Elementary, My Dear

I am a little ashamed to admit that I haven't bothered to clean out my bookshelves since I was around 13. This means most of my childhood companions are still on the shelf - The Penderwick Sisters, Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, White Ruff, The Trumpet of the Swan, Chasing Vermeer - all along those lines. I can't visit the library as often as I like, which means I frequently revisit these bookshelves. The stories are still as good as I remember, and there are constantly little bits that I read that I don't remember reading the first time. That's one of the best parts of rereading, right? You get to find new sentences you skimmed over last time. I still find new parts in my Harry Potter books, and I've thoroughly canvassed those. Thoroughly.

And yet, while most of them present unchallenging topics, I pulled from my shelf two days ago a book that was surprisingly advanced for its book cover and length. Super surprising, because this is one of those that I've reread many times - maybe five or six times? - and I've never picked up on so many subtle themes before. Is it my age? Am I finally "mature?" I can't believe that was the reason - I remember thinking nearly the same as I do today as I did back when I was thirteen, and yet even I can't help feeling a little condescension towards those in their early double-digits.

But I digress.

This book is called The Shadow Guests, by Joan Aiken. The last time I read it was, oh, maybe two years ago? Back when I was still a sophomore. The basic plot (I'm trying so hard not to spoil) is that Cosmo Curtoys (pronounced 'Curtis' - Cosmo's a stickler about that) moves from Australia to England to stay with his Cousin Eunice, a mathematician. While there, odd occurrences happen and he discovers that he is part of a family that has a curse upon it, one that dates back to when the Romans began taking over what is now the U.K.

A pretty typical plot, very predictable, but that's not why I've brought it to light. Concentrated in the middle of the book are a lot of theories about mathematics, space, time, that sort of thing. Here, have a quote:

"I began to wonder why their maths was getting better and better but also wilder and wilder - they seemed to be grasping concepts that I'd have thought were far out of their reach; and then I went out to dinner with the local Laird and his family, and when I got back the students and the whiskey runners were having a great party, playing sardines all over the castle and hunting in the dungeons for the square root of minus one, which somebody swore he had seen down there." 

 

It's not just the students grasping at concepts. Aiken mentions quite a few; I dogeared the pages that stood out the most to me. A lot are about bending time and space. It's along the lines of looking at stars as they were millions of years ago, and if there were living organisms on those stars/in those solar systems, they would look on Earth and see the volcanoes covering the surface, or the ocean forming for the first time, or maybe even the first of the Australopithecus. In short, concepts I skimmed over when I was younger.

"Can we affect what happens in other dimensions? Or can those happenings affect us?... I honestly don't see why not... After all, even if you just see a thing, it can affect you in all kinds of ways... Seeing a film can change your life. And if the sight of a thing can do that to you, then the sight of you can affect it. There's a theory, you know, that no experiment can be wholly detached and scientific if somebody is observing it. 'Dear sir, it is not at all odd/ I am always about in the quad,/ And that's why the tree,/ Still continues to be,/ In the sight of,/ Yours faithfully, God!' " 

 

Seeing a film, yes, that can change your life, but can you change the life of the film? Not likely, unless it was by your approval that it was hugely popular or your condescension that lowered the net gain of the company. So, you can change an inanimate object's life, but I don't believe the pure sight of you changes them. Not directly, of course. I suppose I see the reasoning behind the theory mentioned - as long as someone is putting on the pressure to do well, there will always be a bias. Doesn't mean I agree with it. I further researched that interesting phrase and found this page. By reading this I realized it's a limerick. Much more sense. Of course, this theory is only valid when it is given that God is real. Wait, no, there's always something somewhere. They make it seem that everything's under observation by God, but if you count beings that aren't sentient (like the film) then we are always under observation by those things too. No need for God.

"I chose to go off into the desert because I didn't choose to die in some stupid war... Wars are an outdated way of settling problems."

Why doesn't everyone else understand this? This has been my mentality since nearly forever; I remember my 8th grade English teacher showing all the boys in my class a form they had to fill out in case the Army et al ever recruited them when they were older, and thinking, I'm glad I don't have to ever be forced to go to war. This is one gender stereotype I'm moderately okay with.

Don't get me wrong, I 97.6% (there are always some people with questionable morals who enjoy it) support those that go to war to shield and defend their families, and even especially those who are drafted into a war where they aren't defending anyone, but forced to by higher powers. I've heard of the ways some people who don't support a war (mainly the Vietnam War) treat those that were a part of it. No matter the reason the war was fought, those soldiers still put their lives out on the line. It is inexcusable behavior to treat them with disrespect and contempt. The majority probably didn't even want to go into battle.

This being said, I still think there shouldn't be wars at all. Alas, I probably won't live to see those days, if they ever do come.

" 'How do you suppose that circles differ from triangles?'
  'Well, sir: triangles are all different from each other. But circles are all the same. You could put them all inside each other and they'd fit.'"

One of those things that are so blatantly obvious and yet is still somewhat of a mind-blower when you realize it.

" 'Ain't she smashing with her hair done so posh,' said Mrs. Tydings fondly, and Cosmo noticed that Eunice had her hair drawn up in a great silver-yellow sweep and looked quite like a model of a film actress - not in the least like a possible Nobel-prize winner."

 

Perhaps it's the feminist within me that cries out that it is unjust to think that a woman can be either smart or beautiful, but not both. I'm a little put off by that voice; to me it's whiny. Ah well.

Eunice had told Cosmo about ogham: It seemed a very useful and beautifully simple writing system, twenty different combinations of straight lines meeting each other; what a pity it was no longer used.

 

Here's everything: link. I wouldn't call it beautiful, but it is quite interesting. 

" 'Teach you? Wh-what am I supposed to teach you? Geometry - stuff like that?'
   ' Nay, no magic. I am a very plain fellow.' "

 

To think that geometry and simple maths used to be thought of as magical. If the twelfth century could see our age now. Or if we could see the thirtieth. 

All this and more in a book aimed at middle schoolers. And here I am, a high schooler about to go off to college,  learning new advanced maths in it.

Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus)

How gorgeous is this thing? Deer-wolf!

It's been a while since I researched an animal/plant, so I want to resume with this guy. I can't stop looking at dem legs.

They aren't very big, only about 3 feet at the shoulder and 50 lbs. Theirs ears are quite long, about 7 inches, presumably to catch even the smallest sound. They have a reddish-brown coat with black points (muzzle, legs, ears - they're called points on a bay horse (as well as other colors), I took some liberties with transferring the usage). Their throats and the tip of their tails are white. The long fur on the back of their necks can stand on end, giving the appearance of a "mane." They live in Central and Southeastern Brazil, Paraguay, eastern Bolivia, and northern Argentina, in the open forests, savannas, and marshlands. They are omnivorous, eating small mammals, insects, reptiles, birds, bird eggs, fruits, and vegetation.

They're not completely endangered, per se, but they're a bit too close to the line for comfort. They don't have many natural predators, but need lots of open space to claim as territory. This necessity proves to be their undoing, as habitat destruction is spreading over their homes.

Fun Facts:

• They can tap the ground with a front foot to flush out the prey so they can then pounce on it. 
• Maned wolves are monogomous. Though males and females generally live solitary lives and come together only during  breeding season, they share defended territories. 
• The maned wolf is the only species in its genus.
• The maned wolf’s fox-like characteristics – the shaggy, white tipped tail and large ears – have earned it the nickname of “fox on stilts.” ACCURATE.
• They like bananas, apples, and avocados.
• Many are hunted because it is believed, in some parts of the world (probably Asia), that specific body parts contain magical healing properties. Gee, where have we heard that before? The magical western black rhinoceros, with it's all powerful "cancer-healing" horn, was declared extinct on November 6th, 2013 due to excessive poaching. The last one was seen in 2006. Seriously though! People are basically eating placebos made of ground fingernails!

Enough depression.

This song seems accurate for this post: What's My Age Again?, by Blink-182