Thursday, May 8, 2025
Blog Page 1056

Living a Double-Life

0

Whenever my brother and I walk into a room, a combined four metres of awkward height and similar fashion sense, we prepare ourselves for a sort of ritualistic questioning from anyone who’s never met us before. What precedes this is the look people give the two of us: a person’s eyes will flicker over one of us, in the nonchalant sort of way one usually looks at a stranger, and then, in what they think will be a continuation of mundane room observation, they will look at the other one of us. And then, something in their brain explodes, as they question whether they’ve had one two many drinks or what was really in the double chocolate brownies. Their head will move from side to side, looking at one, then the other and back again,eyes darting between us, as they begin to comprehend: twins. Suddenly people seem to get excited, as questions rush through their heads.

Unfortunately, lot of these questions make it out of people’s mouths. On the one level, there are the classics: “Do you feel pain if the other one is hit in the face?”, “Have you ever switched places?”, “Are you telepathic?” These ones are easy to reply to (the odd, completely fabricated anecdote is always good) or the trick of both picking 638 as number between one and thousand. Then there are the questions that we answer the same everytime: no, we can’t send messages to each other by thought; yes, it means we were born on the same day; and no, we have never ever switched girlfriends (I mean come on, that’s horrible thing to do).

Last week, however, was asked an original question which shook me to my core in sort of existential way. A friend asked me,“How do you know that you were originallyHugo? Surely at the beginning, two identical looking newborns, you would have inadver- tently switched around, and unless you had badges or something. Surely your parents couldn’t tell, maybe you started life as Patrick?” This freaked me out – my brother’s name could have been mine. Maybe it was only at three, five or even 12 months down the line where I sort of settled on Hugo, finally stopping the ambiguous period of identity swapping. In my pursuit of an answer to the question, I brought it up during the holidays when my mum was looking through baby photos. “Mum”, I asked, “Which one is me?”, picking up the one of us as newborns. She didn’t hesitate; pointing to one of the two tiny little babies in a tiny little cot, she says, “That’s you”. To be frank, I didn’t believe her. My mum isn’t even 100 percent with my name today – she called me Scrabble last week, who is our cat, who is dead, so I viewed h her certainty with suspicion.

Twins have obviously interested people for a long time. Greek and Roman mythology is littered with litters of twins and triplets, from Castor and Pollux to Apollo and Artemis, and this is mirrored in the many twins in films today, from The Man in the Iron Mask to the timeless Parent Trap to Legend. There are actually really cool things about twins that most people don’t know, and no, it’s not telepathy. Most twins, for example, speak their own language during formative infant years. What sounds like babble is communication, which is why twins take longer to learn their mother tongue than non-twins. There have been several experiments done on twins separated at birth which have resulted in some surprising findings.The ‘Jim twins’ were separated at birth, but on meeting for the first time aged 39, they had both married women called Betty, named their sons James Alan, named their dogs Fido, drank the same beer and owned Chevrolet cars. Spooky, right? Mybrother and I imagine that scenario sometimes. The two of us, separated at birth, seeing each other in a train station or somewhere, doing a slow-mo run and comparing lives.

was really interested about what life would be like at uni, by myself, with my brother on a gap year, as the longest we had been apart in our lives before October 2015 was 10 days. In some ways, it’s nice to walk into room and have eyes pass idly by, but, thinking of my brother now, teaching orphans in the middle of Peruvian jungle, I’m certain that he, like me, misses the absurdity of entering a room together.

Rewind: Ezra Pound

0

It is 68 years this week since Ezra Pound won the Bollingen Prize for his poetry. A seemingly squeaky clean act. A person being recognised for their success – yeah, great, we get it.

But, there is a slight catch. Pound is a man I have struggled with for years. You see, he raises a problem. He is an astute and powerful poet, albeit at times cryptic. The problem does not lie in poetic ineptitude. In fact, the problem is quite how good he is. Pound was not just a good poet, but also, after living through World War I, a fascist. He became anti-Semitic and openly supported Hitler. He was charged for treason and kept in detention in Pisa, eventually suffering from a mental breakdown.

Pound won the Bollingen Prize for work that he began whilst in detention; for work created after having grown into the controversial figure we now know of. But he was still commended for his skills, and not just that, but was the first person to win the Bollingen Prize.

Pound, as a poet, is seductive. Alba reads, “As cool as the pale wet leaves / of lily-of-the-valley /She lay beside me in the dawn”. He is delicate and softly articulate, creating intensely sensory tableaux as well as, in his longer pieces, threaded narratives that are unavoidably good. Pound too, was an excellent editor, significantly aiding the transformation of The Waste Land into the canon that it is today. Boy is Pound good, but boy is he not squeaky clean.

The notion of reconciling yourself, artistically, with those who are morally dubious is a difficult one. Much like the well-known dilemma that a young Joseph Stalin was actually quite attractive, how does one reconcile themselves with the knowledge that Ezra Pound was far from a moral figure?

Separating the artist from the artwork is an argument exercised over and over again. It would be handy, certainly. It seems troubling that Pound was the man that he was. But art is rarely settling. Interpreting art with a sensitivity for its creator can often bring substantial worth. I don’t like Pound as a person. But the delicacy of some of his poetry is not shattered by his discordant persona.

It is made easier with distance. For posthumously, and with years gone by, detachment raises its head. And so I read Pound, and I like it. Most of the conflict he inflicts, I decide, is not in his specific immorality, but in his general contribution to the misery that proliferates into this world and lingers. I hate him for adding to this multitude. But I am not tarnished in respecting his poetry.

I Need to Sort my Shit Out

0

Week Four, Hilary. Half way through and I have absolutely no concept of whether it’s gone incredibly fast or incredibly slow. I think it was fast, no matter how many days those 9am lectures seemed to last. Now, we all know that life as an Oxford student is one of high demand, high pressure, and high caffeine. Sometimes we think we’re handling everything quite reasonably; there’s one fewer essay this week, I’ve done more reading, etc. But then again, there will inevitably be these moments when we sit back, take our minds out of work and back into the real world, and think, “Wow…I need to get my shit together.” You realise, no matter where you look – be it your work, social, or general life-life – there will always be shit that needs to be reigned in, shackled up and pulled back together again.

There’s always the usual, boring domestic stuff that needs sorting out: there’s too much washing up, too much mould, there are never enough mugs in the world and the clothes now live on the chair as opposed to in the wardrobe. However, the latest of my increasingly frequent ‘I Need to Get My Shit Together’ moments occurred earlier this week (or maybe it was two weeks ago; time is definitely one thing on the list that still needs sorting.) I was getting some work done in the library, let’s say ‘the other day,’ when I underwent the most remarkable epiphany. I had left my computer for a mere 30 seconds, in the hands of a very trustworthy and not-at-all-mischievous friend, to retrieve some ‘thrilling’ book or other from a nearby shelf. It was upon my return that I saw it. You see, instead of my half-written, half-researched, half-arsed essay laboured across my screen, there was a very clear, font-size 72, message: EITHNE NEEDS TO GET HER SHIT TOGETHER. Now, as to where this could have come from I have absolutely no idea. Why, all who looked upon it could not fathom its origin; my work-pal could hardly speak through curious fits of strange giggles. Curiouser and curiouser. Still, there’s no need to venture too far down the rabbit hole in search of answers. The message was incredibly accurate. Sadly, dear reader, I do need to get my proverbial ‘shit’ together. This is coming to you from a frightened student who is currently writing this very article in her college library, unwashed and unshaven, ferociously fighting off not one, but two moths that keep flying into her face (I’m pretty sure those who have noticed my mad arm movements have assumed I’ve gone essay-crisis bonkers. Not half wrong, mind you). And to be honest, this pretty much sums up the state of my mind: lots of flailing without really achieving any- thing. Maybe it would be better to give some context, maybe if I were to explain some events that have led up to this point.

Now, I’m one of those people who needs something or someone to ground me. Be it an activity over the course of a month, or even just a cup of tea in the wee hours with someone who makes me smile. Being never short of opportunities for the latter, this week I made the bold choice that I would branch out into the former. This grand undertaking lead me to an audition room for an up-and-coming student play that I shall leave nameless. Hav- ing had plenty of audition experience and a sadly small amount of success, the fear of it has rather worn thin. Nevertheless, I made my arrangements to be as well prepared as possible. I abstained from a Saturday night’s drinking (a heart-wrenching endeavour on bop night) and felt gloriously ‘cleansed’ the following morn- ing in a way that I have never felt before. But as always, this served as a valuable lesson in watching the shit we think we’ve got together slowly unravel. To avoid any extended detail, I’ll summarise: lines were forgotten, people were spat on, and through a combination of a slippery floor and inadvisable footwear, I somehow ended up on my bum at the director’s knees. Not the way that was meant to go.

To turn back time, the week started with a lesson in getting the ‘academic shit’ together, which ultimately led to another of these valuable lessons. A week of perpetual slacking kicked off in the underground bunker of a seminar room, devoid of nature’s light or any light except the glare of laptop screens and fluorescent hospital lighting. Although propped up by the warm familiarity of friends and copious amounts of tea, there is no escape from the inevitable realisation that (from an English student’s viewpoint anyway) I simply haven’t read enough books. Not only do I not know enough alternative literature (or at least alternative to me) to sound interesting in my degree, I have also not read enough of the impeccably famous and ingenious. This is where that ever-elusive concept of Oxford-time really starts eating away at the limits of your shit-ordering abilities. We’re all here in this amazing place, bristling with intelligence, excitement and opportunity, but taking a moment to try and mentally grasp how much there is of it can be truly quite terrifying. I say terrifying, but really it’s just that oh-so familiar feeling of ‘Where do I start?’, ‘Where do I go first?’, ‘Am I even good enough to try?’. But I guess that’s just it: there’s always too much shit. Nothing’s ever enough to straddle confidence in a degree, or your life, entirely. No matter where you are, there’s always more that needs to be done, and even more that you want to do outside of that.

A Letter to…Meat-Free Mondays

0

The other day, at the beginning of a crew date at Arzoo’s, one of the girls asked if they had any vegan plates. At this, the bemused waiter replied “Vegan? What’s that, no meat? No nothing…?” I felt a surge of admiration for the staff of Arzoo’s. Not that I really have a problem with vegans – if you want to live off lentils and kale I wont stop you – just please don’t make me eat them. I was therefore very disappointed at the prospect of Meat-Free Mondays. As Paul McCartney’s veganistic lovechild, you strive to raise awareness about the detrimental environ- mental impact of eating meat.

It can’t be said that you’re not popular, though. Most of the colleges in Oxford love you. But I’m not convinced. I can’t help but feel that the driving force behind its promotion is not eco- logical. Instead, it is a reaction of the sidelined, one-option-in-hall vegetarians and vegans, who would do anything to close the abattoirs of England and outlaw Cumberland sausages.

A compromise would have been possible – two meat options one day, two vegetarian the next – but things have spiralled out of control now. The audacity of trying to deny people not only bacon but also chicken, beef, lamb and fish means the two sides cannot be reconciled. Thanks to you, you malicious meat-sucker, friendships will be tested, but so long as there isn’t a Gluten Free Fridays campaign, I’m sure we will all break bread together in the near future.

If you and your army of enraged vegetarians and vegans was really so concerned with the environment then there are many places to begin before condemning steak tartare. To begin with, the Chemistry Faculty, who are proudly sponsored by BP. In my humble opinion, tackling the University’s close affiliations with oil companies is a more worthwhile pursuit than imposing chickpea curry on innocent hungry undergrads. Buy a bike, go litter picking, use a bag-for-life, but for God’s sake, do not force me to eat a quinoa salad. Undoubtedly, the worst thing about you is that you are on a Monday. It is universally accepted that Monday is the worst day of the week, so why make it worse by taking away meat? I’m sure people would be more accepting of the campaign if it was on Thursday or Friday; then we could struggle through one hungry day and gorge themselves on foie gras at the weekend. I know alliteration is pleasant on the ear but I will not support a campaign that is based on it.

It was one thing for Jamie Oliver to take away our Turkey Twizzlers, but it is another to deny access to meat for hundreds of students. Where does it end? In five years there will be no choices, just one meal served everyday, for every meal, for everyone.

Creaming Spires: HT16 Week 4

0

First sex encounters with strangers can always be a bit of a hit or miss type of situation. But in today’s endless use of internet and programming it has become socially common through cyber interaction to meet strangers and have meaningless sex. One can judge and one can point fingers; hell, I used to be that obnoxious goodie-goodie who looked down on my sister’s acquaintance who now has a ‘Tinder baby’. But if you’ve never tried it or are unaware of the circumstances, can we really judge? 

Society’s approach towards meaningless sex takes a more indirect road. After all, how many of the people who go on a night out are really just looking to ‘get some’? A simple solution to your endless nights of lingering around, enjoying the music and company when you’re really looking for some action is surely to download a ‘dating’ app on your phone. So that’s exactly what I did. Here I was on my way to meet this tattooed Italian who embodied the definition of cheesy gym rat; looks were clearly not in my criteria for a one-off. It was embarrassing enough that I took a 30-minute train ride to get laid in the ghetto of a European suburb, but also mildly regretful when I discovered he was about a third of my size with tainted blue sunglasses. Inside, the foreplay was minimal and not satisfactory. At this point I just wanted to be pounded and get it over with. He began to rub against me with a slightly disappointing size and not enough lubricant. I like lubricant. Just as I was thinking “put it in already!” he let out a deep groan and collapsed on my back. I jerked my head backwards and asked him that post climatic question we all dread. He said, “What? Oh shit, was I not inside of you?”

I wanted to laugh but was also in a state of dramatic teenage shock. I left the building with a cloud of anti-climatic weight over my head, even though the sun was super aggressive that day, annoyingly so. I was bewildered and my walk of shame, with my fly open, was not worth the super hot sex that I had just had. Should I be flattered or upset? I remember feeling more angry at the fact that my itch was not scratched after a trek to the outskirts of the city, and that I had to invest even more time on public transport. That being said, public transport can be comforting, and I reflected on the silly encounter even though it was unworthy of my dramatic analysis. From past encounters, I could handle girls telling me I was too hairy or guys asking me why I don’t go to the gym and feeling excess amounts of self-loathing. Now, however, I was in the driver’s seat. It was my turn to ask, “Why are you so bad at sex and why did you cum so quickly?!” I decided to take the high road and bask in my own unnecessary shame. To make myself feel better, I thought that as humans sometimes you just have to bang a frog, or in my case almost bang a frog, and not think about Mr or Mrs Right. So, moral of the story: start sleep- ing with cyber-land strangers. Yes, I admit I was horny, but just for the record, I have never farted in my life.

Go on, like my photo, make my day

0

In this hellish dystopia we find ourselves living in, we all know that the only measure of individual worth comes from the number of likes on our profile pictures. Equally, the only validation we can find in this internet age utterly barren of personal relationships, the reassurances of family, faith and the moral certainty that came before we all spent inordinate amounts of time staring at flickering blue screens come with the number of likes publicly accrued on pictures, posts, and comments, in the only arena of competition that really matters anymore Facebook. In Samuel Beckett’s words, we need Facebook to “remind us we exist”.

With all of that in mind, look no further for an only partially sarcastic tutorial on how to maximise the arbitrary number of people contributing to your happiness by mindlessly pressing a button and delivering you that longed-for hit of dopamine, which we used to be able to produce naturally, without the help of Mark Zuckerberg’s enormous network of insecurity disguised as friendship.

1. Timing. Just like with comedy, successfully garnering likes on a profile picture is heavily reliant on impeccable timing. There are a variety of avenues to be explored in attempting to swell those precious digits of endorsement, from which we gain so much pleasure. An age-old tactic is to upload the pic directly after hall, but before pressing start (between 8-8.30pm), a time when a blanket of slightly bored and listless student types across your social network will inevitably be staring into the infinite abyss of their news feeds, thus maximising your coverage. The added bonus of aiming for this timeslot on a club night (Thurs- days are probably your best bet) is that you inevitably end up receiving a flood of drunken likes later on in the evening quite possibly from former partners, or quite inhibited types who can’t quite bring themselves to press the big blue button unless under the influence.

Another strategy that I recently came across was the controversial early morning posting. Aiming for somewhere between 7.30-8am allows you to latch on to the legions of young people who immediately turn to the internet to pass the time between waking up and actually doing something productive with their day. It’s best to aim for a morning when people will actually be up before noon (Monday is my personal favourite), but this methodology does make something of a gamble in hoping that the picture will stay high enough on news feeds over the course of the day to doubly benefit from the aforementioned late night rush, but if it pays off then it can pay enormous dividends.

There is an enormous divergence of schools of thought in the timing of a post, and I have seen many other, less traditional techniques work to great effect.

2. Content. The actual content of a profile picture is difficult to systematise, but generally the really successful ones tend to score highly in at least one of the following categories:

a) Conventional attractiveness. Let’s not beat around the bush here – conventionally attractive people tend to get a higher number of likes, and this fact is part of the reason that getting likes is such a desirable goal. This box can also be ticked by having someone else considerably more attractive than you in the picture as well.

b) Character. Does the profile picture perfectly encapsulate ‘you’? Does it display a facet of your character that your Facebook friends will instantly recognise and reflect ‘oh that’s SO you!’ Are you a tireless hack? A Union picture won’t go far amiss. Do you have delusions of indie-dom? Something arty and deep calls for you from the depths of your disposable.

c) Artistic quality of the picture (closely interlinked with ‘indie’ subsection of B). Photography is actually really hard, so a properly lit, high quality and well-composed picture can be vital to your efforts.

3.Originality. This final factor must be kept in mind when posting on large groups or events. Now when I say originality, I don’t mean bizarre, off the wall, random ludicrousness – it needs to be something everybody viewing the post can relate to. You must channel the zeitgeist of the feelings of the mob, capitalise on an injustice they can all relate to, and ride the tidal wave of popular support like a demagogue.

Similarly, you can capitalise in student circles on the all too true clichés of the iniquities of the world we live in. Oxford is particularly ripe for this strand which leans into profoundly imaginative satire, but again plugging into a broadly accepted narrative that something isn’t quite right.

With these handy tips, you’ll be better prepared to revel in our cult of vacuity and mindless narcissism which, as the world increasingly goes to hell in a handcart, is the only thing that makes life worth living. But don’t be downhearted. Your self-worth won’t be devalued because of your subscription to our modern societal norms. You’re simply teaching yourself how to survive in this world where the amount of likes you have on your profile picture correlates directly to your personal happiness and sanity. Feed your ego. You deserve it, you delicious little social climber 

Ink and Stone: Lady Margaret Hall Chapel

0

Here at Ink and Stone (its probably a little early in the day to be referring to ourselves in the third person (sixth person?)), we want to probe the margins of the Oxford architectural world. Social media feeds all over this city are inundated with a glut of artistically framed Rad Cams, Tom Towers and Bridges of Sighs – at an infinitude of different angles and lit in every conceivable way imaginable. Quite frankly, we’re bored of the eternal rehashing of those mainstream bastions and edifices of Oxford’s identity (edgy). Instead, we intend to plough the eccentric and eclectic depths of the landscape around us with a view to discovering those hidden gems which many of us walk past every day, but whose PR doesn’t compare to those havens of the selfie stick.

If you’re aiming for marginality, it doesn’t get much more marginal (both geographically and stylistically) than the chapel of Lady Margaret Hall. I interviewed at LMH, and that much maligned college could not have made a worse impression on me than with the drab, squat, brick lump that represents its place of worship – utterly undecorated internally, save for white plaster. The chapel is a product of the 1930s extension to Lady Margaret Hall, undertaken by architect Giles Gilbert Scott Jr. Outside of this dull little building, Scott’s oeuvre is mightily impressive – the stunning vaulting brickwork of Liverpool Cathedral, the monumental Battersea power station, and the iconic red telephone box. As a devotee of the Gothic Revival it pains me to discover that he was the grandson of George Gilbert Scott – pioneer of the pointed architecture which so defined Victorian building, from the breath-taking St Pancras, to our own, dearly beloved Martyr’s memorial. Given this lineage and evident skill, where did it all go wrong for Gilbert Scott Jr?

To answer this question thoroughly, we must consider what the intention behind this building is – where its influences stem from, and what it’s trying to achieve. This chapel has been described in various places as Byzantine, Romanesque, Quasi-Romanesque, Pseudo-Byzantine and, indeed, Romano-Byzantine. I can certainly see where the various writers are coming from with these slightly uncertain descriptors. The central, concrete dome reaching skyward, and the symmetricality of the floor plan harkens to an orthodox church of the eastern Mediterranean, however the sparse decoration pales in comparison to the gilt finery of most Byzantine places of worship. Similarly the stepped, or terraced, effect of the various areas of tiled roofing, combined with the small round windows evokes the architecture of post-Roman Western Europe – a simplicity and elegance in its solidity.

The more time I spend with this building, the more it starts to grow on me. There is some beauty in its Spartan interior, and a balance or poise in the purity of the ideas expressed in brick. In many ways I wish that I could relocate it to some windswept hill – away from its umbilical connection to the stripped back Georgian façade of Deneke, and the grim tower block of Sutherland. If you ever find yourself as far from Oxford as Norham Gardens, I strongly advise you have a look over this strange relic of inter-war architecture which adamantly refuses to subscribe to the trends of much of the building from this era. 

Lessons from history: the last emperor of China (1912)

0

It was 2,132 years of history coming to a close. 2,132 years, spanning from when Hannibal was made commander-in-chief of the Carthaginian army, a few years before the Second Punic War, until near the end of the Belle Epoque.

Chinese imperial rule lived for longer than Christianity has to date.

So I wonder what it must have been like to be Puyi, the Xuantong Emperor, in those last days before his abdication. He had just turned six. He couldn’t have understood, could he?

But he might have noticed that change was taking place. Even the young boy probably sensed the chaos from the Forbidden City, the tremendous tension in the air as the moment approached.

Not that life within the Inner Palace itself would change: Puyi would stay in the Forbidden City until a coup in 1924. The formal abdication in 1912 was a matter of nomenclature, of definition. Significant for its symbolism but not its real repercussions.

Maybe the young Emperor did not feel a thing one day to the next, perhaps he did not even know his title had been signed away.

That would have been truly iconoclastic: destroying millennia with a shrug, as if doing so was business as normal.

I almost hope that is how the last dynasty ended – its figurehead in tears, but only because his eunuchs had not been fast enough with his breakfast. No bang, no whimper, just some strange continuity.

Culture Corner: The Lobster

0

We developed a code so that we can communicate with each other even in front of the others without them knowing what we are saying. When we turn our heads to the left it means ‘I love you more than anything in the world’ and when we turn our heads to the right it means ‘watch out, we’re in danger’ 

The Lobster

The 2015 Cannes Film Festival Jury Prize winner The Lobster (2015) depicts a couple who fi nd themselves trapped between two dystopian worlds: the world of the forever-paired and the world of the foreveralone. Both escape the confi nes of an oppressive hotel which forces single guests to fi nd their life partner in only 45 days and turns the ‘unsuccessful’ into animals of their choosing. Their refuge lies in the nearby forests, and both become members of a community of singles who restrict physical contact and punish members who engage in any relationships which are not platonic. With an impressive cast including Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, and Léa Seydoux, The Lobster explores the bizarre concept of love and its unrealistic expectations.

Between the scenes of farcical comedy – where love is forced – and dark dystopian horror – where love is forbidden – the organic love between the Short-Sighted Woman and David is utterly sweet. Their love story which exists without expectation in a brutal nearfuture where expectations suppress and dominate true emotion is brave, unique and honest. David and the Short-Sighted Woman choose to listen to the same music and dance together, which becomes an adorable act of rebellion. For just one moment, we are able to see the possibility of a utopian world, created by two people in love with electronic music.

Slang: social ill or work of art?

0

lang, which is itself a slang term, is something that we encounter every day without usually giving it a second thought. While we’ve all likely been delighted in the past by videos of things such as grandmas attempting to defi ne slang terms or compilations of texts from parents with misused acronyms, slang is not often a topic that provokes serious discussion, though perhaps it’s time that it should.

I’ve found that in England even more than in the US, slang is given a bad rap. But if we really think about it, what is so wrong with colouring our speech a little? Why do we fear vulgarity of language when humans by their very nature are somewhat vulgar? What does it mean for one phrase to be more appropriate than another, and appropriate with regard to what? Like so many other things that are arbitrarily criminalised or socially condemned, perhaps slang deserves some reconsideration.

It might be simplest to start off with a broad ‘why’ question, so here it goes. Why, when there are so many other more widely accepted ways of saying things, might a person resort to the use of slang?

Very simply, slang is useful. In certain forms of communication slang facilitates brevity, and its meanings are often able to achieve intricacies that standard language might not. For example, adding ‘innit’ to the end of a sentence might demonstrate a sense of inclusivity or deference to another person without adding uncomfortable formalities into the mix.

Slang is by no means a phenomenon new to the digital age. It is language in fl ux, and something that has been in use since the beginning of language itself. Though there is always some level of scoffing to be heard when new words that are considered too green are added into the English dictionary (I’m looking at you, ‘awesomesauce’), at some point all words were new.

There are often instances when the creation of new slang either goes unnoticed or is at its most obvious because the particular context in which it is used. When we look at poetry for example, it is considered perfectly acceptable and usually even clever for a writer to use shortened or slightly altered forms of words. It is well known by now that Shakespeare himself invented over a thousand words, including such seemingly innocuous examples as ‘fashionable’. Yet, if someone in pop culture today, whether in a song or in a grammatically careless comment, coins a new term, it is instantly deemed a betrayal of English (See DJ Khaled’s ‘bless up’ and the subsequent stream of corresponding hashtags).

Slang is also an effi cient means of selfexpression, as much as anything that we say out loud or in writing is explicitly revelatory of ourselves and our opinions. It allows us not only to identify with certain countries and regions, but also with certain social classes, age groups, career paths, and even smaller circles of friends.

Though people often are ridiculed for their accents when they go to other regions or unfamiliar social spaces, these very same accents and turns of phrase might be fl aunted proudly by their speakers within a home setting. Diff erences in language are used to navigate social situations in which the constituents of a group come from diverse backgrounds, and also to discover how each new person that we speak to relates to us personally, even if this is done subconsciously.

So then why might so many people be against the use what so far seems to be a useful social tool at best and a harmless aspect of banter at worst? Slang in certain instances throughout history has been perceived as something either dangerous or subversive to mainstream society. ‘Cockney’ English may have originated as a means for people in London to discuss criminal activity, and even today certain slang words are prohibited in Russian prisons. As much as it might be enticing to see regulations of slang as some form of real-life Orwellian Newspeak, I also doubt that such a thing is occurring, and instead would argue that such regulations would be impossible to enforce if they did not hold public support.

One might read this article and wonder what really is the point in thinking so much about something as trivial as slang. On the surface, I suppose it really doesn’t make that much difference within any given immediate situation whether someone chooses one word or another, or even whether they are told to choose one word over another. Where it might make a diff erence, however, is in cases where regulations are made either for or against slang.

When we think about the consequences of children and young adults being allowed to use slang in school, what comes to mind most is how that will aff ect their performance in testing and in their future careers. The problem with such regulations is that they eff ectively reinforce any pre-existing notions of what the use of slang says about the people who use it.

Regulations like these could be setting certain students up for failure in the future, since even if they do assimilate their speech to the school’s standards, they will have had far less exposure to and practice with ‘proper’ language than their peers might. At the very least, the regulations teach such students that their way of speaking and their parents’ and communities’ ways of speaking are incorrect or somehow less than. Perhaps this is a case in which the standards by which students are judged ought to be changed, rather than the students themselves.

In instances where communication is not hindered between a user and non-user of slang, why should anyone waste time policing something that might promote creativity of expression? In societies where it is hard enough to counter such things as hate speech, it seems unrealistic and fruitless to attempt to control non-standard – though harmless – speech.