Sebastian

Over the last few weeks I've been listening to Les Misérables (the novel, rather than the musical), and having finished it last night I have a few observations. Firstly, it is very long, definitely the longest novel I've ever read, and arguably the longest book*, but I found it surprisingly easy going compared to other lengthy 19th century works I've tackled. It's possible that the audiobook format made a difference there, and I must admit that although I was paying pretty close attention when there was actual plot, my mind did wander a bit in some of the digressions.

Which brings me to my second observation. I now know considerably more than I ever expected to about, amongst other things, the history of the Parisian sewer system. Hugo certainly did his research, and he wanted to make sure it didn't go to waste! According to Wikipedia, more than a quarter of the novel is "devoted to essays that argue a moral point or display Hugo's encyclopedic knowledge but do not advance the plot, nor even a subplot".

My third, and perhaps least trivial observation is that Marius is an absolute cunt. In the musical he mostly comes across as a bit wet and lacking in personality, particularly compared to Valjean and Javert, whereas in the novel he is unsurprisingly a lot more fleshed out. But he is fleshed out as a ghastly, manipulative, self-centred, abusive stalker. To begin with, when he first encounters Cosette, he is in his early 20s and she is a plain gawky adolescent, and he completely fails to notice her. When he sees her again few months later she has turned fifteen and 'blossomed', he becomes obsessed, and for some time he stalks her, but without actually speaking to her. At some point during this period the wind blows her skirt up displaying her ankles to anyone who might be watching, and he spends the next fortnight in an angry jealous sulk with /a woman he has never spoken to/. Later, once they have actually met and declared their love for one another, Valjean, believing that Javert is once again on his tail, decides to leave Paris for England. When Cosette tells Marius this, and indicates that she has little choice but to go with him, he first accuses her of never having loved him, and then threatens to kill himself if she leaves. After they are married, he becomes financially controlling, not allowing Cosette to spend any of 'their' money (the vast majority of which was originally hers) on anything remotely luxurious. When he learns of Valjean's past, whilst he doesn't outright forbid him from visiting, because that might make him look like the bad guy, he makes it so unpleasant and embarrassingly clear that he is unwelcome that he eventually stops coming, and essentially dies of a broken heart.

The way he treats Éponine is if anything even worse. He is utterly disdainful and callous, but perfectly happy to take advantage of her when she is useful to him. One way this comes across is in their manner of address. When they first meet, he tutoies her, which is either done mutually within a very close and intimate relationship, by adults speaking to children, or when you want to draw attention to the fact that someone is your social inferior. She meekly accepts this, continuing to vouvoyer him, but obviously on some level kidding herself that it's an indication of intimacy rather than disdain. Some time later, after she had done him some major favours, he switches to vouvoiment. Not because he has begun to respect her or anything decent like that, but because he and Cosette are now tutoying mutually, and he feels the need to insert some clarifying distance with Éponine. She, reasonably enough, asks if she's offended him, which he ignores, and despite her feelings for him being blindingly obvious from this point, he continues to expect her to act as a gobetween and facilitator for his relationship with Cosette.

A final observation is that this interaction with Éponine is one of at least three or four in which the use of, or change between tutoiment and vouvoiment is significant in terms of plot and/or character development, and at some point I'm going to have to see how English translators handled these scenes, because it seems like it would be very difficult to preserve the social nuances without making it very clumsy.

*Other possible candidates being the Bible and the Complete Works of Shakespeare, but I don't think either of those really counts as one book.

I am resisting the temptation to get into an argument on the book of face, and instead coming here to observe that it irks me when people say things like, "You shouldn't blame violent behaviour on people's mental illness. Mentally ill people are more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrator." As though it's not possible for the same factor to increase both vulnerability to and propensity to commit violence. The overwhelming majority of the violence that I've been on the receiving end of occurred whilst I was in psychiatric hospitals, surrounded by other mentally ill people.

Of course there's nuance to the conversation. Some varieties of mental illness, particularly the most prevalent ones of depression and anxiety, probably have little to no effect on violent tendencies, whereas others like addiction which have a major effect on impulse control almost certainly do, and still others literally have aggression and violence as part of the diagnostic criteria. It's also important to think carefully about how we assign culpability for violence committed by mentally ill people, and about the impact of speech which uncritically conflates all mental illness with violence. But the idea that violence committed against mentally ill people means we shouldn't speak about the link between mental illness and that which they commit, or even that no such links exists has absolutely none of that nuance. Thank you for listening to my TED Talk :)

I mentioned a couple of posts ago that I was hoping to swap one of my compulsory courses for an optional one in reading and interpreting Hebrew Midrash. The other day I got the news that my request was rejected, so obviously I could do the sensible thing and postponing the Midrash course until the next time it runs in a couple of years, as part of my masters.

Wait, did someone say sensible thing? How about instead I take that course (along with another one in Patristic Greek) as a standalone module - that's only 39 credits (compared to a standard of 30) this semester. What could possibly go wrong? My plan had been to start all the modules until a decision was made, and then drop at least one of the optional ones if I wasn't allowed to switch with the compulsory one. The fatal flaw in that plan is that I am now having Way Too Much Fun to do that. I will keep the option of dropping one or the other in reserve if I feel like I'm burning out. The workload is a lot, and I am slightly behind compared to where my timetable says I should be, but if life holds off on curveballs then I think I should be able to get caught up in the next week.

The Midrash course in particular is really really good. We had a couple of introductory lectures on generally background, one from an academic and theoretical perspective, and one in which we looked at what what midrash says about itself. After that we got stuck in to actually doing the reading and interpreting. We're studying the Petikot (a series of introductory comments) of Lam Rabbah, an exegesis of Lamentations. It's a completely different approach to that taken in traditional Christian Biblical Studies, somehow both more open to individual and non-literal interpretations and also more demanding of a rigorous justification based on the precise details of the words of scripture.

It's quite a small group - four students, and two professors - Rabbi Dr David Meyer, who is leading us, and Pierre van Hecke, my erstwhile teacher of Ugaritic and Hebrew, who is engaging more like a fifth student. It's really delightful, having spent a fair amount of time over the last 18 months learning to read Hebrew, to be actually putting that learning into practice. My command of the language is probably the weakest in the group, but I'm just about managing to keep up, and at least some of my hermeneutical suggestions in class have been meeting with positive responses, which is encouraging.

First day of lectures today. I was supposed to be starting with History of Church and Theology: Contemporary Period at 9.00, but got an email sent at 7:46 saying that it was cancelled (along with tomorrow's and both of next week's), because the professor is in India. I can't help but feel that maybe he might have known that would be happening more than 75 minutes before the lecture, by which point I'd already left the flat, but it gave me a couple of extra hours in the library, so I'm not really complaining.

Following that was Coptic II, with my favourite prof. The first half was talking about the practicalities of what the semester was going to look like, including asking for thoughts on what texts we'd like to read. There were a whole two students, so unless it turns out to be too difficult for relative beginners, then we should get to look at "The Investiture of the Archangel Michael", an apocryphal text which covers some of the same ground as Paradise Lost, which was one of my requests.

In the afternoon we had Christian Social and Political Ethics, which was reasonably interesting, although I'm actually hoping that I'm going to be allowed to swap that module for a Hebrew/Midrash one that I'm a lot more excited about. I'm not sure when I'll find out though, so until I do I'll be going to lectures for both. Afterwards I was doing some reading related to that first lecture, which talks about the necessity of social and relational ties for human beings and humanity to flourish. From time to time it used the phrase "mutual flourishing" and I kept having to remind myself that this was a book chapter written in a Roman Catholic milieu, and therefore it had nothing to do with the very specific way that phrase is used in Anglican ecclesial politics...

I did not entirely manage to get caught up with my planned revision before my first exam on Friday, but I got reasonably lucky with the questions. Only 6 marks out of 54 were on areas that I felt under prepared on, and when I got home it turned out that my somewhat educated guesses were pretty much spot on for at least four of those marks, so assuming that I got most of the rest right, I'm looking at a pretty solid mark, on one of my two weakest subjects. And once I had removed any further revision for that exam from my schedule, I was almost back on track.

This morning I have my Hebrew exam, and by last night was still feeling underprepared for that as well, but I got an early night (by my standards), and managed to get up at oh-god-this-is-going-to-bed-time-o'clock in the morning and finish it off. I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. It's mostly based on translating and answering questions on the grammar of seen texts, of which there are about 100 verses (Deuteronomy 5.6-12 and 6.4-9, 1 Samuel 9, 1 Samuel 20 and Psalm 13), which is little enough that I've basically memorised them, including all of the more unusual verb forms. There'll also be a little bit of unseen translation, with glosses for more unusual words. There isn't much one can do in terms of revising for that, but I'm hopeful that the work I've been doing on the seen texts, and also other bits of translation I've been doing for my essay and my Psalms class will have given my muscles a reasonable workout. So, for that matter, will the Ugaritic translation that I've been doing for that class, as the languages are pretty similar, and learning the ways that they're different has been cementing my understanding of both of them.

I've then got a couple of days off before my "Introduction to the Anthropology of Religion" exam on Thursday. That's my other weak subject, but the assessment was half by portfolio (a ~2500 word essay on a subject of our choice, plus six ~500 word responses to questions reflecting on six papers or documents), and the exam is essentially a viva of our portfolio, so again the revision required is fairly limited. Friday is Old Testament:Psalms and Wisdom Literature, another oral exam, which should be fairly easy to prepare for.

Then I've got a whole week off to prepare for Ugaritic and New Testament:Johannine Literature the following Monday and Tuesday. Ugaritic will be fairly similar to Hebrew, mostly translation of seen texts, although I think a bit harder because for at least some of it we'll be given the unvocalised texts and have to vocalise them (although we will get it transliterated rather than having to read the cuneiform). Also I think there's more text. It's 466 lines, and although that's a line on a tablet, which is considerably shorter than a verse in the bible, I'm fairly sure it's more words in total, even accounting for the fact that some of it is epic verse, and thus has quite a lot of repetition. There'll also be some unseen text, but we're allowed access to lexica and reference materials for that bit, so I hope that should be reasonably manageable.

As for the New Testament module, I'm not so much revising as vising, having skipped all the lectures except the first one. They're recorded, and we get given a list of 42 questions from which the exam will be chosen, so it's just a case of drafting bullet point responses to the questions as I listen to the lectures, and then memorising them. On the one hand, leaving it entirely to the last minute might seem a bit foolhardy, but on the other, at least everything will be fresh in my memory....

Classes for the first semester are done, and I'm back in the UK for Christmas. According to my study schedule I'm about 8 hours behind on where I should be at this point, but said schedule also assumes that I don't do any schoolwork between now and my return to Belgium on the 29th of December, so I should be able to get caught up without too much difficulty. I am feeling pretty pleased with myself for a)having made a realistic schedule for the semester, and b)having pretty much stuck to it - sometimes getting a day or so behind, but never more than that, and occasionally actually getting a couple of days ahead. It's also been quite helpful at times when I've definitely felt as though I was getting behind to be able to look at it and say "No, actually I'm on track to get everything done as long as continue to work at the same rate as I have been doing so far."

I didn't manage to get to the conversation table I had planned for last week, because I stayed up too late the night before and then spent the day translating Ugaritic tablets, which meant I had absolutely no brain left by the evening, but I shall try again in a couple of weeks. I did go to the cabaret on Sunday evening, which counts both as 'doing a social thing' (albeit with someone I already know, which is much less stressful), and 'practising my French' (albeit largely receptive rather than productive).

The big food order arrived this morning, and I've just got two more presents left to buy, and one to finish crocheting, so that's my plan for today, and I think I'll then be basically ready for Christmas. Tomorrow I'm heading to York for the day, to see leonato in "Anything Goes", which should be a lot of fun.

One of my assignments this semester is an exegesis of Psalm 139, and I figured it would be good to start by doing my own translation of it, which is how I discovered that in verse 15, which the NRSV renders "My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth." the verb used, קרם, means specifically to weave variegated, colourful material. I found this delightful.

ETA. Also, in verse 13, the bit which the NRSV renders "it was you who formed my inward parts" could also be read as "it was you who bought my kidney". This is also delightful, in quite a different way.

Until this morning I hadn't been to church since getting back from Belgium. I hadn't wanted to go back to St John's for a couple of reasons - firstly the likelihood of taking on responsibilities that I'd rather not have at this stage, and secondly the growing awareness that singing in a choir is an important part of worship for me - but I'd been dithering about where to go instead. My four criteria were catholic, liberal, within 15 minutes bike ride, and has a regular choir, and indecision about which to compromise on combined with a rather erratic sleep cycle meant that each week I'd let inertia take over. This Thursday I had an appointment that was half way to Hornsey Parish Church, which is about 20 minutes away, but meets the other requirements, so I cycled the rest of the way there to make sure I knew the route, which meant this morning required less activation energy.

Regarding the choir the website says "We welcome new members who have a facility with sight reading and a passion for the choral liturgy", but when I spoke to the director of music and said that my sight-singing was shaky but I was happy to note-bash at home if she sent me the dots in advance, and she said that was fine, so I'll be joining them as of next Sunday. They've got a concert on Saturday which I'm going to listen to rather than sing in - if anyone local fancies joining me it'd be good to have company.

I have not, as yet, managed to find any work for over the summer, and am now slightly doubtful whether I'm going to be able to at all - it's quite rare for a contract to be shorter than a couple of months, so unless I get something starting in the next couple of weeks I'm probably not going to have enough availability.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if I don't have any income at all this year, then my savings will be pretty much entirely exhausted by the end of the year. On the other hand, I am quite enjoying being a gentleman of leisure...

I have been having a whole bunch of feels about the Supreme Court "biological sex" judgement and subsequent ghastliness from the EHRC and UK Government. I am aware that I'm in a much safer position than many trans people - I'm male, I easily pass as cis unless I choose to out myself or someone recognises the scar on my forearm as leading to phalloplasty, and I'm currently living in a civilised country with only occasional visits to the UK. But as well as being furious on behalf of those who are less safe than me, and in principal at the whole absurdity of it all, there is also genuine anxiety about how it will affect my life when I move back to London. Will I be left with a choice between outing myself and breaking the law whenever I want to use a public toilet or changing room? Will I have to wait longer for healthcare if I need hospital treatment, because they won't put me on either a male or female ward, and there are limited single-user rooms?

I find myself vacillating between wanting to be more visibly out as trans, both to increase the sense of "here is a person who is on your side" for other trans people, and to highlight the absurdity of the "woman means biological woman, like this person with a massive beard and a hairy belly and a penis and a low voice and no breasts or womb or ovaries*", and at the same time wondering whether it wouldn't be wiser to go back to being relatively stealth, so that if things continue to get worse by the time I come back I can fly under the radar if need be. At the moment I'm leaning towards greater visibility, but uncomfortably aware that that might change, and that maybe I shouldn't make myself so visible that I can't hide it in the future.

I'm also feeling a combination of impotence and something akin to survivor's guilt, as it feels like even though I've got a bunch of privilege that I ought to be able to weaponise somehow, and I'm somewhere safer in which to do so, there's not a great deal that I can do from over here, especially as I have very limited spare time and spoons around my studies, and I think that jeopardising them for the sake of activism probably wouldn't be the right choice. It took me until today to manage to write to my MP, but at least that's something.

( Letter behind the cut )

On the more frivolous side, I have new beard beads, which I'm quite pleased with.



*FTAOD, I absolutely think you can be a woman with all of those things, and with no intention to change any of them, but I find the inconsistency between the "sex is just common sense and defined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics. How absurd these people are who suggest that a woman can have a penis" and "oh, but sex is immutable and changing all of these characteristics doesn't actually change your sex" ridiculous and enraging.