On The Latin Mass And Moby-Dick

I remember the Latin Mass. Dimly, dimly, but I do remember it, in all its mystery. It was perhaps made all the more unfathomable because, until I was six or seven years old, we attended Sunday morning Mass in a pub. Not in a function room within a pub, but in the main bar area. Towels were draped over the beer pumps, that I remember. These were the only visits to a pub my family made.

Thinking back, I must have found the world a very confusing place, at least on Sunday mornings. All smartly dressed, we would walk together to this big pub on a crossroads, wherein a man in a black soutane would intone what must have struck me as gibberish, while performing slow ritualistic manoeuvres, against a backdrop of a counter lined with a row of unknown objects hidden under towels, behind which was a glittering array of bottles and glassware. I remember that when Mass ended, many of the parishioners, and the priest, remained behind, eager for the pub to open, but we always left to go home.

There was no Catholic church on the council estate where I grew up, and I assume the parish had persuaded the pub landlord to offer his premises to ensure our souls were saved. In my memory, I date the change to the vernacular Mass, and the longer walk to the parish church proper, as happening at the same time, when I was six or seven. Thus passed forever a curious feature of my childhood. I was old enough for it to have become a familiar, even reassuring, routine, and I recall a vague yet definite sense of disappointment with the new regime. I didn’t mind the longer walk – it took us through a park, with a playground and a duckpond and immense green well-mown lawns – but instead of the wood-panelled gloom of the pub, Mass now took place in a bright, modern church and, worse, I could understand the words. All the mystery was leached out of my Sunday mornings.

It took only a few years of that before, one morning when I was fourteen, I woke up with the clear conviction that the whole Catholicism hoo-hah – actually, no, the whole religion hoo-hah – was absolute twaddle. I have never seriously diverted from this view in the succeeding years, despite a couple of wobbles. My devout yet tolerant parents never made an issue of it, never forced me to attend that ghastly bright modern church against my will, though I remember my father telling me, with a strange admixture of the world-weary and the smug, that the day would come when I would return to the bosom of the church and re-embrace the faith of my childhood. Who knows, he may yet be proved right.

I find myself wondering if my loss of faith, which really did seem to happen overnight, would have been quite so decisive had the Mass still been said in Latin, had we still celebrated it in the pub. There was something very seductive about those incomprehensible words. I would happily have swapped the pub for a church that was old and stony and cold and gloomy, but knowing the sense of what the priest was saying, and what I was bidden to respond, was fatal.

The name of the pub was the Moby-Dick. It is still there, on the crossroads. Not so long ago, I passed it, on the way to somewhere unconnected with my childhood, and I was pleased to note – for the first time, but also for the first time consciously checking – that the hyphen in the title of the novel is present and correct in the name of the pub. (Just as Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is often given as 1984, so Moby-Dick loses its hyphen, to my minor irritation.) When tiny, and attending Mass, I was of course wholly ignorant of Melville’s novel. It was not among the many many books on the shelves at home – a huge number of books, the possession of which I thought was commonplace, until I grew a little older and learned that most of our neighbours on the estate had no books at all. But I did know that Moby-Dick was a whale, for so it was depicted, white and thrashing about in the sea, on the pub sign. I cannot remember how old I was when I learned of the existence of the book, though I do recall, as a teenager, buying the copy I still have, the Penguin edition bulked out with Harold Beaver’s remarkable critical apparatus. Years passed before I actually got round to reading it, and I read more of Melville – Bartleby The Scrivener and Typee and The Confidence-Man : His Masquerade – before I read Moby-Dick. Which, of course, if I am to insist on the hyphen, I should also take care to give its proper title Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. And typing that last word reminds me, all of a sudden, that the name of the road on which the pub is situated, one of the four meeting at the crossroads, is Whalebone Lane. I have no idea what possible connection there is between this road, far from the sea, and whales or whaling. No doubt I could find out.

I do know, incidentally, that close by, for many years, lived Eva Hart (1905-1996), one of the longest-living survivors of the sinking of the Titanic. There is a local pub named after her too.

Pure Unbridled Dabbling

Dabbler-3logo (1)

I hesitate to provide this link to my cupboard in The Dabbler on this fine Friday, for this week I have chosen to besmirch the pages of that splendid blog with a stream of pure unbridled filth. Those of you who, in spite of that warning, proceed to wallow in a swamp of moral turpitude may be amused to discover that, in the Comments, a fellow named George has devised a diverting parlour game which will provide much fun and frolic to those who commandeer their parlours for the playing of games.

That Bird-Eating Spider Again

Courtesy once again of Mike Jennings, here is the first known illustration of the Goliath bird-eating spider, made by Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717). She has a ship named after her, but not (as far as I know) a spider.

00000057

On Speed

You will recall the film Speed (Jan de Bont, 1994) in which Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves are aboard a bus which will explode if it goes below fifty miles per hour, having been primed with a bomb by cackling evildoer Dennis “Don’t try to grow a brain, Jack!” Hopper. I have been wondering if a similar adrenalin-thumping conceit could be applied to the writing of prose.

I am not suggesting I do anything so foolhardy as to ask a disgruntled and slightly maimed ex-police officer to hitch me up to a bomb which will detonate if I stop writing… well, I suppose that is what I am suggesting. Cowardice, or sheer common sense, persuades me, however, to hit upon a less perilous incentive.

I have just spent ten minutes staring vacantly at the screen trying to think what that incentive might be.

In Speed, Dennis Hopper is gleeful when a television reporter describes the fiendish quandary into which he has placed the bus passengers as “the whim of a madman”. He repeats the phrase to himself, chuckling. Now I am an almost inhumanly sensible chap, and not a madman at all, but perhaps the whim of a madman is precisely what I need to give vent to, if I wish to prime my prose with the innards-wrenching pell-mell momentum of the film.

Of course, not everyone would agree that Speed is an appropriate model. Dennis Hopper rather overdoes the criminal mania, Keanu Reeves is wooden, and the best that can be said of Sandra Bullock is that she is irritating. And even though Keanu’s fellow bomb-defusion expert Jeff Daniels is killed off, you know that Keanu himself, and Sandra Bullock, will escape unscathed, and Dennis Hopper come to a grisly end, because it’s that sort of film. But predictability has its own special charms. And predictability plus innards-wrenching pell-mell momentum is clearly popular, when we consider that Speed reportedly earned its makers over three-hundred-and-fifty million dollars. Now if I could only devise my madman’s whim, perhaps I could make a similar sum from a piece of prose.

The glum bat of misery swoops o’er my bonce as I stare at the screen and, regretfully, admit to myself that this present piece of prose is not the one that will earn millions. Having said that, should any readers feel impelled to deposit a vast sum of money into the Hooting Yard Paypal account, I would be most grateful.

But, just as Sandra Bullock has to keep her foot on the accelerator of that bus, I have to keep tippy-tapping away. It is true that I will not be blown to kingdom come if I stop. In fact, nothing at all will happen. I do not need to grow a brain to know that. Indeed, I have the freedom to get up and walk away and make a cup of tea, so I think that is what I shall do, right now. If I had a University of Arizona Wildcats tee-shirt, I would take the opportunity to change into it while the kettle is a-boiling.

You will recall that Sandra Bullock’s wearing of a top with the Arizona Wildcats’ logo proves to be a pivot on which the plot of Speed hinges. When last I saw the film I had not yet learned of that other great mainstay of Arizona life, the regional dish greasy doings. It seems to me that either Jan de Bont, or his screenplayperson Graham Yost, or indeed Keanu Reeves or Sandra Bullock or Dennis Hopper or even poor killed-off Jeff Daniels might, at some point during the production, have suggested adding a further layer to the Arizona reference by mentioning, or – better – showing, greasy doings. It would probably be stretching credulity to have any of the imperilled bus passengers tucking into greasy doings, but Dennis Hopper spends much of his screen time gobbling snacks while watching his madman’s whim unfold, so how difficult would it have been to make at least one of those snacks greasy doings? Now I come to think of it, given that, as I said, the dish was unknown to me when last I saw the film, perhaps we are shown Dennis Hopper eating greasy doings! Obviously I shall not rest until I have confirmed whether or not this is the case, so I shall have to watch Speed again, with an eagle eye on the Dennis Hopper scenes.

It has just occurred to me that I do not know what greasy doings look like. I must embark on further research before my next viewing, or I will not know them if and when I see them, and that would be a bloody tragedy.

I don’t know about you, but my feeling is that, were this present piece of prose the bus in Speed, it would be dangerously close to dropping below fifty miles per hour, and thus exploding. Innards-wrenching pell-mell momentum is easier to blather about than to maintain, in spite of the cup of tea which I was hoping would fuel a jamboree of thrills and spills. That may be a lot to ask from a cup of tea, but it has been argued that generations of British chaps could not have built an empire without their cups of tea, and I am not trying to build an empire, merely to write deathless prose, and perhaps earn millions, or thousands, or hundreds, or even just a pittance, by so doing.

Yet all the while the urge to cease and stare, not at the screen but out of the window, at trees and crows, grows ever more intense. What would Keanu do?

On The Devil In The Detail

They say the devil is in the detail, but is that a fact? I decided to find out. First of all, though, I wanted to have a better idea of “the detail”. I was pretty sure I would know the devil when I saw him, but somehow, paradoxically perhaps, “the detail” seemed a more nebulous entity. So I turned, as always, to the Oxford English Dictionary, which, for its main definition, has this to say:

The dealing with matters item by item; detailed treatment; attention to particulars. Esp. in phrase in (†the) detail , item by item; part by part; minutely; circumstantially. So to go into detail , i.e. to deal with or treat a thing in its individual particulars.

Fair enough. That gave me somewhere to start. If the detail is a minute individual particular item of a thing, what better way to test the thesis than by taking something apart, bit by bit, until the devil in all his evil burning foulness is found, lurking within – or not, as the case may be?

The next step was to choose something to dismantle. Now, it must be said that I am not the most dexterous of chaps. On the contrary, I am a bit of a butterfingers. Dangling on string from the ceiling of my boyhood bedroom were many, many Airfix model aeroplanes – Spitfires and Stukas and Messerschmitts and Sopwith Camels and Boeing 747s and Parker Double Teenies and Harrier Jump Jets and so on – all expertly fitted and glued together and their insignia transfers impeccably transferred, but all these were constructed by my older brother, with whom I shared a room until I was about ten or eleven. I think I tried, at least once, to emulate him, but the resulting plastic plane did not turn out well. As I recall, the only successful model I made was a cardboard head of Henry VIII, cut and folded from a template printed on the back of a Kellogg’s Cornflakes carton.

It occurred to me that I could just smash something to bits, for generally speaking violent smashing requires not dexterity but gung ho and a big hammer. Tempting though this was, however, I felt it would be going against the spirit of the project. I am not sure that fragments and smithereens count as “details” according to the dictionary definition. No, I must be methodical, and pick something apart piece by piece, neatly aligning the individual parts on a suitable surface such as a baize cloth laid out and flattened smooth upon a tabletop. Green baize would make the most suitable background to contrast with the gaudy scarlet hue of the devil, were he indeed to be hiding in the detail.

After much reflection, I had a brainwave. I was sitting there staring glumly out of the window at some crows, humming and hawing whether to dismantle an alarm clock or a bicycle pump or an orrery, when it struck me that of course the simplest thing to take to bits would be something that was child’s play to put together in the first place. Child’s play, literally. I scampered off to a toyshop and bought a Mr Potato Head.

For those of you who have put away childish things (First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 13 : 11), and put them away so decisively that you can no longer remember who, or what, Mr Potato Head is, let me remind you. Mr Potato Head is an American toy consisting of a plastic model of a potato which can be decorated with a variety of plastic parts that can attach to the main body. These parts usually include ears, eyes, shoes, a hat, a nose, and a mouth. The toy was invented and developed by George Lerner in 1949, and first manufactured and distributed by Hasbro in 1952. The toy was originally produced as separate plastic parts that could be stuck into a real potato or other vegetable, such as a parsnip or turnip, or even a fruit such as a clementine or a Carlsbad plum. Before leaving the toyshop with my purchase, I checked to see that the model was sold in its constructed state, rather than as a jumble of bits. It would be pointless for me to have to put it together before dismantling it, and in any case, if the devil is in the detail then he would likely be visibly evident within the Mr Potato Head packaging box, his goaty horns and perhaps his pointy fork poking holes in the cardboard or cellophane.

Back home, I took Mr Potato Head out of his box and set him on the green baize cloth upon the tabletop. Was that a whiff of sulphur I smelled? It might have been. Perhaps the devil sensed I was closing in on him, and was giving off hellish vapours in his panic. Thereagain, would the devil panic at being discovered in the detail? He might, rather, be gleeful at being unloosed. I had not thought of that. I sniffed again, and took a very careful look at Mr Potato Head, seemingly so innocent upon the baize. Was I about to take an awful, irrevocable risk? Was I about to unleash Satan from his bondage?

I gazed into the eyes of Mr Potato Head and asked myself, was I being criminally reckless, playing taradiddle with the fate of nations, just to prove or disprove a familiar saying? Was there not an easier way? I came to the conclusion that I have not studied demonology with sufficient intensity to answer the question. And that is why I have made an appointment to see Father Ninian Tonguelash, the Jesuit exorcist, to seek his advice, and why Mr Potato Head is still sitting, all his constituent parts connected, undismantled, upon the baize.

Mr_Potato_Head_1952

Sea Monster Attacks Lighthouse

Perhaps this lighthouse is on the tip of Porridge Island! That sea monster has probably had a sniff of the greasy doings…

BEAST9

Exciting sea-monster-attacks-lighthouse film still from Chilling Scenes Of Dreadful Villainy

On Porridge island

Yesterday we learned about greasy doings, a regional dish from Arizona. I was keen to know more, thinking I might knock together a bowlful for my breakfast. Alas and alack, my tireless research yielded only thin pickings. On the other hand, among those pickings was this intriguing item, from Momus ; or, The Laughing Philosopher, Number LVII : The Humours Of A Steward’s Entertainment which appeared in The Westminster Magazine : or, The Pantheon Of Taste Volume 5, Issue 2, June 1777:

He received me with all that exuberance of civility which amounts to just nothing at all, and told me he was transported to see me ; adding “That he expected a few more friends, and that we should dine like Princes, as he had trout, venison, pines, melons, iced cream, claret, Madeira, &c. &c.”

Upon his asking me if I would take a walk over the grounds before dinner, I duly gave my assent. While we were making a complete conquest of America, by the side of a filbert-hedge, a servant came to announce Mr. and Mrs. Allsop. In consequence of this information, my Steward, whom I shall call Rackum, ordered him to shew them into the garden-parlour. Then turning to me, he said, “’Tis very disagreeable, Sir, to mix with such low people ; but as they have had interest enough with my Lord to procure places, I am obliged to treat them with decency. Allsop’s father was nothing higher than a Cook in the Duke of N——-’s kitchen ; and indeed, so great a propensity has the whole family to greasy doings, that this fellow’s elder brother keeps an Eating-house not a hundred miles from Porridge Island.”

Briefly diverted by the thought of a conversation taking place by the side of a filbert-hedge – note to self : engineer such a chinwag, soon! – I had to concede that this did not sound like Arizona circa 1777. Further research reinforced the point, as I discovered that, according to The 1811 Dictionary Of The Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose, Porridge Island was “an alley leading from St. Martin’s church-yard to Round-court, chiefly inhabited by cooks, who cut off ready-dressed meat of all sorts, and also sell soup”. Far, far away lies Arizona, then.

It is always possible that one of the elder Allsop’s customers, delighted with his greasy doings, obtained the recipe and then took it with him when he sailed across the Atlantic for a new life in the New World. Settling, eventually, in Arizona, he may have established a New Porridge Island and fed early Arizonapersons with greasy doings.

It was when I was imagining this putative person crossing the Atlantic that I wondered if, as well as being an alleyway in London, Porridge Island might have been one of the mythical islands travellers once believed to exist in that mighty ocean. There is an excellent book by Donald S Johnson, entitled Phantom Islands Of The Atlantic : The Legends Of Seven Lands That Never Were (1994), so I checked to see if Porridge Island was one of them. But no. Mr Johnson tells us about the Isle of Demons and Frisland and Buss Island and Antillia, the Isle of Seven Cities and Hy-Brazil and Saint Ursula And Her Eleven Thousand Virgin Companions and the Islands of Saint Brendan, but there is not a jot of porridge to be found. Ah well, it was merely a momentary fancy on my part.

You will note that I chose to insert “and” between all those islands, rather than using commas and saving “and” to connect only the penultimate and final items. This was a wholly conscious decision, because I like “and”. I like “and” in spite of W G Sebald. Perhaps I should explain. My go-to-guy for all things Sebald, Richard Carter, drew my attention to a collection of Maxims (PDF) reportedly uttered or muttered by the late lamented. Among these is:

Use the word ‘and’ as little as possible. Try for variety in conjunctions.

I cannot agree. “And” holds – or can hold – such promise! There’s more! There are other possibilities! There is further information! And… and occasionally, I suppose, it is better to draw a veil over the next trowelful of twaddle to occur to me as I stand beside a filbert-hedge, and to shut up.

On Government-Controlled Origami

What on earth was she blathering on about, that vicar in the studio audience of The Big Questions who said that the government ought to be responsible for origami? At least, I assume she was a vicar. She was dressed like a vicar, with a vicar’s dog collar, but it is always possible that she was an impostor vicar, deliberately or inadvertently. As I recalled in my fifty-eight memories of my father, he was occasionally mistaken for a man of the cloth due to an injudicious choice of 1960s shirtwear (memory number thirty-six).

Vicar or no, origami was one item in a list she recited, the other items on which I have forgotten. She topped it off with “the government should be responsible for these things!” I have added an exclamation mark there to give some idea of the heat of passion in which this declaration was made.

It’s a moot point whether this is a utopian or dystopian vision. Perhaps she was harking back to Gordon Brown’s ill-fated “government of all the talents” – goats – and took it too literally. If a government was to contain all the talents, logically one such talent would be the ability to fold paper in intricate oriental fashion. Thus there ought to be a Ministry of Origami & Associated Paper-Folding, with a Secretary of State supported by junior ministers and private secretaries and an army of civil servants. Five-year plans for the development of origami on our shores would smack too much of Stalinism, but such bonkersness is camouflaged nowadays by different jargon. Plans to roll out the origami stakeholder consultancy initiative on a region-by-region basis amount to much the same thing as Uncle Joe’s madcap schemes, but sound a little less megalomaniac.

Would origami become compulsory? Would each citizen have to set aside, say, half an hour per day to fold a sheet of A4 into the shape of an ostrich? Surely that is not what the vicar had in mind. Think of the sheer increase in the amount of waste paper, as the more cack-handed among the citizenry faffed about, using up sheet after sheet of A4 in abortive and misshapen attempts to make a half-way decent, or at least recognisable, origami ostrich.

If, on the other hand, origami were to remain, as it is now, voluntary, what would be the government’s role? We are already cajoled, through advertisements and leaflets and publicity campaigns, to make sure we eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, but as far as I am aware there is not a dedicated band of fruit and vegetable police who will place us under arrest if we fail to comply. So maybe the Secretary of State at MOAPF would content him- or herself with mere hectoring and lecturing, poster campaigns, television adverts, mass mailings and the like. Indeed, one advantage of having a leaflet about origami plop through your letterbox would be that the leaflet itself could be folded, intricately, orientally, into the shape of a sparrow.

But I don’t know. The problem with such initiatives is that a change in government can lead not just to different priorities but to complete U-turns. Imagine that you have been persuaded, through relentless harrying, to eat your five fruits and vegetables each day while setting aside half an hour to do some intricate oriental paper-folding. All is well with the world, and you have slotted happily into your routine. Then, inevitably, there is a general election, a new government takes the reins of power, and the new Secretary of State for Origami and Associated Paper-Folding strides into the ministry on their first morning. Bright-eyed, dedicated, and power-crazed, the new bod might decide that, instead of encouraging origami among the hoi polloi, it is the sort of activity that needs to be controlled, restricted, licensed. “It is time for change!” the minister announces, a week into the job, “We have seen this country become the laughing stock of the origami and paper-folding world, as our hapless cack-handed scrunched-up excuses for paper squirrels and ducks and electricity pylons bear no resemblance whatsoever to the fantastically intricate oriental paper squirrels and ducks and electricity pylons of our competitors, and even less resemblance to flesh and blood squirrels and ducks and electricity pylons in the real world.” And so the minister outlaws amateur origami of all kinds, and establishes a new national origami and paper-folding baccalaureate, without which no one is even allowed to fold a sheet of paper in half for any purpose whatsoever, on pain of arrest and a long term of imprisonment. Whether that is a good thing or not, I leave the reader to decide.

It is certainly the kind of issue to sharply divide opinion. Just as, thirty years ago, there appeared a book entitled Authors Take Sides On The Falklands, one can imagine the bien-pensant intellectuals of Hampstead and Holland Park cobbling together a hastily-published Authors Take Sides On Origami. Whichever side one is on, it is surely the case that many, if not most, of those who would purchase such a book would immediately rip each page out of it and fold the separate leaves, either intricately and orientally or with cack-handed butterfingers, into paper models of the Secretary of State, adding buttons for eyes. Whether they could display the resulting origami on their windowsills, or have to hide it in an unlicensed folded-paper den, would depend upon the complexion of the government.

It is all very bewildering.

Greasy Doings

If you are wondering what to have for lunch today, and you happen to find yourself in Arizona, might I suggest you try that most delicious-sounding of snacks, Greasy Doings? It is just one of many regional specialities detailed on the Porcineograph, which Ptak Science Books rightly calls a “semi-magnificent map”. Click on its semi-magnificence for a larger version.

03724v

The Big Questions

Rummaging around on the BBC iPlayer, I discovered a programme new to me, a studio discussion show called The Big Questions. Well, I’m not sure about the size of the questions, but some of the answers made me laugh.

Asked to name a single coherent objective of the Occupy movement, one of the guests replied “We’re against all the injustice in the world”. He sounded like a plaintive seven-year-old whining that life isn’t fair. Perhaps I’m being too harsh. For some unexplained reason he was wearing one of those silly masks, so for all I know perhaps he was an upset seven-year-old.

A bit later on a woman who appeared to be something to do with the Church of England opined that the government should be responsible for origami.

I think this show may be unmissable.

On Barking Up The Wrong Tree

There may be circumstances in which you wish to ascertain whether your dog is barking up the wrong tree. I wouldn’t know; I don’t keep a dog myself. But I can imagine a situation where such knowledge could prove critical. If I speak of the matter in the abstract, that is because of a total lack of hands-on dog-based experience on my part. Some might argue I am precluded from pronouncements about the issue – if we can call it an issue – by dint of this lack, but I beg to differ, much as a dog might beg for a bone from his master’s table. Note that in spite of a deep ignorance of dogs and their ways I am yet able to pluck from the storehouse a vivid illustrative example of common dog (or doglike) behaviour to get my point across. Let those who scoff be hushed, so we can get on with it.

Though for present purposes we need consider only an abstract dog barking abstractedly up an abstract tree, I find that concrete examples can be a boon to the dimwit. Not that I think for one minute that anyone reading this is a dimwit, you understand. Still, it is best to be on the safe side, and a scribbler never knows if or when his words may fall into the clutches of a dunderpate. So for our examples let us take one dog and four trees, a mastiff, say, and a pine and a larch and a sycamore and a wych elm. However unlikely it may be in the real world, let us say there is, in the middle of nowhere, that is in a vast and otherwise featureless flat expanse of land, a row of four trees, planted in a straight line, equidistant, with roughly six yards between them. Blot everything else out of your mind. Well, everything except the dog, which you need to remember, though it has not yet entered the scene. So far we just have the line of trees, the pine and the larch and the sycamore and the wych elm. We could have a line of more, or slightly fewer, trees, but four is a manageable number for the dimwits.

Now, look! Here comes a monkey, scampering towards the trees at high speed. I did not mention the monkey earlier, partly because I did not wish to overtax your brain and partly because, in any case, it will soon be out of sight. The monkey, you see, is being pursued by the dog, the mastiff, and is hurtling pell mell towards the line of trees, up the trunk of one of which it will climb with breathtaking monkeyish agility, and then conceal itself in the high leafage. This duly accomplished, the monkey is, as promised, out of sight.

Enter the dog, panting, in hot pursuit. Those of you who are keen on dogs may wish, at this point, to form a closer bond with our abstract mastiff, so let us dub it Desmond. Imagine Desmond now, stopping short of the line of trees. It is intelligent enough to realise that the monkey must be hidden high up in either the pine or the larch or the sycamore or the wych elm, but not sufficiently savvy to know, just yet, which one. I ought to point out here that I hold no opinion either way on the intelligence of dogs, nor do I have a clue whereabouts in the hierarchy of canine intelligence the mastiff can be placed, as compared, say, to a boxer or a dachshund. Let us credit Desmond with enough nous to realise that, as the monkey is no longer visible anywhere in the vast featureless flat expanse of land, it must have climbed and hidden in the leafage of one of the trees. Remember that Desmond is only an abstract dog, after all.

We now come to the nub of the matter. Desmond thinks that by barking at the foot of the trunk of the tree atop which the monkey is hiding, he can somehow persuade the monkey to climb down and deliver itself into his, Desmond’s, waiting paws. At least, I assume that is what is going through the head of any dog that barks up any tree at its quarry. Whether this is sensible behaviour is another matter entirely. Quite frankly, if I was the monkey, I’d stay put. But we must deal with the world as it is, not as it ought to be, and in the world as it is the dog would bark up the tree, especially if it has been driven to distraction by the antics of the fleeing monkey. That seems plausible.

But which tree does Desmond bark up? According to basic probability theory, the likelihood is that he is going to bark up the wrong one. You can work through the permutations in your head if you like. One of the reasons I limited the line of trees to four is so that you could do so without becoming number-dazed. Add just one tree to the row, for example a cedar, and the chances of Desmond barking up the wrong one grow ever greater.

If Desmond barks up each tree in turn, for a period of, say, a minute or so at the foot of each one, he will sooner or later, to your untold relief and mine, bark up the right one. That is, unless we throw in an added complication. The monkey, being a monkey, might well be agile enough to leap from treetop to treetop, thus from larch to pine to sycamore to wych elm and back again, so that at no point is Desmond barking up the right tree. In these circumstances, we could aver, without fear of contradiction, that Desmond is barking up the wrong tree. Conversely, though the monkey of his original pursuit may avoid the dog’s barking, there may be loitering, in each of the trees, other creatures, such as squirrels, of close or even equal interest to a panting barking desperate mastiff. So you see, even in the simplest concrete example drawn from abstract propositions, things become hopelessly, hopelessly entangled. ‘Twas ever thus, in the wide wide world.

On True Grit

There are people of whom it can be said that they have true grit. “By their grit shall ye know them,” that is what we say, when we talk grit with our coevals. And talk grit we do, rather often nowadays, when we are on the lookout for true grit. We talk grit the better that we shall know it when we see it, and not be seduced by the blandishments of false grit. For sad to say there are more persons abroad in the world with false grit than with true. If you would argue with that, perhaps you will be persuaded by an anecdote.

Many years ago it happened that I was summoned by a Captain of Souls. This fellow, in starched uniform, with epaulettes, had been charged with commandeering the souls of all in my village. It was not a task he undertook willingly, but his continued captaincy depended upon it. His superiors were quite clear on the matter. So the Captain gathered about him his advisers and asked their advice on how best to proceed. In among all the mutterings and mumblings one voice rang out, that of the dwarf Crepusco, who told the Captain he must summon the village bellsman. The bellsman, explained the dwarf, as an important village personage, could expedite the transformation of all the souls in the village, if once convinced he might otherwise be placed in durance vile. So saying, he pointed downwards, to where, far below the Captain’s chamber, there lurked an oubliette, infested with scorpions and hornets and tiny soft squirming sucking things.

“If I understand you correctly,” said the Captain, hushing the rest of the advisers with an imperious raising of one eyebrow, “We frighten the bejesus out of this bellsman and get him to ring his bells in such a fashion that he in turn frightens the bejesus out of the whole village. We then sweep across the tarpoota and capture their souls at one fell swoop while they are defenceless through terror.”

“Indeed so,” said the dwarf Crepusco, “It is a foolproof plan.”

And so a rider was sent across the tarpoota with a letter of summons from the Captain to the village bellsman. In other words, to me. Having delivered the summons, the rider rode away, and I shuddered. It was far from clear to me how I could possibly cross the tarpoota in safety. It was rife with banditti, and not just banditti but marauding ruffians and gaggles of escaped convicts and similar ne’er-do-wells, eye-gougers and limb-loppers and head-boilers. That the Captain’s rider had come and gone unharmed was small comfort. He, of course, was astride a horse, a horse as swift as a swift in the sky, but we villagers had no horses, nor ponies nor bicycles nor motorbikes. The only way I could obey the summons was to cross the tarpoota on foot, which meant almost certain death.

Frantic with worry, I went out of my belltower into the designated smoking area and lit a cigarette. And it was as I was puffing away that I saw, passing by, a stranger with a shovel over one shoulder. Over his other shoulder he was lugging a burlap sack, and printed on the sack, in bold Palatino Linotype lettering, was the word GRIT. I followed him and fell in step beside him and engaged him in conversation. It was always disconcerting to come upon a stranger in our village, and I plied him with questions. Who was he? What was his business in the village? How did he get here? It was the reply to that last that proved decisive. He had, he said, crossed the tarpoota alone, on foot, with just his shovel and his sack of grit and a flask of lapsang souchong and a clementine.

“And were you not set upon by banditti and ruffians and escaped convicts and ne’er-do-wells? Were not your eyes gouged, your limbs lopped, your head boiled?” I babbled, even though I could see he was sound of body, like Felix Randal the farrier, big-boned and hardy-handsome, boisterous and powerful, but by no means, like Felix Randal the farrier, dead. In reply, he said four simple words.

“I have true grit.”

And he glanced back at the sack over his shoulder.

We fell to parlaying. I wanted him as my escort and bodyguard, I explained, for I too must cross the tarpoota, in answer to the summons, but I was puny and weak and cowardly and would surely fall victim to banditti or ruffians or escaped convicts or ne’er-do-wells. The stranger agreed to protect me, but only after exacting a hefty price. We stopped off at a newsagent’s and I leafed through the financial pages of The Daily Tentacle to check current metal prices. Doing the sums in my head, I worked out that I could afford to pay the stranger by melting down a couple of my bells. We shook hands, and arranged to meet outside the post office the next morning, to set off across the hostile tarpoota.

I had not asked him the most important question of all. Was his grit really true?

The wind was howling across the vast and desolate tarpoota as we set out the next day, he with his shovel and sack and flask, and me with a parasol and a can of Squelcho! Not unexpectedly, we had been walking for just five minutes before there came lumbering towards us a ferocious tangle of banditti or ruffians or escaped convicts or ne’er-do-wells.

“Eek!” I cried, dropping my parasol.

“Leave this to me,” said the stranger.

My heart swelled with gratitude as I watched him prepare for the onslaught. Holding the shovel between his mighty teeth, he hoisted the sack from his shoulder and plonked it on the ground in front of him. With surprisingly delicate manipulations, he untied the cord that fastened the sack. Our assailants were almost upon us. And then I saw what I hoped never to see – the grit in his sack was not true grit. It was false grit, a mixture of sand and sugar and shreds of cotton wool. He tipped it out on to the tarpoota, and it blew away on the wind.

“Ah,” he said, taking the shovel from between his teeth, and he gave me a sheepish grin, and ran away. I ran too, but not nearly fast enough, for sure enough I was beset by banditti or ruffians or escaped convicts or ne’er-do-wells. Somehow, I managed to escape them and scamper back to the village, but not before they had gouged an eye, lopped a limb, and parboiled my head. At least I was safe. God knows whatever became of the stranger, who had fled in the opposite direction, with miles and miles of the tarpoota ahead of him. For his base treachery, I like to think he was pecked to perdition by vultures.

I hope, from the foregoing, that I have made crystal clear the importance of telling true grit from false. As for my unmet summons from the Captain, I worried about that for a week or two, until I read in The Daily Tentacle one morning that the Captain himself had been summoned by his superiors. They wanted to know why he had not yet captured all the souls in my village. Like so many superiors, they were impatient, and rather than have the captain travel on horseback, a journey that would have taken many days, they sent him a ticket for a flight by airship. Alas, the airship was the Hindenburg. With the captain dead, his superiors lost interest in my village, and we were left to get on with our quiet orderly lives, far far away across the desolate vast tarpoota.

German Gnomes

I am indebted to Mike Jennings for further useful illustrative material from The Universe or The Infinitely Great and the Infinitely Little by F A Pouchet M.D. (1882). In this picture, we see gnomes of German legend laying bare the skeleton of an ichthyosaurus. As Mr Jennings so rightly says, “the mind boggles… well, mine doesn’t boggle so much these days, but yours might”.

the gnomes of german legend...

On Dickensian Characters

To create a composite Dickensian character, it is necessary to cobble together elements from Adams, the Aged Parent, Arabella and Benjamin Allen, the Artful Dodger, Mr Ayresleigh, the Avenger, the Bachelor, Bayham and Laura Badger, the One-Eyed Bagman, the Bagnet family, Major Joseph Bagstock, Jack Bamber, Angelo Cyrus Bantam, Barbara, Miss Barbary, Martha Bardell, Thomas Bardell, Barkis, Old Bill Barley and Clara Barley, the Barnacle family, John Barsad, Charles Bates, Bazzard, Belle, Benjamin, Betsy, Mr Bevan, Biddy, Bitzer, Stephen Blackpool, Cornelia Blimber, Noddy and Henrietta Boffin, Josiah Bounderby, Lawrence Boythorn, Sally Brass, Sampson Brass, Madeline Bray, Walter Bray, Jefferson Brick, John Browdie, Good Mrs Brown, Alice Brown, Mr Brownlow, Inspector Bucket, Rosa Bud, Bumble, Jack Bunsby, Serjeant Buzfuz, Harriet, James and John Carker, Richard Carstone, Sydney Carton, John Baptist Cavalletto, the Reverend Chadband, the Cheeryble brothers and Frank, Edward and John Chester, Louisa Chick, Anne Chickenstalker, Anthony, Jonas, Martin and Old Martin Chuzzlewit, Ada Clare, Noah Claypole, Colonel Chowser, Compeyson, David Copperfield, Clara Copperfield, Mrs Corney, Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim Cratchit, Creakle, Sophy Crewler, David Crimple, Mr Cripples, Canon Crisparkle, Vincent and Mrs Crummles, Jerry and Mrs Cruncher, Alderman Cute, Captain Cuttle, Solomon Daisy, Charles Darnay, Rosa Dartle, Dick Datchery, Lady Honoria and Sir Leicester Dedlock and Volumnia Dedlock, Ernest and Madame Defarge, Ned Dennis, Mr Dick, Young Dick, Deputy Winks, Mrs Dilber, Colonel Diver, Dodson and Fogg, Mr Dolls, Fanny and Florence Dombey and Paul Dombey and Paul Dombey Junior, Amy, Edward, Fanny, Frederick and William Dorrit, Daniel Doyce, Edwin Drood, Bentley Drummle, Duff, Durdles, Emily, the Marquis St Evrémonde, Fagin, Fan, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Mr Feeder, Mr Fezziwig, Flora Finching, Horatio Fizkin, Affery and Jeremiah Flintwinch, Miss Flite, Fred, Mrs Gamp, Joe Gargery, Abel Garland, Mr and Mrs Garland, Walter Gay, Mr George, the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future, Mr Giles, Thomas and Tom Gradgrind, Mary Graham, Grainger, Edith Granger, Mr and Mrs Grayper, Grewgious, Arthur Gride, Gridley, Mr Grimwig, John Grueby, Mr and Mrs Gulpidge, Mrs Gummidge, William Guppy, John Harmon, Mrs Harris, James Harthouse, Estella Havisham, Miss Havisham, Arthur Havisham, Captain James Hawdon, Sir Mulberry Hawk, Mrs Heep, Uriah Heep, Werner Herzog, Charlie, Gaffer, and Lizzie Hexam, Betty Higden, Mrs Hominy, Luke Honeythunder, Hortense, Mr and Mrs Hubbles, Hugh, Leo and Mrs Hunter, Jem Hutley, Jaggers, Janet, John Jarndyce, John Jasper, Dr Anthony Jeddler and Grace, Marion and Martha Jeddler, Mr and Mrs Jellyby and Caddy Jellyby, Jenny, Alfred Jingle, Jo, Mr Jorkins, Captain Kedgick, Kenge, Kenwigs, Mrs Kidgerbury, Krook, Miss La Creevy, Alfred and Sophronia Lammle, Helena and Neville Landless, Mr Langdale, Miss Larkins, Edward and Edwin Leeford, Thomas Lenville, Lewsome, Mortimer Lightwood, Lillian, Mr Lillyvick, Tim Linkinwater, Littimer, Edmund Longford, Jarvis Lorry, Dr Losberne, Lowten, Mrs Lupin, Abel Magwitch, Peter Magnus, Dr Alexandre and Lucie Manette, Mrs Mann, Mr and Mme Mantalini, Jacob Marley, Mr Marton, Mary, Mary Anne, Mrs Maylie, Harry Maylie, Rose Maylie, Mr M’Choakumchild, Merdle, Wilkins Micawber, Molly, Mr Murdstone, Nancy, the Native, Neckett, Charlotte Neckett, Mrs Nickleby, Kate, Nicholas and Ralph Nickleby, Susan Nipper, Newman Noggs, the Norris family, Kit Nubbles, Mr Nupkins, Mr Omer, Dolge Orlick, Major and Mrs Pawkins, Dr Payne, Charity, Mercy and Seth Pecksniff, Clara, Daniel and Ham Peggotty, Mr Perker, the Infant Phenomenon, Samuel Pickwick, Tom Pinch, Pip, Caleb Plummer, Matthew, Herbert and Sarah Pocket, Mr and Mrs Pott, Pumblechook, Daniel and Betsy Quilp, Mr Quinion, George Radfoot, Professor Redlaw, Pleasant and Rogue Riderhood, Monsieur Rigaud, John Rokesmith, Mrs Rouncewell, Richard and Watt Rouncewell, Rosa, Barnaby Rudge, Barnaby Rudge Senior, Mr Rugg, Volker Schlondorff, Ebenezer Scrooge, Bill Sikes, Harold Skimpole, Dr Slammer, Samuel Slumkey, Mr Smallweed, Smike, Mr Snagsby, Augustus Snodgrass, Mr and Mrs Sowerberry, Dora Spenlow, Mr and Mrs Spottletoe, Wackford Squeers, Mrs Squeers, Fanny Squeers and Wackford Squeers Junior, Phil Squod, Stagg, James Steerforth, Dr and Annie Strong, Esther Summerson, Paul Sweedlepipe, Milly and Philip and William Swidger, Dick Swiveller, Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, Tackleton, Mark Tapley, Simon Tappertit, Tartar, Tattycoram, the Tetterby family, Mrs Ticket, Mr Tiffey, Montigue Tigg, Mrs Tisher, Mrs Todgers, Polly Toodle, Toots, Lucretia Tox, Trabb, Trabb’s boy, Tommy Traddles, Fred and Nelly Trent, Job Trotter, Josiah Tulkinghorn, Tracy Tupman, Prince Turveydrop and Old Mr Turveydrop, Oliver Twist, Meg and Trotty Veck, the Vengeance, Mr Vholes, Margerethe Von Trotta, Old Mrs Wardle, Mr Wardle, Isabella, Emily and Rachael Wardle, Mr and Mrs Waterbrook, Tony Weller and Samuel Weller, John Wemmick, Wim Wenders, John Westlock, Mrs Whimple, Agnes Wickfield, Professor Wigsby, Nathaniel Winkle, Miss Witherfield, Dr Allan Woodcourt, Mr Wopsle, the five sisters of York, Zamiel, and the Zephyr. So get cobbling!

That Bird-Eating Spider

Courtesy of Mike Jennings, here is a picture of that Goliath bird-eating spider I was telling you about. Note, too, the hummingbird which is about to become its lunchtime snack.

002

Taken from The Universe or The Infinitely Great and the Infinitely Little by F A Pouchet M.D. (1882)