it being a companionate marriage, I do imagine that Charlotte and Arthur would consummate their marriage. They've both shown themselves eager to try new experiences (e.g. sea-bathing) and sex is a new experience that's now available to them. And they may well continue to make sex part of their lives, either to have children, simply because they think it's fun.)
So where's the conflict in this scenario? From the whole rest of the town of Sanditon! Nearly everyone we've met in canon has some kind of drama, and with Sanditon being a resort town all kinds of personalities could pass through. And meanwhile, Charlotte and Arthur build themselves an oasis of peace in the midst of all the drama.
Interesting notions this fic would explore:
- A mutually-satisfying and mutually-respectful companionate marriage. In fiction, we see explorations of passionate marriages, unhealthy marriages, abusive marriages, bickering marriages. I've never seen a portrayal of a marriage between two people who like each other and respect each other and get along well, but aren't in love with each other and are okay with that.
- Sex as fun, but not passionate. I do think if Charlotte and Arthur were married, they would explore sex. They've both shown themselves game to try new experiences (sea bathing, horseback riding), and I think they would have a go at consummating their marriage in a similar spirit. After all, they're allowed - even encouraged! And if it turns out to be an enjoyable experience for both, they'd probably make it a regular part of their life. Sex in fiction tends to be portrayed as imbued with great emotion and meaning (as it often is in real life) - either positively or negatively depending on the character being portrayed. But some people must find it just...fun. (After all, friends with benefits is a thing.) It would be interesting to see that explored in fiction.
- The value of a harmless husband. We normally see the notion of a "safe option" in marriage portrayed negatively, or as a person in a safe marriage yearning for something more. But in a historical era where a wife is entirely at her husband's mercy socially, legally and financially, a harmless husband like Arthur would be quite the catch! He's cheerful and happy to be pleased, he's happy to cede the floor to Charlotte when she knows better, and he's not going to bankrupt them (c.f. he's hardly touched his inheritance).
(Charlotte is also harmless and I'm sure that has value for Arthur, but given the realities of the era, I'm more interested in how Arthur's harmlessness enhances Charlotte's life.)
- Young newlyweds growing up together. Once upon a time, I read something that said that in the 21st century, people expect to finish growing up and then to get married. But in the past, when people married younger, they'd get married and expect to finish growing up together. I haven't a clue whether that's true as a general societal attitude (I've only heard it once from a source that is lost to history), but it must have happened in some cases, and it would be an interesting thing to explore. Charlotte and Arthur, while of marriageable age in their historical context, are both very young and both still have some growing up to do. At the same time, living and working within the extended Parker family would give them a context in which they can safely do this growing up together.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Flaws in my education: using non-contemporary readings for anti-racism
In Grade 9, we had an anti-racism unit in English class. Works studied included To Kill A Mockingbird, Black Like Me, and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Problem: these were all American works that were decades old.
I don't remember reading anything Canadian in our anti-racism unit. I never read anything about race set in my own lifetime until I was an adult. The only thing about race in Canada that I remember reading in school is Obasan, which is set during the Second World War.
Many white Canadians - including myself until shamefully recently - perceive racism to be a thing of the past, and/or an American problem.
And I strongly suspect this is influenced by the fact that our anti-racism education focused on American works from before we were born.
I often say I'm about 30 years behind where I should be in things like anti-racism. That Grade 9 class was 25 years ago.
Maybe the world would be a better place if I, and others like me, had been equipped for all these years to think of racism as a problem that exists in the here and now. I know I certainly would be a better person if I were now decades into my journey into anti-racism rather than just starting out on the cusp of middle age.
Problem: these were all American works that were decades old.
I don't remember reading anything Canadian in our anti-racism unit. I never read anything about race set in my own lifetime until I was an adult. The only thing about race in Canada that I remember reading in school is Obasan, which is set during the Second World War.
Many white Canadians - including myself until shamefully recently - perceive racism to be a thing of the past, and/or an American problem.
And I strongly suspect this is influenced by the fact that our anti-racism education focused on American works from before we were born.
I often say I'm about 30 years behind where I should be in things like anti-racism. That Grade 9 class was 25 years ago.
Maybe the world would be a better place if I, and others like me, had been equipped for all these years to think of racism as a problem that exists in the here and now. I know I certainly would be a better person if I were now decades into my journey into anti-racism rather than just starting out on the cusp of middle age.
Saturday, June 13, 2020
O'Keeffe's Working Hands: a hand cream like any other
With all the extra pandemic handwashing, I needed to level up my hand cream game, so I decided to try O'Keeffe's Working Hands, which purports to be for dry, cracked hands resulting from manual labour. Surely, I thought, a hand cream designed for working hands will be particularly magical on hands that normally do nothing more demanding than type, and are now being put to the test with a few extra washings a day.
Turned out, it's not particularly magical. It's no better on dry, cracked areas (or on eczema) than any other hand cream I've tried.
It's no worse than any other hand cream either, so if you feel like trying it, there's no reason not to try it.
Turned out, it's not particularly magical. It's no better on dry, cracked areas (or on eczema) than any other hand cream I've tried.
It's no worse than any other hand cream either, so if you feel like trying it, there's no reason not to try it.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Flaws in my Education: "You should speak up and contribute!"
I was identified as gifted when I was in Grade 5, which meant every year I'd get an IPRC, where I'd meet with my parents and the resource teacher and they'd make a plan for how to get the most out of my education.
The one thing the resource teachers always did (every single resource teacher over the years did this - I can think of at least three individual teachers and I'm sure I'm missing some) was put in the plan that I should raise my hand and answer more questions in class.
Even looking back at it as an adult, I don't understand what that was supposed to achieve. (I knew that I knew the answers, I was just staying quiet to avoid bullying.) But there was very strong messaging that I should raise my hand and give the teachers the answers I already knew I already knew, that doing so would be a good thing, and that failing to do so was a bad thing.
Similarly, as a shy person who doesn't always speak in groups, I've gotten a lot of "You should speak up! You should contribute!" as social skills advice.
As though I necessarily have something not just to say, but to contribute? I can't fathom what that might be!
So for the first 30ish years of my life, I was receiving constant messaging that I should say something, anything. That not putting in my two cents is practically not pulling my weight.
And then, when I was well into my 30s, I was exposed for the first time to the concept of staying in one's lane.
This was literally the first time in my life I had heard that perhaps I shouldn't speak up, perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to a given discussion.
(When I was a kid, adults would tell me to be quiet and not to talk back in a given moment, but on a philosophical/theoretical level they definitely would have said I should speak up and contribute.)
Now, I can't tell you how much of this "you should speak up and contribute" was because I'm white, and I can't tell you whether my non-white classmates were treated differently. My school was fairly small (if you had shown me a photo of any of my classmates, I could have instantly told you their name and something about them) and there were so few non-white students that I could count them without running out of fingers.
I cannot think of/remember a single instance of any of my classmates, of any race, being urged to systematically speak up more or to systematically be quiet. But also, I wasn't paying attention to such things at the time, so who knows what I might have missed?
If there was any difference in how we were treated, I'm sure the adults would have told you they were treating us as individuals, based on our individual needs. And there simply isn't enough data to suggest otherwise - I had too few non-white classmates to identify any sort of pattern.
But the fact of the matter is there were, in raw numbers, a lot of white people around in that time and place, and other times and places like it. I can't possibly have been the only person who was told to speak up and contribute. (I seriously doubt the adults around me would have come up with an all new unprecedented piece of advice just for me!)
Maybe the world would be a better place if more of us were told there are some times and places where you should sit down, be quiet and listen - and not just when those in power and authority are talking.
The one thing the resource teachers always did (every single resource teacher over the years did this - I can think of at least three individual teachers and I'm sure I'm missing some) was put in the plan that I should raise my hand and answer more questions in class.
Even looking back at it as an adult, I don't understand what that was supposed to achieve. (I knew that I knew the answers, I was just staying quiet to avoid bullying.) But there was very strong messaging that I should raise my hand and give the teachers the answers I already knew I already knew, that doing so would be a good thing, and that failing to do so was a bad thing.
Similarly, as a shy person who doesn't always speak in groups, I've gotten a lot of "You should speak up! You should contribute!" as social skills advice.
As though I necessarily have something not just to say, but to contribute? I can't fathom what that might be!
So for the first 30ish years of my life, I was receiving constant messaging that I should say something, anything. That not putting in my two cents is practically not pulling my weight.
And then, when I was well into my 30s, I was exposed for the first time to the concept of staying in one's lane.
This was literally the first time in my life I had heard that perhaps I shouldn't speak up, perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to a given discussion.
(When I was a kid, adults would tell me to be quiet and not to talk back in a given moment, but on a philosophical/theoretical level they definitely would have said I should speak up and contribute.)
Now, I can't tell you how much of this "you should speak up and contribute" was because I'm white, and I can't tell you whether my non-white classmates were treated differently. My school was fairly small (if you had shown me a photo of any of my classmates, I could have instantly told you their name and something about them) and there were so few non-white students that I could count them without running out of fingers.
I cannot think of/remember a single instance of any of my classmates, of any race, being urged to systematically speak up more or to systematically be quiet. But also, I wasn't paying attention to such things at the time, so who knows what I might have missed?
If there was any difference in how we were treated, I'm sure the adults would have told you they were treating us as individuals, based on our individual needs. And there simply isn't enough data to suggest otherwise - I had too few non-white classmates to identify any sort of pattern.
But the fact of the matter is there were, in raw numbers, a lot of white people around in that time and place, and other times and places like it. I can't possibly have been the only person who was told to speak up and contribute. (I seriously doubt the adults around me would have come up with an all new unprecedented piece of advice just for me!)
Maybe the world would be a better place if more of us were told there are some times and places where you should sit down, be quiet and listen - and not just when those in power and authority are talking.
Sunday, June 07, 2020
Things They Should Invent: express elevators for the pandemic
Most people in my building seem to be voluntarily abiding by a one person/household per elevator rule. I do this myself. I live in the lower half of the building, so often when I'm waiting for an elevator to take me to to the ground floor, there will already be someone in it. I cheerfully wave them on, and wait for the next elevator.
However, not everyone in my building does this. Sometimes I'm taking the elevator down, it stops to pick up someone who has pressed the call button on one of the floors below me, and they get in. And there's not really much I can civilly do to stop them. (I mean, I could scream and argue, or do something gross like cough or something creepy like scratch my ass and smell my finger, but I have few options that allow me to retain what social capital I have.)
I also think, in some cases, the person waiting for the elevator might feel it's rude not to get into the elevator, as though you're suggesting that there's something wrong with the person in the elevator. (Imagine, for example, how declining to get in an elevator with someone else would have read before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus.)
It would be useful if, for the duration of the pandemic, elevators could be put in express mode. You get in the elevator, press the button for your floor, and it goes straight to your floor without stopping. Then it goes and picks up the next person who has pressed a call button.
This would make elevator use during the pandemic as safe as possible without requiring optimal behaviour or any sort of effort from users. In my own experiences with skipping over occupied elevators and waiting for empty ones, I've never had to wait for more than three (and, about half the time, the first elevator that arrives is empty) so I don't think it would cause undue delays.
The challenge is I'm not sure whether it's technically possible without changes to how elevators work. The elevators I'm familiar with can be put in service mode with a key - you turn the key, the elevator goes your destination floor without stopping and then waits for you there. But if you don't turn the key back to the normal setting, the elevator will sit and wait for you rather than picking up the next passenger. And if you do turn the key back to the normal setting, it will go back to stopping wherever there's a call button pressed.
So I'm not sure if elevators can currently be programmed to take each passenger to their floor then go back for the next passenger without constant intervention. But if they can, they should be. And if they can't, elevator manufacturers should figure out how to introduce this functionality for the next time we need it.
However, not everyone in my building does this. Sometimes I'm taking the elevator down, it stops to pick up someone who has pressed the call button on one of the floors below me, and they get in. And there's not really much I can civilly do to stop them. (I mean, I could scream and argue, or do something gross like cough or something creepy like scratch my ass and smell my finger, but I have few options that allow me to retain what social capital I have.)
I also think, in some cases, the person waiting for the elevator might feel it's rude not to get into the elevator, as though you're suggesting that there's something wrong with the person in the elevator. (Imagine, for example, how declining to get in an elevator with someone else would have read before anyone had ever heard of the coronavirus.)
It would be useful if, for the duration of the pandemic, elevators could be put in express mode. You get in the elevator, press the button for your floor, and it goes straight to your floor without stopping. Then it goes and picks up the next person who has pressed a call button.
This would make elevator use during the pandemic as safe as possible without requiring optimal behaviour or any sort of effort from users. In my own experiences with skipping over occupied elevators and waiting for empty ones, I've never had to wait for more than three (and, about half the time, the first elevator that arrives is empty) so I don't think it would cause undue delays.
The challenge is I'm not sure whether it's technically possible without changes to how elevators work. The elevators I'm familiar with can be put in service mode with a key - you turn the key, the elevator goes your destination floor without stopping and then waits for you there. But if you don't turn the key back to the normal setting, the elevator will sit and wait for you rather than picking up the next passenger. And if you do turn the key back to the normal setting, it will go back to stopping wherever there's a call button pressed.
So I'm not sure if elevators can currently be programmed to take each passenger to their floor then go back for the next passenger without constant intervention. But if they can, they should be. And if they can't, elevator manufacturers should figure out how to introduce this functionality for the next time we need it.
Friday, June 05, 2020
The best things in life and the worst things in life
The April 26 Frazz comic:
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
 |
| Caulfield: A few weeks ago, you were all but howling at the full moon. Frazz: Beautiful! Enormous, razor sharp and bright enough to hold its own against the rising sun across a vast, cloudless sky. Caulfield: So you remember it. Frazz: Of course! A moon like that is one of the best things in life. Caulfield: Do you remember a week ago? Frazz: I guess I don't. Caulfield: It was inky and overcast, and there wouldn't have been a visible moon anyway. The complete opposite of the best thing in life, if you catch my drift. Frazz: You're overthinking this. Caulfield: Ergo: The worst things in life aren't as bad as the best things are good. Frazz: I like the way you overthink. |
The interesting thing is Caulfield has essentially proven that the worst things in life are way worse than the best things in life are good.
There are people in the world who, like Frazz think the beauty of nature is one of the best things in life.
If you find one of these people, ideally at a moment where they haven't just opined on the best things in life, and ask them about the worst things in life, they will, rightfully, come up with something like war atrocities. (Or, if they don't will likely agree that war atrocities are far worse than whatever they just thought of. Unless, of course, there's something worse than war atrocities that I'm not thinking of.)
War atrocities are, by far, many many many orders of magnitude worse than the beauty of nature is good.
(If anyone disagrees, here's a thought experiment: would you rather never be subjected to war atrocities and never experience the beauty of nature? Or would you rather be subjected to war atrocities for the rest of your natural life as the price of admission for experiencing the beauty of nature?)
In fact, Caulfield has just demonstrated that the bad things in life aren't even on the same scale as the good things in life. The absence of a beautiful moon isn't a war atrocity, it's simply nondescript. The absence of war atrocities isn't beautiful, it's simply nondescript.
There's a saying that the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. Maybe that logic applies to other things in life as well.
Thursday, June 04, 2020
New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XIV
19. If you're giving advice on how to make or fix something, and you say you can do it with "things you have around the house", you are required to provide those things to anyone in your audience who doesn't already have them around the house. You aren't allowed access to those things in your own home until everyone in your audience has them.
Wednesday, June 03, 2020
Pandemic, scarcity, and frugality
One of fate's running jokes during this pandemic is that my stuff keeps breaking.
There's a sizeable rip in my winter coat that's nowhere near a seam. A load-bearing seam in my running shoes got unsewn. A t-shirt seam ripped. One of my bed pillows tore (did you know that could even happen? I didn't know that could happen!) My kettle completely stopped working. A rung one one of my dining chairs popped out of place. My computer monitor occasionally flickers ominously, as does my TV set. My computer fan is perilously loud, even after cleaning and reseating. My sandals really need refurbishment. Both my desk and my ergonomic chair have stability issues. My ancient cell phone isn't holding charge for nearly as long as it used to. The light inside my microwave sometimes flickers for no apparent reason, and I can't figure out if this is a problem.
We're hearing a lot about scarcity of consumer goods on store shelves (in my experience, we're hearing a lot more than I'm actually seeing IRL), but all these problems I've been having highlight another type of scarcity: in-person help has become unavailable.
Apart from the t-shirt, the clothing repair tasks I described above exceed my skill. Normally, multiple people in my life and multiple businesses in my neighbourhood are able and willing to do this kind of sewing for me, but during the pandemic that isn't an option.
Even for the t-shirt repair, I didn't have the right shade of red thread, and wasn't able to actually go to a place that sells thread with the shirt to find the right shade.
For the chair repair, I lack either the strength or the dexterity. In any case, while YouTube is happy to tell me how to fix the problem, I can't make the pieces move the way they'd need to. Again, there are people IRL and businesses on the internet that would be happy to help me with this, and I can't rightfully ask any of them to come into my home.
I'm not sure whether I could carry a new computer monitor or a new TV set home from the store, and my building isn't allowing delivery people to come up to the apartments. The monitor - as well as the desk and chair - has to meet ergonomic requirements that can't be looked up online, so I have to try these things out and see if they work, or get them delivered with a particularly generous return policy. And, of course, I couldn't move a whole desk by myself and I'm uncertain whether I can move my old TV
My computer is under warranty so normally if the fan proves to be a problem, I'd have an on-site technician come and fix it, which obviously isn't an option during the pandemic. But, at the same time, I don't want to void my warranty by attempting repairs that surpass my skill level.
Ordering a cell phone online or buying one with curbside pickup isn't particularly difficult, but my older phone has an older SIM card, and I don't know if I can get a new SIM card during the pandemic.
My microwave is mounted over the stove, so I can't replace it myself, and I don't know if it's possible to buy a range microwave and just plug it into the wall in the interim, or if they have to be hard-wired.
In short, all these problems and potential problems are not because of supply chain issues or lack of money, it's because I'm not allowed to access other people's help.
I've internalized my origin story of my grandparents coming from war and deprivation and scarcity since before my memories even begin, so I've spent much of my life thinking about what it would be like to live in war and deprivation and scarcity. And it never once occurred to me that scarcity would look like not being allowed to have someone sew something for me! Even on a battlefield or in a concentration camp, if needle and thread and a willing person with sewing skills are available, you're totally allowed to have them sew something for you.
I always thought scarcity would look like not having money or not having resources. But here I sit with money, thread, needles, multiple people in my own life able and willing to do the difficult sewing and multiple businesses in my immediate neighbourhood who would normally be quite happy to do it for a price that's well within my reach, but their skills are still not available to me. This was not on my catastrophizing mental list of worst-case scenarios.
***
There's also been a lot of rhetoric about how the various pandemic-related issues with acquiring material goods might actually be good for us, theorizing that it will teach people to "mend and make do" rather than automatically rush out and buy something new.
But I find myself in this situation of multiple malfunctions in the first place because of a lifetime's habit of mending and making do!
This isn't something I do out of frugality or virtue, it's simply because I hate shopping. If something I own still works, I keep using it. If I or someone near me can fix it, I fix it. If someone I know is getting rid of something I could use, I take it.
But as a result of this, many of my possessions are getting on in the years. Nearly everything I've had malfunction is over a decade old. Some are newer but not brand new (for example, the computer is three years old and the microwave is four years old), some are way older (the dining chairs might even be antiques by now - they're certainly older than me, and my grandparents owned them at once point).
If I had been in the habit of running around buying new things at the slightest provocation, all these malfunctions wouldn't have been a problem. I'd have more than one workable winter coat and more than one workable pair of running shoes. I'd have multiple workable old phones and more than the absolute minimum number of chairs I need.
But instead, I mended and made do, and never felt deprived for any of these things because I always figured I can just go out and buy a new thing when true need emerges.
And now, as true need appears to be emerging in the middle of a pandemic and I can't necessarily just go buy a new thing, I'm being lectured to mend and make do.
There's a sizeable rip in my winter coat that's nowhere near a seam. A load-bearing seam in my running shoes got unsewn. A t-shirt seam ripped. One of my bed pillows tore (did you know that could even happen? I didn't know that could happen!) My kettle completely stopped working. A rung one one of my dining chairs popped out of place. My computer monitor occasionally flickers ominously, as does my TV set. My computer fan is perilously loud, even after cleaning and reseating. My sandals really need refurbishment. Both my desk and my ergonomic chair have stability issues. My ancient cell phone isn't holding charge for nearly as long as it used to. The light inside my microwave sometimes flickers for no apparent reason, and I can't figure out if this is a problem.
We're hearing a lot about scarcity of consumer goods on store shelves (in my experience, we're hearing a lot more than I'm actually seeing IRL), but all these problems I've been having highlight another type of scarcity: in-person help has become unavailable.
Apart from the t-shirt, the clothing repair tasks I described above exceed my skill. Normally, multiple people in my life and multiple businesses in my neighbourhood are able and willing to do this kind of sewing for me, but during the pandemic that isn't an option.
Even for the t-shirt repair, I didn't have the right shade of red thread, and wasn't able to actually go to a place that sells thread with the shirt to find the right shade.
For the chair repair, I lack either the strength or the dexterity. In any case, while YouTube is happy to tell me how to fix the problem, I can't make the pieces move the way they'd need to. Again, there are people IRL and businesses on the internet that would be happy to help me with this, and I can't rightfully ask any of them to come into my home.
I'm not sure whether I could carry a new computer monitor or a new TV set home from the store, and my building isn't allowing delivery people to come up to the apartments. The monitor - as well as the desk and chair - has to meet ergonomic requirements that can't be looked up online, so I have to try these things out and see if they work, or get them delivered with a particularly generous return policy. And, of course, I couldn't move a whole desk by myself and I'm uncertain whether I can move my old TV
My computer is under warranty so normally if the fan proves to be a problem, I'd have an on-site technician come and fix it, which obviously isn't an option during the pandemic. But, at the same time, I don't want to void my warranty by attempting repairs that surpass my skill level.
Ordering a cell phone online or buying one with curbside pickup isn't particularly difficult, but my older phone has an older SIM card, and I don't know if I can get a new SIM card during the pandemic.
My microwave is mounted over the stove, so I can't replace it myself, and I don't know if it's possible to buy a range microwave and just plug it into the wall in the interim, or if they have to be hard-wired.
In short, all these problems and potential problems are not because of supply chain issues or lack of money, it's because I'm not allowed to access other people's help.
I've internalized my origin story of my grandparents coming from war and deprivation and scarcity since before my memories even begin, so I've spent much of my life thinking about what it would be like to live in war and deprivation and scarcity. And it never once occurred to me that scarcity would look like not being allowed to have someone sew something for me! Even on a battlefield or in a concentration camp, if needle and thread and a willing person with sewing skills are available, you're totally allowed to have them sew something for you.
I always thought scarcity would look like not having money or not having resources. But here I sit with money, thread, needles, multiple people in my own life able and willing to do the difficult sewing and multiple businesses in my immediate neighbourhood who would normally be quite happy to do it for a price that's well within my reach, but their skills are still not available to me. This was not on my catastrophizing mental list of worst-case scenarios.
***
There's also been a lot of rhetoric about how the various pandemic-related issues with acquiring material goods might actually be good for us, theorizing that it will teach people to "mend and make do" rather than automatically rush out and buy something new.
But I find myself in this situation of multiple malfunctions in the first place because of a lifetime's habit of mending and making do!
This isn't something I do out of frugality or virtue, it's simply because I hate shopping. If something I own still works, I keep using it. If I or someone near me can fix it, I fix it. If someone I know is getting rid of something I could use, I take it.
But as a result of this, many of my possessions are getting on in the years. Nearly everything I've had malfunction is over a decade old. Some are newer but not brand new (for example, the computer is three years old and the microwave is four years old), some are way older (the dining chairs might even be antiques by now - they're certainly older than me, and my grandparents owned them at once point).
If I had been in the habit of running around buying new things at the slightest provocation, all these malfunctions wouldn't have been a problem. I'd have more than one workable winter coat and more than one workable pair of running shoes. I'd have multiple workable old phones and more than the absolute minimum number of chairs I need.
But instead, I mended and made do, and never felt deprived for any of these things because I always figured I can just go out and buy a new thing when true need emerges.
And now, as true need appears to be emerging in the middle of a pandemic and I can't necessarily just go buy a new thing, I'm being lectured to mend and make do.
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Having an unsophisticated palate is convenient
One thing that people have judged me for my entire adult life is having an unsophisticated palate. For many kinds of food, I'm perfectly happy to eat eat cheap, processed, commercial convenience foods. I can enjoy a meal at a chain restaurant. I can enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant. I can enjoy some junk food scarfed down from a vending machine.
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
Monday, June 01, 2020
Analogy for app-only
An unfortunate trend that has emerged in the past decade or so is "app-only" - i.e. requiring a purpose-built app on a mobile device to do something (for example, make an online purchase) that is totally technically feasible over the web - and, often, was frequently done over the web before smartphones came along!
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)