Saturday 11th April 2026
Blog Page 1010

The stigma of a woman travelling alone

0

“Oh, you’re going alone?”

Such was the almost unanimous reaction to my winter break plans. As a visiting student, I had chosen not to return to the States for the holidays but rather to take advantage of my short-term proximity to Continental Europe and spend a few weeks traveling. Each time I was asked what I was doing for the holidays, I repeated my itinerary: Oslo, Budapest, Würzburg, Amsterdam. And each time I recited that scripted list, my excitement diminished in keeping with my rising awareness of just how shocked people were that I would consider travelling by myself, particularly as a young, small, non- travelled woman.

There is a stigma in both the United States and the United Kingdom in support of the norm that a woman, particularly a young woman, must not travel alone. Horror stories range from uncomfortable rooming situations to kidnappings and rape, while the perception of danger is reinforced by sobering articles by women on travelling blogs that emphasise the difficulties they say are inherent to the solo female experience abroad. Even women in small groups are supposedly an invitation for mistreatment; before my year abroad, I was disturbingly frequently warned to “always have a man with you.”

But my friends and I have travelled to cities in the near aftermath of terrorist attacks. Our travels defied others’ expectations and our own for how we could experience a foreign continent, a place that was startlingly new to us but whose inhabitants consistently embraced us with open arms.

Some of us, like Rebecca Wolfe, a fourth-year institutions and policy major from William Jewell College and a past visiting student at Mansfield College, Oxford, found that the way we saw the world and ourselves was reshaped by solitude. That heightened knowledge of risk in foreign environs could sometimes, ironically, foster inner peace.

“Something about having to keep it together ensures that you do,” Wolfe said. “Travelling alone was a much calmer experience than travelling with a partner.”

My mother was the loudest voice of caution in my travel-planning process, terrified that I would be “taken” and upset that I would not be home for Christmas. One friend from high school decided that she would message me every single day to make sure I was “being safe” and “making smart choices.”

I sought to maintain a cheerful, confident attitude, but the relentless negativity was unsettling though the tickets were already bought and paid for. I followed through on my plans and set out for three weeks of navigating the unknown alone.

I was not accosted by lurking men in black overcoats at every street corner. No one asked me to accompany them into a secret room in the airport. My food wasn’t even stolen out of the communal fridge in my hostel. For the most part, I was left completely alone unless I asked for directions or advice, which were kindly and readily given. Nor did I encounter any young women travellers who had found themselves in precarious situations. Though none of my hostels were terribly tightly run, they all had multiple measures in place to keep people who were not customers far from the residential areas. I felt comfortable in my sleeping situation even when I was in a 10 person room with six young Norwegian men and two 18 year olds.

None of this is to say I never felt uncomfortable. But even when I was momentarily unsettled, situations that at first appeared uncertain would resolve themselves in ways that could be rewarding. In Oslo, a group of middle-aged male workers approached me uninvited in the kitchen and joined me for dinner. However, they turned out to be incredibly kind and welcoming and were just concerned at having seen me eat alone the night before. We ended up sharing quite a few meals, stories, and experiences during our stay. Young women like me, inside and outside the Oxford community, have braved this experience and found that worries about risk or peril were belied by a reality that was usually far more friendly and accommodating. Family pressure to take a more conventional route—read: man-in-tow— to visiting foreign shores could be intense. But some women are willing to discard overbearing norms, like my highly adventurous friend Macy Tush, a fellow American from William Jewell.

Tush devoted an entire year of her life to travel before college, despite sustained and nearly successful efforts by her parents to counsel her out of her long-planned trip abroad. She followed through on her commitment and found that the truth about travelling alone was more positive than she had been led to believe.

“Every time I bought a plane ticket my mom was standing over my shoulder commenting about how expensive it was or how my trip was too long” Tush said. The practical impediments to travel did not dissuade her from an experience that proved to be formative, highlighting the importance of determination to follow through on a desire to travel for women who could otherwise let potentially valuable experiences fall by the wayside. “So if I didn’t have the intrinsic motivation to get out and travel I would have fallen back on my parents’ comments and not gone, which would have been a huge loss.”

This isn’t to say that women travelling abroad are independent from the social spaces whose norms their travels might seem to undermine. A lack of family support still shaped Tush’s experiences of her time abroad dramatically. During her 40-hour trip to Namibia, Tush made herself sick by refusing to sleep out of fear of things being stolen. Tush came to realise that her fears were unwarranted; they were indicative of the mindset so many around her might have shared before her trip but not of the lived reality of a woman abroad in Namibia.

“Nothing went wrong,” she says. It might have been wiser to try to relax and more fully immerse herself in the experience as it happened. “Looking back, if I had not been so worried I might have actually enjoyed some parts of it more.”

Women may travel by themselves, but they do not travel in isolation, and contact with the broader social world surrounding them is inevitable. These moments where the veil of seclusion is lifted can range from uplifting to mundanely irritating. While I was in Würzburg, I went to a bar on New Year’s Eve and two slightly older men asked me to join them. I was hesitant; bars are where young, foreign women are kidnapped and last seen alive. Despite the fear I have been taught to have of every stranger, I sat with them. They turned out to be simply sympathetic that I was spending a holiday alone in a bar. I ended up bar hopping with them and their friends we joined later. At the end of the night, I was left alone with no resistance.

I was sometimes left to my own devices, required to undertake active outreach if I wanted to socialise. In Amsterdam, the only people who talked to me on the street were three Americans whom I approached myself, excited to hear a familiar accent after almost three weeks of unknown languages.

Perhaps unavoidably, there were less enjoyable interactions: moments where I was reminded that those around me could be just as human and grating as people everywhere are at their worst. In Budapest, a man approached me, again in the kitchen, and struck up a conversation. While I definitely did not enjoy the talk—he had an elitist attitude, would not let me get a word in, repeatedly told me how much he is paid annually in rent, and is a Trump supporter—the worst thing he did was be incredibly irritating.

Travelling in a country where fear has pervaded the social fabric of daily life, even if only temporarily, can also leave a decisive imprint on the travel experience of a solitary woman. Rebecca Wolfe flew to Brussels in historic circumstances one week after the March 2016 bombings, months into a spate of attacks on the Continent, she felt a palpable atmosphere of distrust and unease upon arriving.

Suspicions against anyone coming into the country were high; military officers were deployed in the streets, and general hostility and tension were in the air. Like anyone else might after touching down in a nation on edge and in arms, she felt apprehensive.

“Forget being a woman, it was scary to be there as an American, as a human, as anyone alone,” Wolfe said. She remained concerned about the specific threats she was potentially vulnerable to as a female traveller.

“I had a lot of additional fears because of being a woman, but none of them were realised.” But in the final analysis, regardless of the circumstances of Wolfe’s trip, she does not believe that being a woman ended up exposing her to any more actual danger than she would have faced as a man. Alone with two men in a hostel about to permanently shutter its doors in France, she ended up with two friends with whom she is still in touch.

Wolfe acknowledges that being a woman, especially a woman alone, makes one be seen as and feel more physically vulnerable. Her travels, though, made her feel more autono- mous, safer, and stronger than she did before.

“Overall, I would do it again the exact same way,” she says. Total independence was one of the chief appeals of solo travel to her. “I liked having the freedom to spend my days how I wanted without having to compromise.”

Some compromise might be unavoidable, or at least prudent. Some women like Brianna Steiert, a visiting student at St Catherine’s College, Oxford, and a third-year biology major also from William Jewell, might not look forward to travelling alone at all. In fact, our original plan was for the two of us to travel together, but to her chagrin I decided that being alone would be a more formative experience for me. Despite not having high expectations, Steiert ended up enjoying her solo trip to Dublin.

“I expected to be lonely or bored because I really like to discuss the things I’m seeing with other people,” she said. She was still able to have those kinds of exchanges, but instead she was speaking to new faces from entirely novel backgrounds. “I’ve met other people and have been able to share my experiences with them.”

Steiert noted that she exercised some caution—she didn’t go out alone or stay out incredibly late. Fears about safety did not materialise. “I feel the same as when I was travelling with a friend or with my mom,” she said. Steiert, like me, found that she was more than capable of directing her own excursions even in a society in which she had never before stepped foot.

The fact is, though, that despite these being well-known, largely American-friendly destinations, I was still met with incredulity when I explained that I was going alone. Even when I had arrived safely back in Oxford with no terrifying experiences to share, people reacted with shocked relief. My experiences and those of the women I know tell us the value of encountering new perspectives while being prudent.

If Macy and I had listened to our parents, we would have missed out on experiences that have moulded who we are. Getting lost in a strange place and having to rely on yourself to get back comes with a magnificent feeling of accomplishment. Like Rebecca, I became more sure of myself as reliable and responsible. Even Brianna, who had hoped to find a travelling companion, feels that she has grown thanks to travelling solo: she has realised her own strength and has had much more fun than she expected. I knew that being a small American woman would increase my risks when travelling, but I also know that being a small American woman increases my risks all the time.

I think the red eyes and half-drunk smiles of my newfound German friends from one chance encounter in Würzburg are testament to just how meaningful travelling alone was for me, and could be for anyone: three strangers sharing beers on a midwinter night, brought together by opportunity, friendliness and no small degree of daring.

Bigger babies? So what?

In October 2016, a research paper prompted widespread news reports that caesarean sections are affecting human evolution by causing the size of newborns to increase. Larger babies which, in the past, would have died from obstructed labour are now able to survive. The alleles—gene variants—that cause this obstructive ‘fetopelvic disproportion’ (FPD) are no longer selected against and are, it is claimed, becoming more prevalent in the human population. However, the story was massively over-hyped as no solid evidence has been found.

The original study, published in PNAS by Mitteroecker et al., is a mathematical model that seeks to explain a longstanding evolutionary conundrum. Worldwide, a woman dies every two minutes from a complication of pregnancy or childbirth. FPD accounts for many of these deaths through the impossibility of natural birth; without medical intervention, both mother and baby will almost certainly die. Evolutionarily, this is puzzling. How is it that, despite near-certain death, babies continue to develop that are too large to be born? Shouldn’t natural selection have ‘fixed’ this?

Let’s imagine all foetuses are small enough that they can be born safely. Some are larger, some are smaller, but each is small enough that its birth won’t pose a problem. The larger ones, however, are ‘fitter’ than their diminutive peers, so over time the population will evolve to include more alleles encoding greater foetal size.

What if the average size of foetuses increases a little further? Now the largest foetuses run a risk of dying if they find themselves in the womb of a woman with a relatively small pelvis. However, due to variation in pelvis size, most will be fine, and these especially large newborns will enjoy even greater health than those who play it safe.

Mitteroecker et al. calculate that this improved health makes up for the risk of death, and that we should therefore expect a constant proportion of two to six percent of pregnancies affected by FPD. In short, the optimum baby size is slightly larger than can be safely delivered by all women, and this means that an evolutionary pressure continues to push us towards this optimum despite the fact that some unlucky mothers and babies will die.

Are caesarean deliveries changing this balance? The availability of this intervention has greatly reduced the selection pressure against oversized foetuses in many parts of the world. Mitteroecker et al.’s model predicts that this will have caused a relative increase of between nine and 20 percent in the number of babies that are too large to fit through their mothers’ pelvises. This is the figure that has been seized on and wildly misreported by clickbait headlines.

However, this study relies on a theoretical model rather than real world data, and so does not report an actual increase in the observed rates of FPD. The news coverage of this research often reports an increase of incidence of FPD from 3.0 percent to 3.6 percent of pregnancies over the last half century. These figures do not appear anywhere in the original paper. Instead they seem to have been extrapolated from the relative nine to 20 percent increase predicted by the theoretical model. This really is a very serious bending of the facts.

The actual rate of FPD is difficult to measure, with estimates cited by Mitteroecker et al. ranging from two to eight percent of pregnancies. So we don’t know precisely what the real world rate of FPD is, let alone whether it has increased by less than one per cent in recent decades.

Much of the sensationalist reporting on this result has taken the angle that mothers ‘too posh to push’ are to blame, but this is misguided and irresponsible. It makes the patronising accusation that pregnant women opt in for major surgery on a whim, as well as entirely missing the point. The only individuals relevant to this evolutionary change are by defi nition those for whom a caesarean prevents death due to FPD—mothers with large babies and too small a pelvis. The rate of delivery by caesarean for pregnancies where the foetus is not oversized has no impact. This misrepresentation risks discouraging mothers and doctors from a caesarean delivery in cases when it would in fact be the best option.

Perhaps the greatest mistake made when discussing the impact of modern medicine on human evolution is the implicit assumption that this is undesirable.

All changes to our environment will inevitably shape the direction of our future evolution. Natural selection involves, nay, requires the untimely deaths of individuals unlucky enough to carry faulty genes—in this case the mothers and babies aff ected by fetopelvic disproportion. Thanks to caesarean deliveries, women and children who would previously have died in childbirth are leading long and healthy lives. If that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.

The week according to… An Oxford tutor

0

Monday

Floated a new paper to the department today. Friends and colleagues congratulated me on my inoffensive premise, mild argument and bland conclusion. Think I suggest that the future will bring new developments in the field, and that others should continue my work etc. It seems to keep the department happy, who stop firing off angry emails.

Tuesday

Diary says I have the weekly tutorial coming up on Thursday, but I remember I accidentally set all my students’ emails to spam last week. Easily fixed—I send off a pair of disapproving emails about student tardiness, which invariably draw immediate apologetic responses from both tutees. At first viewing, their essays appear uniformly unoriginal and derivative. This will take too much effort to explain to them over email, so I sigh and close my computer.

Wednesday

Dr Williams and I play battleships to determine where the ticks should go on essays. I always win; once again he is forced to write at least one intelligible sentence of constructive criticism as a forfeit. Rookie. I can’t even remember what the essay I set was about.

Thursday

Arrive ten minutes late to college. Thankfully these particular students understand the importance of thoughtful introspection in the academic process, so the tutorial is mostly completed in silence. I return their uncorrected essays and tell them how original and underivative their essays are.

Friday

Begin day by drifting off to give a lecture at 11. I begin with useless observations and gradually shift into generic truisms on the nature of reality, all while staring at my feet and muttering. Dr Williams jealously noted how uninterested my audience was. The department are concerned that his lectures may be inspiring general interest, and there have been slanderous allegations of occasional audience-lecturer interaction.

Saturday

Wife and I had another row this morning. She shouted at me for being a terrible husband and father. Later, she said she had filed for a divorce. However, I have not changed my mind: I fear she is on track for a low 2:2 in her OxCort report.

Sunday

Wake up to the news that Dr Williams has been fired over those essays I made him mark. Turns out he accidentally ticked a student’s comment which wasn’t wholeheartedly in favour of Cecil Rhodes. Oriel seem to have kicked up quite a fuss about it.

‘The Prize most poets want to win’

0

With the beginning of first week comes the announcement of the T. S. Eliot Prize winner. Poetry collections may not be the sort of collections on your mind at the moment, but this shortlist is worth all the time you can give it. This prize is the one that, according to Andrew Motion, “most poets want to win.” In recent years it’s been the biggest and most prestigious award for (published, page) poetry in the UK (though lately it’s getting a bit of a run for its money from the Forward Prize, which is fittingly a little more forward-looking). Financially, at the very least, the impact of the prize on its winner should not be underestimated. Vahni Capildeo, shortlisted poet and winner of the Forward Prize, does well to remind those who listen to her that a poet really must have money and a room of her own if she is to write.

I have no idea who will win. Judge Ruth Padel praises “variety” as one hallmark of poetry today, saying “we were looking for musicality, originality, energy and craft, and we believe the shortlist reflects this in a wonderful range of important and lasting voices.” She’s right to have confidence in the shortlist, but its very strength and variety makes choosing a winner seem arbitrary. As Dominic Fraser Leonard says: “the varying styles, skills and performances of these books go to show (in a potentially quite nihilistic-sounding way) how pointless these prizes are, at least in saying Which Book Is Best.” The best thing about the Eliot Prize isn’t its winner. It’s that many people pay close attention to its shortlist and have the chance to see ten of our best poets read from their work on one night at the Royal Festival Hall.

Vahni Capildeo’s Measures of Expatriation recently won the Forward Prize for Best Collection and is perhaps the standout volume on the shortlist. Capildeo loves words of all tongues and ages, having worked as an etymologist on the OED, but questions their stability and fitness. Throughout her childhood, “my mother recited poetry by heart (in French, Caribbean dialects, and English) for the love of it, as did my father (in Hindi and English).” When she reads, she pronounces each word slowly and deliberately: “Sitting next to someone can make my feet curl: shy, self-destructive and oyster-like, they want to shuck their cases, to present themselves, little undersea pinks.” Capildeo’s poetry is omnivorous, sweeping through prose poems and short imagistic bursts, summoning double —or triple—perspectives on the questions of colonialism, migration and expatriation.

At a reading Alice Oswald said that an audience member once suffered an asthma attack from forgetting to breathe whilst listening to her recitations. Her “sound carvings” emerge from a process she has compared to erosion or excavation—as if something is already there—to become meticulously timed oral performances. The poems in Falling Awake are succinct, perfected and possibly her best—and she’s been excellent for quite some time. Bernard O’Donoghue’s The Seasons of Cullen Church, a moving volume of expert lyric poems reanimating the characters of his childhood in County Cork, is similarly accomplished. Shortlisted too is Denise Riley, who hammers words into new expressions for the deadly commonplace of bereavement.

Among these well-established poets are a few underdogs (and their underdog publishers). Ruby Robinson’s first collection, Every Little Sound (Pavilion Press) takes its epigraph from tinnitus expert Dr David Baguley: ‘Internal gain—an internal volume control which helps us amplify and focus upon quiet sounds in times of threat, danger or intense concentration.’ The memories are domestic—viewed from bedroom windows and over plastic mugs—and haunted by the figure of her mother. The titles are simple—‘Apology,’ ‘Tea,’ ‘Tuning Fork’—but her unflinching precision demonstrates that one small word or sound can carry a personal history of pain and love.

The rest of the shortlist is similarly varied: Rachael Boast’s musical, intoxicating Void Studies, realising a project that Arthur Rimbaud proposed but never wrote; J. O. Morgan’s strange epic poem Interference Pattern; Ian Duhig’s witty, learned The Blind Roadmaker; Jacob Polley’s Jackself, a fictionalised autobiography told through the many ‘Jacks’ of legend and folktale. Katharine Towers’ book The Remedies slightly resembles a less accomplished version of Alice Oswald’s, but nonetheless the prose-poem ‘Rain’ is rather wonderful.

Don Paterson, the only poet to have won the Eliot Prize twice, writes that “A poem is a little church, remember […] Be upstanding. Now: let us raise the fucking tone.” For Alice Oswald, who might win it twice, a poem is also like a church: her Memorial, an excavation of Homer’s Iliad, stripped away narrative “as you might lift the roof off a church in order to remember what you’re worshipping.” When I’m not reading enough poetry for pleasure, I feel the guilt of a lapsed church-goer. If you’re a seasoned church-goer, perhaps you’ll make the prestigious shortlist one day—this one is full of Oxford alumni and academics. If you don’t often voluntarily set foot in the navel of a poem, give one of these ten poets a try. The Eliot Prize still forms a defining look at the state of poetry in the UK today, and 2016 certainly wasn’t a bad year in that regard.

Single of the week: Ed Sheeran’s ‘Castle on the Hill’

0

A jangling guitar, a stampy beat and then a throaty voice emerges: Mumford and Sons are back. But wait—it turns out this is Ed Sheeran’s latest release, ‘Castle on the Hill’, which sounds half-way between the aforementioned folk band and Springsteen.

With ridiculous amounts of online hype and publicity, the single became this week’s most exciting news in the music world. Ed himself announced that new music is nigh earlier this week, plunging millions of Sheerios (Sheeran-approved nickname) worldwide into mass hysteria.

Strong rumours of Ed headlining Glastonbury this year simply add fuel to the fire burning in the hearts of many a fan who have had to wait nearly two years for new music from the redheaded heartthrob. Well, buckle in kids, your prayers have finally been answered.

Just like Kanye, Ed is a guy who loves to court controversy—he admits to driving at 90 on the Suffolk roads. That’s illegal Ed. Those “country lanes” will be national speed limit—that’s only 60 on a single carriageway. Let’s hope he was talking in metric, not imperial, terms. Anyway, the song’s bland but will be huge regardless.

Hertford accidentally distributes rejection letters

0

Last Wednesday, Hertford College accidentally shared the details of this year’s 200 unsuccessful applicants in their rejection emails to candidates.

Commiseration emails from the college’s senior tutor Charlotte Brewer included an attachment containing the rejection letters of every unsuccessful candidate. The letters detailed applicants’ names, subjects, and addresses.

The error quickly became public knowledge, due to the college’s wide scope of applicants from around the world. Within minutes of the mistake, administrators emailed the candidates again with an apology. They also asked recipients to delete the original email because of the personal information it contained.

Hertford’s principal, political economist Will Hutton, said: “We would like to apologise to all applicants affected by this mistake for any distress caused. We are now taking steps to make sure this type of error involving personal information does not happen again.”

The parent of one unsuccessful candidate told The Telegraph: “It is disappointing enough to be rejected after three days of intensive interviews without having your rejection letter splashed all over the world to all and sundry.”

Senior Tutor of Hertford College Charlotte Brewer was contacted for comment.

Blind Date: Andrew and Alice

0

Andrew:

We were both veterans of the blind date scene so sparks quickly flew, and so did the time! Before I knew it, we were exploring the nooks and crannies of each other’s lives. ‘Scalice’, as she likes to be called, began regaling me with thrilling tales of acapella politics—which really came Out of the Blue! As the evening progressed, it became clear that Alice was particularly popular, leaving the table to socialise with a friend—good thing I didn’t mind sharing! We both mourned the loss of a place near and dear to us: Wahoo Bar & Grill, as we relived many a drunken memory (or lack thereof!). Alas, all good things must come to an end as we were ushered out of the pub before even remembering to take a photo. I wasn’t quite ready to say goodbye yet but a short trip to Tesco soon remedied that, and although not the most ‘picturesque’ ending, she certainly improved it.

Out of ten: 8

Appearance: No complaints!

Looks: “Awkward when sober, flirty when drunk”

Second date? She’s got my number

Alice:

Andy (not Andrew I was told firmly) introduced himself to me as “randy” and a “polar bear” within the first twenty minutes of our date, which was certainly an original start. But, at least he was bang on time and I wasn’t left stranded in the KA on my own. Our mutual appreciation of First Dates stopped either of us from making any awful social faux pas, although I did desert him to talk to a friend at one point (my bad). In fact, the only really awkward moment of the night was coercing a bemused stranger to take our photo in Tesco (I needed bagels and we’d forgotten to do it in the pub). Similarly, the revelation that his friends were live Facebook-stalking me and sending him the results was also rather unnerving. Clearly out to impress, he managed to top every anecdote, story or sconce I had. Luckily this wasn’t irritating; it just made me feel better about my own love life calamities, so thanks for that, Andy.

Out of ten: 7

Appearance: He looked unnervingly familiar

Looks: Put in his own words: “a randy polar bear”

Second date? Another drink as friends sometime

The richness of the materiality of books

Books are supposed to defy materiality. According to conventional wisdom, it matters not what the book is, only what it contains. The abstract ideas conveyed by words and language exist on a higher plane than objects: books are just rectangular items which enable us to access them.

We could be reading Hemingway on a Kindle, or in a second hand paperback, or a beautifully embossed Folio edition; it matters not, they are the same words, the same ideas. Yet to claim that literature is somehow apart from the books they appear in is curiously perverse.

When the first books began to appear during the 2nd century AD—or objects that we would recognise as such, like codices painstakingly copied and illuminated—each edition was a prized treasure. With no mass production, each copy represented untold number of hours of toil and dedication.

As a consequence, only the most important texts were preserved in monastic communities in Europe and the Middle East. The Bible took centre stage in the West in this process of replication, each edition a record of God, almost a holy object in itself.

The reverence accorded to the book itself was diminished with Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in 1440, but even today, to burn a copy of the Bible is seen as a sacrilegious act, somehow attacking the words themselves even though we are in no danger of ‘losing’ the Bible. So despite claims to the contrary, a residual part of our conscious thinks the physical book significant.

This can be seen in the way people still read printed books instead of Kindles. We assign value to an object which we spend hours, days, even weeks with reading: you will never forget the particular copy of Proust’s A Remembrance of Things Past you finally finished.

Many of these copies are made ‘unique’, by the addition of notes and open-ended thoughts scrawled in the margins. One of the delights of reading a second hand book is coming across someone’s thoughts on the proceedings. Yet just as we jealously preserve our worn and chipped editions of the canonical greats, so too do we invest in expensive slipcase, hardback editions.

When we do, the book moves from the realm of personal items of memory into objects of status—not just of wealth, but of intelligence and learning. When you proudly show your library of rare, hard-to-find books, you are displaying a reflection of your own personality: this is what I am interested in, this is what I spend my wealth on, the subtext always implying a personality of cultivation and interest.

Of course, from the Medieval libraries of kings to the Renaissance collections of the Medici, it was ever thus. The sumptuous binding, engravings, the whole idea of William Morris’ ‘beautiful books’, present books as symbols of status, money, and intellect. That these objects contain literary value is almost a cover, a defence against any accusation of excess—after all, how can you criticise anyone for owning Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, even if it is the scarce 1863 Confederate printed edition which sells for around £18,000.

The materiality of books is not some incidental aspect, but a feature valued independently of the texts’ themselves. Yet can we reclaim the book away from its status as an object of the wealthy? On one level of course, we cannot. Just as the most radical painters now have their canvases adorning the walls of bankers’ homes and Gulf state galleries, valuable editions of renowned authors’ works will continue to hold an extravagant monetary value, one predicated on scarceness, ironic for a medium which is meant to be based around mass production.

However, parallel to the desires of the rich are the collections of ordinary people, endowing great importance to the seemingly most mundane of things.

I have, for instance, amassed a trove of vintage orange striped Penguin paperbacks, their pages browning, and derive great satisfaction from their rows of matching spines on my bookshelf. If I can purchase a book in Penguin’s classic, Edward Young-designed, colour-coded horizontal bands (orange for serious literature, green for thrillers, blue for non-fiction), then that seems to me infinitely preferable to the blander designs of other publishers.

Even the nineteen-seventies Penguins, with their black spines and use of contemporary paintings for covers have a wonderful simplicity of design. These are books as aesthetic objects to me, the quality of the writing contained within complemented by the beauty of the book which holds the pages.

One thing I’d change about Oxford… Religion

0

The University of Oxford was built up around a system of colleges and halls through the influence of the many Christian orders that made the city their intellectual home. The rich Christian tradition has influenced the way the university is run, and it would undoubtedly fail to be the academic behemoth it is today without the resources and influence of the Christian religion during its formative years.

As a nation today however, religion has seen somewhat of a retreat into the private sphere from the public. I for one welcome this change of attitudes. As the UK has opened its doors and become more diverse, we are open and broadly welcoming to non-Christian religion and atheism. It is vital we continue to welcome people of all faiths and none.

Despite society’s increasing secularisation, Christianity still permeates into Ox­ford life. Grace, for example, is spoken at the majority of college formals, and is seldom open to interpretation.

The buildings our lives are structured around at Oxford—where we eat, study, socialise and sleep—were built to provide a religious education for some, but not all. The architecture of the ubiquitous college chapel serves as a daily reminder of this fact. Some college chapels seem designed deliberately to instil a fear of God into passers-by. All of this helps to create a sense of unease—this university was not originally intended for non-Christians.

Every day the increasingly diverse student body must live alongside the mani­festations of a religion which long fought to exclude women and LGBTQ+ people from higher religious office, and in some de­nominations does not allow gay marriage.

In recent years there have been some ef­forts to remedy the overt Christian bias in subjects such as Theology, where Christian religion is no longer a compulsory paper for FHS studies. This is certainly a start.

However, in the theoretical world that this column explores, I wish to see what architectural difference a college designed to reflect other religious traditions would make in an academic setting designed to be welcoming to everyone from the get-go.

Cristiano Ronaldo: saint, not devil

0

After winning the fourth Ballon d’Or of his illustrious career, Cristiano Ronaldo has regained his crown as the best footballer on the planet. The award pushes him ahead of the three-times winners Marco van Basten, Michel Platini and the late Johan Cruyff.

Arguably, Ronaldo’s achievements at club level were nothing less than we expected given the high standards set by himself and his club, Real Madrid.

A champions league win over rivals Atlético was followed by a European Super Cup and the Club World Cup trophy. As usual, Ronaldo had a huge role to play, scoring 16 goals in the Champions League (one short of the record he himself set in 2014) as well as the decisive penalty kick in the shootout of the final itself. This was also followed by a hat-trick in the Club World Cup final, earning him the Golden Ball for the tournament.

Of course, despite these phenomenal achievements, what makes 2016 so special for Ronaldo was his unexpected triumph on the international stage. Arguably his greatest feat as a footballer, CR7 was able to lead a mediocre Portuguese side to the nation’s first every taste of European glory. Despite receiving unprecedented personal criticism at an international tournament, Ronaldo did what he does best, silencing his critics with three goals and three assists including a crucial header in the semi- final win against Wales. Scandalously, however, Ronaldo was then criticised for his ‘antics’ in the final.

After just 25 minutes of football, Ronaldo was substituted in the final due to a left knee injury. Despite receiving treatment and attempting to continue to play on two separate occasions, Cristiano finally gave in as he broken down in tears—inconsolable, despite the efforts to comfort him. After being stretchered off, Ronaldo reemerged at the dug out to support his team from the side-lines. Although this seemed like the right thing to do, it appeared to be very controversial.

Critics claimed his public display of emotion was all an act to divert the attention back towards himself. Shame on a man (who people are conveniently forgetting was the captain) for going to each player and pumping them up before the biggest 30 minutes of their entire lives. I can only imagine the outrage if he had stayed in the dressing room getting treatment. No doubt this, too, would have been turned into criticism: “Ronaldo obviously doesn’t care now that he is ruled out.” He just cannot win with the media. I can’t help but think that if Rooney had shown the same emotions, he would have been hailed as a hero and even given a knighthood.

The truth is, even defending him in this piece is a sad reflection on football and its critics. We hold Ronaldo to different standards. Yes, his chiseled body and glamorous lifestyle may make him an easy target, but this should not mask Ronaldo’s extraordinary career success. Clearly, talent like his is a rarity, and so we should appreciate it before he soon retires and we begin to feel nostalgic over the days of Cristiano and his footballing genius.