The Pathetic Fallacy

'It was a dark and stormy night'. The wind-lashed heath (King Lear). 

This is the Pathetic Fallacy, according to John Ruskin:

 Of the cheating of the fancy we shall have to speak presently; but, in this chapter, I want to examine the nature of the other error, that which the mind admits when affected strongly by emotion. Thus, for instance, in Alton Locke—  

They rowed in across the rolling foam– 

The cruel, crawling foam.

The foam is not cruel, neither does it crawl. The state of mind which attributes to it these characters of a living creature is one in which the reason is unhinged by grief. All violent feelings have the same effect. They produce in us a falseness in all our impressions of external things, which I would generally characterize as the 'Pathetic Fallacy'.

In short, the Pathetic Fallacy is the use of external objects or systems, such as the weather, to reflect on the emotional conditions of protagonists. I mention it only because this is the first day of teaching here at the Hegemon, and the weather is atrocious. It's grey, wet, cold and windy. The joy of a full year of intellectual discovery is somewhat overshadowed by the odorous steam rising from the ranks of students and staff sitting in their chafing, sodden clothes. 

Personally I love this kind of weather, but only when I'm out tramping the moors. Instead, I'm inside, trying to avoid the next job: recording a video message for my sister's wedding in New Zealand next week. An enjoyable task, of course, were I not cursed with a face like a gibbous moon and the kind of voice which makes John Major sound mellifluous. 

How was your weekend? I went to the Shropshire Open fencing competition, mostly because it's local and I'm one of the organisers. Buoyed by a surprising 3rd place at the Keele Open a while back, I hoped for a decent result. Hope evaporated about 30 seconds after arriving, when the entry list was revealed to consist of a) bright young international fencers b) top fencers coming out of retirement and c) me. My first two fights were against internationals and I lost them 5-4. Then I beat somebody I'd taken a strong dislike to at the Olympics, as well as one other fencer which was heartening, before losing unexpectedly to another guy. That gave me a bad ranking for the second round and I came up against the 5th and 8th seeds… only 2 victories in that pool, leading to a 15-11 defeat against one of the top seeds in the direct elimination round. 

Disappointing, especially when the bruises and strains began to show the next day. Mostly I lost because the better fencers had a wider repertoire of moves and adapted to my style quicker than I did to theirs. A little bit of me wishes I had the gall to harangue referees whenever they get it wrong or simply disagree with me, ululate at every point and change my weapons whenever my opponent scores - but I'm just not that type, nor do I have the desperate need to win which drives them. Anyway, I had a good time and picked up lots of ideas about how to improve. Good samosas too!

Touché, unfortunately

How was your weekend, anyway? What exciting things did you get up to?

I went fencing, at the Shropshire Open. It was, to say the least, embarrassing. In the first round of fights, I beat two people who should have beaten me, and lost to three whom I should have beaten. Not good because it put me lower in the seeding, but not disastrous. In the second poule, I lost 3 of my 5 fights by one point, including against some of the eventual finalists, so that was frustrating but unsurprising. Unfortunately, I also lost the other 2 fights, which makes a grand total of 0 victories in the poule, and a desperately low ranking.

So on we went to the direct elimination - 3 periods of fencing, 15 points, and because I'd arsed up the poules so badly, I get a very high seed to fence. At which point, damn it all, I finally start fencing properly - but not quite enough. I lost 15-14, which is awful. Losing 15-0 is preferable because it suggests that your opponent really is out of your league. Losing 15-14 means that you lost it mentally - you're as good as your opponent in every other way, and could/should have won.

I'm quite good at losing - through years of practice - but losing so narrowly really hurts because it's so clearly my failure. There are two types of fencer - those who shout at every hit, and those who suck it up in silence. I'm one of the latter - even if the referee gets it completely wrong (and it happened a few times yesterday), I accept it. Perhaps if I was one of dominant people on the circuit I'd become a shouter, but it's so embarrassingly alpha male (and the female equivalent). On the other hand, perhaps it works, psyching yourself up, intimidating your opponent, pressuring the referee - it may be part of the winning mentality. To me, it just feels arrogant.

Anyway, I refereed for the rest of the day, caught up with friends from the circuit, generally helped out. Next day I looked (and still look) like I've fallen down several flights of stairs - bruises everywhere. Being on my feet all day refereeing the epée competition didn't help either - I ache everywhere, but the refereeing went fine - no complaints from fencers about my decisions, though apparently my hand signals (used to cut through the noise of a busy hall) in the final looked like I was directing traffic.

Cheeringly, my contribution excepted, the standard of fencing was really high for a middle-ranking event - I refereed some really brilliant fights, especially from the teenagers, and also from a couple of OAPs who've re-emerged on the circuit. The organisation was excellent and the food (particularly the basil and hummous sandwiches) really tasty. These things matter!

I came away from the weekend with a new foil (stupidly expensive), a bottle of wine and a crystal glass for my refereeing efforts, and two jars of homemade jam, which I think makes up for the pain and exhaustion.