Never mind the Seven Deadly Sins (for now)

Current mood: Somewhat philosophical
Current music: Snatches of Tchaikovsky are surfing the brain-waves

If you've ever seen the classic Disney film, 'Fantasia', you'll be familiar with the animation sequence accompanying Tchaikovsky's 'Nutcracker Suite', where flowers that have drifted down onto a stream start bobbing and turning like a multitude of tiny dancing ladies. It was very nicely done, though it did seem rather fanciful. But on this blustery morning - with the trees bowing obsequiously before the wind, and the grey clouds scuttling ahead, heralding her Majesty the Storm - I saw dozens of fallen flowers, whirling and spinning along the pavement like little tops. Dancing their first and last dance. Dancing to celebrate what was left of their vitality, before they got swept away by brooms and rakes, and burned in a pile with dead leaves and twigs. Dancing because the wind taught them how.

It was only a fleeting moment, but it made me smile.

Anyway, that wasn't what I was planning to talk about today. I was musing on the subject of friendship recently (in the bath, again... I think that warm water really gets those brain cells going), and why we like the people we like - or, conversely, why we dislike the people we dislike. I came up with a list of qualities that I look for in a friend:

TOP 5 VIRTUES

1. Loyalty
You stick up for me, and I'll stick up for you... Isn't that the whole point of a friendship?

2. Good sense of humour
Often abbreviated to GSOH in personal ads, although in those cases GSOH could just as easily stand for 'Gorgeous, Sensitive, Opulent Hunk' or 'Girl: Sexy Or Hot' - so one can never be too sure. According to the legendary humorist Dave Barry, men and women have very different ideas of what 'a man with a sense of humour' means:

"To men, it means 'a man who thinks a lot of stuff is funny'. Whereas to women, it means 'a man who talks and looks kind of like Hugh Grant.'"

Hmm. Anyway, to keep things simple, I shall define what I mean by 'someone with a good sense of humour':

"Someone who can make me laugh."

Vague, but to the point. Go figure.

3. Honesty
...By which I mean the kind of honesty that stops you from, say, walking off with someone's wallet found on a park bench and keeping it for yourself, or embezzling large amounts of cash from your employers, or telling whopping great lies to your own nation in order to wage war on someone else.

But I also mean the kind of honesty that makes you deal with people openly and squarely. I'm a very straightforward person and I won't have any truck with stupid power games, playing with people's feelings, pretending to be best mates with someone when he/she has something you want, gossiping about friends behind their backs, and all that rot. I take a very dim view of that kind of behaviour. You have been warned!

4. Good conversation
In order for good conversation to occur, both parties must (1) be sufficiently relaxed in each other's company so that they can talk about anything at all, no matter how serious or silly, and (2) be equally capable of talking and listening. If one person talks all the time whilst the other only listens, then you have what we call a 'monologue', which is basically what this blog is. If person A talks whilst person B doesn't bother to listen, then person A is talking to him/herself, and 'conversation' is not a valid description. Similarly, if neither person talks, 'conversation' becomes entirely non-existent. Finally, if both people talk continually and neither listen to the other, then you get what singer-songwriter Sondre Lerche calls a 'two-way monologue', which is probably fascinating to nearby eavesdroppers, but is totally useless as a tool for effective communication.

5. Optimism
There's nothing like a pessimist for dragging another pessimist down - so, as I tend to lean towards pessimism myself, I probably can't stay in the company of a 'Total Pessimist' for too long. However, not all is lost - I am what I define as a 'Hopeful Pessimist' - which is different from a 'Total Pessimist' (of which Eeyore is the classic example) - in that I worry about the bad things that can happen, and then hope they don't. In other words, I 'plan for the worst, but hope for the best'. In these circumstances, I would probably get on best with an 'Optimist' or a 'Cynical Optimist' (one who is, at heart, an optimist, but has acquired a certain scepticism from living), although another 'Hopeful Pessimist' should be OK too. However, a '100% Happy Sunny Life-Is-A-Bowl-Of-Cherries Optimist' might strike me as a bit manic...

Wait a moment, I've just thought of another one. This one's so obvious and fundamental I didn't even think of putting it in the Top 5. It is:

*** Warmth & friendliness ***
If you're a somewhat shy person in a party full of people you don't know, and you have to make an effort to talk to someone, would the first person you're most likely to say 'hi' to be the smiling, cheerful, friendly person who's chatting in the middle of the room? Or would you instead greet the sullen, hunched-up misanthrope in the corner, who's scowling at his drink as though he wished it would disintegrate from the heat of his glare?

Well, quite so.

All I have to say is: If you're a thoroughly warm and friendly person, I'd probably like you. If you are at least warm and friendly underneath a slightly cool or reserved exterior, I'd like you too. If, however, you are as frosty as an iceberg all the way down, I highly recommend a trip to the North Pole. What with global warming and all the melting ice-caps, the polar bears would be thrilled to meet you.

Everything in this universe is about balance (at least, it should be). This means I now have to provide a list of qualities I don't like in people. Oh dear...

TOP 5 VICES

1. Fickleness
If you're my friend today, I expect you to be my friend tomorrow, just as I'd be for you. Otherwise you're not much of a friend, are you? I don't like to have to wonder continually if such-and-such a person still cares.

2. Dishonesty: Lying, cheating & hypocrisy
It is true that in our civilised world, little white lies are occasionally necessary to grease the cogwheels of society. Examples of reasonable white lies might include:

"Honey, of course you don't look fat in that."

"My word, did you really cook this? It's delicious!" (*Cough, choke*)

These lies are intended to soothe the ruffled egos of people you care about, and so are relatively harmless (right up to the point where your friend who can't cook decides to quit the day job and open a restaurant). However, the lies that I'm not happy with are the ones that mislead out of sheer selfishness or malicious intent, such as flattering a girl for the sole purpose of getting her into bed, or assuring someone that "it's perfectly safe" when you know darn well that it isn't, but you simply want to see his/her shocked reaction.

A friend of mine once admitted to tossing his mobile phone in the swimming pool (which completely screws up the electronics) just so the insurance company would get him an upgrade for a newer model. Now, I know that insurance companies are smug bullies who always edge out of giving you any money no matter how much you've paid them for your policy, by saying things like "Oh, but it doesn't count if it was stolen when you were away," or "Didn't you see that clause at the bottom? The one printed in invisible ink? It says that we're not obliged to pay you anything if you don't report the incident to us within 0.5 nanoseconds of it occurring." I've had problems with claims so I should know. Nevertheless, the idea of cheating your own insurance company (and possibly reducing someone else's chance at a legitimate claim) wasn't pleasing to me, and I was rather disappointed in him. You never expect your own friends to cheat, do you? Well, we are still friends, although we seem to have lost the closeness we had. 'Tis a shame, but that's how it goes.

What's wrong with hypocrisy? As far as I can make out, a hypocrite is someone who is dishonest with him/herself. That probably makes Hypocrisy (and its sibling, Double Standards) as bad as - or perhaps worse than - Lying and Cheating. Even if, unlike fraud and perjury, it isn't actually an imprisonable offence.

3. Cruelty & insensitivity
The first one is so obvious that it doesn't need much discussing. Cruelty is the way in which morally underdeveloped people assert their power - by inflicting pain on others, whether physical or psychological. No-one really likes a bully. Did Hitler ever have any true friends? Did his cronies actually like him, or were they there just for a taste of the power? Did they serve him because they were scared of him? You'll have to guess the answers for yourselves...

Insensitivity is a somewhat more subtle vice. Let me give you an example. Way back when I was at school (well, it sure feels like 'way back', even if it isn't really), a kid in my science class had an accident in the classroom - he fell off a high stool (you know how teachers always say "Don't lean back on the chair"? Now you know why) - which resulted in a broken (or possibly just sprained) arm. When it happened, a few of his classmates gathered round the fallen boy to ask if he was OK; everyone else at least stopped what they were doing, and looked on concernedly. All except one, that is. Exhibit A kept nattering on about his experiment as though nothing had happened. It's not like he hadn't heard the crash. For some reason, this blatant disregard for anyone else's pain, this utter self-absorbedness, made more of an unpleasant impression on my memory than the accident itself. So if you ever hear me calling someone insensitive - you can be pretty sure I mean it as an insult.

4. Manipulativeness
Now there's a word that's out to tie your tongue in knots. Thank goodness I've managed to keep my distance from manipulative people. You always tend to see them most plainly in a high school setting, generally in the 'popular' crowd, or trying to get into the 'popular' crowd. As various teenage cliques jostle for power, you're bound to get some of these venomous denizens oiling their way into one group or the other. Or even both, if they're particularly two-faced. Adults, I'm afraid, have exactly the same tendency but are even more subtle, and are therefore more dangerous. This is why I intend to stay out of politics. You might get the odd honourable leader, but on the whole, I reckon it's a dirty little game.

Speaking of 'popular' people... It always seems strange to me that a lot of people in the so-called 'in-crowd' are rich, snobbish, and not very nice. There are exceptions of course - but sadly, not many. Now, I like nice, but strangely enough, nice doesn't really make one popular. Which begs the question - why are some people so desperate to be 'in'? What's the use of status if you never know when you'll get your head bitten off by some rival to the Ms/Mr Popularity throne? What's the point of having 'lots of friends' when you never know when they might turn on you?

5. Rudeness
Would you like someone who never says 'please', 'thank you', or even 'hello', ignores you, never apologises for anything, and swears every time he speaks? Would you be friendly with someone who has so much Attitude that she takes it out on the bus driver, the train conductor, the shop assistant or anyone else unlucky enough to encounter her?

No? 'Nuff said.

So there you have it - the Top 5 Virtues my friends should have (and, in fact, probably all do have! Love y'all) and the Top 5 Vices I don't believe they have. You may or may not agree with my choice - after all, this is a highly personal list - but if you have any other opinions or suggestions, please feel free to air them. As long as they're not rude, insensitive, or manipulative, that is!

Salad days

Current mood: Green around the gills from salad overdose
Current music: Leonard Bernstein's 'Chichester Psalms' are doing the rounds... Large choirs singing in Hebrew, huge blaring orchestras, swinging in 7/4 time - can ya beat that?

I bought a salad takeaway for lunch today. It said on the box, 'Smoked Salmon & Potato Salad', so I thought, "Where's the harm?" Unfortunately for me, 'Smoked Salmon & Potato Salad' was an accurate description of only the top one-fifth layer of the contents of the box. I expected my potato salad to consist mostly of, well, potato, and I was somewhat dismayed by the size of the jungle underneath.

By 'jungle', I mean that large pile of green and maroon vegetative substance wot is not meant to be served raw (if at all), even if accompanied by a gallon of Thousand Island dressing.

The makers of this salad had cleverly concealed the vegetation underneath the salmon and potato, and slathered labels on the outside of the plastic box to obscure the view from the other side. The true depth of the problem cannot even be fathomed until one actually opened the box and turned the salmon over. Shock! Horror! What leviathans of green leafy vegetable await!

That's right, folks... I don't like lettuce. I suppose it's tolerable in small, controlled amounts, but not in enormous, hulking, threatening heaps of raw, green and red leaves, towering over the so-called 'key ingredients' like a parade of vengeful elephants over a herd of trembling mouse-deer.

Especially not when the lettuce leaves in question are starting to turn a bit brown and manky.

Do you expect me to believe that this is edible?

Picture from Seedquest.com

Actually, the lettuce (green or red) was quite tame compared to the rocket, which tasted blatantly bitter and bizarre. Whose bright idea was raw rocket? Ugh! It shouldn't even be allowed! In fact, in the US it's called 'arugula', which to me sounds less like a vegetable and more like a species of rare and highly toxic spider found in the rainforests of South America.

Rocket looks quite nice as a garnish. Just don't make me eat it

'Beetroot and Rocket' By Hoopoe. Picture from Worth1000.com

There may well be thousands of people who disagree with me, and in fact LOVE rocket from its delicate white roots to the tips of its wavy little green leaves. Maybe there are rocket appreciation societies, whose members hold rocket parties celebrating the vegetable, and play rocket games in which the aim is to wolf down as much rocket as possible in a minute. Well, I respect your view. I also decline your invitation to any such dangerous event.

I think that as far as salads go, lettuce should be relegated to 'Salad Optionals', a position usually assigned to croutons and bacon bits. (I also think that croutons deserve to be promoted to 'Salad Essential Accessories', but that's another story.) Uncooked rocket can be banned outright for all I care. My particular salad also contained a single black olive (I've not yet acquired a taste for them - too salty) and some mysterious green blobs with yellowish undertones, apparently called capers. I think they're some kind of pickled berry, though it's hard to be sure - they just tasted strange, and somewhat salty. Luckily, there weren't many of those.

The thing is - why does salad have to contain lettuce at all? Who decreed that Salad Must Contain Lettuce? Taking the definition of 'salad' as 'a cold dish of chopped vegetables, fruit, meat, fish, eggs, or other food, usually prepared with a dressing' (Dictionary.com), plenty of other, nicer vegetables can take the place of lettuce - potatoes, tomatoes, sweet-corn, beans, peppers and mushrooms, to name but a few. I'm quite happy with any of those!

You might say that I shouldn't have bought the salad, and should have made my own instead. Fair enough, that's a good point. If these weren't my salad days, perhaps I might've known better than to hand over my hard-earned cash. But hey, smoked salmon is always worth it. And the potato salad, whilst being woefully tiny in portion, was actually quite nice. And the little cherry tomato at the end was simply delectable...

Hail to the Old Romantics

Current mood: Musical
Current music: Moody

On this day in history:

Jules Émile Frédéric Massenet was born in 1842...
and Gabriel Urbain Fauré was born in 1845.

Astrology has this to say about May 12:

"Jupiter, the ruling planet for this day, gives the person born on this day a vast wellspring of wisdom that they use in an expansive nature."

~ Perry from Birthscopes.com

Well, perhaps so. It totally and utterly fails to mention creative genius, however, which both of these renowned Romantic composers had in abundance.

Apart from sharing a birthday, both of these musical gentlemen from la belle France were, at some point in their lives, instructors of Composition at the Conservatoire de Paris - in fact, Fauré actually succeeded Massenet in the post - thus influencing a whole generation of important French composers, notably Maurice Ravel and Nadia Boulanger. Massenet and Fauré were also early members of Société Nationale de Musique, which was founded by Camille Saint-Saëns and Romain Bussine in 1871, to promote French music and to give young composers the chance to publicly perform their music. Sounded like a good idea to me.

Jules Massenet (12 May 1842 - 13 August 1912) was primarily known for writing operas, such as 'Manon' (1884), 'Le Cid' (1885), 'Werther' (1892), and 'Thaïs' (1894), which were popular in his time. He also wrote numerous orchestral works, songs, and oratorios, with a few ballets to top it off. 'Méditation', the pensive violin piece from 'Thaïs', is probably his most famous piece - I imagine that all violinists everywhere have had to learn it at some point. Personally, I also like 'Élégie' (a solo piano piece) and 'Aragonaise' (from 'Le Cid', but often adapted for piano). The former is introspective, and brings to mind raindrops tapping against a window-pane during an autumn shower; the latter is fast, bright, and dance-like, with a touch of grandness.

I must admit that Gabriel Fauré (12 May 1845 – 4 November 1924) is one of my favourite composers. I've performed his 'Cantique de Jean Racine' and 'Requiem in D Minor' with my choir back in London, and I reckon these were some of the most beautiful pieces I ever got to sing (though not, perhaps, as much fun as performing Carl Orff's 'Carmina Burana' with full orchestra - but that's another story). They have such a warm and mellow sound, and such subtly shifting harmonies, that one can only do them justice by performing them in a church. Or, as we once tried during a rehearsal, in a stairwell. Anywhere with a good echo, really - if you could fit a hundred singers into a large tiled bathroom, that would probably work too.

The 'Requiem' is a wonderful contrast of darkness and light. OK, I realise I'm talking about music as opposed to paint on canvas, but if you've heard it before you'll see how valid my description is. The opening, 'Requiem Aeternam', is dark and moody - after all, we are talking about death here, so throw in some good bass notes. However, in the final movement ('In Paradisum'), you can almost picture the pearly gates of Heaven opening in radiant sunlight as you listen to choirs of angels. Well, choirs of sopranos, anyway. My favourite section is the 'Lux Aeterna' within the 'Agnus Dei' movement - it's strange, it's inspiring, and I've never heard harmonies like it anywhere else. I could probably go into greater detail and ramble on about chromaticism and whatnot, but it's best if I just stated the way I think it sounds: Like water turning into light.

Someone had better play the 'Lux Aeterna' at my funeral.

Moving on to Fauré's other works - he wrote a couple of operas, and a huge quantity of pieces for orchestra, chamber ensembles, and piano (he himself was a pianist and organist). 'Sicilienne' (for cello and piano) and 'Pavane' (for orchestra) are some of his most popular compositions today, and even if you don't recognise their names, you'll probably know 'em when you hear 'em.

Anyway, I have waxed lyrical on the original French Romantics, so I shall now go away and listen to some of the music I've been raving about. I hope you'll do the same...

Incidentally, yesterday was the birthday of Salvador Dalí (11 May 1904 – 23 January 1989). But you already knew that, didn't you?

Time Raider

Current mood: Timing out
Current music: 'A Thousand Years' by Sting

Move over Lara Croft - I have here a totally brand new concept that will change the world! Not Tomb Raider, but... Time Raider. How about becoming an adventurer who travels through time, collecting ancient artefacts before they actually become ancient? So, for example, you would be able to see what the Venus de Milo looked like before she was 'disarmed', or look upon the face of the Winged Victory of Samothrace before she lost her head. (By the way, both of these beautiful-but-broken Greek statues are currently on display at the Louvre Museum in Paris.) You could find the real Holy Grail, or marvel at all Seven Wonders of the Ancient World before they crumble to dust. Now wouldn't that be something?

Take it easy, miss - I only asked for the time!

Picture found on http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com

I'd like to hear what ya'll think. You'll probably tell me that it's been done umpteen times before - but if it hasn't, well then, you heard it here first! And a word of warning to software developers and film-makers: Don't you dare pinch my idea! (Ya got that, Mr Gates?) (Buying my idea, now - that is a possibility...)

Actually, if one really could time-travel and steal bits of history in the making, I can see a whole bunch of potential complications arising. For starters, no-one in this cynical world would believe that you've found the real thing. Take the Dead Sea scrolls, for instance. They're estimated to be around two thousand years old. Now, say you found the scrolls the day after they were hidden in the caves. If you bring these back to the 21st century and carbon-date them, you'll probably find that they're not very old. At least, their age would be significantly less than two thousand years - which would make what you hold in your hands an elaborate hoax. This wouldn't be true, of course, but if you keep insisting that it's the real McCoy and that you brought it back in a time machine, you'll soon be headed for the nuthouse.

You could solve the age problem by hiding your artefacts somewhere, but of course there isn't any guarantee that (1) they'll still be there when you come back several thousand years later, since someone else might have 'found' them before your return, and (2) they'll actually survive that long. However, this dilemma will look quite titchy compared to the big problem.

The big problem, which is rather fundamental, is this: If you take away a precious historical artefact at the time of its creation, then no-one in the future is going to know about it. You'll deprive the museums of the artefacts you acquired for yourself. Upon returning to the 'present', you'd find that museums are suddenly empty of all the items they held before you started mucking about with time, and would contain other objects of interest which everyone but you would know of. And then if you went on to steal those, the problem will repeat itself, over and over again. So here you'd be, proud to have found all these highly valuable antiques, only to realise that they aren't precious at all, and that technically, they aren't even antique. You sure wouldn't be able to sell off the loot for a quick profit.

I guess that while time-raiding might make a good premise for a game or a film or a book, it certainly isn't going to have much use in real life, more's the pity. And that's assuming you even have a time machine...