Monday, 23 September 2013

Conan the Barbarian (2011): sexual symbolism in a film of two halves


I watched the 2011 Conan the Barbarian on Channel 5 last night (23.09.13). It’s a film of two halves – the good half and the hackneyed slide towards an underwhelming conclusion that chucked in unnecessary drama until enough time had passed to prevent the film ending too soon.




SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY.



The beginning sets things up nicely. The info dump prefacing the film is short, to the point and narrated by Morgan Freeman. Job well done.

Conan’s ‘birth’ is suitably violent and fits the quasi-mythological hero cycle of the story. He’s literally ‘born of war’. His mum isn’t a weak victim, she’s in heavy armour and wielding a sword while almost at full term of her pregnancy. Battle is clearly a constant feature of Cimmerian life (although not for everyone, but more of this later). When fatally wounded she refuses to die as a victim, takes control and dies on her own terms once she’s performed her motherly functions within a classic hero myth – i.e. confirming her love for him, naming him, sacrificing herself, then getting out of his way.




In the medieval Arthurian myth-legend of Percival/Parsifal, the hero’s mother shelters the boy until he comes of age, protecting him from the violent world of knightly combat out of motherly concern for his life. His father and brothers having all been knights that died in combat, she tries to prevent him from ever finding out about knighthood (i.e. manhood) and treats him as the niaive boy he will remain until he escapes. When at last he leaves ‘the realm of mothers’ she collapses in grief and in effect dies as she never appears in the story again. This is a mythological trope that allows the hero to become a man as he leaves the world where his mother dominates. She is no longer able to influence him except where he draws upon the wisdom she imparted to him as he grew up. In Star Wars Luke loses his mother twice; once when he is born, then again when Aunt Beru is killed; enabling him to follow Ben on his “damn fool idealistic crusade”.




Conan’s mother dies a warrior’s death as he is cut from her. This tells us without doubt Conan is a man from the moment of his birth. More than that, he is born of a very manly man and a very manly woman and plunged into a man’s world with no maternal influence. He is manliness-cubed. We see this confirmed in the next scene.

The intro to Cimmerian culture is nicely done. Ron Perlman is great as Conan’s chieftain father and the initiation of the new warriors is a good way to show the audience the barbarians’ way of life without resorting to another info-dump. Conan is far younger than the other boys. He’s finished the chores his father gave him, meant to delay him and prevent him from competing, and stands quietly accepting his father’s reluctance to let him join in. It’s this quiet performance of his duties that tells the chief Conan is ready. He’s earnt his egg so off he goes. A few minutes later we see just how much of a hero young Conan already is. All the other boys run from the fight, many have lost and broken their eggs. Conan runs TO the fight, takes on many enemies at once single-handed and wins. 




The enemies roar like animals, they’re not men. This is another myth trope. The hero must defeat the bestial to become a man. So far so good. We’re on track. The hero cycle is underway. Conan returns to his village carrying the severed heads of his enemies and has kept the egg unbroken in his mouth. We are in no doubt he is a man despite being perhaps twelve years old. But he’s far more than that as well, all the signs are there. He’s an honest to goodness mythological god-hero.

His father teaches him the mysteries of steel (a nice nod to the Schwarzenegger film) and instructs him how to become like steel by harnessing fire and ice together. A lesson Conan utterly fails to learn. The boy fails to beat his dad in combat because he’s “all fire” and this is underlined by his dad chopping up the frozen river they’re fighting on and dumping his son in the freezing water, exactly like the sword was quenched in ice a few minutes before. His dad tells him he’s not yet worthy to wield that sword. We the audience are now shown the quest. Conan’s McGuffin is the sword, or rather the worthiness to wield it.

Parsifal has to become worthy of the Grail before he can approach it. His journey, once he becomes a knight, is to transcend mere knighthood. Marvel’s The Mighty Thor loses the right to wield his mystic hammer and it’s given to another to teach him humility. 




Conan, already a man, must become something more. He must learn to calm his temper, to become the ultimate warrior using guile and strength, because strength alone is insufficient. The army of darkness turns up soon after. Cimmerian villagers are standing about in a way that jars with their warrior philosophy. They seem too ordinary, too domestic. They look like farmers, and they scream when the enemy attacks. I don’t get it. This shouldn’t happen. We know Cimmerians don’t fear death and are tough as old boots.

We see a woman with a helm that covers one eye shoot an arrow into Conan’s dad and take him down. In myth-speak the missing eye alludes to deeper vision, an archer that sees beyond our world, her knowledge allows her to defeat a great opponent even if it is by deception and lacking the honour of melee combat. She seems significant, but isn’t. She dies pathetically in the second half of the film and has only one or two brief appearances in-between. Her armour has been styled to make her stand out yet her character is non-existent.


An archer with no depth perception is a statement. But of what?

Conan’s dad dies by killing himself to thwart the villain’s evil plan while saving Conan’s life. Both parents die proving their love in the most violent ways possible. For Conan love and suffering, life and battle, are the same thing. He can’t see it any other way. The next we see of him he’s a giant of a man, heavily muscled and half-naked. He’s also Drogo from Game of Thrones, without the beard and makeup.




A few scenes follow telling us the current state of play that will eventually lead to the film’s climax. We see Conan is confident and more than capable. He gets himself imprisoned so he can capture the prison boss who knows where the Big Baddy is. Things get a bit daft now. They chain him up, but the chains are so long he can easily fight the multiple guards who line up to attack him one at a time. He meets the obligatory thief character that in Conan stories represents fear, caution, guile, sneakiness and success by indirect methods – all things Conan is incapable of. As Conan rides off the thief shouts to him his name and where to find him, pretty much saying “See ya later ‘cos I’m the plot device you’ll need in the third act!”.

There are three McGuffins in this film by my count: the sword/worthiness, the magical mask that will make the wearer a god, and the young woman whose pure blood is required to activate the mask. Conan finds the young woman before the villain does, setting up a clash where the villain’s power is revealed – his daughter is a sorceress and he himself is a highly skilled swordsman who easily defeats Conan. Conan and the pureblood escape more by luck than ability. Nice ‘sand elementals’ in this scene, but unfortunately it’s the only decent bit of magic we see in the whole film.

From here the film goes dramatically downhill. It's like the director left and they had to finish the film as best they could with no clear vision. Conan and the woman escape to a ship commanded by Conan’s best mate. There’s a scene where Conan describes his failure and swears to try again, his warrior friend swearing to assist. At this point my wife turned to me and said “Ham AND cheese in that scene.” The narrative seemed to dry up completely, nothing on screen advanced the plot and we found ourselves chatting about the weekly domestic chores. I don’t know about you, but if I find myself discussing unloading the washing machine during an action film it’s a bad sign.




The ship is pointlessly attacked, seemingly to give the woman a reason to fall in love both with killing people and with Conan (the former surely a requirement for the latter). Despite being a peaceful monk up until this moment, her whole life spent in a monastery dedicated to the sacredness of life, she picks up a sword – a big one – and starts killing fully armoured professional warriors.

During this scene the one-eyed woman is nonchalantly killed by Conan as if she were one of the faceless minions.

Afterwards, the pureblood has sex with Conan in a cave, and in the morning inexplicably (although I may have missed the reason) sneaks off early. Immediately outside the cave (i.e. outside the manly protection of her violent lover) she’s caught by baddies who were somehow waiting for her. Her character has developed from spirited monk to joyful warrior to sexual being, then after three seconds of independence she becomes a peril-monkey. Now she is Conan’s new McGuffin, his stated reason to track down the villain that he’s already been tracking since boyhood. Later when the thief asks him why he must enter the city of bad guys Conan replies “There is a woman in there,” and this is sufficient explanation. Nothing is said about the king who killed his tribe and who has a mask that will give him godlike powers so he can lay waste to the world with forbidden magic and resurrect his dead wife so she can tell him the secrets from beyond the grave. All of the stuff we the audience have been fed constantly since Morgan Freeman’s intro speech.

From the moment Conan is on the ship until the end of the film, the scenes feel disconnected and the narrative is almost entirely missing. Drama, sex and sword fights plug the gaps for those people disinclined to look for a story (and there are many). It’s like a different director took over, or the writers gave up after running out of ideas. This is the time when the hero has failed and lost everything and we the audience should feel the tension, wondering how the inevitable victory will be achieved from this low point. But it’s come too early. We should be three quarters of the way through, yet we’re only halfway. I was expecting Conan to be captured so the film’s pacing would stay interesting for another hour and give him a chance to soak up some post-hubris humility.

The film’s first half set up the journey, using ice as a metaphor for some vague quality and showing the sword (now in the possession of the villain and his witchy daughter) as a marker for when he attains that quality. What does the ice represent? Intelligence? Humility? Patience? Some missing ingredient, perhaps, that empowers a warrior beyond being merely strong and formidable. What we should be seeing here, after the grand failure, is the hero’s realisation of how far he still has to travel. It should be the beginning of the journey of transcendence to achieve worthiness. It doesn't have to be intellectual, just meaningful and resonant. Instead we see more of the same. Hot-headed brawn winning inconsequential victories, ticking off the last of the characters we saw standing about at his father’s defeat. Very basic revenge. They are monsters and demons, one has his own pet tentacle-monster appearing in a scene so pointless it becomes ridiculous when it should be awesome. The monster is unleashed and the guards are sent in, only the monster can’t tell the difference between friend and foe so eats the guards then kills its master. It illustrates how meaningless the scene is. Pure filler. It doesn’t matter who kills whom as long as lots of people are being violently killed. Peril, drama, violence, spectacle. Ten more minutes ticked off.




This whole section is beyond cliché. The bad guys have hunted the pureblood for twenty years and now taken her to the city of darkness for the sacrifice. Conan meanwhile rides off to find the thief who will help him get into the city. The time it takes him to find his ally and get to his destination happens to be exactly the same amount of time it takes the villain to get round to sacrificing the pureblood, enabling Conan to arrive as the cavalry. The thief disappeared at some point. I have no idea what happened to him. His function performed, he just seemed to fall out of the story.

And on to the climax. Conan faces the villain, the peril-monkey is chained to a sacrificial device, spread-eagled and incapable of moving. The villain gets the blood in a disappointingly undramatic scene as they only seem to need about half a cupful. He dons the mask – the terrifying magical mask we’ve been told to fear since the very beginning – declares his intent to summon the spirit of his long-dead wife in the pureblood’s body and then ... has a shoddy swordfight with Conan. No magic, nothing godlike. The villain uses Conan’s dad’s sword to fight him, the sword Conan wasn’t worthy to wield, and he seems unable to do much with it. Conan has done nothing to transcend his warrior-boy beginnings up to this point and has no reason to be able to fight any better than when he was beaten so soundly before. He’s a hero-god of battle and his enemy is the dark shadow of himself and his family – a warrior/father/god driven by the loss of a loved one and by revenge, willing to use magic (usually a stand-in for womanly whiles, dishonesty and the dark side; those resorting to sorcery often losing their manhood in some way and becoming corrupt, demanding to be destroyed by the hero so that the balance can be restored, sorcery can be banished back to the dark world of womanly mysteries and the men can get back to man-business as usual) – yet this time Conan is fighting better than the villain.

The villain, Zym, is an interesting character. He’s a man who’s lost his way and fallen into darkness. The implication is that marrying a witch is a bad idea. But what does the witch stand for? We see her die, burnt by pious monks as her husband and daughter look on. At this point Zym is a loving father staring in horror at the act of atrocity being performed and ripping apart his life. We have a moment, just that, of sympathy for Zym. But it’s stripped away when we remember the fairly clear evidence he has an incestuous relationship with his daughter. She too is a witch and now looks just like her mother did at the point of her death. Witchy women are interchangeable in this story, and when a man walks into the dark forest their power surrounds him and he can either leave, fight or embrace them. Heroes tend to leave (Sir Gawain is an exception, but that’s another story), villains tend to embrace, compromising their masculinity and becoming in effect a force for the 'feminine'.

There was a possible sub-plot here that would’ve made this a better film. The daughter aided her father in his plans to gain power over life and death and resurrect his wife, her mother. To do so the daughter effectively became her mother, taking her place by Zym’s side as sorceress and lover. What would happen if the mother had returned? The darkness would have to oppose itself, two equal powers ostensibly on the same side, but competing for the same space and cancelling each other out. A hero cycle in its own right, but a dark reflection of the classic male cycle. Possibly misogynistic, but the overt anti-feminism could easily be avoided and the result would’ve been less offensive than what did occur.

Zym fights Conan while standing over the chained peril-monkey. If you want to get deep over this bit of symbolism, we have the two warring sides of manhood slapping big swords together above a bleeding (i.e. fertile) woman whose legs are spread open and held there with chains at the bottom of a dark, hot cylindrical pit, and whom Zym plans to force into becoming his wife. 




The woman is reduced to her reproductive functions and the two men, in THE most basic struggle, compete for breeding access. There is no plot here, the narrative has left the building. Zym fights badly, Conan fights as well as usual, Zym is losing. Perhaps there’s one shred of plot hidden in this otherwise inexplicable scene – Zym is using Conan’s father’s sword. If the swords are the male principle here they are masculine violence as well as male reproduction and a phallic method of penetrating enemies and lovers alike.

Not buying this idea? Well, remember Conan’s dad sticks a knife in his wife early on in this film and a baby pops out. The dad educates the boy on becoming a man by telling him how to use his sword not in rage but with a cool head. The sword is a symbol of manhood and fatherhood throughout the film. And don’t forget many male social animals, including humans, bugger subordinate males to make sure their position of dominance is understood. Penetration has a spectrum that goes from love all the way round to hate. In it’s most basic, thoughtless form it’s reduced to an amoral function of the male anatomy. As if men are merely penetration facilitators and penis conveying devices. This is in direct opposition to the lessons Conan’s father tries to teach him and which the unworthy boy has constantly failed to understand. Only now the film sides not with the wise father, but with the hot-headed boy not fit to wield a man’s sword.

Conan’s father’s name is Corin, from the Latin Quirinus, meaning ‘spear’. A weapon even more phallic than a sword.




Oh, and the peril-monkey’s name? Tamara. It means ‘date tree’ and is used in the East to mean ‘fruitful’. When I started writing this I couldn't remember her name, but when I found out what it was I decided not to go back and add it as the actual name is just a label of her purpose and 'peril-monkey' is more accurate.



Zym is much older than Conan. Possibly there’s a sub-text of youthful virility versus old wiliness. A no-nonsense young man in his prime against an old man whose power is not only waning but located in his feminine accomplices. The second Conan/Zym fight scene has several differences: Tamara is incapacitated. Zym fights with Conan’s father’s sword. Zym’s daughter, the sorceress, isn’t there. Zym has gained the blood-filled mask. Zym is in the process of bringing his wife back from the dead.




You’ll perhaps notice all the differences are to do with Zym. He has committed to the womanly world and is unable to effectively wield the sword of transcendent manhood. Conan hasn’t changed one bit. He does what he does and this time gets the advantage. He cuts Tamara’s chains (how is it steel swords are so good at cutting steel chains?) and somehow she falls sideways about twenty feet onto a ledge. From there she gets into a fight with Zym’s daughter.

Zym’s daughter is called Marique (ma-REE-kay). Loosely translated it means “and by sea” (as in ‘terra marique’ meaning ‘by land and sea’). I’ve also seen it translated as ‘wished for’, ‘star of the sea’ and ‘bitterness’. I’m going to go ahead and say this character is a dark wish fulfilled at a terrible cost. Zym wants his wife back from the dead and never gets her, except in the near identical form of his daughter. The mother is called ‘Maliva’. ‘Mal’ means ‘bad’ in Latin. Marique is powerful, dangerous, without mercy and mysterious, like the sea and like many powerful women in classic misogynistic patriarchal myths. She is the independent female principal in this film and she is the enemy. She and her dead mother have unmanned Zym and made him a puppet, but still they aren’t dominant. The women rely on Zym for everything and are nothing without him.




Marique’s claws are prominent. She wields them frequently. Perhaps symbols of her inhumanity and lack of civilised weaponry such as the phallic sword Tamara learns to use. The claws are violent and threatening, but ultimately do nothing but scratch, which is how female power is shown throughout the film – scary and unpredicatable, but nothing to worry about in the end.

Marique, separated from Zym, gets into the inevitable woman versus woman fight and resorts to using her fists, claws and any heavy nearby object in an attempt to bludgeon Tamara. This, remember, is the powerful sorceress with a knowledge of forbidden lore. She can conjure allies from the ground, yet doesn’t. But even now, Tamara doesn’t beat her without help. Conan shows up and chops off the animalistic clawed hand, weakening her, then Tamara kicks her off a ledge where she falls to her death by landing on a big wooden shaft that penetrates her whole body, killing her instantly. Death by penetration for the dark, badly behaved woman.

Zym’s death is pathetic. Standing on a rickety old bridge he boasts of how he now has the power of a god, dangles Tamara the peril-monkey on a chain gripped in Conan’s eversostrong hands and forces him to make the comparison with his father’s death. Zym seems to think he’s put Conan in a position where he can only dramatically and devastatingly fail, but in fact he’s given Conan all the motivation he needs to succeed. Bewilderingly, Zym chooses this moment to summon the spirit of his dead wife into Tamara’s body. Zym knows his daughter is dead so now his only chance of filling the gap left when his wife died is to steal Conan’s woman and replace her soul with Maliva’s. And he does this at the moment Tamara is in the most danger and when her only chance of survival is if Conan taps into his hero powers and goes all badass. Which he of course does. Zym falls to his death when Conan uses his sword to chop away the wood of the bridge they’re standing on. This is a parallel of Corin’s lesson to Conan as a boy while admonishing him for not being ice as well as fire. Perhaps we’re meant to see this as Conan accepting his father’s wisdom, but that isn’t quite what’s happened. Corin chopped the ice from under Conan as a punishment for his foolhardiness. Conan chops the wood from under Zym, copying his father but not in any way adopting warriors’ cunning as a skill of his own. And he does it in anger and revenge, calling on his father’s prediction that Zym would fall. Both men used swords to dish out punishment by the backdoor and make the lesser men fall. Conan didn’t use any new tactics until this moment. This isn’t a boy in a man’s body finally becoming a man in spirit, it’s a male of the light punishing a male of darkness who dared to put womanly ways before the ways of men. Corin is still alpha male, but Conan has shown Zym he’s on the bottom rung. Zym plunges screaming into the dark, and we are left wondering what happened to the god-like powers of the mask Morgan Freeman told us about a couple of hours back.

Conan drops Tamara off at home, then visits the ruins of his village. The remains are still lying about after ten or twenty years as if the attack had only just happened. He finds the mould Corin used to make the sword and he speaks to it as if it was, or was possessed by, his father. We are, I’m sure, meant to assume Conan is now worthy to wield the sword because he avenged his father’s death. Despite the fact he did so hot-headedly and almost entirely without cunning. This should’ve been the moment of reconciliation, the hero-moment when it all pulls together. His goals achieved by becoming ice and fire at the same time, he should’ve transcended the merely masculine and become the true hero that is beyond such limitations. But he didn’t, so instead we have a manly man very much in the ordinary mould. He plunges his father’s sword aggressively into the ground where Corin’s burnt body must be. Is this final penetration the son dominating the father to prove his superior manhood? I can’t see it any other way. Conan leaves the sword there and we cut to the credits. The sword now penetrates his own name on screen. He has, with the final thrust, become the weapon, the phallus. 




Instead of following his father’s path he has destroyed it with his own. The film ends with the journey ongoing, which was surely always part of the plan. The final message is that there will be no character development for Conan. He is a manly man and all who attempt to obscure his path with feminine nonsense will suffer the same fate.

Instead of a hero cycle in the classic form we have a hero loop, the protagonist endlessly travelling the same route to nowhere, enabling film studios to churn out more of the same if they see a profit in it. But of course such tales hold little interest and people don’t clamour for more of them. The initial spectacle wears off and a planned sequel is shelved. In this case the ‘sequel’ due to be released in 2014 ignores the whole film and instead uses the 1982 far superior Schwarzenegger film as it’s backstory.



And that says it all.

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Philosophy & Science, not versus.


A response written to a question posed by a Facebook group: "'There is no such thing as philosophy-free science' - Agree or disagree?"


Science is made up of disciplines separated by arbitrary human-constructed divisions. A world of chemicals behaving according to the Laws of Physics. Physics is the Real World application of Mathematics. Mathematics is a branch of philosophy.


Scientists deal with what is ‘real’, what is possible in the universe we live in and what is demonstrable. Some extrapolate what might also be possible elsewhere, and by doing so depart from empirical study for the realm of conjecture and ‘thought experiments’. They need only look about them to see how that space has long been occupied by philosophers, artists and writers. Unfettered human thought, free to wander in the ‘What If?’.


It is clear humans are not solely concerned with the possible, the real or the statistically likely. We spend inordinate amounts of time pondering the unlikely and the impossible. Potential is more important to us than what actually happens. Freedom is not the action of roaming where we want, but the possibility of doing so even when most of us choose not to. A cage is just a concept.


The ocean of all that may or may not be possible is far larger than the puddles of what we have discovered. Philosophy is the process that teases puddles from the ocean, precipitating ideas into the paths of the analytical. The nature of oceans is such that they cannot be contained, cannot be seen all at once, cannot be fully understood. But they can inspire. They can be experienced. They can be felt and tasted and swum in, in such ways that any manageable sample of them will never convey. Philosophers cannot draw conclusions from their ocean of possibilities, but that is not their intention.


Philosophy lacks the focussed restraint of science, but that is its strength, not its weakness. A feature rather than a glitch. Science is focussed. It sets boundaries to allow more accurate study within the fields it chooses to define as separate. That way the ocean can be portioned and understood one piece at a time. Each piece revealing another set of truths. That does not make the ocean itself any smaller nor any easier to describe well in dry academic language.


Without science, philosophy decays into idle speculation. Without philosophy, science stagnates from lack of inspiration.

Friday, 10 May 2013

You, in Perspective using numbers.


There are an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, grouped in around 500 billion galaxies. Only some of those stars are in the ‘galactic habitable zone’, not too close to the centre nor too far away. It’s thought there are at least a hundred billion planets in the universe, probably far more, with wildly varying estimates of between 17,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 potentially habitable ones. In the Milky Way alone, estimates are between 500 million to over 150 billion Earth-like planets in the ‘Goldilocks’ circumstellar habitable zone.

In our system, large gas giants patrol the outer reaches removing many of the asteroids and comets that drift into dangerous proximity with the Earth. Earth orbits ‘the right type of star’ at the right distance in a stable ellipse, and it formed long enough ago for complex life to evolve, yet not so long ago that the required molecules were yet to form within the earliest stars. Earth has plate tectonics and a large moon that’s not so close it causes devastating disruption; both factors contributing to successful development of life on Earth, without which nothing would live here but bacteria.

It’s likely hundreds of millions of distinct species have evolved on Earth in the last four billion years, and 99.9% of those became extinct. There are currently between 10 to 30 million species of insects and around one and a half million non-insect animals, something like five and a half thousand of which are mammals.
On average a man produces 80 to 300 million sperm per ejaculation, which is approx. 363,680,000,000 to 1,363,800,000,000 in a lifetime. The ovaries of a female foetus contain six to seven million oocytes, around 400 of which will produce fertile eggs in her lifetime. The average number of children, i.e. successful pairings of sperm and egg producing offspring, per family in the UK in 2012 was 1.7.

Approximately 107 billion people have lived since our species evolved. In 1950 the global population was two and a half billion, in 1995 over five and a half billion and currently at about seven billion.
The genus Homo have lived on Earth for about 2,400,000; our species Homo Sapiens for about 200,000 years. ‘Behavioural modernity’ has been going on 50,000 years or so. The Industrial Revolution began much more recently, around 250 years ago.

Arguably the England we know today began 669 years ago when Edward III founded the Order of the Garter on April 23rd 1344, later adopting the flag of St George as their banner. A dramatic development in European politics, this simple thing led to changes in the shape of the political map and allowed the English to step out from the shadow of France for the first time since 1066.

Soon after this time about 25 million people died in Europe of the Black Death, around 75 million world-wide. 30-40% of the population of England died within two years. At that time infant mortality rates were already perhaps 30% and average life expectancy even for the wealthy was no more than early forties. A lot of people were dying without having children and at one point the national birth rate was lower than the death rate, with many towns being left to ruin as the dwindling population moved elsewhere to find work.

World War I, while the estimated 17 million deaths is fewer than the Black Death, still had a big impact long-term as the majority of the deaths were young men. In World War II over 60 million died, more than 2.5% of the global population. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1920 killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people worldwide, 99% of them under 65. In the space of three and a half decades the world lost a very large number of young people.

In the last hundred years life expectancy and quality of life in Europe and most of the nations that began as European colonies have continued to dramatically improve, infant mortality rates continue to drop and disease rates have been considerably lowered by good sanitation and improved medical knowledge.

This doesn’t mean life is now easy. It isn’t and perhaps never can or should be. Life is unimaginably precious. Each one of us is here as the result of circumstances that occurred against astronomical odds on every level: the specific laws of physics at the universal scale, the rare circumstances that led to the Earth we know, the long line of survivors that preceded you, the fortunate survival of your human ancestors who lived through war, famine and pestilence long enough to bring successive generations into the world, that your parents met and spent enough time together to conceive you, that you yourself were the result of that particular combination of sperm and egg, one of approximately four billion ways your parents’ DNA could be uniquely combined, that made up the single cell that gave rise to your body, not to mention all the experiences and sensations occurring throughout your life that helped continue to shape you into the person reading this.

You are unique, but you are also part of something much, much bigger than yourself, in both Time and Space. There is no pressure to change the world single-handed and no need. Working together is more effective. We are part of a global family that blurs the arbitrary lines between species and has existed on Earth for aeons. We can’t all ‘win’ and shouldn’t see life in such a simple and ugly way. We’ve already won because we’re here.

Let’s not mess it all up for the generations of unique individuals that come along after us.








Monday, 18 February 2013

In Response to an Article About Margot Sunderland's New Book on Co-Sleeping

I recently read this:

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/07/co-sleeping-children-should-sleep-with.html

I’m highly wary of what I read and I feel I have to wade in with some counter arguments and questions.

Where does the upper age limit of 5 come from for co-sleeping? The only reference in the article to age 5 is the seemingly unconnected study of cortisol rise in under 5s going to nursery, which I’ve read about before and it’s a dubious and misleading statistic.

There’s no follow-up study I’m aware of to show whether those same children have a corresponding drop in cortisol when they attend school or not (the first thing I’d look for), or whether 5 year olds who didn’t attend nursery get the same sort of rise in cortisol on their first days at school. I think most of us remember school being scary at first, and why wouldn’t it be? It still is as an adult!
The demonising of cortisol as a ‘stress hormone’ is misleading. Cortisol is released to *counter* stress and produce energy so we can run from danger or fight if cornered. We get a burst of it in the morning (if we’re lucky) to get us out of bed. Without it we struggle to lift the duvet. Producing cortisol while sitting in a car or at a desk is what leads to all the negative problems, but mixing up adult medical issues (occurring in unnaturally sedentary circumstances) with children is incorrect use of data and misses out the fact kids will run all that energy off. There’s too much correlation and not enough cause in these studies.

The main comparison seems to be with babies a few weeks old rather than, say, 2 or 3 years old. Or even 6 months old. Not enough longitudinal info there.

The data for SIDS needs to be cross-referenced with the number of infants squashed or smothered by parents in bed. Ateah and Hamelin’s 2008 survey of bed-sharing mothers in Canada found that 13% of the respondents recalled at least one episode in which someone had rolled onto or part way onto their infants. None were hurt and the sleeper was awakened before any injury occurred, but it can happen and there are high-risk groups, including parents who are very tired (Blair et al 1999) and that’s a group more likely to increase if they’re sharing a bed with a child every night for 5 years. Obviously the bigger ones are a lot safer, but some parents are pretty big too!

The studies on safety seem to indicate that socio-economic status is a major factor with many variables, including overcrowding of the house, condition of the mattress, whether anyone in the house smokes, etc.
http://www.parentingscience.com/bed-sharing.html

The correlation between women not comforted in childhood and having digestive problems as adults would have more impact if there wasn’t a massive change in diet over the last generation and the babies raised on Spock and Ford weren’t the same ones who grew up eating Norman Borlaug’s modified wheat (GM foods aren’t new. Borlaug won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his wheat, which has now been linked in some studies to IBS).
I’d like to see a study of women who *were* comforted and see how many of them have digestive problems. Why just women in the study I wonder?

“In China, where cosleeping is taken for granted, SIDS is so rare it does not even have a name.” – This is an interesting quote. China, the country where babies are routinely left to die on railway sidings and overpopulation and poverty is such a huge concern. Infanticide has been a problem there for a long time, originating before the ‘one child per family’ policy that was put in place in 1978 and having its roots in Confucianism, widespread poverty and lack of state pensions.

One could argue China hasn’t named SIDS because it’s not a big deal to the health authorities there, but mostly I suspect it’s because the possibility of cultural differences isn’t being taken into account. Maybe the Chinese don’t feel the need to label everything with acronyms and Latin ciphers to make their doctors sound all clever as they dish out meaningless platitudes. What does Sudden Infant Death Syndrome actually mean? Does it require a name? Isn’t it, when you think about it, just a placeholder that describes an observation yet infers no known cause? Why *would* the Chinese have a name for that? Why do *we* have a name for it?
Either way, China is not somewhere I will be taking parenting advice from.

http://io9.com/5948528/the-unintended-consequences-of-chinas-one+child-policy

Incidentally, using data from other countries without strict cross-referencing and allowing for confounding variables will give you some rather interesting ‘facts’, such as the drop in infant mortality rates in China between 1990 and 2008 from 64.6 infant deaths per 1,000 livebirths to just 18.5. The drop corresponds with the increase in the number of women giving birth in hospitals rather than at home, so I could, if I wanted to, say that babies born in hospital have a 71% greater chance of survival and that this has been shown conclusively by the Chinese, but I suspect the advocates of co-sleeping correspond closely with the advocates of home births, so this disinformation won’t be cherry-picked by Western authors as it won't sell many books.

My biggest concern with this article, though, is the blanket assumptions that no unforeseen negative factors will occur as long as we all make huge sacrifices for our children. This is not the world I live in.
Small children in the bed have a habit of preventing restful sleep for the other occupants. Babies do tend to be a bit safer in bed with parents (factoring out oversize, tiredness, secondary smoke factors, drug use, and socio-economic variables) because they can be checked more frequently, but 3yr olds will spend all night grabbing one parent while kicking the other in the face. The resulting lack of restful sleep in both parents can be a cause of huge stress and give rise to cortisol at home for the whole family. Articles like this tend to make parents feel inadequate so they go out and buy more books on parenting. I’m deeply, deeply suspicious of them. It goes beyond suspicion in this case though because it’s bad science and far more research needs to be done before anything claiming to be results can be weighed up properly.

Having looked her up, Margot Sunderland is someone I’m unsure about. This is her advice on handling a major tantrum: 

“Visualise yourself as a lovely warm, calm blanket. Now envelop your child by holding him with his back to you (if he kicks, he will be kicking away from you) and folding your arms over his. If he is a bigger toddler, take an arm in each of your hands and cross his arms. You can also cross your legs over his to contain his legs and prevent kicking. Hold him calmly and use a gentle tone to say soothing words ('It's all right, I am going to hold you until you calm down'), allowing him to release his angry feelings. He won't be in any space to reason with and will, in any case, not be able to activate the reasoning part of his brain while he is distressed. As your tot calms, let him lie in your arms and cuddle until he is over his blow-out. Then offer him reassurance and a different, preferably quiet, activity."

So basically physically restrain them while telling yourself you’re a calm blanket. Have you ever tried to hold a tantrumming toddler ‘calmly’? The whole business is more like restraining an inmate and far from being a soothing comfort.

If a physicist tells me wrapping a magnet in copper wire will do ‘X’ I tend to believe them, because when you know one electron you know them all. When a psychologist tells me children will do ‘X’ I wonder why they’re assuming all children are the same. I’ve met a lot of psychologists and one common factor I’ve found (in many but thankfully by no means all) is a total lack of understanding of basic human behaviour and emotions. Unlike Richard Feynmann and Brian Cox, I believe psychology is a science, however I don’t believe many psychologists are scientists. I’ve seen too many of them just doing it wrong. Cherry-picking data, relying on correlates and omitting causes, failing to allow for confounding variables and patching together studies that need further research before they get used as foundations for new hypotheses is *not* good science.

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Nevermind, It's Not the End of the World

#endoftheworld



The Mayans, just so you know, didn't predict anything.

New Agers have attached a 'transformational event' to a date in the Mayan calendar because that's what they do.



Doomsday predictors, having been proved wrong in 2003, then changed their prediction (let's look closely at that sentence) to 2012, also attaching their fantasy to a date in the Mayan calendar because that's what they do.



For some reason, dead Stone Age Mesoamerican cultures have an 'ooh!' factor when it comes to understanding the universe, despite not managing to invent the wheel.

The actual cataclysm being spoken of is a collision with 'planet Nibiru', which doesn't exist. The cataclysm was first mentioned in 1995 by Nancy Lieder, who says she receives messages from extra-terrestrials from the Zeta Reticuli star system through an implant in her brain. 



She claimed 'Planet X', as she called it at the time, was going to collide with us while denying comet Hale-Bopp was real. 

Nancy Lieder

In 2003 Lieder had her own dogs put down so as to save them suffering during the cataclysm, and to provide herself with food in the chaos afterwards. She went on the radio in LA to advise everyone else do the same. Think about that for a minute.

In 1996 Lieder associated Planet X with planet Nibiru, which pseudo-scientist Zecharia Sitchin claimed was mentioned in ancient Babylonian texts but not one scholar has ever backed up. 

That dot there, apparently. Except no.

Sitchin denied any connection between Nibiru and Lieder's claims. He said fictional Nibiru will pass us by in 2900AD. However, he did claim aliens called the Annunaki might come to Earth in 2090AD.

Here's some science to wash your brain clean.


Friday, 7 December 2012

What Makes Star Wars Star Wars?

This is my checklist for the 2015 Star Wars sequel, the as yet unnamed Episode VII

What do we know and love about Episodes IV-VI? The story is simple, things are black and white. Ok, light and dark.

Bad Guys are cruel and come in two styles:

Oppressors:
English Nazis attended by American junior Nazis and faceless drones.
No one smiles unless their evil plan is about to succeed.
Their evil plans never succeed.

Scum & Villainy:
Revolting aliens, cool humans, scary monsters. Scruffy gangsters all. They laugh when others suffer.

“He’s the brains, sweetheart!”
Good Guys aren’t always so good, but they do the right thing:
Classic all-American heroes, short on schemes and long on courage.
Relaxed mavericks or zealous newbies, they all have some growing up to do. Luckily there are mentor types on hand to guide them, and then die.
Supported by trustworthy WW2 Allied forces, they fight against terrible odds and win.

Tech:
Well-used, covered in unfathomable ‘greeblies’, with no fixtures, fittings or fastenings in sight
Impossible to tell what button does what or even what a display screen is displaying. On the rare occasion a screen is visible, the display is very basic.
There are no Health & Safety considerations whatsoever!
There is a very cool spaceship.

Things that need to change:
There is only one person of ethnicity in the galaxy.
When women do appear they need rescuing.

What I definitely do not want to see:
• Roddy McDowell as a cloned Emperor Palpatine building a third Death Star which gets destroyed by two guys, their sidekick mutual girlfriend/sister and a big, non-speaking alien.
• A bunch of Force Ghosts hanging out, like the dead princes in Stardust.
• A blue alien in charge of what’s left of the Empire.
• Tattooine as the bright centre of the galaxy. Again.
• Anyone saying “Yippee!”

What I want to see:
• Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford.
• Jedi Master Luke Skywalker mentoring a Padawan. A female one would be good.
• The Millennium Falcon, patched up and still in service, used by the new heroes after Han Solo builds up their expectations then reveals the ‘hunk of junk’ he’s giving them to use.
• Chewbacca with grey fur.
• Leia as a Jedi.
• A film that is recognisably Star Wars and rooted in the original trilogy, true to their spirit and style (well, the first two anyway), but not just a re-hash of Episode IV.

Am I asking too much? No! Of course not! The producers and the director will be paid millions and, if the original cast are involved, I’ll bet Episode VII breaks all box office records. They have at least two years to get it right. It’s worth thinking it through properly and getting the fans on board. Yes, they will still make money. Do it right and they could make history too.

(Edit 21.12.2012)

Costume:
Let’s all first agree to forget the epic continuity error that was Ben Kenobi’s Tattooine desert peasant wear becoming the basis of the Jedi Order uniform in the prequels.

Actually, let’s just spend a little time with it first.
Ben Kenobi and Yoda go into hiding for 20 years…AND THEY STAY IN UNIFORM THE WHOLE TIME!
In the original trilogy the robes are seen on several non-Jedi. Uncle Owen dresses this way, as do several of the background characters in Mos Eisley. Even in the prequels many Tattooine residents are seen dressed in a similar fashion. Because light, cheap fabrics in voluminous layers is what poor people wear in deserts.
http://jimdavies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/how-jedi-should-dress.html
This stupid costume decision wasn’t always the plan. George Lucas had other (better) ideas, but dropped them in favour of keeping the Jedi “instantly recognisable”. Follow this link for a chance to say “Oh for f…. Why didn’t he stick with the original plan???”

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/lucas-original-jedi-plan.50006663/
If Jedi costumes in Episode VII follow the same desert robe theme, as I suspect they will, it will at least be justified because Luke only encounters Ben and Yoda while they’re dressed in desert clothes (floor-length clothing in a swamp, Master Yoda? Is that such a good idea?).

A monk in simple robes is a well known real world thing and it could add to an atmosphere of humility the Jedi badly need to hold onto in the sequels. It’ll probably be the ONLY token of humility, though, because Jedi are thugs.
In the prequels the Jedi rough people up, intimidate and manipulate them. They get their own way by strong-arm tactics supporting a corrupt and ineffective Republic while easily switching between roles as law enforcement and military commanders. If there is a New Republic, it will be interesting to see whether the Jedi will become the bullies they were before. If not, if they maintain a humble disposition as shown by Ben Kenobi in Episode IV and by Luke in Episode VI, even in the face of death, perhaps it will justify all that nonsense and slaughter after a prophecy said The Chosen One would ‘return balance to The Force’. Maybe the Jedi were on the wrong path and needed to be purged; the Sith were, according to George, like a cancer sapping life from The Force and needed to be removed. Seems a bit of a harsh way to do it though. So now what?
The problem is how to include the mandatory lightsabre battles without reviving the Sith and making an even bigger nonsense of the prequels. I predict at least one previously unknown former Jedi (like Count Dooku) who escaped the slaughter due to his (it will almost certainly be a man) inactive status. There’ll be a complex reason why he left the Jedi Order and why he now feels he can reappear with a red lightsabre and start a ruckus, but he may just appear in a black costume with a bad temper and we’ll get no further explanation. I think I prefer the second option.
So, on to the other costumes.

Arguably the most iconic things in the films are the legions faceless armoured minions. Stormtroopers quite possibly inspired a generation or two of film-makers and costume-makers to learn their trades. I know they were the main reason I became a costume prop-maker, along with several of my friends who still work in that field. Stormtroopers and TIE fighter pilots are my absolute favourite things about the original trilogy. I’ve wanted a Stormtrooper costume since I was eight. The 501st are a testament to the sustained popularity of the costumes.
http://www.501st.com/

Will there be Stormtroopers in Episode VII? I hope so, but I may be hoping for too much. Do we want a new type of minion or a familiar one? Will using the old ones make it look like they’re not trying? And that 40 years have gone by and the enemy are still in the same suits? This could be a deal maker or breaker for me, but I honestly don’t know what they should do.
I do want to see weird, complicated hairstyles on the women though!

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Categories, Labels and Astronomy



Space moderators, you need to sort out your admin and classifications.


This morning a ‘science’ page on Facebook posted a thing saying there are 13 planets in our solar system, including 4 ‘dwarf planets’. But that’s misleading and shows a failure to grasp the basics of astronomy. This is roughly how the categories go -
Planets (8)
They’re big and round. They fall into 2 subgroups:
Rocky (4) - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.
Gas Giants (4) - Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus.

Moons (lots)
They go round planets and minor planets.

Minor Planets (innumerable)
They’re NOT planets so it’s a very stupid name, and there are sub-groups which make it even more confusing:
Dwarf Planets, NOT planets, also known as Plutoids because a lot of people for no good reason are upset that Pluto isn’t classified as a planet anymore (do they own property there or something? Wtf?), (5) - Eris, Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake
Asteroids (millions)
Trojans (loads and loads and loads), it’s complex and all about their orbit.
Centaurs (around 44,000), unstable and behave like both comets and asteroids.
Kuiper Belt Objects (over 100,000 with diameter >100km, and far, far more smaller ones)
More info on 'minor planets' here.

Saying “There are 13 planets” is wrong and misinformed. Ceres is a tiny little thing, much smaller than our moon. Like a Malteser next to a melon.

Just to confuse things further, outside the solar system there are Brown Dwarf stars that are like huge gas giant planets not quite massive enough to ignite and become a star. They’re a link between gas planets and stars and the only real difference is how much stuff is inside them.

Stars themselves are categorised as one family because they’re all on fire, but the differences between them are huge. 

Have a look at this image showing the difference in size between our local star and CY Canis Majoris.




Here’s a chart of star types by colour...




...and the same star types (minus the tiniest two types) by size.




The categories will never be right and never be fixed because the universe is not here for our convenience. It is not ours to define, only to stick temporary labels on. In time those labels will fall off although nothing has changed except our perception. Why mention this at all? Because when we label something we stop thinking about it. We give it a name and a pigeonhole and we leave it there. Labels change the physical nature of our brain and shape how we think. The more fixed our categories the more stagnant our thinking.

“If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this universe into parts -- physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on -- remember that nature does not know it!”
Richard Feynman

“[The] obsession with order is contrary to the nature of ideas, and the world. Without constant reminders that categories are malleable inventions of convenience and not manifest in the world itself, the possibility of free thinking and progress is denied.”
Scott Berkun

“However much we divide, count, sort or classify [things] into particular things and events, this is no more than a way of thinking about the world: it is never actually divided.”
Alan Watts