Best of Luck on The Presentations

Just want to say that I am looking forward to seeing the presentations today.  I know all of you have worked hard and I hope yesterday's critique session was helpful.

Don't forget that you have an extension on your papers until Thursday at 5pm.

I'm planning to celebrate the end of interim by going to see the mummies exhibit in Charlotte on Friday.  What celebrations do you have planned?  I hope you get to do something fun before the spring semester starts.

Going Off-Topic Today

I'm headed off topic today (and you feel free to do so as well, whenever your please!) because something I read with my morning coffee really got me to thinking.  That doesn't happen very often, because my morning reading isn't normally very 'deep'!

But today I picked up the newest copy of Newsweek and read an article entitled "Ice Queens: They Save Their Eggs And Thrive At Work.  Diane Sawyer's Secret To Resetting The Biological Clock."  The gist of the story is that anchorwoman Diane Sawyer is encouraging the younger women who work for her to go to a fertility clinic in New York and have some of their eggs frozen, so that if they reach their forties without having had children (because of work pressures or because of not having met a potential father) they can still have a chance at having a child of their own.  As we all know, biology plays a cruel trick on women. While men can sire kids up to Strom Thurmond age, the window for ladies generally only lasts (naturally) until the late 30s.  And those years---the 30s in particular---are also the years in which a woman builds her career.  If she is in a profession that requires years of post-graduate work (like the academy, law, or medicine), she often can not afford to take time off to be a mom in this decade.

Freezing eggs is not a new technology, but the doctor featured in the article has developed a different process with a much higher rate of success.  It is expensive---$15,000 for a single cycle that freezes 10 to 20 eggs---but the article predicts that the cost will come down as more and more working women choose this option.  The article virtually urges people to become missionaries of this new technique, getting the word out to younger working women that they do have a choice and even more control over their own fertility.

As I read the article a couple of things jumped out.  One was this sentence about some of the women who come to this clinic are sent in by their parents--"I know you want to work, but I want grandkids someday."  Excuse me, are we still living in the 1950s?  I believe parents should be honored and respected, but I don't believe they should have any control over their adult child's fertility!    Yuck.  It's one thing for mom and dad to drop hints, another thing entirely for them to send you to the clinic.  I suddenly had this image of parents handing their daughters appointment slips for egg freezing as graduation presents.  So much for the car or a trip to Europe, Missy, we are going to make damn sure we get grandkids whether you really want to have kids or not.

But then, on a more serious note, I began to wonder how---if this process does become common---would it change things for American women.  As my veterans of women's history class know, the pill certainly changed everything.  Reliable birth control gave women control over more than just when or if they would have kids, it gave them greater control over their entire lives because it freed them from a biological game plan.  Would this technology go even further?  Imagine if this became as common in 20 years as the pill is now.  What if the 'normal' age of motherhood got pushed back from mid 20s-30s to mid-40s, or even (gulp!) late 40s early 50s?  Would this be a good thing?

Well, in some ways, it could be a good thing.  A woman would have time to build a career (same for daddy) and maybe by their 40s the couple could BOTH take time off to spend as intensive parents.  With advances in health care, exercise, and nutrition, a couple in their 40s might feel like a couple in their 20s. Plus, with age comes (hopefully) wisdom and maturity.  Plenty of people in this world have grown up with older parents and have benefitted from it.

But I also wonder if we aren't looking at this from only one side.  How will kids fare if their parents are nearing retirement age as the kids graduate from high school?  If you're the last of the litter, so to speak, your parents might need you to care for them rather than to go on to college---is that fair to the child?  Most kids today have moms and dads who can be active with them; what if most kids in the future grow up with parents who were financially well off, but physically less able?  Does having more money make up for tossing around a ball or playing together on the slide?

All of those, of course, are big questions that only time and technology would answer.  But here's one we could be addressing right now: is having kids right for everybody?

Obviously, this is why this article hit home to me.  I've never thought I wanted to have children.  Even growing up, I never played with baby dolls (I went straight for Barbies and the soap operas that I could create around them).  When I was in my 20s and 30s, the guys I knew and dated were definitely NOT the type of dudes any women would want to have children with.  I was 45 years old before I met a man I truly fell in love with and could have ever envisioned having a child with.  But 45 (well, 48 now) is waaaaaayyyyyyy too old to think about having a kid.  Would my life have been better if this technology had existed back in my FSU days and I could be 'expecting' right now?

I don't think so, because I have always known I didn't want kids.  It's just something I've understood about myself.  And what I think we should be doing, as a society, is having more open and honest discussions about why/when/how we bring children into this world.  Children are a blessing---please don't think I hate kids (though I will admit to being scared of them to a large degree---so germy!) ---and I have such admiration for great parents (like Jeremy!) who put so much love, time and effort into raising a child.

But what worries me and why that article set me off is that I think children are becoming a commodity.  They're more and more of a status symbol, a trophy, a thing to check off the list.  Got my college education (check), my great job (check), my fabulous house (check)...now on to my designer baby.   Or, couples who aren't ready for kids get pressured into having kids, either from their parents or community factors.   A friend of mine once told me that if a childless couple moved into their neighborhood they were 'shunned' by the rest of the neighbors, that they 'didn't want people like that' in their cul-de-sac.

Having a child is probably the most important decision a person ever makes (because, let's face it, in this day and age you don't have to have two people involved!).  But if our world is advanced enough to put childbearing off until late middle age, why aren't we mature enough to recognize that for some people going without kids is the right decision?  Why those without children judged as either pitiful or selfish or pariahs?  Why can't we recognize and respect all the different paths in life, and that people with and without kids (or with and without partners, for that matter) have such a diversity of good things to offer?

Why is technology always ahead of honest, thoughtful talk about life's most important decisions?

Don't Blink

Nerdy confession---I love the British TV show Doctor Who.   In its new incarnation (the show began the year I was born!), a species of villain is the Weeping Angels.  Here's a fan-made video that gives you a quick primer on why these aliens are so badddddd!

So why is this on my blog?  Because I keep thinking that maybe I could do something with the idea of stone figures.  Not sure what that might be, but here are some creepy statues from my collection.  Consider them if you dare...but don't blink!!!!

How To Make A Ghost

I was reading about the phantasmagoria---entertainments that were popular in the period of the French Revolution and also during the Victorian era.  They were forerunners of the modern horror movie, as they used magic lanterns (a forerunner of the movie projector) to cast images of ghosts, devils, and fantastic creatures on screens, smoke, or even a supposedly bare stage.

While it's hard to find a magic lantern these days, I did find a Youtube video that explains the principle behind 'Pepper's Ghost,' a technique developed by these entertainers around 1860.  It's pretty amazing.  I apologize for the potty mouth on the one girl, but I can certainly understand why she says what she does!

If you've ever been in the Haunted Mansion at Disney World, this same technique is used, very effectively, in the scene where ghosts whirl in and out of a ballroom.

What's Your Ghost Story?

True confession time---I am obsessed with cemeteries.  I'm not particularly morbid, or Goth, and I certainly don't want to become a resident of a burial ground any time soon.  But still, I love visiting cemeteries, reading tombstones, and generally absorbing the atmosphere of a graveyard.

I attribute this in part to being a historian.  In fact, I haven't met many historians who don't want to check out old cemeteries at every opportunity.  We can use those monuments as primary sources, learning not only the names of the people who are buried there, but a great deal about their religious beliefs, their social status, and their desire to send messages to the future.  I'm always very moved when I go into a graveyard and see many small stones lined up beside two large ones; this alignment usually tells the sad story of high child mortality.


The pictures in this entry are all from Charleston (some of you may have recognized the location!).  Charleston is one of the few places in the South where one can see elaborate 18th century tombstones.  These masters and mistresses of plantations, or lords or merchant companies, wanted portraits in stone.


We were in Charleston during Spring Break of 2010.  Now, I've never had a truly frightening experience in a cemetery, but when I leaned down to make the picture of the tombstone above (with the lady) it look like the eyes were moving.  I jerked back and the eyes seemed to close.  I nearly ran screaming in terror!  My scientifically-inclined companion quickly pointed out that my perception was caused by the way the light shifted.  But, you know, I kinda liked my explanation better.  I liked imagining that a saucy Charlestonian ghost was flirting with me.


So here's a question for you folks---have you ever had a scary experience in a cemetery?  Or have you ever seen (or heard, or smelled) a ghost?  Have you seen the 'Eyes of Old Main' or met Ben Wofford late at night?  I love collecting these stories.  They are part of what makes us human---every culture has some type of belief about ghosts and spirits, so 'seeing a ghost' must occur all over the planet.  These stories also help inspire me as I think about what kind of ghost encounter might occur in my next novel.
 

Who knows, your story might find a way into fiction, so don't be shy!!!!

Cheating A Bit Today

Rather than post about research, today I'm linking to one of my other blogs, the one I keep to help promote my Sherlockian work.  In case you haven't heard, CBS is considering doing its own version of the BBC series SHERLOCK (which takes the stories and puts them in the modern world).  If you haven't seen it yet, you should!!!  It is amazing in all sorts of ways.

I'm making an argument that the only way for CBS to pull this off is not to copy, but to push the envelope further.  Gee, I wish CBS would call me in to help them---I have all sorts of ideas!---but I suspect the Fall will find me teaching western civ, not serving as a creative consultant....

http://woffproff.typepad.com/blog/2012/01/thoughts-on-a-cbs-sherlock.html

Monsters and Musings

 I've been struggling the last couple of days, not having much luck with writing.  So I've taken the academic way out by just doing more research!

While reading through The Element Encyclopedia of Ghosts & Hauntings, I came across the story of the "Monster of Glamis."  I think it has some potential for further fiction.

Glamis Castle is--as you can tell by the picture--a magnificent dwelling in Scotland.  Built in the 14th century, it became the home of the Lyon family, whose eldest males held the title of Earl of Strathmore.  In 1821, the birth of another heir was expected.  The child, named Thomas Bowles-Lyon, supposedly was born and died on the same day, not an uncommon occurrence even among the nobility.  But some discrepancies in the matter (like the child's lack of a tombstone, and the fact that a second child was given the same name) helped give rise to a darker tale.

According to this story, the infant was so hideously deformed that even his own parents could not bear to look at him.  It was said the child had an egg-shaped body with no
neck, and tiny, malformed arms and legs.  Unable to love his son but also unwilling to kill him, the Earl had the infant placed in a secret room and assigned one servant to tend to him.  It was assumed the boy would not live long, but to everyone's surprise, he flourished.

Of course, such a monstrosity could not be allowed to inherit a title.  But should his presence ever become known, the scandal would destroy the family.  Thus the 'monster' became the 'family secret.'  He lived for over a century, and each heir was shown the monster on his 21st birthday.  Taking care of the creature became the special charge of the current Earl, even though the sight of the monster was supposedly enough to 'drive a man to madness.'

I have to admit that when I read this story, my first reaction was real sympathy for the 'monster'!  It wasn't his fault that he was born that way.  Then I began to wonder what kind of a person he would have become.  How lonely would he have been?  Might he have crept around the castle, spying on his 'normal' family?  And what if his mind was as sharp as his body was deformed?

Reading further, I discovered that Glamis is considered one of the most 'haunted' castles in the UK.  Supposedly the monster kept company with Janet Douglas, wife of the sixth Lord of Glamis, who was burned at the stake for witchcraft and supposedly appears enveloped in flame.  Another resident ghoulie is Earl Beardie, condemned to wander through the castle for the crime of gambling away his soul to the Devil.  Add to this the shades of a madman, a woman without a tongue, several 'grey ladies,' and a vampire girl, and you have quite the creepy menagerie.

But if you were a monster, would ghosts really scare you?  Or would they become your friends?  And how would you feel if they were suddenly gone?

I do have a point here---so many of the great stories from Britain involve haunted houses and restless spirits.  But what if someone could 'steal' them away?  And what if the only people who missed them were fellow outcasts, the monsters of society?  And what if this Monster of Glamis, because he is rich and a rightful Earl, could call in Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of his vanished companions?

OK...maybe I have another idea I can play with.