In Which We Discuss War and Peace, Part 16, Chapters 1-3

 Part 16, Chapter 1

This is another of Tolstoy's historical essays. In this one, the subject is Alexander I, and who has the right and knowledge to judge if he made the right decisions. Tolstoy's answer is no one - any historian can be accused of the same short-sightedness that he might see in Alexander I, and their judgement is just as likely to be found wrong 50 years later.

Chapter 2

Another essay, on chance and genius and the distinction between them. I think Tolstoy is suggesting there is no distinction - we call it genius if, the person making the decision, by chance, choose something that leads to a desired outcome.

Chapter 3

Another essay; this one a scathing takedown of Napoleon, attributing everything he does to ego and luck.

In Which We Discuss Converting to Judaism

 About 5 weeks ago, I realised I want to convert to Judaism.

In some ways, this realisation was a very long time in coming. I attended a Catholic primary school which meant, between the ages of 5 and 10, I was taught to pray at least three times a day, attended mass every week, and Catholic ideas filtered into every lesson. 

The UK doesn't have separation between church and state, so every school is required to include religious observance in assemblies. By default, this is Church of England, the state religion of the UK, but schools can apply to offer another religious service instead. While Jewish and Muslim schools tend to be criticised and accused of indoctrinating students, to my knowledge, Catholic schools don't garner those kinds of accusations. But that's a rant for another time.

I rejected Catholicism before the age of 10, because it annoyed me. Specifically, the fact that it was internally contradictory and you weren't allowed to talk about why. 

For example; why would anyone assume that Jesus' immaculate conception meant that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life?* And, having assumed that, why would you not then question the appearance of Mary and Joseph's children in the Gospel of Luke? 

*to control women.

For example: why is it so obvious that Ruth and Naomi shared a platonic love? My reading of the Book of Ruth reveals a story about a lesbian couple and a gay man happily co-parenting and everyone deciding to mind their own business about it.

For example: why would you accuse the Jews of killing Jesus? The Gospels describe the idea of a 'Paschal pardon', that the Jewish elders were offered the chance to free a prisoner, and they chose Barabbas instead of Jesus. Firstly, why is choosing Barabbas wrong? That's like saying, if I give my sister a kidney, I've murdered a total stranger who also could have used a kidney. Secondly, the Jews had zero power. I don't care how many times Pontius Pilate washes his hands, the Romans were 100% in charge and responsible for their own actions. The Jews could do nothing. Thirdly, it's outright suspicious that the concept of a Paschal pardon isn't supported by any historical documents outside of the Gospels. It's not even consistent in them - it didn't originally appear in Luke, but was added much later.

...anyway. I couldn't be a Catholic. It made no sense to me.

(Full disclosure; the above points aren't what I remember frustrating me when I was a child, they're things that frustrate me now. I don't remember the specifics of what bothered me, just the feeling that something wasn't adding up and the frustration that no one would talk about it).

But, I missed it. I missed the rituals and the ceremonies and the singing. I missed reading the Bible. 

I wasn't actually supposed to read the Bible. Catholics aren't. They're supposed to read the Catechism, i.e., the Pope's interpretation, and go along with that. But someone gave me several children's Bibles, which included the stories of the "old Testament" and I read them. I liked thinking about them and I missed them.

Because I missed those aspects and because I liked reading and interpreting the Bible, I've spent most of the last 25 years identifying as a Bad Catholic. A Catholic by upbringing, but not by belief.

Last February, I started writing for my work newsletter. I started with Purim, which is a Jewish holiday. I knew there was a great deal of overlap between Christianity and Judaism (and Islam, which is why I also wrote those articles) and my co-worker, who is born and raised Jewish, was willing to check that what I wrote was kosher (right, correct).

As I read more about Jewish beliefs, I kept finding myself going, "See, that's what I think. That's why I'm so bad at being a Catholic. Catholics aren't allowed to think that."

I told myself it was an academic interest. That I was being a good ally (and, from feedback, I do still think I'm quite a good ally).

After October 7th, I realised that what I was feeling wasn't what I normally felt as an ally. I wanted to be with the people who felt like me. I wanted to support them. I wanted to stand with them and be seen as one of them.

At some point, I looked up the conversion process, still telling myself my interest was academic.

A few days after that, I woke up and knew I wanted to convert. It felt like when I realised I wanted to marry my fiancé. In hindsight, I can see all the signs creeping up on me, but I didn't feel it growing. The feeling was just there one day, whole and complete and undeniable. 

'Convert' doesn't feel like quite the right word. I don't expect to change. I'm not going to become something new. I just want to learn how to express this part of myself. Which, I later learned, does align with how Judaism sees converts - they always had a Jewish soul, they just didn't have anyone to teach them how to be Jewish.

What that means is, I am having a lot of new feelings and thoughts and ideas that I want to share. And since most of those will be linked to the weekly Bible portion (the Parashah), this blog struck me as quite a good place to write about them.

In Which We Discuss Assumptions and the Holocaust

Last year, I wrote a post about whether Hermione (of Harry Potter) is white. In that post, I pointed out that people seem to need only flimsy evidence to assume someone matches the 'default' - e.g., white, male, able-bodied, cis, straight - but very strong evidence to assume someone is 'other.'

I thought of this recently because I did exactly that myself. That is, I assumed the status quo based on weak evidence and ignored strong evidence to the contrary. Someone I've known for a few months now is Jewish and it took several hints and outright asking for me to know that for sure. 

I could say, "I didn't want to assume," but, of course, I was making an assumption either way. It's just which assumption. But, I knew he had a relative living in Israel ("but that could be because of the relative's partner!") and I knew his name was Jewish ("but it could come from the alternative French source!"). On the flipside, I knew he didn't keep kosher, or, rather, had quite strong evidence that he didn't (but many Jewish people aren't strict about that), and I think I've known him to use technology or otherwise not strictly observe the sabbath (but, ditto, and also I could just be misremembering). Also, he said "Merry Christmas," but, as he pointed out himself, he knows that Christmas exists, and I know I had previously mentioned in a group conversation that I'm (culturally) Catholic, though he may not remember that. Either way, I know that Hanukah and Passover (etc) exist and I'm not Jewish or even living in a predominantly Jewish society. I feel like I'm in a very small group because only 3% of the UK population tick the 'mixed-other' box like me, but even fewer people tick the box marked 'Jewish' -  only 0.5%.

I haven't changed the opinion expressed in that post. People make assumptions. We should know we're doing it so we can correct it on the occasions when we get it wrong, instead of blindly or defensively arguing for whatever assumption we're making. In theory, I could be defensive and argue that I was right to assume the default, but why? Why would I do that? Just go, "Oh, interesting,", correct your mental notes/tags, and move on with your day. Or, if it's a fictional character, just go, "Oh, I guess you could see it that way," and then either decide to carry on picturing the character however you were before, or change, or flip back and forth, based on whatever suits you.

I think the first reason I wanted to share this because it's really easy to notice when other people are making errors in their thinking, but much harder to realise and acknowledge when you're doing it. The second reason is, Holocaust memorial day was yesterday, 27th January. That's the anniversary of liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp. This year's theme is 'Ordinary People.'

I didn't intend this when I started writing, but I think what I talked about above ties into that theme. Most people assume other people are probably like them, and that tomorrow will probably be a lot like today. It's okay to assume that - you'll get the right answer a lot of the time, and if you never, ever made any assumptions, you'd never get through the day. Plus, if you feel afraid or insecure, assuming other people don't feel like you is, in my experience, more likely to be wrong and cause you unhappiness than assuming many people will feel the same way. The trick is, again, you have to know you're making assumptions and be ready to pay attention and correct them if they're wrong.

The other thought-error we make about the Holocaust is, at least in British schools, to treat it as an anomaly, something that came from a unique evil or a unique time in history. To me, at least, the attitude is "Isn't what Germany did terrible? We must never, ever be like Germany!". Which isn't wrong exactly, since obviously the Holocaust was terrible and must never be repeated, but it does innocently gloss over terrible events the British Empire was involved in, like Partition, or basically everything Europe did in Africa or to African people. It also, somehow, ignores the part where the Allies didn't liberate everyone from Concentration camps, and even punished people like Alan Turing for being gay. 

We get the impression that antisemitism was a thing that happened once, when the Holocaust was the culmination of a hatred that had been growing for thousands of years (I actually learned that from visiting museums in Hamburg, but I looked for a source I could share). Ordinary people think "it can't happen here" or "it was an aberration that won't happen again." I suspect a lot of ordinary people in the 1930s thought it couldn't happen there or then (link is about Martin Niemöller, who wrote the poem First They Came).

The links above have some suggestions for further reading. I haven't read much about the Holocaust, but I would recommend Maus, a graphic novel by the child of two holocaust survivors. I've never read The Diary of Anne Frank because, to be honest, I don't think I can handle it, but it's an obvious one to mention. She knew her diary might be published - based on a radio broadcast, which mentioned that the diaries of ordinary people were a good historical record - and began editing it during her lifetime. The diary was also edited by her father, the only surviving member of her family. One of the things that was removed - I think, by Anne herself - was the fact she was bisexual. On the one hand, I'm opposed to reading private diaries except when, like in the published version, the writer themselves intended it to be read. On the other hand, it's important to acknowledge all the victims of the Holocaust, including the LGBTQ community, and even though she would have been persecuted "just" for being Jewish, her bisexuality would also have been dangerous.

One of my favourite books is The Basic Eight by Daniel Handler, who is Jewish, though that's not what the book is about, apart from in the way a person's culture/viewpoint informs all creative work. The TV show Crazy-Ex-Girlfriend is similar, in that sense. It's not about being Jewish, it's about a specific person who is Jewish. 

An interlude in the song 'JAP Battle'

Being Jewish, like being of any other group, is a category, which means the individuals within that category aren't identical. They have enough traits in common to be in the category, but exactly which traits and to what extent vary. The solution is to read (or watch, or talk to) a lot of different representative viewpoints, to get an idea of the overall picture. Like at football matches, when dozens of people hold up squares to create an image. For instance, I could hold up my square, for my experience of being mixed race or being neurodiverse, but mine only represents me. You need to look at a few more to get a feel for what the overall image is. It's the same for any other group humans might be part of.

In addition to the links above, I found the following while googling but didn't end up specifically referencing the content: Hey Alma; Forward; 1938 Projekt. I also learned that Kafka was Jewish and about an upcoming game called A Light in the Darkness which aims to educate people on the Holocaust. I found this article on celebrities you might not realise are Jewish or have Jewish heritage, such as Rashida Jones, Jack Black, Daniel Radcliffe, Winona Ryder, Maya Rudolph, and Zoe Kravitz. They all have different relationships with Judaism because of course they do. The article has a few links to where that's been further discussed, like Bob Saget being interviewed on the Jewish Federation of LA Podcast.

In Which We Discuss Matthew Perry

...because I just read his autobiography. Overall, it's like watching seasons 1-3 of Bojack Horseman - so dark, but before it gets really dark - interspersed with the occasional clip from Friends to lighten the mood a bit. Also, Perry is very witty. It's possible that he paid a really good ghost writer and the jokes aren't actually his, but I personally don't believe that to be the case. 

Matthew Perry's father left when he was 9 months old, and his mother was always busy and distracted. Which, he says multiple times, he understands and doesn't blame them for, but he can't deny the effect it had on him. It makes sense - he obviously doesn't remember his dad leaving, but when you're a baby and the adults caring for you leave or are distracted, it sets off an alarm inside you, because that's a matter of life and death for babies. In some people, the alarm just never gets switched off.

He felt like it was his job to keep his mother happy, to make her laugh, and doing that made him happy. She'd turn, and pay attention to him, and he'd feel safe, because, in that baby-alarm, attention=safety. So he kept chasing that. Never allowing a silence, always seeking a laugh (god, imagine being like that (the joke here is, I am exactly like that)).

The most interesting thing Matthew Perry says is that fame didn't solve any of the problems he thought it would. He was just famous, with all the same problems. It makes sense that he thought it would - he wanted attention, and to make people laugh, because he associated that with love and safety - but it also makes sense that it didn't work. The problem is, when you're an adult, you know that making people laugh actually doesn't mean they'll take care of your emotional needs or stick around. It only makes you feel better for a few seconds. Then the anxiety comes back. You want that security and you don't know how to get it and keep it. All you know is how to get attention. So you think you need to do it more, or better, and if you did it well enough, you would finally be happy.

Matthew Perry is arguably one of the most successful human beings ever, in terms of making people laugh. Friends had an audience of millions. He was paid over $1mil for a 25 minute episode of making people laugh. I think being so successful at it might be the only reason he figured out it wasn't working, because lots of people don’t. Every person in the world could line up to tell him they loved his work, and it wouldn't make him feel secure or happy, or like he deserved to exist as a human being. He achieved his lifelong goal of having the number one movie and the number one TV show in the country at the same time, and he couldn’t even enjoy it because he was in rehab.

My current theory is, trying to earn the right to exist – via laughter or anything else - doesn't work because it's the wrong question. It’s like asking how much you’d have to pay someone for them to truly love you. It’s the wrong currency. You can’t earn the right to exist. It’s intrinsically yours because you do exist. Like I think, therefore I am. I exist, therefore I deserve to exist.

The other problem is, when people did love him, he didn’t feel secure. I get that. Like the Savage Garden song, “If love was red then she was colour-blind. All her friends have been trialled for treason and crimes that were never defined.” You test your relationships and put your friends on trial because you want to prove they’re unbreakable, that the other person will always be there, that they’re safe, that they can fulfil you. It doesn’t work. The relationship will break if you try to break it. The only way it couldn’t is if that person loved you unconditionally, the way a parent loves a child. That isn’t how adults love each other, romantically or platonically. Love between adults is conditional. Who you are and how you treat each other matters. If it didn’t, you would just love everyone and anyone, equally, with no bias, and if someone loves you like that then it doesn’t matter who you are. You could be anyone. 

So you want unconditional love, but unconditional love isn’t fulfilling. It isn’t being loved for you. The only way to win that game is not to play. Which is where the alcohol and drugs came in. They let him not think and not feel anxious for a while. Until he reached the point where ruining his life with drugs and alcohol was the thing he felt anxious about. Hopefully he figures that one out. He's been sober and drug free for 18 months as of last October, according to The Times, and I hope it sticks.

In Which We Discuss Whether Hermione is White

 I live in a society where the default is assumed to be white, male, cisgendered, heterosexual, able-bodied, and neurotypical. If you were to draw a stickman or mention the "hero" of a story, those are the traits that person has unless you specifically tell the audience that they aren't. This is why, for example, cartoons and costumes get things like eyelashes or bows added to them, to signify that they are women. In this society, people act like you need very, very weak evidence to assume a character matches that default and very, very strong evidence to think they are something 'other.'

Take Sherlock Holmes, for example. Personally, I think it's very clear that he is asexual. But, every adaption I've ever seen has treated him as straight, based purely on him admiring one single woman who appears in one story. Arguably, since he admires lots and lots of men, it would make more sense for him to be gay. But we don't imagine Sherlock Holmes as gay, because we would need something stronger to think that about him.

Similarly, take the Doctor, of Doctor Who. One of the earliest things that we learn about the doctor is that s/he is changeable. Their body changes. And yet, people argue that he is a man. Assuming he has some control over his regenerations, it does tell us something about him that he has repeatedly chosen white, male bodies, but that doesn't mean he must always choose white male bodies. If I got to have twelve different bodies - or twenty-four, or however many the Doctor gets now - I would definitely choose to be a man at least once, just to see what it was like. Why shouldn't the Doctor?

There's a concept called 'death of the author', that is, when you consider a work only based on what is in the work itself and totally ignoring the author as part of it. Alternatively, you can choose to include the author in how you interpret the work. Another way to think about that is to consider, when you ask "why did this happen?", are you asking Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or are you asking Dr John Watson? If you wanted to know "Why is Sherlock Holmes beating up a corpse when Dr Watson first meets him?" then Dr Watson would explain that Sherlock wanted to know what bruises looked like when they were caused after death. That's the Watsonian perspective. The Doylist perspective might be something more like "I wanted to show the reader the amount of research Holmes does, that he doesn't shy away from the gory elements, and that he is a strange man who cares more about the truth than about being polite."

So, when we ask, "is Hermione [of Harry Potter, not A Winter's Tale] white, are we asking JK Rowling or Hermione?". JK Rowling tweeted out her answer a while ago. 

[I should be totally clear here; Rowling is a TERF and has made multiple offensive tweets clearly stating her views, which are based on unfounded fears. I'm not saying or implying that her tweets are right or relevant to literally anything except the exact question of 'What does the author have to say on this element of her work?']

As far as Rowling is concerned, Hermione can be black. I suspect that Rowling intentionally avoided describing Hermione's race because it was totally irrelevant to the story. That's why she felt confidently able to say that "white skin was never specified."

And yet, some people have argued that, from a Watsonian perspective, Hermione is white. They base this on a quote about "Hermione's white face peering out from behind a tree." This is an example of what I was saying above, about people generally only needing very, very flimsy evidence to say a character matches the default, but strong evidence to say she is anything else. 

Let's think about the information being conveyed by that sentence. Do you seriously think that the middle of a dramatic scene, three books in, was when you would receive information about a character's race? You looked at that line and thought "yes, this is a good time to learn about Hermione's skin tone, that is very relevant information here"? Really? You're sticking with that? You're a fuckwit.

The sentence is there to tell you that Hermione is scared, that she is "white with fear." Guess what? I'm not white but I could go white with fear. Meghan Markle isn't white and she could go white with fear. Lots of non-white people are pale enough to go white with fear. And if you have any fucking doubt about whether Rowling was conveying information about race or emotion with that sentence, she outright told you. To think otherwise is to be wilfully ignorant.

This makes me very angry, because the context I see it brought up in is generally people of colour pointing out that it's totally fine to picture the character as looking like you/them, and then white people say "BUT YOU HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHE ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE ME."

No. Sit the fuck down. Shut the fuck up.

No one told you you weren't allowed to picture Hermione as white. No one even said you were wrong to do so. I'm pretty sure Rowling was picturing Hermione as white, even though she decided that wasn't important enough to mention. But you, seeing other people happy to imagine a character looking like them, couldn't bear that it wasn't about you and pulled the flimsiest, stupidest reasoning out of your arse to make it about you again. If you do that then, yes, you are being racist. That is why people call you that when you make that stupid argument. They call you a racist because you are being racist.

The alternative is that you genuinely think the author decided to randomly inform you of a character's race three books in, in a scene where it could not be less relevant, and then, when she told you she didn't, decided that actually...what? She's lying? She's mistaken? The "true wording" of Harry Potter exists objectively apart from her and she just wrote it down and didn't understand it properly? Rowling invented Hermione. If she says Hermione doesn't have to be white, you can't use her own words to claim that Hermione does have to be white. At best, that argument shows that she misspoke, that she did not make it clear enough to you that she wasn't randomly bringing up skin tone three books in. That argument does not mean that Hermione has to be white. Sit the fuck down. Shut the fuck up.

On a lighter note, guess what? If you want to picture Sherlock Holmes as a trans man, go ahead. I do not believe there is anything in the text to contradict that. We never hear anything about his chromosomes, hormone levels, genitals, he never impregnates anyone...It's unlikely that he would be trans, but it's not impossible. Dumbledore could also be a trans man or McGonagall could be a trans woman, based on the same reasoning. Reading is an entirely personal experience that happens between the reader and the page. If you don't like those interpretations, you don't have to like them. You can totally ignore them and carry on picturing those characters in your preferred way. You can even picture Dumbledore as straight, with a totally platonic brotherhood with Grindelwald if you want to. Like how the Russian commentator explained the 2018 Irish Eurovision entry. Point out that you can technically "go out" with someone platonically, or say "till death do us part" in circumstances other than a wedding. You're not technically wrong, but if you insisted everyone else had to agree with you, including the author, that would be as ridiculous as claiming that the only people who can go "white with fear" are white people. White people aren't literally white, you dribbling ham sandwich.

"Ah, such a beautiful platonic brotherhood"

- Russia, probably

If some people picture Holmes, or Dumbledore, or McGonagall as trans, that does not affect you or your experience of the books in any way at all. Sit the fuck down. Shut the fuck up.

If you want to point out that the authors did not intend those interpretations...so what? If Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cared about Sherlock Holmes' chromosomes, or genitals, or hormone levels, and he thought they were important to the story, he would have put them on the page. He didn't. He doesn't get to stand at my bedside every night telling me how he wants me to interpret each sentence, and nor do you. Well, he can, if that's really what he wants to do with his afterlife, but I can't see ghosts so I don't care. You can't do that, I'll call the police.

Note that, because of the 'strong evidence to assume non-default' thing, I don't think Rowling deserves much, if any, credit, for want of a better word, for writing a gay character in Dumbledore or a black character in Hermione. By not writing that on the page, by letting readers still picture those characters as the 'default', she's having her cake and eating it. That stage - of telling her readers "I saw this character as gay", or "it's cool if this character is black" - was a sadly necessary step, but we should be long past it now and able to freely show the audience that characters are non-default. It's not enough to just whisper, "Psst, weirdos, there's something for you too!" (google Queer-baiting, Race-baiting, etc for more on the subject). It's not good enough. Put it on the page, you coward.

NB, Rowling does get credit for writing a character with a amputation, because I can count on one hand the number of books I've read that portrayed that, and that one was actually on the page. That isn't to say or imply anything other than "hey, cool,  some people are amputees, it's weird more of them aren't openly portrayed in fiction."

Actually, if anyone wants to find a quote that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Sherlock Holmes does not have a wooden leg (left, specifically) please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to picture him as an amputee as well. Or not. It's your reading experience. You can always call an exorcist if Conan Doyle doesn't like it.

In Which We Discuss Flirting

 As you may have noticed, I've been reading and thinking a lot about storytelling and writing recently. I'm trying to write a love story, so one of the things I'm focussing on is how to show that two people like each other, that they're attracted to one another, that their feelings are growing and changing, and that they love each other. Here are some of my thoughts, just as I'm figuring these things out.

The big, obvious part of that is in the decisions characters make throughout the plot. For example, the climax of a love story typically involves the lovers being separated until one or both makes a sacrifice that allows them to be together. That sacrifice, made purely for selfless reasons and not in the expectation of winning the other person back, shows that one person truly loves the other. Even though it does usually result in the other person being won, the person making the sacrifice can't do it with that intention or it's not a true sacrifice, it's manipulation. 

Love stories usually involve characters developing small rituals together, like in-jokes or just parts of their daily routine. For example, in the movie Eurovision: The Story of Fire Saga, the two main characters have a little routine they do when they greet each other. You probably have little rituals, habits, or nicknames between yourself and specific friends or lovers, unique to those relationships. That's what happens when you build a loving (platonic or romantic) relationship with someone. You develop a shared history and language. 

There are also 'tie signs', little signals that people give out, intentionally or not, to show their relationship to one another. Say you go to a party, filled with people you don't know. Some people will introduce themselves and outright tell you, e.g., "This is my husband, this is my daughter." But a lot of the time, you won't need to be told. You'll recognise couples by their wedding or engagement rings, or by their body language. For example, they'll stand closer than friends or strangers usually would, or hold hands, or one will have their arm around the other, or they'll use terms of endearment or in-jokes when they speak to each other. Or perhaps they have some sort of verbal shorthand, so they'll be able to have a conversation without needing to say some of it out loud, because they already know.

Actually, the show Chloe is quite interesting there, because the main character will use 'tie signs' usually reserved for friends to imply a closer relationship than exists. For instance, she'll introduce two characters to one another, giving each one the impression she knows the other well. Why would someone be taking charge of the introduction if she's not the hostess and doesn't know either of the people she's introducing well? People don't usually do that.

Flirting and 'chemistry' are quite interesting. Flirting, as far as I can pin down, is about testing the waters. One person knows they would like to explore a more intimate relationship, and they are making small checks to see if the other person would also like that. That greater intimacy might be sex, or it might be a romantic relationship, or even just friendship. I've been googling, but a lot of what I've found is a very broad overview. It'll be a list of body language, or lists of "flirty lines." The former is useful, because body language plays a huge role in flirting, but the latter isn't really how most people flirt. Sure, some people do go up to strangers in a bar and say a line as an opening gambit, but most of the flirting I want to write about isn't that. So, what I've been doing instead is noticing when I realise characters are flirting and trying to figure out why I think that. What did they do that made them sound/seem flirtatious? Most of my examples are from TV shows simply because I can watch more TV in a day than I can read books. There is another reason, which is that TV shows and movies are made by lots of people, not just one, so you'll get a broader range of body language and dialogue. Plus, you then have to figure out how to turn that into words yourself, so you're not at risk of just copying someone else's writing.

There's a moment in Taskmaster (season 6, episode 4) where something Alice Levine said to Russell Howard struck me as oddly flirtatious. To be clear, I am not saying Alice was flirting, and that made it more interesting. What was it about what she said that came across that way? It was during the "have the most fun" task, and Alice Levine's suggestion was that she should mime having a bath while Russell Howard played football. The first thing is that those are quite couple-y things to do, like you could imagine if they were dating they might easily spend an afternoon that way. If someone were intending to be flirtatious and they said that, it would basically be an invitation to roleplay being a couple, to see if the other person might be interested in the idea of actually being a couple. Plus, suggesting you mime having a bath might prompt the other person to think of you having a bath, which is quite an intimate image. Again, I'm not saying this was Alice's intention, I'm saying this is why someone else could say exactly the same thing with the same tone and intend it as flirtatious. I think Alice was just trying to win the task and said the first thing that popped into her head.

There's also a moment at the end of the videogame Shadow Hearts II, where the director uses camera angles to trick us. Normally, when someone is thinking about kissing someone else, their gaze moves in a triangle, from eyes to lips. If you're looking at someone's eyes and lips while slowly moving closer to them, you're thinking of kissing them. I think most of us understand that when it happens, even if we don't think about why we understand that. By this point in the game, one character has made her attraction to another clear, but whether he responds to her feelings is less clear. He's spent most of the game trying to revive his true love who sacrificed herself for him at the end of the first game, so I thought it was obvious he wasn't ready to move on, but I didn't know if the director of the game knew that. Anyway, they trick us with camera angles. The camera focuses on eyes, lips, eyes, lips, making us think that is what the characters are looking at and making us feel like they're about to kiss.

Speaking of kissing, Hitch had it right. You go 90% of the way and wait for the other person to complete the last 10%. That's what flirting is. You put something down and see if the other person picks it up. If they do, great. If not, back off.  

The other thing people do when flirting is to slowly invade each other's space. One might ask the other to dance, and, through words and body language and depending on the dance, invite them to hold hands, or place their hands in certain places, or just to be within each other's space in a more intimate way. Each moment is a small invitation, which can be accepted or rejected. It's another little check, another tiny step towards closer intimacy.

In stories, sometimes you can have the hero grab the heroine (or vice versa, or hero/hero or heroine/heroine) rather than invite her. Sometimes that's because you're creating tension between the two in a different way - they're enemies, or they're arguing about something, like in a love-hate or Slap Slap Kiss relationship. Those are all viable options, since romance novels are, by definition, set in a universe where the two main characters are into each other so consent does exist whether or not they check (if it didn't, it would be a horror or a thriller, not a romance, e.g., You), but I'm trying to write a gentler, more realistic kind of flirting.

Where I am with this now is that it doesn't so much matter what your characters say. They might use words to suggest ideas to one another, like how suggesting you pretend to have a bath could be used to prompt someone to picture you in the bath, or they might make an ambiguous statement that the other person could take in a romantic way if they wanted to. But, more important than what they say is what they do. For example, say you're writing in first person or third person restricted, from your heroine's point of view. If you mention that her love interest licked his lips, you've told the reader two things - that the love interest licked his lips and the heroine was looking at his lips when he did. If she notices the colour of his eyes, the fact she's noticed enough to think about it means she was looking at them. The last thing I tried was a scene in which, after every bit of dialogue, one character moved closer to the other or some other bit of body language was noted. I think that was quite successful, in terms of conveying the increasing tension that I was going for.

The other evening, I was flicking through channels and came across the end of Naked Attraction (this is how everyone watches Naked Attraction). That's a TV show in which one person - in this case, a man - comes out on stage to meet six people he might be attracted to - in this case, I think five women and one non-binary person - they might be interested in. Those six are all completely naked and standing in boxes which expose them bit by bit. First, everything below the waist, then everything below the neck. At this point, the person doing the choosing strips off and they're all naked when the faces are finally exposed. Nothing is censored. I am not exaggerating about any of this.

Anyway, by the time the faces are exposed, the chooser has already removed three (I think) of their potential options, leaving three. In the episode I watched (the second half of season 9, episode 1, with tree surgeon Dmitri choosing), I paid attention to the body language. You'd think the nudity would help, but it actually didn't - it was the faces that revealed the most. When the boxes went up and their faces were exposed, that was the first time the options got to see the chooser and one, green, was clearly not into him. I knew that, but how did I know that? I'm pretty sure it's the way her smile faded, from real to fake. Her smile stopped going to her eyes once she saw the guy doing the choosing. There was also the way she gave her reply to his question as if it were a line she'd memorised (which I'm pretty sure they all are) rather than as something she was saying to him. Luckily, Dmitri either picked up on this or was also not that into her, and she was able to leave. 

Conversely, another contestant, Kate, was really into Dmitri, or at least that's the vibe I had when I saw her face. Again, how did I know that? I'm not sure. Some of it is that her smile was real, but so was the third contestants' (Lucy), and I didn't get the same vibe from her. I think Katie was more smiley, but that can be personality, not attraction. According to the host, Katie's nipples hardened when she spoke to Dmitri, but I didn't notice that and I think, realistically, most characters won't be outright looking at each other's nipples while flirting.

Dmitri chose Lucy (who had a forked tongue) over Katie, but, Lucy didn't show up for their date and Katie came instead. Apparently, the date is held at 9am the next day. If I hadn't read that, I'd have thought Lucy had started a relationship with someone else and that was why she'd cancelled, because I don't think she was disinterested, even if she wasn't as interested as Katie. Instead, I wonder if Katie and Lucy had a word, and together decided Dmitri had made a mistake and Katie should go instead.

Either way, after their date - in which both Dmitri and Katie showed interested body language - we got another update, a few weeks later. In this one, their body language was totally different. They sat on a sofa together, but Katie perched right on the edge, sitting on as little of the sofa as possible. Her body - knees, feet, hands, etc - all pointed away from him. Her entire body was signalling discomfort and a desire to escape. The relationship had fizzled out because, reading between the lines, he'd realised she was looking for a relationship while he was only interested in sex. He did "jokingly" suggest they have sex anyway - a "joking" suggestion being another way of testing the waters while flirting, since the other person could choose to take it seriously if they want or they can both pretend it's a joke if they don't - and she turned him down.

In Which We Discuss Russia

As I described in my previous post, I'm currently reading a lot about story stucture, which means I'm thinking about it a lot and applying it to the stories I read and watch. On twitter, someone asked why the video Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, was so powerful, and I think the fact that Zelensky worked as an actor and understands the power of stories is a factor. To be clear, most stories are fictional, but calling something a 'story' doesn't mean saying it is fiction. I'm saying Zelensky is telling us facts, but he's telling them to us in a way that uses the principles of story structure to produce a powerful emotional experience.

The video is embedded in this article.

We already know the inciting incident - Russia has invaded Ukraine - so Zelensky doesn't need to tell us. He can just say "good evening", because we already know why he's recording.

By the way, I do not hold this against the majority of the Russian people. We know you didn't want Putin in power and many of you do not support the war.

After "good evening", Zelensky immediately starts describing the escalations of the story. Firstly, he introduces us to the men standing around him. "The leader of the party", "the head of the presidential administration", and so on. That's the first point. Each of these individual people are here. Zelensky tells us their titles because we all have an idea of what a 'leader' or 'the head' of something is, so that's the minimum amount of explanation we need to follow what he's saying.

After describing individuals, Zelensky gets to his second escalation. "Our soldiers are here." Then the third, "Our citizens are here." He uses repetition. Firstly, "we are all here" to summarise that 'we', the leaders, are all here. Then "we are all here" to summarise that 'we', the Ukrainian people, are 'all here'.

Now that "we are all here", we've reached the crisis point. What are "we all" going to do? The fact Zelensky repeated the word "here" gives us a hint, so we know before he says it, but we're not 100% sure because it's such a risky decision. Zelensky tells us that "we" are protecting our independence and we are going to stay here. That decision is the turning point. The obvious value that is at stake is life; Zelensky is telling us about his decision to risk that, to remain in danger. Note that this decision already happened, so he has been in the same amount of danger the whole time he's been speaking, but we experience the shift and the emotions of it when we hear it confirmed.

I'd say another value at stake is 'love.' All of Zelensky's escalations were about "we", being together. He has chosen to put his life at risk because of love. Love for his country, his people, and his family. He doesn't need to explain that to us because we already understand it, both from the external context, from our love for our own homes and families, and because he told us this was about "we." Love is now stronger; life is more threatened.

Zelensky telling us about that decision is the emotional climax of the 30 second video. He ends with "glory to the defenders of Ukraine" and "glory to Ukraine", which is the resolution. The story isn't over, we don't know what is going to happen to Ukraine, but the scene is over. The decision is made, and that reassurance is a 'full stop.'

Again, I'm not saying any of this is false. I'm saying Zelensky knew how to deliver this factual information to us in the most emotionally powerful way, probably because of his previous work in storytelling as an actor and comedian.

This clip also illustrates the question of who the storytelling escalations happen to. From whose point of view is it an escalation? Zelensky knew he was speaking for the entire country before he started recording, so, in this case, the escalation is from the audience's point of view. Escalations are whatever make the decision you have to make harder or more complicated, but your main character doesn't have to learn about them in that scene. They might already know. When faced with the situation, the character thinks about a relevant experience they've had before or information they already have and either tells someone or thinks about it so the reader can see it. Alternatively, they might not know, but the audience learns it from another character, creating a situation of dramatic irony where the main character doesn't fully understand the decision they're making and make mistakes.

The other thing about stories is, stories tell us what to do in new situations. When we look at it that way, Zelensky's story isn't original. I don't know about you, but for my entire life, every story in which the Russians are on one side has had them as the bad guys. There are other stories from before I was born, like Russia defeating the Nazis or repelling Napoleon, in which the Russians are the good guys, but, for my entire life, every story has clearly told me that if Russia is on one side, that side is the wrong side. I think that's a factor in why what's happening in the Ukraine is resonating with so many people. We know what to do when Russia invades, and it's not to support Russia.

Another factor is race because, if it wasn't, we'd have heard this outcry over Chechnya, or Syria, or Iran, or any of the other countries that have been invaded by anyone over the last few decades. We really need to work on spreading our empathy out to people who aren't white. And don't give me that bullshit about "this is the first time we've seen war in a civilised nation", Daniel Hannon of The Telegraph. You clearly mean 'white.' Honestly, I'm beginning to doubt that anyone from the Telegraph understands that non-white people can (A) be British, and (B) can read. We are and we can and your racism is showing.

The other story we all know is the one about the underdog who stands up to a bully and says "I'm not going to take it." We know that, in real life, the underdog doesn't win. Usually, quite a few of them lose, to establish the bully's power before the hero comes along and rallies everyone against him. But, we've all heard stories about how a smaller, weaker force can win because they have right or justice or truth on their side. War and Peace is that sort of story. Pierre wins, against all odds, like Russia beat the French. Oh, there's another dichotomy I didn't pick up on before. The war story is between Russia and France, and the peace story is about the French-raised Pierre and the Russian Natasha.

In short, decades and decades of stories have told us that, when Russia invades, and when the underdog stands up to the bully, the right side is that of the invaded and the underdog. I think that's what a lot of people are experiencing. Going back to War and Peace, Tolstoy theorised that Russia won because every Russian soul was united. I don't think that is the case, or, at least, not for Russia. In this case, Russia is France, the invader, and it is every Ukrainian soul that is united.

I think Putin's affected by stories too. In his case, the stories are from his childhood, about the might of the Soviet Union. He was raised in it, he has golden memories of it, he wants to get back to it, or, at least, that's the least cynical interpretation I have. Similarly, anyone born after 1999 in Chechnya has been raised only knowing Chechnya under Russian control. That will affect how they identify and how they see the world. It's not surprising that most of the young Chechen men fighting for Russia were born after that year.

Honestly, I love Russia. That's why I committed to reading War and Peace. I love the accent, the history, the literature, the language...Russia is so much, all by itself. Why isn't that enough for Putin? Let it go. The Soviet Union is over. You don't need to get back to that to be worth something. You're enough. You have so much culture and history just as Russia. You're complete without the rest of the Soviet Union. Leave them alone. Be Russian. Let Chechnya be Chechen, let Ukraine be Ukrainian. You don't need them for you to be Russian.