fahye | childhood influences meme

Current Mood: restless
Current Music: Dar Williams - Alleluia

Entry tags:

bookworm,
musing

childhood influences meme

We'll call this one The White Rabbit, or, Why I Am Not A Wizard.

**Robin Hood - This gets first mention because it was the single most important and formative story for me, especially between the ages of...let's say six and ten...though I've never really gotten over it as such. I am not sure exactly what about the legend captured me so completely, but I was obsessed. I collected different versions of it - Antonia Fraser's was my favourite, and the version by which I critically assessed all of the others. I had extensive self-insert daydreams. (I was never Marion. I was just, you know, there. Part of the Merry Men. Gender didn't really seem important in this.) I made endless bows out of bent sticks and string, and shot twigs across the backyard with them. The day we visited the Robin Hood museum at Nottingham was the best of my WHOLE LIFE. And it was such a wonderful, wonderful idea, turning outlaw because the laws were not right. Acting by your own moral compass.

**Ronia the Robber's Daughter - by Astrid Lindgreen (who also wrote the Pippi Longstocking books?). Following on from the Robin Hood theme, this was about a girl whose father was a brigand chief or something and who made friends with the son of a rival chief (er, maybe. I am hazy on the details.). It was kind of a Romeo and Juliet story: when the two kids were forbidden from seeing each other, they ran away and lived in a cave together. And their fathers ranted for a while and pleaded with them to come home and then eventually there was some kind of truce made, but it was actually a whole lot less romantic than I'm making it sound. It gave me one very important lesson, and one that I've lived by since: when an authority figure is genuinely wrong about something, they don't deserve your respect and they don't deserve your cooperation. You can just say 'screw you' and run away.

**The Chronicles of Narnia - Like many people, I had no clue that these were about Christianity. To me, they were just another fantasy series, and the natural stepping-stone between Enid Blyton and the world of high fantasy. I always liked The Horse and His Boy best, because it was less about displacement and more about someone who was already familiar with the world. Plus, Shasta and Aravis were so much more interesting than the Pevensies (sorry), and the book turned the Calormenes into something more than just faceless enemies. I'm listing them because the exposure to fantasy themes was very important, but I have never liked them with any extreme or obsessive force. (I never liked Tolkein much, either.)

**Frances Hodgson Burnett - I loved The Secret Garden. I loved it. The characters were so REAL, so flawed; my major problem with A Little Princess and Little Lord Fauntleroy was that their protagonists were so infallibly good. Bad things happened to them, but they bore their troubles and waited and refused to stop being good, and eventually they got their reward. Even at the age that one is when one reads Burnett, which is not very old at all, I found this to be infuriating. Nobody is that good all the time! Nobody! Would it have killed them to have lacked some talent, or to have been stubborn or bad-tempered on occasion? Mary was awesome. Mary and Colin's hissy fits at each other were more awesome still.

**Noel Streatfield - I'll mention her next because one of her books, The Painted Garden, was partly about a film production of The Secret Garden and one of the things I still remember about it was the fact that the producers wanted to 'nice-ify' the story and make Colin more timid and Mary sweeter, but the fact that the actors playing them didn't get along (as kids sometimes don't!) encouraged the director to keep the fights and the sourness. I thought that was great. Anyway, Streatfield was probably the second most important influence on me: she wrote about performing children. Acting, singing, circus performing, ice skating (one of the few authors that I found who did, which was important to me as a skater myself) and most especially dancing. Her characters were always flawed, but her clear love of the stage and its associated features (including, tellingly, the texts of Shakespeare) shone through. I ate that up. I wished that I could have been trained to perform from an early age. (I still do!) I read all of her books many many times and never got tired of them.

**Elizabeth Goudge - Third place in influence. The Little White Horse was my absolute favourite book for years and years and years, and Linnets & Valerians was not far behind. I loved them because they were, of a kind, urban fantasy: mostly to do with the real world, but with touches of genuine power that was always, interestingly, a little to do with religion and a little to do with joy and a little to do with curses and earth-magic. All blended seamlessly into the stories about children coming to a place and learning the histories/past tragedies and setting out to put things right. Maria Merryweather was my kind of heroine: she cared about her clothes looking neat, and she liked good food, and she was brave and sharp-tongued and cared about people and got a great love interest in the form of Robin. I had a big crush on Robin. Plus, Elizabeth Gouge always did this fantastic thing where she gave an epilogue telling you what they all did when they grew up and who they married and she pulled this off SO MUCH BETTER than JK Rowling ever could, and it gave me perfect and satisfying closure.

**Willard Price - Okay, so my grandparents owned most of these books and my brother and I got into them at the same time. They all had titles like 'African Adventure' and 'South Sea Adventure' and they were about a pair of brothers who went around the world with their naturalist father, or sometimes by themselves, and collected animals for zoos (in many ways they were EXACTLY like SPN except with animals instead of ghosts. omg. this could explain a lot!). I learned HUGE amounts about zoology and culture from those books. And there'd always be some kind of issue like illegal whaling or (memorably) African wereleopards and voodoo (for serious. it was AWESOME.) to deal with as well as the animals themselves, and the boys were pretty awesome protagonists, and there were probably some large seeds of biological fascination being planted there.

**Catherine Jinks - We're getting a little more recent now, though we still haven't left primary school: I read the Pagan books for the first time when I was ten, and a new one came out LAST YEAR and I bought it immediately. I still reread them. At the time they were the funniest thing I had ever read, and in retrospect I think the reason I liked them so much was that they flatly refused to talk down to me. Jinks is a medieval scholar as well as a writer: she had done SO MUCH research on the Crusades and the politics of the church and Jerusalem and despite the fact that the protagonist was a teenager, nothing was polished up or glossed over. Pagan - smart, irreverent, insulting, fiercely loyal Pagan - remains my favourite narrator of any first-person POV novels (and Isidore and Babylonne are great too). I bought into these books with an emotional intensity that I've never given to any fiction before or since: the bond between Pagan and Roland, the violence and the pride and the misery and the deaths and the black humour. Saladin's honour and the fall of Jerusalem. Esclaramonde and the Cathar heretics. Lord Jordan -- oh, god, Jordan. I have never quite recovered from the emotional wallop that was Jordan's love for Pagan and his jealousy of his brother and his casual cruelty and the way he and Pagan bantered as adults in Carcassone and and and YOU SEE, I get worked up and upset just talking about these books. I love them with an unholy passion.

**Sophie's World - I read this when I was eleven, because my best friend at the time was reading it and she bought it for my birthday. I was a bit too young for it, but I ploughed through anyway because I was at the stage where I was starting to ignore things like the Young Adults section of the library and just read anything I could get my hands on, and the idea that I would let a book defeat me was unthinkable. It's a history of Western philosophy in the form of a highly postmodern novel, and it's fantastic, and I've read it twice since. It opened my mind considerably, and also spurred me to find Jostein Gaarder's other books, which did great things for my concept of the limits of fiction. But the best thing it ever told me was this:

To summarise briefly: A white rabbit is pulled out of a top hat. Because it is an extremely large rabbit, the trick takes many billions of years. All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit's fine hairs, where they are in a position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow older they work themselves ever deeper into the fur. And there they stay. They become so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile hairs again. Only philosophers embark on this perilous expedition to the outermost reaches of language and existence. Some of them fall off, but others cling on desperately and yell at the people nestling deep in the snug softness, stuffing themselves with delicious food and drink.

"Ladies and gentlemen," they yell, "we are floating in space!" But none of the people down there care.

"What a bunch of troublemakers!" they say. And they keep on chatting: Would you pass the butter, please? How much have our stocks risen today? What is the price of tomatoes? Have you heard that Princess Di is expecting again?

**The Dark Is Rising - Also read at age eleven (helpfully!) and notable because a) although not mentioned above, the Arthurian legends were close behind the Robin Hood ones in terms of childhood obsessions, and b) it was probably the first proper fantasy series I read. I really loved these books. But reading everyone else's discussions has made me realise something: never, not once in my life, did I ever confuse any fictional worlds that I read with the real one. I always knew it was fiction. I never thought Narnia existed. I never thought I could be an Old One. I played schoolyard games based on Roald Dahl or other authors, but never with any serious expectation that something would actually happen. This, I am fairly sure, was due to the fact that I saw no need for magic. The world was interesting enough already. (More on that in a sec.)

**David Eddings - read at age twelve. My first introduction to high fantasy. These books taught me how to snark, and for that I owe them a lot.

Okay, I think the ideas I introduced above - that of maintaining wonder at the world and never actually believing in fictional magic - need to be discussed a bit more, because all through my high school years I read a LOT of fantasy books and also developed a very keen interest in science (though never, interestingly, sci-fi). This did not seem at all dichotomous to me. Fantasy was an escape, it was an interesting experiment in universes with different rules of operation: science was the real deal. And now I'm going to rant for a while about why I find the general conceptualisation of 'magic' to be weird and problematic. This is a dramatic leap away from everyone else's opinions, I know, so feel free to leap at me and start a discussion.

Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Hold that one in your mind, please.

I find it sort of odd when people who don't like learning science are all 'but I'd love to learn magic! if it existed!' because, to me, they're the same thing. Learning what the rules of your universe are, and what you can do with them, and then working out - based on personal and universal morality - what you should do with them. (And what happens when you try to break the rules: sure, foolishly doing some wild dark spell and draining your life energy is a whole lot more glamorous than leaping off a cliff and foolishly hoping you'll be able to fly, but it's exactly the same in principle. You're just submitting yourself to the rules that govern the system, and letting them break you.)

And yes, the learning is hard, but the only models of magic-learning that I had any patience with were always hard. The Harry Potter and Young Wizards books (the latter more than the former) are based on learning, and the learning is DIFFICULT, and that's what makes it worthwhile. I have never liked my magic to be easy and unearned and limitless. Fantasy as a genre is about magic, but it's also about the rules that govern that magic. Or at least it should be. And science is the magic of OUR world, and the things that we can do and discover are just as amazing if you bother to put in the effort. Refusing to learn the rules of your universe because they're hard is not an excuse - refusing because they're boring, because they're not magic, is saying that you want a different set of rules that would please you better because they would be novel. Think about that quote. Someone from a world without fire, coming to ours and experiencing it for the first time, would think: magic. But it's everyday to us and so not really worth thinking about - who cares how it's generated from friction and chemicals, I want to be able to make fire by snapping my fingers! Maybe it's just the ruthless and unsympathetic pragmatist in me speaking, but longing after a magic that is just something new new new seems like setting yourself up for disappointment, and a waste of curiosity and intelligence. This is your world. It's fucking amazing. Some things are possible. Some aren't. Some of the impossible things might be possible, but the only way you'll ever know is if you resurrect your sense of wonder, put the effort in, and find out where the limits are for yourself, so you've got a good tight grasp when you want to start stretching them.

Even if the rules of this world aren't rules. Even if they're more like guidelines. All we can do is comprehend the simple model (say, the nucleus at the centre of the spinning electron orbits) and then work at comprehending the harder model (electron orbits as clouds of probability) and then cast our minds out towards quantum physics and the curve of spacetime and things existing everywhere at once and other concepts that would sound like either magic or nonsense if explained to someone else, but which stem naturally from the rest of our knowledge. You know what, scientists know that every model we work with is flawed and every mathematical relationship is a miracle and that the day we find something that breaks the existing rules, we are on the brink of something breathless and new.

Did you know that Einstein showed the possibility, given a fast enough traveling speed, of time travel? Did you know that scientists have been able to teleport tiny amounts of matter? Did you know that matter can be destroyed and turned into energy?

I have never believed for a second that magic isn't real. But I have always defined it as 'something new that we cannot yet explain'.

It's the 'yet' that's important, because one day we might be ABLE to make fire by snapping our fingers. It's not going to involve saying a word and just concentrating really hard: it's going to be far more complex and probably involve a lot of effort by some faceless scientists and engineers somewhere, but the central idea of my whole worldview is that this will not make it less magical.

Ladies and gentlemen. We are floating in space. And nobody waved a single wand.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

... I am so glad you said that last. I have been sitting around my patent clerk's office, waiting to discover a new and more exciting relativity, and thinking about the difference between magic and science, and you just went and said it all better than I could.

However. As a scientist, I always did want a system of magic -- because then I could be the first one to figure out how it worked. But that is why neurobiology exists, I suppose.

This kind of drive is where

hpmugglestudies comes from, really: okay, so there's the magic, now how does it work?

But I will only see a real need for magic when we as a race know everything about how this universe works.

Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life's as cheap as beast's.

I actually have Young Wizards and L'Engle to thank for getting me into science. Magic that works, all tangled up with biology and physics.

I want to go on the record saying this:

I never thought of it that way, but your logic is very compelling.

I only started reading YW last year! And I finished High Wizardry today, on the bus, and had to immediately come home and capslock at Ji about it.

OH MAN. High Wizardry and Deep Wizardry are my favorites. So are you in the "love & empathize with Dairine" camp or the "hate her Sue guts" camp?

I adore Sophie's World, so much. Just for that white rabbit metaphor. Well, not just for that, but, oh, I love it. And Catherine Jinks and...I really should do this meme. Bits of yours and Ji's are the same as me, but a lot isn't.

And I like your logic of science and magic.

Ronia the Robber's Daughter! I reread that book periodically; it still makes me terribly happy.

And I loved that last, re: science and magic. I think I've been slowly coming to that conclusion, but it's delightful to see it so coherently articulated.

Well, I have the same 'I want to know how it works!' mindset as Dairine, and the same long-held conviction that the best way to get by in life is to know everything. So I identify with her too much to hate her; though if I was going to self-insert in that 'verse, it'd be Kit. Talking to metal and rocks sounds like my kind of thing.

But basically High Wizardry gave me SPACE followed by AWESOME LIGHTBRINGER MYTHOLOGY, which - considering the past three years of RPing Lucifer - was just amazing.

Oh, hey, it had a NAME attached! I forgot that. I'd better edit.

Hahaha coherent? Really? It took me at least an hour to stop sounding like I just vomited words onto the screen and then pounded them into mush with my ineffectual fists.

... Oh, I just bet you're going to have my same reaction to Wizards at War. Well, we'll see.

The Book of Night With Moon has some beautiful Lightbringer sections. It's probably a good next stop either right before or right after A Wizard Abroad. Wizard's Dilemma is one of the few books that can still make me bawl.

I am only missing Pagan's Vows. Which had all those long glorious sessions of Latin and learning Boethius's rules of rhetoric, and that guy with whom Pagan had snark-fights in sign language when the monastery was observing silence. Although I can't remember his name.

OH CRAP! I can't remember his name either! He had auburn hair, I think. I was so upset when he was murdered. SO DAMN UPSET. I liked him, he managed to get Pagan to work.

Also?

Lord Jordan -- oh, god, Jordan. I have never quite recovered from the emotional wallop that was Jordan's love for Pagan and his jealousy of his brother and his casual cruelty and the way he and Pagan bantered as adults in Carcassone

YES. So much yes.

Jordaaaaaan ;_; God, that scene in Pagan's Exile where he stops his father from cutting out Pagan's tongue and Roland hits him with an iron candlestick...*shivers* That was my least favourite of the four, when I was younger, simply because it was so brutal and ugly and tragic. My glee knew no bounds when Jordan turned up (WHY HELLO, PAGAN! *evil smirk* *makes insulting remarks about the clergy*) in Pagan's Scribe and Isidore was all WHO IS THIS FINE LORD? and Pagan rolled his eyes and was all PLEASE, JORDAN, GO ANNOY SOMEONE ELSE.

YES!

And Pagan's all 'he always does this! he always tries to make me angry!'
Isidore: Bzuh? Why?
Pagan: Right, it was this way, come along Isidore we're dwadling.

I just...OH JORDAN,

Fuck Harry Potter: Pagan Kidrouk is an infinitely more interesting character. A friend of mine is a rep for Allen & Unwin and knowing how large an impact the Pagan series made on me when I was in primary school/high school, gave me a proof copy of the new book. I read it in a night and was a little disappointed, but still excited at the thought that more people might be introduced to Pagan. I think Pagan's Crusade was one of the books that quite literally changed the way I thought. I read it when it was first published, in the original hardback and everything, I carried it around and quoted from it, "christ in a cream cheese sauce" became one of my lame, overused catch-phrases. Jordan absolutely fascinated me, Roland's tenderness made me teary at times and I think Pagan was one of my few, profound literary crushes. I reread the entire series periodically; even listen to the audio book version narrated by Stig Weymss. I am, of course, a dork and foolishly thought I was the only person who had read and knew about the Pagan series.

Also: quite a large part of the reason for my studying Latin for years (apart from being a masochist - or even a sadist, I don't think my professor enjoyed teaching me, I was hardly a model student) was because of Pagan Vows. "Come on, Boethius, we're going for a little stroll." And the snark fights in sign language: "Time for one of our exclusive, private signals. The one involving an extended middle finger.
Up your arse, Raymond.
After you, Pagan
Smart bastard. I just can't catch him out, when it comes to sign-langauge."

(Again, I'm totally geeking out)

1. What are the meme's parameters?

2. I don't understand what's weird about what you just said about science vs. magic. It seems obvious to me? Systems have rules, the end. But magic isn't something that matters much to me, on the whole, so maybe it would — I do often run into the dichotomy of science and RELIGION, and it's there that I constantly run up against a wall going "WHY ARE THESE ENEMIES?!"

3. Have you read His Dark Materials?

In the science-as-magic vein (and I may have asked you this before), have you ever read In Search of Memory?

It's not a novel - it's actually Eric Kandel's memoirs - but it's a really interesting case/subject study of the progress of one of my favourite parts of neuroscience. (Namely, the fairly recent progression from "well, we have the brain, and then this nebulous soul-based invisible matter that contains your thoughts" to, "maybe that stuff is within and a product of the workings of the brain.")

Ohh, Noel Streatfield and Elizabeth Goudge! Yes! The Little White Horse was my most adored childhood book. But 'Ballet Shoes' and 'White Boots' were close behind.

I agree, I didn't find Babylonne to be nearly as compelling a narrator as Pagan, but I was deeply satisfied by the fact that we got to see how Isidore turned out. I was very fond of Isidore.

RAYMOND. THAT'S WHAT HE WAS CALLED.

Yes yes yes that is my favourite scene in that whole book. I came across a copy in the new covers that were released when Pagan's Daughter came out (I have never been able to find the ones my school library had, which were gorgeous sort-of-painted ones) and was unfortunately broke at the time, but I flicked through it in Dymocks and located that particular scene.

1. Er, it is a very loose meme, one just talks about books(/movies, I guess) that had a formative influence on one as a child.

2. I think it's more that I don't see why people should see magic as something so totally removed from our world. Or yearn for it. When our world just PLENTY of magic in it.

3. Yes! Yes I have. Anything that takes science and magic (+ religion) and combines them makes me very, very happy. Which is why I think I like sci-fi telly, and writing fic for sci-fi telly, because scientific plausibility can be streeeeeetched in fun ways. Today's sci-fi is tomorrow's reality! HOW AWESOME IS THAT?

Oh, Eric Kandel.

*eyes her Principles of Neural Science text with awe*

That sounds fascinating! I did a whole term's worth of work on the neurobiology of consciousness, and I love learning about the mind/brain problem.

I read Ballet Shoes to death - actually, my favourite of hers was Curtain Up, which is set in the same universe as Ballet Shoes. Another family of three, this time two girls and a boy, going to the same dancing school in London. Curtain Up had a lot of Shakespeare in it.

Ohh, I never read that one! :( It sounds great.

It's this crazy autobiographical novel where he goes through the thought process behind developing his Nobel prize winning models of memory, which. . .awesome, and a very interesting read. (Although I am very much in the "the mind is what the brain does" camp, myself.)

Plus, he lays the entire memory pathway out in terms a resonably intelligent layperson could understand, and I respect him for that quite a bit.

1. I shall have to do it sometime!

2. I think we use two different words for the same idea.

3. SUPER AWESOME IS HOW AWESOME. DANG.

I have never believed for a second that magic isn't real. But I have always defined it as 'something new that we cannot yet explain'.

Yes. Just... yes.

Sidebar: your book choices have given me a short list of things I have not read! This pleases me rather a lot. :)

Sophie's world: I was supposed to read that for a philosophy class this year, but I read the first few pages and it ground so hard against my stylistic snobbery that I dropped the course within two days (also the teacher was a moron. You know how it is.) Is it worth another go?

Re: science/magic- Interesting. I agree with what you said, in terms of the magic of science and the wonder of the universe. I really think that science does become magical if you approach it with enough wonder. That said, while I find Science, in its many incarnations, endlessly fascinating, I am totally and utterly unable to study it. It's not a matter of laziness--there are times when I literally cannot wrap my head around the mathematics. Though I do enjoy reading about Science (oh astronomy, my first love) and the theories of it when it's explained in small words, rather than symbols.

I have a tangent about science, literature and magic brewing, but I think it might require a post of its own, and possibly more time in order to actually coalesce.

*thoughtful*

Your logics are very logical! I am going to take you up on your discussion-invitation for a moment.

I think that my fascination with magic, storywise, is definitely in large part the novelness of it - we don't know how this works, or if we do it certainly can't be done here, so if it could be that would be something miraculous and cool.

There are two parts to the fantasy-fascination that I want to address. One, literary, is that when I'm reading fantasy it's the novelness, the difference, to the way the system works that makes it interesting to me; it's the same reason I like historical fiction. The world and the rules and the assumptions are all different, but people end up acting the same way. I love seeing how that influences it, the difference and the sameness, and that's why those types of books tend to attract me more than straightforward contemporary fiction. In my fantasy, I like rules, and a system of magic that is more scientific, and a way that it all works out to make sense.

If I were going to wish for magic in the real world, it wouldn't be any of those things, but something miraculous. Something that breaks all possible worlds, and just - makes the world a bigger place. More scope for the imagination - I'm not saying there isn't scope for the imagination within science, there's a hell of a lot of one. And as a non-scientist, the potential for wonderment in science is magnificent, and half of it really does seem like magic to me ("it's a particle and a wave at the same time? Because it feels like it? What?") but the essential difference, I think, is that 'yet' at the end of 'explained'; something I would define as real-world magic is something that can't really ever be explained into A System . . . and if I go on much longer this is going to get all tanged up in religion, so I'm going to stop here. Sorry for the ramble!

I understand that science is not for everyone; I think I might have come off as implying that the only reason someone might not study it is PURE LAZINESS. Not so at all! But I do think that there is no reason to suppose that 'magic' in the fictional sense, if it existed, would not be just as complicated (and headache-y) to learn. This was why I was pleased to see Arithmancy in the HP books, even though it was never actually explained to us. It seemed to be a branch of magic that a lot of people found difficult/boring but (I am sure!) is very powerful when wielded effectively.

If you can track down the Pagan books (they're Australian, and hard to find even here, but I'm sure they exist for ordering somewhere online) then I'd highly recommend them to you. Ditto The Little White Horse and Linnets and Valerians by Elizabeth Goudge.

Heh, don't worry, this was almost called Why I Am Neither A Christian Nor A Wizard. But I decided to leave religion out of it. Because to me (scientist through and through) there is always a 'why', and if the 'why' of something is 'because there exists an omnipotent being to whom the laws of the universe do not matter', that would be an acceptable explanation (though also the basis of hundreds of more queries!).

But you've gotta prove it to me first :D

PAGAN'S DAUGHTER?

*eyes you*

...you didn't know there was a fifth book?

Not a clue.

*giggles* I do not hate her because she's a Sue.

I hate her because I am an older sister, and YOUNGER SIBLINGS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SURPASS THE OLDER SIBLING IN THE ONE THING THE OLDER SIBLING HAD THAT MADE THEM SPECIAL, DAMN IT.

(Please note: by "hate," I really do not mean hate at all. I mean "wish she'd stayed the bratty bouncing geeky supergenius sister without wizardry added." I hate very few characters, and Dairine ain't one of 'em.)

It's realistic, and it works with the characters, and Diane Duane has gradually sold me on Dairine as a wizard and on the sisters as wizards together. But I still vaguely resent it, for reasons that have a great deal to do with shamelessly blatant identification with Nita.

Book of Night with Moon! Oh, I adore that book so much. For so very many reasons.

Consider it strenuously pimped, Fahye. :D

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

childhood influences meme

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject