If you could have three wishes from a genie, what would they be?
Submitted by tatteredhalo.
Anyone familiar with folklore, or who has watched enough episodes of The Twilight Zone, knows how dangerous wishes can be. Wish for world peace? Every human being drops dead. Wish for fame and fortune? Suddenly you have a billion dollars that turns out to be stolen and you are a famous criminal. You know how it goes - there are always loopholes, and the genie is always out to get you. I think it was a Simpsons episode, too.
I need to be careful about wording these wishes, then, because to be on the safe side I have to assume a malicious genie. While I would love to have world peace, or an end to environmental degradation, or Bush out of office, it seems like the bigger the wish, the bigger the potential screw-ups. I've also got this ethical problem with imposing my will on others using magic. So, in the interests of not making things worse for everyone, I'm keeping my wishes small and selfish.
1. I wish that I really enjoyed exercising - like, as much as I enjoy eating chocolate or playing video games. I want exercise to feel like a special happy treat every time I do it.
2.I wish my life to work itself out such that, without bringing harm to disablitiy to myself or others, I have the time and financial wherewithal to really pursue the things I'm passionate about.
3. My third wish is something that I can't share in public yet. But I wish it. Oh, how I wish it.
This is one of those books that is on every reading list of every Druid group there is. It's always held up as important reading for the scholarly-minded student of Druidry. The ADF reading list calls it "the best modern survey of what we know and don't know about the Celtic Druids" [http://www.adf.org/training/resources/reading.html]. My own order, the AODA, has it first on the list of recommended books for Second Degree studies of historical druids [http://www.aoda.org/books2.htm].The Henge of Keltria has it as one of the top 5 picks on the subject [http://www.keltria.org/Publications/Bookstore.htm].
See what I did there? I made a particular claim - that it is considered important reading. Then, I named several well-respected sources to back up that claim and included specific information allowing the reader to check my sources. This technique accomplishes several things. First, it shows that I have done my research on this subject - I'm not making it up. Second, it shows that I am relying on particular sources - not my neighbor Joe, not some guy's blog, but the actual websites of the Druid groups in question. Third, and most importantly in my opinion, it shows a level of respect both for my own writing and for the reader. I respect my own writing enough to assume that the reader is taking it seriously, and I respect my readers enough to provide them with an easy way to get more information if they want to find out what else is on those reading lists. This is why we cite sources. It's not some arcane scholarly practice; it's just good common sense, especially when doing the kind of writing that Ellis does in this book. Drawing from multiple sources both ancient and modern, Ellis synthesizes this material and adds his own interpretation to give us an overview of what is and isn't known about the ancient Druids.
Except, he doesn't cite his sources. Most of the time the reader has to guess as to whether what we're getting is Ellis' interpretation or someone else's. He sometimes makes vague comments in the text - "Diodorus Siculus says that..." or "Pliny writes that..." or "Nora Chadwick claims..." . Even then, without some kind of citation, the reader is left to flounder around - there's a quote from Strabo on page 174 that is a perfect example of this. "An examination of this... in Strabo's work has been translated as:" followed by a quote in English. This is extremely frustrating. I'm assuming it's the Jones translation of 1923 because of the language style, and because that's the commonly used one (it might be the only complete translation - I'm not sure.) I shouldn't have to guess, though. As a Greek scholar, I would love to look up the passage and read it in the original; the translation as given looks a little odd - what would Greek for "trousers" be? or "plaid"? I would have to look to another source to find out, though, because Ellis not only leaves out the name of the translator but entirely neglects to cite where in all of the Geography the passage appears. Ellis apparently assumes that his readers don't actually care where he got all this information. This is just one example of something that happens over and over again in the book - an interesting tidbit is held out, but only a little nibble is offered. So, in spite of what some have claimed, this is not actually a scholarly work at all. It's a popular history, intended for those who won't be interested in reading much else on the subject.
This is OK - popular histories certainly have their place. Generally, they are light, breezy, easily digested and interesting to people from many walks of life. Parts of this book succeed very well in that respect. I loved the chapter on "The Wisdom of the Druids," after I had resigned myself to the citation issue. Others are far too heavy-handed; he makes it clear that he does not think classical sources can be trusted and that he does not believe that there is any evidence for human sacrifice among the ancient Celts. Then he makes it clear again. And again. I found his contortions to try to explain away the Lindow Man to be kind of funny - he is so completely invested in the idea that the ancient Celts did not do human sacrifices that he cannot face the fact that it is a perfectly legitimate interpretation in some cases. This particular hobby-horse of his is problematic, because it reveals his particular biases on the subject, and the reader is left to wonder about whatall of the less-obvious biases might be. Popular histories are the most fun when the author's voice comes through clearly, as long as the author is bright and witty and charming. When Ellis' voice does come through, he just sounds peevish. This book has all the charm and verve of a scholarly work, with the scholarship level of a popular history.
He has the usual concluding chapter saying the usual ridiculous things about modern Druidry. I came to the conclusion long ago that authors use this sort of thing as a shield. Certain topics are highly suspect in the academic world: Druids, witches, goddesses, drugs, the occult, and magic can ruin a scholar's reputation. By clearly indicating that they think that the vast majority of what is written on these subjects is trash, and by making fun of people who take these things seriously, the scholar says to his peers, "See, l'm not one of those people. Those people are nuts. I'm serious, I'm not like them, I'm like you." It's a version of schoolyard bullying. Ellis says, on page 280: "I have encountered many calling themselves 'New Age Celts,' usually not Celtic by culture, preaching harmony with nature, fighting to protect endangered species of animal and plant life, who have stared in incomprehension when it has been pointed out that the Celtic civilization itself is struggling in a last-ditch attempt to survive in the modern world." I would bet money that this never happened. First of all, I don't know of anyone anywhere who calls themselves a "New Age Celt." I googled the term to see if I was missing something, and found very few references to the term. Some referred to a musical style, some referred back to this very quote, and some used the term to make fun of Celtic-influenced spirituality. I didn't see anyone calling themselves a "New Age Celt." I'm trying to imagine this conversation:
N.A.C.: Hi, I'm a New Age Celt, I do lots of work to protect endangered species and I feel it's really important to live in harmony with nature.
P.B. E.: But the Celtic civilization itself is struggling in a last-ditch attempt to survive in the modern world!
N.A.C.: Um, yeah... (tries to think of something placating to say to this conversational non sequitir) umm... really?
P.B.E. Aha! I see you staring in dumb incomprehension.
It just doesn't ring at all true as a real exchange between actual people. I think it's another hobby-horse of the author's - the perceived lack of involvement with the Celtic nationalist movement by people who claim Celtic influences on their spirituality, and he made up these "many New Age Celts" to illustrate that point.
With all of that said, I would still recommend this book to anyone studying Druidry. It's been very influential among people that Ellis would call "New Age Celts" and I think it's appropriate that we read this as part of our education. If I were to recommend just one book about the ancient Druids, it wouldn't be this one, but if I were to make a list, this would be on it. There are, as I said, good parts - you just have to wade through the speculation and vague references to get there.
I had to look something up for an article on autism and accidentally stumbled into a whole world of autistic bloggers. Below are three that I particularly enjoyed reading:
Autism Demonized
Autism Diva
Ballastexistenz (this one is more than just enjoyable - it's absolutely mindblowing)
I love these voices because they sound so fearlessly individual. It has to be a horrible thing to have your entire outlook on life, your brain structure - everything about you, really - pathologized.
When I was a kid they sent me to the school psychologist because I was, you know, not like other kids. I was the kid who sat and read books about dragons while the other kids did whatever it is kids do on a playground. I felt closer to my cat than to any human, and I once got in trouble with a neighbor for talking to his tree. Plus, of course, everyone knew my parents were freaks.
I knew what was up with the psychologist, of course. I'd prepped by reading "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" I knew that this person was a danger to me, because he would try to turn everything I liked about myself into a problem to be solved. I also had a habit of going into every situation assuming that I was smarter than any adult, and in this case my assumption was completely affirmed. He showed me a bunch of pictures and asked some canned questions and adminstered some tests. It was painfully obvious what the "right" answer was - how a normal kid would answer - and it was the easiest thing in the world to tell him what he wanted to hear.
He must have stamped "SANE" on my file because I never saw him again and no one ever mentioned it again. However, I knew that my true answers were not really the same as the answers I gave. I had already picked up on the fact that many people saw something wrong about me - there's nothing like a pack of schoolchildren to make that abundantly clear - but as far as I was concerned they had something wrong with them and life was fine as long as they weren't actually bothering me. (This very funny site actually pretty much sums up how I felt.) I knew from then on that there were people out there who would try to cure me of being "me," and I felt passionately opposed to that process. It's that voice that I identify with in the autism blogs.
There was not, in fact, anything wrong with me. I was just a bright kid who was very introverted and had a mom that dressed me funny. I had no pathological behaviors - I did well in school, I didn't have many friends but the ones I had were very close, and besides some fits of teenage depression I was happy. As long as I was alone (or on a horse - by "alone" I realize what I mean is "away from humans" - I never actually felt "alone" when surrounded by trees), outdoors, in the woods I was totally happy, and I was fortunate enough to live where that was easy to accomplish.
However, if I did not have a deep distrust of authority, a feral sense of self-preservation, and age-inappropriate reading material, I might have thought that psychiatrist was there to help me. I might have answered honestly. I could have been transformed magically into a Disabled Person. I might have been labeled and stuck in a slot, and worse, I might even have believed it.
I found, as I was going through these blogs, a couple of different screening instruments for autism spectrum conditions - I answered honestly this time, since nothing was riding on the outcome. No surprise, I test positive for Asperger's. I don't believe it, though. Not that I don't believe that I have these characteristics, that I share a collection of behavioral traits with a particular population, or that these traits are different from most of the population. What I don't believe is that this is a disease, or a disorder, or a disability, or any of those words that imply that it's something to be fixed. I function quite well, actually, and generally I like myself and my life.
