Academic work: Elizabethan Silent Language

This is a copy of a lecture I gave at Sheffield University- it may not make sense, but I was proud of it so I thought I'd put it on here. Happy to answer questions if anyone is interested.

Video et Taceo- the Silent Language of the 1575 Kenilworth Entertainments

            The 1575 Kenilworth Entertainments have garnered the reputation as the legendary celebration of Elizabethan spectacle, in an age that is characterised by lavish displays of patronage, pageantry and chivalric devotion towards the queen. For eighteen days from the 9^th to the 27^th July 1575, the queen, her courtiers and guests of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester were treated to fireworks that apparently travelled underwater, bountiful gifts from Greek and Roman gods, the improbable spectacles of a talking holly bush, a floating barge shaped as a mermaid, and even an Arthurian rapist amongst the characters created for the queen's delight. The entertainments have come to be accepted as an elaborate plea for Dudley to illustrate his material and dynastic suitability as a marriage partner for the queen, whose ability to bear an heir was rapidly dwindling due to her advancing age.

            Much attention has been paid to the public elements of the entertainments such as the marriage of the 'ill smelling bride', (perhaps a veiled reference to the queen), the ill fated masque of Diana and Iris and the meeting of the Savage Man; examining their meaning as Dudley's political and personal negotiations. The two surviving accounts of the entertainments were written by contemporary witnesses Robert Laneham and George Gascoigne, with extensive colourful descriptions of the castle's gardens, grounds and publicly performed pageants and plays including transcripts of key moments penned by Gascoigne and other members of the royal court. The only two recoverable texts about the event deal with these exterior festivities, I would argue, primarily because their authors were not of great enough import to be granted privileged access to interior spaces. Laneham's obsession with the castle's 'arabl, meado, and good ayrz' illustrates a latent insecurity about not being able to describe the interior of the castle.

            One of the most notable recent studies of the entertainments have tended to examine the idea of the entertainments depicting a 'competition for representation' where a power struggle between the Queen and her host took place played out against such a dramatic, public backdrop. Susan Frye has convincingly argued that Dudley sought to push on the Elizabethan neo-Chivalric system of courtly love in a hugely public forum, not only to plead his case for her suit, but a way for him to argue his case for intervention in the Protestant Netherlands (being persecuted by the Spanish at the time). The central tenet of Frye's argument is that in order to make any kind of social or political advancement it was necessary for the queen's courtiers, servants, foreign dignitaries and ambassadors to engage with the Elizabethan discourse of gender politics and manipulate such discourse for their own suit. However, in doing so, in the case of the Kenilworth Entertainments, Dudley's allegorical messages undermine Elizabeth's own position as queen, engendering such distaste that she either shows no response to the spectacles played before her, remains silent, or actually refuses to allow them to be enacted to her in the way intended. The necessity to use gender politics and the discourse of virginity whilst simultaneously expressing desire and advancement sets up a dichotomy it's almost impossible to overcome.

            There are two key aspects of silence that I will examine in this paper. Firstly, I wish to discuss how the queen used silence to express a latent dissatisfaction with Dudley's overt displays of devotion. Secondly, I wish to illustrate that the interior, private messages that may have taken place away from public eyes complimented the public performances, and how a conjunction of public and private silent language of performance and allegory intimated Dudley's desire to form a military and marital alliance. However, central to this will be the somewhat schizophrenic nature of what Dudley was trying to achieve- simultaneously the queen's hand in marriage, but also a desire to be free from bondage as the queen's favourite to make possible his ambition for military advancement. Sandra Logan's 2007 account has argued that the entertainments were a plea by Dudley to the queen to allow him to be free from being her 'fall back' suitor in the complex marriage negotiations between her and François, Duke of Anjou in an account driven by semiotic theory- the opposite to Susan Frye's assertions. The aim of the paper will be to highlight that both of these readings are in some way correct- but also the fact that the two aims are incompatible in the vernacular of courtly love.

            Part of the basis for the discussion will be the Gascoigne and Laneham accounts, along with the 1578 inventory of Kenilworth Castle only recently documented by University of Warwick scholar Dr. Elizabeth Goldring.  The manuscript was only transcribed fully in English Heritage Historical Review in 2007, meaning it hasn't received a great deal of attention for some truly extraordinary findings. A sumptuous list of tapestries, furnishings, instruments and over 50 paintings, (a truly astonishing number at the time), the inventory gives us a unique insight into the domestic interior of the castle, and clearly shows Dudley's desire to assert his dynasty- his blazon the bear and ragged staff is emblazoned upon textiles and objects throughout the castle. It is not known when in 1578 the Kenilworth inventory was taken, however it could be that Dudley's marriage to Lettice Knollys would have necessitated a re-evaluation of his accounts and personal affairs. Whilst it cannot be conclusively proven that the inventory illustrates how the castle would have appeared in 1575, the inventory clearly distinguishes several items that had been purchased or given to the household after the death of Lady Lennox on 9^th March 1578, lending credence to the proposition the other items were in place at the time of the 1575 spectacles.

            Defining something that is by nature, silent, can be problematic. I would characterise this as the most difficult aspect of academic enquiry- the difficulty of pinning down the subtleties of unspoken and unwritten cultural dynamics that must be examined though the written word or material objects- our primary source materials. Alex Davis suggests 'it is a mark of the success of the entertainments that what would be clear to the courtly insider has to be construed from the outside out of hints and suggestions.' Every aspect of courtly life from church services, the objects in and artistic techniques of portraits as well as the choice of clothing, colours, shapes and textures were all shaped by the social, economic and political influence from the world around it. Objects and rituals carried meanings that would not have been and did not need to be transcribed- making pinpointing such silent language a slippery task. Mary E. Hazard illustrates that rather than decorum manuals used on the continent 'Elizabeth's courtiers were not governed by explicit prescription; the decorum of presence required decoding unwritten preventions and unfavourable approaches... citizens were finely attuned to the proxemic decorum during the visit of the monarch.' As ritual and decorum remain unwritten, there is space for those in her presence to act inappropriately and for the queen to gain power through others transgressions.

            Susan Frye asserts that the first ten days of the Kenilworth entertainments- the welcome the queen receives at the castle by the Sibyl, Herculean Porter, the oration by the lady of the lake, the gifts from the Gods, the meeting of the Savage man represent the success of Dudley in manipulating the Elizabethan discourse of chivalry to serve his dynastic purpose and aggrandize his social standing. She also states that the second half of the entertainments- the military skirmish and the episode of 'deepe desire'- Sylvanus and the Holly Bush begging the queen to be a 'suter for him unto the heavenly powers' present the apotheosis of the queen's ability to reinstate her authority. Certainly I would agree that the early parts of the entertainments represent the 'traditional' role that Dudley played as the queen's natural and suitable marriage partner, and the entertainments were successful in cementing Dudley's reputation as the queen's favourite. However, I don't believe those to be an unqualified success; through both the Gascoigne and Laneham accounts we encounter how the queen censures or undermines any attempt to place Dudley's ambitions above her own from the start, through the prudent use of silence and absence. It is when Dudley then addresses the issue of the Netherlands conflict in the 'military skirmish' that will be discussed later that the incompatibility of his desires to be husband and warrior become apparent and dooms his double quest for marriage and military advancement to failure.

            Upon arriving at the castle, having been met eight miles from the castle the queen 'rideth but alone,' and she accepts the keys to the castle presented to her by the Herculean porter without any speech recorded by Laneham or Gascoigne. When Elizabeth encounters the welcoming from lady of the lake, she does not move towards her, Laneham shows that lady 'attending her highness coming in the midst of the pool, whereupon a moouable Iland... she floting to land, met her Majestie.' (The thought of the lady hastily paddling the floating island to meet the queen is a rather amusing one.) The content of the lady's speech, according to Laneham echoes 'how she had kept this lake syns King Arthurz days... most allweyz in the handes of the Earls of Lecyster,' prompting the queen's retort 'we had thought indeed ye Lake had been ours, and do you call it yourz now?' Elizabeth can neuter Dudley's ambition with a few simple words-  interestingly, Laneham only references speech from the queen that shows dissent. Dudley's wealth, property and success had all been granted by the queen- his lucrative cloth trading empire, the very castle where the entertainments took place had been gifted to Dudley, but his obsession with creating a suitable Arthurian dynasty to highlight his marital suitability as communicated through the lady of the lake actually undermines all the queen has gifted him.

            No thanks are given as far as is recorded, she retires to the castle and does not emerge (as we understand) for another 45 hours. Felicity Heal's study on the decorum of progress illustrates 'the circulation of benefits was reified in the welcome provided by the Queen's hosts and in the thanks she offered in return.' Such lack of thanks may have been a humiliating sting to Dudley. The Laneham letter also illustrates other elements of passive resistance- at the Ambrosial banquet the queen eats 'smally or nothing', in contrast to the other guests who 'disorderly wasted and coorsly consumed, more courtly me thought than curteosly.' The Laneham letter seems to have a silent language of its own- without overt criticism, through it's subtle method of undermining court machinations, the account shapes our understanding and provides a critical voice. Laneham's discussion of the violence of bear-baiting 'by playn tooth and nayl a to a side & toother such expen~s of blood and leather waz thear between them' also intimates a silent disapproval of the violence and waste of the entertainments. Laneham's over ebullient praise of Dudley's extravagance; playing flagrant regards as it does to the sumptuary laws renders the expense ridiculous: 'Such a wizdom and cunning in acquiring things so rich, so rare, and in such aboundans; by so immense and profuse a charge of expense... what may this express... But only a magnifik mind, a singular wizdoom, a princely purs, and an heroicall hart?'

            No reference is made to the queen taking part in the following day's events such as 'the divine service and preaching at the parish church... [the] dauncing of the Lords and Ladyez' and we do not know if she witnesses the fireworks that signified unquenchable desire. Without the queen's presence, Gascgoine even says 'on the next day there was nothing done until the evening.' The queen's notable absence could be seen as an indication of displeasure- and means that literally nothing is seen to happen despite clear indication to the contrary. This episode shows that any action or event may lose its intended meaning if the queen does not show approval or concur with the message.  In the subsequent day's meeting with the Savage Man who is overawed by the majesty's presence, again, the queen remains silent- the only recorded response to the encounter is when the queen's horse is disrupted, causing her to cry out 'no hurt, no hurt.' Tellingly, the queen doesn't remain silent at other performances, when she views the country play put on by local players, albeit delayed, she enjoys it, and Laneham shows she 'laught well,' and she rewards the players by allowing them to continue playing it, having been banned under the enforcement of Protestant regulations.

            The Diana and Iris masque intended to have been played is the nadir of Dudley's romantic devices depicting a debate between goddesses Diana, Juno and Zabeta who had been lost for seventeen years (the length of her reign). Zabeta, (a derivation of Elizabeth) is extolled the virtues of marriage, 'O Queene, O Worthy queen/ Yet never wight felt perfect bliss,/ but such a wedded beene.' The play is never put on, Gascoigne claims, due to lack of seasonable weather; however it seems clear that the real reason is in fact because the queen had received word of the contents and would not allow it to be played in front of her. Dudley's decision to attempt to put such a play on is a curious one, as the last time a Diana and Juno masque was played out in front of her in 1565, she declared to the Spanish ambassador 'this is all against me.' Notably, the Gascoigne account publishes the masque in full, whilst claiming to be a 'true copie' of the events, it actually illustrates the way Dudley would have wished them to be performed- rewriting the queen's silent language by publishing what should have been. In censoring the masque, the queen is able to assert her power over Dudley during Kenilworth's precise historical moment, reminding him of his position and underlining the process of re-appropriating control- the precise opposite of Dudley's desired outcome. What this illustrates is that the queen's behaviour and responses are consistent throughout Dudley's histrionic displays, whilst Dudley's desire to re-enforce his message becomes even more overt.

            It is when we come to the episode of the intended rape of the Lady of the Lake by Sir Bruce Sans Pitie that an examination of the interior of Kenilworth Castle unlocks the greatest meaning. The queen, returning from hunting crosses the bridge over the castle moat where she is greeted by Triton and Proteus who recite the story of the lady's threatened rape by Sir Bruse who wants to wreak revenge for Merlin's banishment to a rock due to his lusty advances towards her. Sir Bruse has 'sought by force, hir virgin's state/ full fowlie to deface.' Proteus asserts that the queen's presence as a 'worthier maid than she' has made Sir Bruse realise the error of his lustful ways; with her mere presence the queen has changed Sir Bruse's mind.

            The 1578 inventory's portraits can help unlock the key meaning of this episode. As well as four portraits of the queen and Dudley on display, there were a number of other portraits that illustrate a clear motivation to position Dudley's religious views and his desire to push a military agenda. The portrait list shows a surprising number of sitters that had been involved in religious plot or scandal- setting up a clear religious dichotomy. The portraits include key figures on both sides of the Netherlands/Spanish conflict which had been slowly burning in the Netherlands since 1566. All the players in the early stages of conflict are afforded a depiction- many also, with corresponding pictures of their wives illustrating the formidable power exerted by opportune marriages.

            It is worth a short aside here to mention that Goldring has also recently suggested that the now not extant Federico Zuccaro portraits from 1575 (though we do still have the preliminary sketches in the British Museum), and the unattributed painting of Dudley in the National Portrait Gallery and an unattributed painting of Elizabeth I in Reading Museum are the portraits of the queen and Dudley commissioned for the occasion. Dudley is depicted in full armour in the Zuccaro portrait, whilst in the Reading portrait the queen wears a white dublet, a gift that Dudley had given to her in the New Year. 1575 was the year of the phoenix and pelican portraits, both symbols used the by queen to signify devotion to her people, humility and re-birth, yet neither of these symbols are incorporated into the portraits- again subjugating the queen's representation to suit Dudley's motivations. In the Reading Museum and National Portrait Gallery paintings, the suggestion seems to be that both Dudley and the queen are standing in front of thrones- though Dudley didn't quite have the gumption to commission them facing each other- a noted technique to show a married couple. The fact that these portraits were placed alongside other couples of considerable power clearly illustrates Dudley's motivations that marriage between he and the queen would serve purpose on a military level. As mentioned, Dudley's impresa of the bear and ragged staff was ever present on objects and textiles throughout the castle, including an enormous four poster bed, draped in purple brydges satten, the acknowledged colour of royalty and nobility. The conjunction of the colour of royalty and his emblazon on such an object illustrates the indivisibility of his physical desire and overarching ambitions.

            The inventory shows that on display are portraits of Protestant Counts Hoorn and Egmont, both of whom opposed the entry of the Spanish inquisition into the Netherlands by Spanish Catholic Cardinal Granvalles, (also depicted) and were beheaded in 1568 for condoning iconoclastic riots, causing outrage and precipitating the war of attrition in the Netherlands. Their Protestant allies Counts Hocstrae and Brederodes, William of Orange and their Catholic enemies King Phillip II, the Dukes of Parma and Alva are also represented, along with Elizabeth's ill fated cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. The inclusion of the Queen's cousin's depiction is of great import in terms of the historical context. In the summer of 1575 the Mary poisoning plot had recently surfaced, or been invented as an excuse to prevent her from travelling freely across the country, having been kept under house arrest since 1567 to avoid any possible threat of a Catholic uprising. This made the issue of the queen's sovereignty all the more precarious in her unmarried state without an heir to the throne. Dudley's manipulation of her cousin's image brought both the threat of the Netherland's conflict and Elizabeth's dynastic instability literally home, and is breathtakingly bold. Unknown to those outside the royal inner circle, the queen had been offered the sovereignty of the Netherlands in exchange for support. In the summer of 1575 the Spanish army were in revolt due to a financial crisis – meaning that time was of the essence for a favourable campaign which may explain Dudley's unsubtle messaging.

               All the portraits of those involved in the Netherlands conflict are covered by silk curtains, suggesting the possibility of a show, masque or performance having been created around them. Whilst it is impossible to prove this unless a new eye-witness account comes to light, Roy Strong asserts that Sir Henry Lee used the Ditchley portrait to re-write his wrongs to the queen when he fell out of favour for living with his mistress, Anne Vavasour. Intimate domestic displays could restore favour or communicate an issue that pushes an individual agenda. The inventory also indicates that there were 'cardes or maps of cuntryes' on display, the details of which are unfortunately not recorded. However, it seems likely that they would have represented the Netherlands- Goldring shows that Dudley had map collections at his other residences- at Leicester House, there were a similar number to those at Kenilworth, with four of those of the low countries. The display of such maps could only have served to make Dudley's ambitions more clear and indicates beyond reproof that the episode of Sir Bruse Sans Pitie is a plea asking for Dudley to be free to engage in military activities in the Netherlands.

            The Gascoigne account allows us to understand that the device with Sir Bruse as performed was a truncated version; if it had been performed as intended then Dudley would have skirmished with Sir Bruse in an attempt to protect the chastity of the lady, a clear indication of his military and romantic prowess. According to Gascoigne:

            'it was first devised, that.. a Captaine with twentie or thyrtie shotte should have     been sent from the Hearon House... and that Syr Bruse shewing a great power   upon the land, should have sent out many or moe shot to surprise said    Captayne and so they should have skirmished... At last (Syr Bruse his men             being put to flight) the Captaine should have come to her Majestie at the           Castell window, and have declared more plainly the distresse of his mistress...        And that thereupon he should have besought her Majestie to secure his       Mistresse...'

            The distinction between the two versions does need to be emphasised. Should Dudley have played the part of the Captain and attempted the dramatic rescue of the Lady of the lake then the message would have been far more overt- rather than catching the queen as she returned from the hunt, the intention would have been to draw Elizabeth into the action- for she would have been called down from the castle window to intervene on actions on the barge with the damsel. To be quite clear, the queen would have then been an active agent in the proceedings, lending approval to Dudley's desire that military intervention was necessary in the Netherlands. Laneham shows that the queen has to be asked to remain rather than continue her movement into the castle 'at which petition her highness remaining.' The fact that the play is performed impromptu when she returns from the hunt, with Gascoigne illustrating she does not respond to Triton's oration and the Laneham letter keeping her interesting silent intimates an unspoken understanding that she will not be drawn into the debate.

            Here, Dudley clearly oversteps the mark. This episode, rather than illustrating an acceptance of his position as favourite and the necessity for lavish praise and devotion required by members of the court, provides an overt critique of the queen's foreign policy decision. This seems to be a turning point in the entertainments- it is notable that the next day, the queen re-asserts her authority by knighting five of her prominent courtiers and cures nine people of scrofula, the 'king's evil.' Elizabeth uses the silent language of public ritual as a counter-point to Dudley's allegorical critique – this illustrates that her actions are capable of being transformative- but on her terms, not Dudley's.

            The final part of the entertainments involves the episode of the God Sylvanus and the talking holly bush, hastily performed impromptu by Gascoigne as the queen begins to trot away. It seems this was quickly penned and in contrast to other parts of the entertainments; here it seems that Dudley is re-writing his wrongs, and is a return to an expression of marital desire in a far more didactic way than previous episodes, communicating an understanding that his military ambitions will not be fulfilled. The queen's departure has caused the 'flowing teares of the Gods', a reference to the rain as she leaves. The queen is entreated to 'remember her [Zabeta, from the cancelled marriage masque] did never cease to use imprecation, invocation... until she caused him to be turned into this Holy bush... So he is now furnished on every side with sharpe pricking leaves, to prove the restlessness of his privie thoughts.' The episode follows the conventional lamentation upon the queen's departure, but acts as a way to continue to press Dudley's suit through the voice of Sylvanus, using the gods as a coded way of professing Dudley's acknowledgement of his inappropriate behaviour, with the holly bush metaphor allowing the continuation of the the pursuit of marriage through a subtle reminder of her teasing ways. Dudley's 'privie' thoughts are no longer concentrating on his military desires – which had been communicated in such a public forum. Ironically, such bawdy, private thoughts are not deemed inappropriate in a public setting as they illustrate a return to the courtly love vernacular.

             In conclusion, it appears that through public display, Dudley reveals to us his private dichotomy. Ironically, Dudley's use of public and private messaging seems to be using his privileged, physical proximity to the queen to ask for a release from bondage. It seems that the Kenilworth Entertainments were a turning point for Dudley- after his 1577 offer to go on progress to the castle again was rejected, Dudley specifically disobeys his mistress through his unauthorised marriage to Lettice Knollys in 1578. It is worth posing the question- was Dudley even sufficiently self aware to realise that dichotomy within the messages that he was trying to impart? Dudley's necessity to be by the queen's side actually constrained the possibility of military or social progression, yet the language of the favourite was the only way for him to communicate this desire for further advancement.  Through doing so, Dudley inadvertently rejects all that the queen has gifted him, causing silence and upset. The Kenilworth Entertainments were built around symbolism interlaced with the queen's own self representation; therefore Dudley's suit, which appropriated Elizabeth's representation for his own personal gain, to the detriment of hers, was bound to fail.

Not Romeo and Juliet (this is not a love song)

This was the time for self and self
Two, At one. Now. 
We met, we wooed and made exchange of vow
Knowing the apothecary's poisonous vial of absence
Would bring it to a burning end.

Not for us no syphallitic silences
The drawn out breath of a cancerous lung
Spilling odorous waste from a poppy cough.
Thy drugs are quick.

But a memory of a moment
Perfectly imperfect
Two.
At one.
Then.

I never said he licked my asshole: Chinese, Kopfkissenbezugen and the peculiarities of language

I'm sitting in the library, trying to work on a story and I can hear a conversation that is happening between a librarian and a Chinese woman. She is asking where something is, or why something has happened, I can't clearly hear which. Oh, I just heard that she has too many books out already. That's by the by, because what struck me about the conversation is that when she speaks, she sounds incredibly rude. Now, before you accuse me of being a massive racist, I just want to clarify I don't think she is actually being rude, but it got me thinking about the way language influences our social conduct and vice versa.

Chinese is a tonal language. This is why it is very difficult for us Westerners to master. Everything depends upon the stress that is put on homonyms, homographs, homophones, whatever definition you want to put on them, so you can determine the word's meaning. Because of this, in my non-Chinese speaking opinion, the subtleties of intonation that are part and parcel of speaking English are lost as it is through the determinative stress that we put on each word that we can ascertain whether someone is being rude, serious, sarcastic etc. Because (as it sounds to my ears) Chinese uses sometimes very forceful, nasal, slightly whining tones, it can come across as aggressive or argumentative when a native Chinese speaker engages in conversation with a native English speaker. (Just to re-iterate, I DON'T THINK THIS IS DELIBERATE RUDENESS).

I saw a fabulous tweet which I immediately re-tweeted that sums this up. It went as follows:

The phrase 'I never said he licked my asshole' has seven different meanings dependent on the stressed word.

I giggled myself silly at this. But actually, it's a brilliant way to illustrate the difficulties of communication if you do not understand the subtleties of non-intrinsically tonal languages. Just take a moment to look at the different meanings that can be ascribed to this seemingly simple sentence. Now, for ease of identification, the person who may or may not have had their asshole licked (the person saying the above phrase) will be called subject A. The other person engaged in the conversation with subject A is called subject B. The other person(s) that the story may have been reported to is subject C. (Sorry, this is going to get a bit David Foster Wallace here.)

I never said he licked my asshole stated by subject A implies either subject B or C has assumed subject A's asshole has been licked and possibly reported this to (a) further subject(s) C, with this having been reported back to subject A. I never said he licked my asshole implies that subject B has reported this potential case of asshole licking to subject(s) C and it has got back to subject A who strenuously denies to subject(s) B and/or C that such a statement had ever been made. I never said he licked my asshole implies that subject A has subtly eluded to potential asshole licking to subject B who has put two and two together and assumed asshole licking has indeed taken place, and potentially reported this to subject(s) C. I never said he licked my asshole implies that subject A has indeed had their asshole licked by A.N.other and mentioned this to subject B, but subject B has mistakenly identified said asshole licker to be someone not related to the asshole licking at all. I never said he licked my asshole implies that some action has been taking place in subject A's asshole region which has been reported to subject B, but said action was not a tongue based activity. I never said he licked my asshole indicates that subject A has reported asshole licking as an activity undertaken by A.N.other performed upon A.N. Other to subject B, who may have assumed (as many of us naturally do) that when subject A was talking about A.N.other's asshole licking activities, that they were actually referring to themselves when indeed subject A was genuinely talking about A.N.other. I never said he licked my asshole not only indicates that subject A has had another part of their anatomy licked and reported this to either subjects B or C, but that subject(s) B and/or C may have reported this to either subject B and/or other subject(s) C who have mistakenly assumed that it was the asshole, not another part of the anatomy that had been licked.

Right, now we've got that out of the way, I'll try and not be quite so linguistically anal. (Boom boom). I have no idea whether the above differentiations are possible to communicate in Chinese, and I'm not going to pretend I can. But it shows the huge confusion and misunderstanding that can arise between native and non-native speakers of tonal and non-tonal languages (and has diverted me nicely for 15 minutes with a plethora of asshole based imagery). However, possibly wonderfully contradicting myself, I also want to talk about how the expectation of what people talk about, the social niceties that are part and parcel of being human and living in a (globalized- I can't speak for third world countries as I've never been to any), world where we are god-damn well forced to get on with other on a day-to-day basis means that we can still communicate our general meaning as we recognise the basic universalities (I hate that word, but its apt), of human need and want.

I did A-level French and German, and on a three month trip to South America I picked up a smattering of Spanish, (mostly due to an enforced hospitalisation with a nasty ear infection when I had no option but to sit with a Spanish dictionary and conjugate my verbs in order to find out whether I was seriously ill or not. I was- but I'm fine now so please don't worry yourselves about it). I have quite a good ear, and so by the time I left South America my Spanish was at a pretty decent level (although, due to the fact I was a tourist it was, of course, most concerned with how to ask for ice cream, a double room with a shower and how much the boat trip to Lake Titicaca was).Well, I say I could have halfway decent conversations with people, actually what I really mean is that when people talked to me, I could understand pretty much everything that they were saying, not even getting the gist but actually understanding. The only problem was that I couldn't really reply as my grammar was incredibly weak, though my vocab was strong. Yet I never had a problem in communicating with people, because if I could communicate the basics of what I needed or wanted, my conversant would fill in the gaps as they knew what I should/would be saying due to their own experiences.

When I was on this round the world trip, I went with someone who was my boyfriend at the time (who, I hasten to add, didn't pick up any languages at all, meaning I had to do all the talking. All of it. For the whole trip. Not that I'm bitter). His friend Nick (who was Cantonese but who he'd met at university in England), lived in the New Territories in Hong Kong, and one day when we stayed with him we took the train to China for a day. Many of HKs residents do this, to buy cheap goods, eat Szechuan food and have massages in the vast massage parlours, generally in my experience, populated by middle aged businessmen (indeed, I was the only woman, let alone Western woman when we went). At the end of the 'pampering' (ouch ouch ouch, call that pampering?) experience, we all went into a room together to have our final neck massages. There were three Chinese girls massaging us, and Nick struck up a conversation with his masseuse. Despite never having spoken a Chinese language, I understood what was being said between them. He started off by asking her name, then she replied and asked him his. He answered with his Cantonese name, (like many Oriental students studying in England, he'd adopted a Western name which we knew him by). She asked him what he did, he replied that he was an interior architect and that he often came to China because he used factories there as it was cheaper. I lost it after that, but after we came out, I relayed what I had gleaned from the conversation to him. He was pretty freaked out that I'd understood so much, but to me it was perfectly clear that I'd understood it as that is just what people say when they first meet someone. To ta-da! magically interweave my two arguments, despite the fact it was a tonal language, something I, as a Westerner would more than likely find difficult if I decided to try and study it, I understood what was being said through understanding social decorum and interaction. Small talk, it seems, is universal.

What language teaching seems to conspicuously miss out in my experience, is the importance of non-verbal language in understanding what people are saying to you. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't learn languages in a sound, grammatically acceptable way (I have been known to be a grammar Nazi in my time- sadly drummed into me but my equally Himmleresque father), but what my time abroad has taught me is that smiling, being enthusiastic, using your hands, pictures, gestures, being able to read people's body language is just as important as being able to conjugate je suis, tu as, il a, elle a, nous sommes, vouz ettes, ils sont, elles sont.

I love the differences between languages. Love love love them. I love the fact that in German the word for pillowcase is Kopfkissenbezug, which literally means a cover which kisses the head. How wonderful a word is that? Translating it simply to the word pillowcase completely loses the softness, the gentle imagery that most people wouldn't associate with a structured, ordered language such as German. I've often been jealous of Germans as they can, to an extent, make up nouns; as compound nouns (those with several words stuck together) are an accepted linguistic form e.g. Kopf = head, kissen = to kiss, Bezug = cover.

In essence, not to get all Derridean on you, to me languages are essentially untranslatable, and to speak or understand one requires an almost entirely different mindset in order to be able to truly understand their meaning. (Oops, I've broken my cardinal rule- never use the words 'universality' or 'truth', having been thoroughly academically indoctrinated with Post-Structuralist literary theory. But, fuck it.) The best thing about languages, I find, is the way they subtly change me. I adore the fact that when I speak Spanish I automatically seem to adopt the Spanish 'errrmmmm' when I'm not sure what I'm saying, which seems to be peculiar to them. I love that when I speak French I feel more louche, more 'bof' about everything, and I instinctively crave a cigarette to make my voice hoarser and more sexy. I relish the fact that when I speak German I feel regulated and disciplined, I can anticipate how I'm going to finish a sentence as I have to know where it's going so I can correctly use the modal verb. Languages should invoke these kind of feelings. That's the fun, if you truly feel a language, you can always fumble your way through, relying to an extent on the patience and intuition of whomever you are attempting to speak to.

I've been meaning to read Pinker for ages and I haven't. So if I've said anything related to his work, sorry Stephen, but these thoughts are MINE MINE MINE.

I hope this all made sense. If not, be reassured that if I were saying it aloud to you, it would.  

On Being A Mentalist and How Self-Help Books Can Make You Worse

I have had my fair share of mental health problems in my life. I won't bore you with the details, but for probably the past 20 years, I have carried a huge internal feeling of guilt about who I am, what I am doing, who I am with, how I look, and how I should be a better person. I don't think I'm unique or special because of this, it seems to be a symptom of modern malaise due to the multivalent societal crap we all face, if we buy into it. But, there is a point when it crosses from a nagging feeling to something that engulfs and encompasses everyday life. Like so many people like me, I hid such feelings from everyone, even my nearest and dearest, suppressing emotions and appearing successful, confident and happy. So when I had a spectacular meltdown about two years ago, it came as a huge shock and surprise to everyone, me included, though in my heart of hearts I think I knew there would be a day when it happened. Little soap-box here: if you think you have a serious mental health problem, go and see a doctor before it gets really bad. About three months after I began to feel unwell my family took me to have a private psychiatric assessment as the NHS was just not working at the speed that was needed, and that doctor from a very famous mental health clinic wanted to hospitalise me. I couldn't afford it, was not ill enough to be sectioned (thank God), but I then had to wait six weeks for a referral to an NHS clinic- please don't follow my example and think you can cope on your own, or, as I felt, that I was not worth helping. Despite clear indication from that doctor that he saw a serious problem, I still didn't quite believe him and I sent him emails afterwards indicating reasons and things that I had done that could make me feel the way I was- blaming myself for my own mental health problems, using them as another way to prove to myself I was a failure.

I want to make it clear that I do not think of myself as a victim. I've had tough and difficult things in my life, but so does everyone. I've had some great opportunities which, for the most part, I have made the best of. I am not seeking to apportion blame on anyone. But I am someone whose coping mechanisms are maladaptive. I remember clearly the time when I started to feel like I was unworthy of people's love and attention. I moved schools from a place that I was happy at to somewhere quite different at that ago of 10. This isn't a 'woe is me, wasn't I terribly abused/hurt/rejected', it was a necessity. But the sense of who I was was challenged by the new people I came into contact with. I was talking to a friend whom I've known since those days, and she remembers me coming to school with a suitcase full of books and sitting in the playground reading at break times as I felt too scared to engage with other children. I had completely forgotten this until she reminded me and it brought me back to the feelings I had at such a young age. That feeling makes me sick when I think of it now, how a child so young, supposedly without a care in the world could feel such intense pain. It wasn't until I was about 16 that I started to be able to assert myself- but I did that by becoming over-ebullient, a bit of a motor mouth, putting on a mask and never truly being able to articulate that sense of inferiority. Those feelings never went, but were suppressed so much that they were padlocked so well even Houdini himself wouldn't have been able to escape from such a be-chained Pandora's box.

I built a ring of steel around myself as I felt like if I showed the true 'me', people would confirm all the dark thoughts and feelings I had about myself. I've never been a fighter- not to say that I'm not a strong person, in fact, probably the opposite. Too strong. Too capable. Too independent. Too dismissive of anyone who couldn't cope with life. I felt that if I could do it, coming from a family with a long history of mental health problems, then anyone could and should be able to. This is in part I feel because I was brought up in a 'pull yourself together' kind of a way, but that was internalised and exaggerated by me. I was judgemental. I had a perverse sense of arrogance, despite loathing myself. I've also realised that I never fought or engaged with conflict with anyone so I couldn't be rejected; so I couldn't have anyone come back at me with a retort or angry word which would crush the little self-esteem I had. This led to years of people pleasing behaviour- becoming the person I thought others wanted me to be. At the end of this process I find myself at the age of 31 still trying to work out really who the fuck I am. Finding out I want, feel and think has been a difficult, ongoing process. I would like to say it's been organic but it hasn't, it's been forced, and for some time I resented that and fought against it. Even when I started to see a psychiatrist regularly I would under-report my feelings, lie to therapists, afraid of judgement and feeling as if I was wasting everybody's time.

I've never doubted my intelligence. That may sound arrogant, but I was brought up to put a great deal of stock in education, and I've been a high achiever through most of my life. When I suddenly came to realise I couldn't trust my brain when it came to my sense of self, it was a hammer blow to realise the totem I'd been carrying was both my gift and my curse. And I think in some ways that sense of arrogance about my intelligence, combined with a feeling of not being worthy of help has meant that I've dismissed out of hand some of the help that has been offered to me. I was even told by a counsellor whom I had a 12 week intensive course of CBT with that she had taught me all that she could, and that I used my intelligence sometimes as a way of keeping people at a distance. That hurt me at the time, as I had felt that I'd really tried to avoid doing that, but I think she was right. Unconsciously I think I thought that if I can write a dissertation on silent language, plan an international PR campaign and maintain a good social life, home life and boyfriend for many years there was little that anyone else could teach me about my thought processes. I was wrong. For years I had pushed people away, whilst pretending, no, not even pretending, thinking I was holding them close.

It's hard to acknowledge and deal with mental health problems when you have a good brain. It took me over a year of seeing psychiatrists, being diagnosed with several different mental health problems (that's another story in itself) to truly acknowledge that really there was a problem, not just that I was the biggest piece of shit walking on the earth. Whatever I do or have done, it's never been enough- despite having helped organise a General Election campaign, worked as a press officer for a major politician, gained a Masters Degree, won Ph.D. funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, sung in band for 10 years, and travelled the world. The fundamental thing is that all of these distractionary techniques have meant I've never truly addressed the real problem- the way that I feel about myself. Achievements are hollow, especially when, as I did, you don't tell anyone about them for fear of being seen as a show-off.

I've come to realise that much of my drive has been a manifestation of some kind of mania, but I've tried to hide that mania for a long, long time for fear of exposing my mental processes which on some level I've always known are unhealthy. And for the first time, I've come to be comfortable with that fact. That mania has meant I have seen and done a great deal that many other people won't get to see or experience in their lives. It's given me a lot. But it has also taken a hell of a lot away, probably having been the precipitating factor in the demise of two of my most major relationships. I need to direct it better, whilst still acknowledging it's a part of my make up- and not feeling that I have to apologise for it. Jeffrey Eugenides in his most recent novel The Marriage Plot shows the mental torture a high achieving post-grad scientist has in trying to reconcile academic achievement with bi-polar disorder. The character eventually leaves his wife as he can't deal with the affect his disorder has on the people around him. I can identify with that completely- I spent many years suppressing my feelings, pushing people away, terrified that this house of cards I'd built around myself would come crashing down. And down it did. And I hurt a huge number of people along the way- the thing I had spent my life studiously trying to avoid.

It's at times like this that there's a tendency for people to turn to self-help books or manuals, as if the written word conjured up by another can change our own thoughts and feelings about ourselves. Now, if you've read a self- help book and it's worked for you, that's great. I'm not pissing on your parade, and I feel genuinely happy for you. I've bought a fair few in my time- Women Who Love Too Much, Feel The Fear and Do it Anyway, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Dummies, Man's Search For Meaning etc etc etc. I've started them, then they've lain on the shelf gathering dust as I get on with my day to day life and read other books that are, to be quite frank, more interesting. But I've also come to realise that being told HOW to recover, HOW we should be conducting our lives feeds into this feeling of being about as good as the dirt on someone else’s shoes if you don't 'get' what the author is trying to say or achieve. One size fits all models rarely provide the best fit. There will be someone for whom it works, but there will be ten more people for whom it doesn't. Sometimes I try to put in practice things that I have read, and sometimes that insidious sense of arrogance creeps in and I become complacent. And that complacency can feed into my low sense of self-esteem, as if I feel that I know what the answers are and where to find them, but part of me is stopping myself. I start asking myself- do I really want to break this cycle of self-doubt? Am I sabotaging my own recovery? Or is it a defence mechanism in some way as I know that there is a whole world of pain awaiting me when I realise how abusive I've been to myself for so many years? My inner sense of self-protection, perverse though it is, has developed excellent blinkers and soundproofed head-phones to stop me seeing or hearing the things I've suppressed, and it doesn't want to unlock those padlocks.

I am lucky. I am well loved. I have wonderful friends and a supportive family who have stuck by me during some truly erratic and difficult behaviour. The good thing that self-help books have taught me is that no-one else can possibly make me feel better about myself. I've put far too much stock in the external factors to me regaining a sense of self- but it's as if some part of me can't accept the loving help and compliments given by those closest to me and believe myself worthy of such love and help. THIS is what needs to change- not my time-management skills, my interests and hobbies (I like what I like, thank you very much), but my ability to reconcile and accept the good and bad parts of my character. Susie Orbach for years has been arguing that the diet industry is self-perpetuating because it feeds on (pardon the pun) a cycle of failure; so the self-help industry feeds into people's fears and insecurities until once they finish one book, they realise how many more problems they have that they need to address, or in the case of wildly popular titles, how much they need to buy the inevitable follow up. It's no surprise that if a person has read one self-help book and extolled the virtues of it, you'll probably find another ten on their shelves. Self-acceptance is the key to recovery in my view- but all the self-help books tell us what we need to change. The thing that has been inculcated into me by my mental health team is that everybody's recovery is different, people have their own journey and they must make the decisions about what is best for them. I don't feel that self-help books emphasise this enough- it's the relentless pursuit of THE ANSWER outside of ourselves which they claim to have that drives people to purchase.

So this is why I now write. For many years I fought the creative urge, or even the urge to put down the thoughts and feelings in my head. I never kept diaries as I didn't want to look back at them in years to come and think what a stupid idiot I was at such a young age. And that's meant I've suppressed a great number of things that were hard, difficult, painful. The writing process makes me actually work out what it is that I feel about a subject without the voices of others to distract me. I can refine my thoughts. Explore avenues. Start sentences and see where they take me. There's a wonderful quote from Ted Hughes which sums up this up perfectly, 'the process of any writer is marked by those moments when he manages to outwit his own inner police system.' That is why when I write I try and do it as automatically as possible. If I have an idea for a new paragraph whilst I'm in the midst of one, I'll stop writing to begin the new paragraph before I forget it. Joining up these jumbled ideas into a coherent whole helps me see the connections that my brain is sometimes too slow to see.

So, I feel like I'm having a new start. It's a terrible old cliché that gets wheeled out by people who've had some kind of breakdown; that it's the worst and best thing to happen to you. But it's true- though you can't in the midst of it fathom how it could possibly ever get better. There's a wonderful song that I think I've mentioned before called Hiccup in Your Happiness. And this is how I am trying to see those terrible, head-fucking days when all you want to do is get out of your brain, switch off, go to bed and wake up an entirely new person. The past couple of years I feel I've been metaphorically holding my breath until those spasmodic oesophageal movements have settled back into a steady rhythm. And hopefully those hiccups will never reach the same crescendo again.