Book Review: The Swan Thieves by Elizabeth Kostova

Reading any well-written novel requires patience as a reader and the ability in a relaxed frame of mind to savour the words as they are ordered on a page.

And so, with The Swan Thieves, you are invited not to hurry, or even be overly concerned with the plot, but to more deeply appreciate your love for the written language.

Kostova is one of those authors that I have found who caters for this manner of reading appreciation and from the moment I saw this new title by the author of The Historian I knew that I was going to like it.

I read The Historian a year after it was published and found it ponderous, especially the third quarter of it, but nonetheless was very impressed with its use of language. After reading The Swan Thieves I am able to draw a comparison between the two novels. For a start, I feel that Kostova has taken care to better flesh out her characters, which I found was lacking in her previous novel. Making a character more three dimensional lends, I feel, to giving the plot a firmer substance. This is what The Swan Thieves needed for a reader not to get lost in too much of the ethereal – particularly as the plot concerns artists and art and an interwoven mystery.

Like while reading Kostova's previous novel, I found I was feeling bogged down in the latter half and it was around then I realised that it does indeed take a patient reader to read her novels. One thing the author tries to do is to 'paint with words', which I feel is carried a little too far, for example from page 323, “...a blue paper napkin...”. Should such a writer who writes so well be concerned with trivialities ie the colour of the napkin? Another from page 350: “The [beer] bottle had picked up the light of the fire, which made it glow from the inside, like a topaz.” So it seems that the author would like readers to pick up each subtlety and nuance as one would pick them up in a detailed work of art, which was to this reader to be a bit of a yawn.

The conclusion is drawn in rather suddenly, but satisfyingly, towards the very end. The novel also has a skilful and inspiring treatment in art appreciation, which is one of the most memorable themes of the novel. The Historian, and even for its well-written text, did not stay memorable with this reader, but I was much more impressed with The Swan Thieves. I can recommend it to anyone that likes the savouring of words and a narrative with a gentle touch.

(To visit my Goodreads site to see other reviews by site owner, Acoustic Eagle, click here.)

Excuse Me, You 'Whooped' Something...?

In my observations of people, something I do being a writer, and having enough time to spend in public places while waiting for public transport and getting about on my own fairly much, I tend to take note of behaviour that might be, in an isolated situation, considered odd. However, in very recent time, and particularly since I lived in the southernmost state of Australia, I have noticed something that seems increasingly to be a behaviour that is becoming less odd and more noticeable in young people, and I've only ever heard it coming from young men.

That is the 'whoop'. I don't know what else to coin it.

The sound reminds me of when our high school biology teacher used to take us in his combi van to the zoo and, nearing the ape enclosures, one would hear the unmistakable sound of the black and white monkeys make that incredible sound that all other living creatures would be able to distinctly hear all over the jungle!

It is a carrier, a sudden sound carrying up and down a street and particularly guaranteed to frighten the old lady or any casual pedestrian that has been unfortunate enough to pass by at a time when a young fellow has been given to this verbal act of like violence. Maybe before society was less tolerant, and less intimidated, it might have been called 'disturbing the public peace' – that was in the days before shows like Jackass were on TV, or any other form of entertainment that says 'look and me and my need for notoriety – no need to excuse my self esteem issues'.

Does that sound fogey, prudish? After all I realise that young men have that certain vigour of life that begs expression, plenty of energy that needs releasing – hobbies, sports ie possible skateboarding (for eg), hanging out with mates, girlfriends, riding around in cars – you know the usual teen/young adult pursuits where this energy used and entertainment forms are enjoyed.

Last week I was one of those casual pedestrians. It was just before bank opening hours and two young people, both around the age of twenty, a male and a female, were talking together and we were the only three people in the immediate area. The girl was standing and the young man was seated on brickwork. They were talking distinctly enough for me to hear that they were discussing a mutual male friend of their's. Just as I passed this young chap, he let out a whoop that contained an expletive. Right in my earshot, enough to make me jump.

Not giving the guy any satisfaction (is that what they want? Satisfaction?) I kept walking normally without reacting. Ignoring is best. Funny you know, as soon as he did this whoop, the two resumed talking in the same manner like they were before the loud noise was released. I heard the girl say,“That wasn't a very nice thing to say about so'n'so...”. The boy's reply was another expletive about this mutual friend of theirs but in the previous conversational tone.

In Hobart city the other week while waiting for a bus, I watched two men in their mid to late twenties cross the busy road in front. Before arriving on the other side, one of the young chaps let out a whoop. They entered a building and when they came out, another whoop. I realise that these chaps don't have Tourette's syndrome, but it reminds me of that. And the monkeys.

Not being a viewer of TV shows like Jackass, those shows in which youngsters are doing public pranks by which to shock and appal that might be called antisocial acts, I might assume that this phenomenon of the public (hear-I-am-hear-me) whoop has descended from some source of possible entertainment origin. People have been cheering, calling and whooping and the football for countless years, but that's at the football. Now it's to do with one young man always in the company of other youngsters – never on his own. Because that would be Tourette's.

So, through curiosity, I would like to know how whooping in public has come about. Does anyone reading this have clues?

Society is geared that it has certain boundaries or limits of acceptable behaviour in public areas to make the flow of people safe and peaceful. A whoop is a sound of elation over something, as the sound carries the hearers share in the person's 'exceeding joy'. Whether you want to or not. And whether you want to or not, you'll notice the young chap that's let everyone know he's there and regardless of how it's received – well by the friends he's with – or irritatingly by strangers in his vicinity, you'll notice him.

Funny thing isn't it? The youngster doing the crazy or antisocially-inclined thing might think something about himself momentarily while he's doing the act. But the sane people being treated with contempt (re the old woman walking by just at that moment and I've seen that happen) is going to think the worst of a fool.

(The monkey that I remember that does the whoop is the Spider Monkey, pictured)

Continued Hiatus, For a While

Just a note to say I'll be back with new blogs soon. In the meantime I'm seeking new digs so I'll still be away for several more weeks. I'll be back as soon as I can. Ac E.

A Memo

Just a note to say that, for a fairly short period – possibly a couple of weeks – I’ll be posting blog intermittently to this site as I’m in the process of moving.

I’m up to my ears in packing boxes right now, you should see the place I’m leaving!

I will necessarily be offline for longer periods, but that will mean I'll be coming back with fresh articles. Spending time offline will allow me to collate everything to then come back online and post.

Also another note about my new Wordpress site. This site is exclusively reserved for all my lay psychology articles. I'll be adding archived files, freshly edited, there as well as new articles as I write them.

Lots of work ahead in this busy time of year leading up to Christmas.

I’ll be back

Ac E.

The Mobile (Cell) Phone Phenomenon

This article is a continuation from my previous one entitled 'The Sense of Self' – so it is in regards to psychology and not to the actual device of the mobile phone or it's ordinary usefulness.

In our times, it appears everyone has one, the mobile (I'm Australian) or cell phone. I have to laugh as, when at the time they first appeared in society, it appeared to me to be regarded as fashionable – to be 'seen' to get out one's mobile in a public place and talk to whoever was on the line. Later, when mobiles got cheaper, most people have got one.

They are handy and particularly useful when one is alone and requiring some aid or necessary contact. Many parents will not hesitate to get their children phones to ensure that they will be able to remain in contact wherever they are. People who drive have a mobile in case of car trouble. Tradespeople can keep in contact with their offices to make and keep appointments – the list goes on. There's every reason to agree that the mobile is a useful and beneficial device; it assures that we can have contact at all times and like I said, especially in times of need.

You might call me old fashioned but I barely use mine. The only times I do is when I'm answering a call, or contacting someone for some reason away from home. You see, I come from a time when all there existed was the landline and they were connected by cables (no 'hands free' or conference calling). So I've got to say it amazes me that people, who might be sitting on their lounge room sofas, will immediately reach for their mobile phone and use that instead of their landline, even though the use of mobiles is more expensive than landline use. Indeed the mobile phone has become an extension of the hand for many these days.

Do you know or have you seen or met someone who appears addicted to mobile phone use? I've read articles where people have reported as 'lost without their phone' couldn't function at the full speed that they have become used to. Phones are automatic – they provide immediate access – which, like I said above, is a good thing in some circumstances. But, like all things to do with human nature, the convenience of any device or luxury for that matter, may become a thing of dependency. So much dependency that, without that device or luxury, life is not the same, hardly 'complete'.

If we could step back a moment from this odd idea! The mobile has only been in use in recent history, and for thousands of years there was no such thing, let alone a landline telephone. You might say that the mobile is here to stay, and an integral part of human society, it is entrenched in the way society functions today. But the mobile, I would argue, is still a device and something useful but it does not make it, will not ever make it, integrated as a part of the innate human psyche. It is a device only. But some cannot exist (they would say) without one. They cannot see themselves without the automatic availability of it. And I think it's becoming a problem, psychologically speaking, in contemporary circles.

One circle of society that I feel it's becoming a problem (in the way of psychological health) is in the world of the teen. Text messaging might be cheap, but if a teen has an addiction to sending and receiving texts, then the sense of self is affected. There's a lot of 'quantity' before any quality here. For to receive text messages – that may give the teenage personality a sense of being loved, valued and accepted – one must also send text messages. Some very addicted teens go through much money each week just to pay for their mobile phone use. I have heard of one teen that will even steal money, or use other family members' phones, just to supply her 'habit'.

The addiction syndrome comes from the 'fix' of being noticed or peripherally 'valued' by the person that has sent the text or voice call. For a short time, that person (whether teen or anyone) feels valued, and has a increase of the self-worth – that they feel that can only be supplied by others responding to, or sending them, calls and messages. They will spend much time texting back and forth and really saying little of anything, just to assure themselves that they are valued and wanted by the person(s) they are communicating with via phone. It can also give the appearance of being 'popular'. And while all this is going on, and with the mobile so accessible, they will neglect the real reason why they have become addicted to this instant form of communication in the first place.

And so, in a world of the instant, of the 'now', how could this be good for society as a whole? I believe that such behaviour of seeing to have what is desired 'now' will only create a world of people who will, through conveniences, be them to lack patience and tolerance with others and with circumstances that are not so instant, that are not so accessible.

Patience and tolerance, I say, in this society of growing population, are two of the more needed virtues. But if a person's thinking is wired to imparting and receiving in the 'immediate', then it can hardly make for a world that is patient for the good things of living to manifest, for life to evolve and unfold more naturally in the human psyche, and for it to be in a good state of health. And I think it is important at this time in human history that there is more self-awareness in individuals, more need for a teaching of psychology in schools (for eg) and more appreciation for the lasting things of value, rather than the self-gratifications that come from any addictive forms.

Driving and Texting

There is one very dangerous misuse of the mobile phone that I wish to mention: that is, the use of the phone whilst driving.

Recently I read an article where a girl was lamenting, with great sorrow, the death of her sister in a car accident. Her sister had been text messaging about an item of clothing, nothing much really, and something (in sad hindsight) that could have waited until the girl was no longer behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Alas, I quite often see people talking on the mobile whilst driving in the knowledge that this is against the law. The law has changed only recently in Australia and now there are stiffer penalties for mobile phone use while driving. So, if a mobile voice call takes away from a driver's concentration, how much more concentration is required to do a text message, how much more time is taken eyes-from-the-road ahead? The girl in the story in my previous paragraph ended being killed because of text messaging behind the wheel of her car.

But, and this is the saddest thing, while we have responsibility as drivers to make sure we get to and from our destinations in safety, it is also our responsibility to drive for the safety of all other road users (speeders, tail-gaiters, and people that don't use their indicators can also take note!) and all pedestrians. It only takes a moment to collide with another car or a pedestrian, for a car is a potential killing machine on wheels.

I would like to relate what an acquaintance of mine does every time her mobile phone rings while she's driving (and who says we should always obey that ring when it rings when there is such thing as voice-mail?) She finds a place to pull over and park. Then she will use her phone. I think that, for some, it is all too easy to give into the temptation of answering that demanding ring tone. But, if one has a 'policy' of pulling over, without exception, making it a personal 'rule' of safety, then one just might spare a tragedy – the terrible tragedies that people have to live with, from the consequences of selfish and thoughtless behaviour, for the rest of their lives.

So...just how important is it?

And for those who cannot live without the mobile phone, you could ask yourself, how that phone makes you feel? Is it a useful device that keeps you in contact for good reasons, or has it become and extension of your personality, so much so that to be without it is like being without part of your personal self-worth? It's something to think about.

The Sense of Self

Much of what inspires me to write is from my observations of how people treat the other people in their lives.

These observations run the gamut, from the people in the intimate life of the individual, to the people on the outer peripherals, like for instance other road users, people who work in shops and service industries, or without the human element even involved, the way that individual might treat his/her environment. The latter could include the individual's home or the society in which they live – and whether the individual sees themselves as an integral part of their environment or something that they feel more detached from. And example of this could be when they are habitual litterbugs, abusing that environment in some way, or when they care not for the safety of other road users by speeding – in fact, any of the 'me first' behaviours.

It has been my deep consideration that the sense of self, or put it another way, the self-esteem (or self worth), is the most neglected part of the human being. People go to a physician if the are sick, but, if habitually their behaviour is 'not well' or dysfunctional, the sense of self and the self's 'health' and continued 'well being' will be the last thing some people will want to look at.

For it is hard to look at the self. Who wants to see all of one's faults? In an extreme example, the narcissistic personality will blame all others for their faults ie., why they feel they are not successful. If they are getting criticised at work (for eg) they will blame the boss or their co-workers. If, in the narcissist, the elevated sense of self is criticised (brought to light) or attacked, they will look to anybody else to which to lay blame for their own faults.

Or take the example of the man who batters his wife. His sense of self is so dysfunctional that he will say in his own 'self defence' “She made me do it!”. Of course, we know that we alone are responsible for our own actions. And if we are responsible for our own physical health, being a total human 'unit' like all others, then it follows that we are also responsible for our own emotional health, and that includes the caring and self-nurturing of one's own self esteem.

It is difficult, however, to admit to faults. For we know that to the wrong sets of ears, to admit to faults could be like an admission of 'I know I have a problem within myself' (the admission being good) but to certain hearers it is a way for them to feel elevated, in their own esteem, to the person making the honest admission. I could go further by saying that a person who visits a psychologist's office might be viewed by some people as automatically dysfunctional by the wanting to visit a 'shrink'! Whereas, the person seeing the psychologist is in a healthy state by seeing someone because of the acknowledgement that such help for their emotional well-being is good and beneficial.

So, there can be a great reluctance to admit to faults, and with that, a reluctance to seek help – from friends, family etc – and from professional sources. You could even say that in some circumstances, in some societies, that it's 'pride wars'. Take for instance a work place, or any place of competitiveness, any place where 'image' or how one makes an impression is regarded as desirable. In that situation, one cares for how one is perceived. But, even then, that perception can only be appreciated by the person trying to make or keep the impression. The results can only be gauged (by that individual) by how others in that person's circle are responding to that person's behaviour.

There are those that seek popularity, and there are some that more naturally draw others to them and popularity is more naturally a part of their way. I believe that this is only one type of personality – those that are naturally gregarious and in that may give out the vibes that each person in their sphere is special to them somehow. In their very gregarious and people-loving behaviour, they make each person feel valued. For that reason they remain popular. It is sad, however, when people seek popularity and their nature doesn't more naturally have this people-loving/ valuing trait.

I suppose what comes to mind is the person that seeks many contacts on the internet, posts many posts on their Facebook site (for eg) and expects his/her many contacts to pay attention to everything they say. However, because they do not have the natural (or aquired) behaviour of people-valuing, they expect many comments to their posts, but neglect to reciprocate. And while they see people posting to their comments it will make them feel good about themselves, give them a sense of esteem (as they are being noticed by others). But they are so intent on this needing to be noticed that they are not regarding other people with the same esteem.

I have thought it amazing that a person on such a social networking site can have as many (if not more) than 500 to 3000 + contacts (for eg) and yet the ones who have left comments to every word they post are but a handful! To me it says, 'out of all those people there must be someone out there who's going to make me feel good about myself'.

It seems like a dream, doesn't it, to keep desiring this esteem, this attention, from others. It reminds me of someone who spends each day on the same beach with a metal detector, with a whole lot of other people with metal detectors on the same beach, hoping to turn over something buried in the sand. It's a lot of hope for the sake of someone's needy sense of self-worth.

And yet, these seeking ones, these ones that need so much to be valued and noticed by others, are not recognising the symptoms from their own behaviours. For what they are not seeing is that, within ourselves is soul (or spirit) that has more potential for the wholeness of the self than what they are giving themselves more credit for – if only they would come out of denial of those symptoms and begin the work of the pursuing of health of the emotional self. For some, going into the 'inner self' would take too much effort and they are lazy. (Especially with the internet and the great sea of humanity out there to be 'fished'. )

And so, for some there is no desire to look inside to see honestly for themselves their dysfunction and to therefore come out of the denial about it. To them it's like an assault to the personal pride. And, in a world full of people with the same needs, it's seems a trend to seek, particularly via the internet in these contemporary times, whatever might be gained as a way of compensation for what the individual feels, but may not perceive, they lack within themselves.

I believe it is the human's basic need to be loved and accepted. In the situations that life can bring, whether for good or for ill, that need remains. When, in favourable social circumstances (ie good friends/family conditions) that individual feels loved/nurtured, then the soul of that person flourishes.

In unfavourable/undesirable circumstances (ie when one finds themselves alone or in new social environments or suffers from a dysfunctional background) that need to be loved and accepted will manifest in dysfunctional behaviours that will merely prove to be stop gap, or band aid measures. The underlying problem, however, will remain.

The self will continue to suffer poor health, unless there is coming out of denial of what that dysfunctional behaviour is saying in its symptomatic manifest.

“When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate.” Carl Jung

Star Trek: Original Cast Motion Pictures

After seeing the brand new Star Trek movie, which I previously mentioned was very good - except maybe for the part in the plot that dealt with the planet Vulcan (if you're a Trek fan you'd know what I mean), I was keen to see the original movies, with the original cast, again. I had the DVD Star Trek the Motion Picture (ST 1) and it's a movie I never get tired of.

In fact, and as I mentioned before, I've probably seen that movie more than any other -except maybe for X Men 1, and Dante's Peak; those are my three 'can always watch 'em again' films.

I know for a fact that die-hard trekkies were disappointed in the first movie of the original cast ST movies, as it wasn't true enough to the format of the original series. But I first saw ST 1 at the cinema, the year it was released, 1979. At the time, I was in total awe.

There was magic about it. I'd been such a fan of the original tv series, and I felt the first movie was so fantastic - just the way the cast were reintroduced to their loving audience and Scotty taking Kirk to view and board the refitted vessel in the pod. The audience are treated to the awesome sight of the great lady Enterprise in sweeping panoramic views. For someone that loves 'Trek' I remember it brought a small tear to the eye!

Major highlights for this 'trekkie' included: the soundtrack - the majesty of music - as well as the nostalgia; the impact of Spock's arrival on the bridge and his dispassionate attitude upon being so warmly greeted by his friends and fellow crew members; when the alien probe appears on the bridge and it lit up like a giant arc welder (you had to squint to watch it - intense) and finally the tie up to the plot where it is discovered by Spock that V'ger's inability to know 'simple feeling' leads to Spock's answer to his own seeking.

Those Vulcans are an amazing race in the world of science fiction. They are into 'logic', which they regard as the highest of all virtue, yet they are also deeply spiritual. Both are experiences of 'mind'. And it is through his human half that Spock (humans, which Vulcans regard as 'lesser than' for their predisposition to feel and express emotion) comprehends that he has discovered his 'wholeness'.

Roddenbury remains one of my personal heroes for his 'vision', his integrity towards humanity, his tolerance, and especially what he was expressing during his creative life with the producing of Star Trek (right up until season seven of ST The Next Generation) that the mind, with all its capacity for nobility - and the mind's ability to rationalise before more 'reactionary' behaviour, that stays with me and makes me an appreciative fan. I personally have never bothered seeing anything past STN Gen season six. I did see season seven, post Roddenbury's death, and I felt the whole thing had gone to the crapper, frankly. I never bothered with spin-off series after Next Gen.

Anyway, I bought myself ST 11 and ST 111 this week. The individual DVDs were presented in a printed tin slip-case, like the sort of decorative tins used for biscuits. Very collectable. It was great to see those movies again. For those who know, Spock dies in ST 11 The Wrath of Khan and lives again in ST 111 The Search for Spock. I wasn't too keen on The Wrath of Khan, it was my least favourite of the movie series, but apparently the die-hard fans loved it for its authenticity.

Looking back now, I think that Star Trek the Original Motion Picture was a good artistic introduction into the movies that followed.

I'm looking forward now to buying ST 1V - the one about the whales and nuclear 'wessels' sic Chekov. It's a wonderful heart-felt story.

Oh gosh, what am I talking about? ...you'd have to be a 'trekkie' to understand.