Millinery Basics and Tips

So, I've been looking for a variety of millinery supplies online--mostly because I'm poor, and I can't afford to buy supplies from the usual online supplier.  In the process, I've happened upon numerous blogs and forum threads from people looking for both traditional and alternative materials and tools.  A lot of the questions I've seen have been pretty simple, even for someone as inexperienced in millinery as I am.  So, I thought I'd be nice and put together a brief guide for aspiring hat makers.

I got started with a workshop I took in grad school (it was the highlight of those horrible two years).   The workshop was taught by a lovely lady named Jan Wutkowski (link goes to her blog, which includes a schedule of her classes), and most of what I know came from there.  The rest came from the primary source book for millinery, From the Neck Up, by Denise Dreher.  There are a few tips I have that are from my own experience, too.

Let's begin with a brief overview of how hat making works, for those in the audience who are totally new to the subject.  Generally speaking, hats are made from a firm material that will hold its shape (we're skipping over the whole knitted/crocheted thing and going with more traditional methods).  This material is usually stretched over a block in order to form it into its final shape, and then embellished.  Typically, the foundation material is wool, straw, or buckram (there are others, but these are the most common).  If you're using wool or straw, the material is nice enough that you don't need to cover it--you can just sew on whatever feathers and other embellishments you like.  Buckram, on the other hand, is ugly, and needs to be covered.  On the plus side, it's also cheap, and very stiff--you can get shapes with buckram that you can't with wool.  The other thing you need to know is that, although hats come in a million varieties, there's really only two hats.  You have (as my teacher said) fitting hats and sitting hats.  A fitting hat is one that comes down over your head, like a fedora, or a cloche.  A sitting hat is one that just sort of balances up there, like a fascinator. 

Fitting hat--actually, the one I made in that workshop.

Sitting hat--easier to model on a real head.

So, now that we know a little more about hats, where do we get what we need?  There aren't a lot of suppliers.  Hats by Leko is probably the best--nobody else has the selection they do.  Judith M also has a decent selection, although I've never ordered from them.  Suppliers for theatrical costuming will also carry a limited selection of hat supplies, but if you're just getting started, I'd go with Leko.  They're pricey, but they also have everything you could possibly need, as well an excellent supply of buckram frames (I highly recommend covering a few premade ones before you tackle making your own--it can be trickier than you expect).  

That said, traditional supplies are expensive.  A good hardwood hat block will easily set you back a couple hundred bucks, and you usually want at least a couple.  The enterprising do it yourselfer might attempt to make one.  This is my favorite example of what can happen when you go that route.  I generally wouldn't advise it unless you're an experience woodworker, or have other skills (if time permitted, I'd use the model stock we have at school, and run a couple of hat blocks on the CNC machine).  But all is not lost--while I can't save our example person all that time and effort, I can help you with one little link.  Frank's Cane and Rush Supply carries sturdy, polyurethane hat blocks for next to nothing (Thank you, Ms. Wutkowski!).  I haven't found anywhere else that carries these, and they are great to work with--I have two myself.  Depending on what you're doing, you can improvise, too.  While felt and straw hoods will require steaming (which means your block needs to be heat resistant), buckram doesn't necessarily have to be heated to be formed. It will shrink a little, but as long as you can pin the fabric to hold its shape while it dries, you can use whatever will fit your needs.  In my own first steps to making buckram fascinator frames, I've had remarkably good luck with a styrofoam head from Hobby Lobby.  I wouldn't use it for a fitting hat, but for just getting a curve, it's great.

Styrofoam head in action!

 

Moving onto materials, unfortunately, you will have to go with a millinery or costume supplier for pretty much every foundation fabric other than buckram.  Buckram can be had at some fabric stores, but it's pretty lightweight, and more expensive per yard (but you can buy just one yard, so you don't have to hit the $38 minimum with Leko's).  However, if you're just looking for a small quantity to experiment with, it'll work.  I picked up a little over a yard at JoAnn's for about $5.  I did a couple of tests, and while one layer sorta works, two layers of it gives the stiffness you really need.

 

 

 Two layers.  Trust me on this

Now you can't make a good buckram frame without millinery wire to hold the shape.  Or can you?  This has been my most recent avenue of inquiry.  For my first two hat frames, I saved some pennies and used memory wire.  You'll find it in the beading section of any craft store--it's basically spring steel, so it holds its shape.  The memory wire works well for small, round frames, but it has a tendency to warp and curve once you reach a certain size. I soldered the ends together, but you could also using cheap tubing.  I don't recommend trying to bind the ends--you'll wind up with a lump, and they might still come apart.  Traditional millinery wire is covered with thread or paper, but I question how necessary that really is.  As best I've been able to find, steel wire is going to be your best bet, around 20g (#19 is the preferred size, but I'm not entirely sure that's the gauge).  Make sure whatever you get won't rust and damage the fabric.   My time's been a bit limited so I haven't yet determined the best alternative for larger frames.  I will say, florist's wire comes up frequently as an alternative--the important thing is that it will hold whatever shape you put it into.

Most of your references will say to sew the wire to the edge of the buckram--I've found it's much easier to sew it onto the curve, them trim it away.

And trim it as close as possible without cutting your stitches.

Here's a close up of the soldered joint--it's a quick and dirty job with an iron, but it's going to be covered anyway.

 

The last thing you'll need to put together a nice frame (and let's face it, an ugly frame is going to make an ugly hat), is something to cover the wire.  A traditional frame will use crinoline--again, something that can be hard to find.  I thought about it and thought about it, and you know what I discovered?  Single fold bias tape does the job beautifully, and for a fraction of the cost.

 

I opted for 5/8".  Initially, it felt a bit narrow, but it really does make for a nice finished edge.

 

 Tada!  Finished frame for a fraction of the cost!

The final thing you might need is some light padding to cover up an irregularities in the surface of the frame (which you'll find even in premade frames).  Traditionally, you'd use domette, but quilt batting works just as well, and is much easier to find.  A baby blanket size package will last you forever.

I'm assuming if you're handy enough to get this far, you can do the design work and figure out how to cover and embellish the frame.  Hopefully some of that will help if you're looking to get started with hat making on a budget. 

No, Really, Please Stop. Hell Is Only Five Minutes Away.

First off, we really are going to get back to the bike path series.  Eventually.  There was the whole sick for months thing followed by OMG school and work.  So, once my health and time are back up to it, we'll return to that one.

As for today, I'd like to preach to ya, brothers and sisters.  Yeppers, we're coming back around to the Jesus train.  No complaining, it's not a subject I hit often ( I believe the last time was here), but every once in a while, I have to get it out.  I actually have a pretty serious spiritual life, in spite of never going to church and the amount of swear words that come out of my mouth.  And in spite of the various bizarre paths I find myself on, I consider myself a Christian, because I attempt to follow the teachings of Christ.  Now, don't run away, because I promise you, I'm not going to tell you about how you're going to hell for not believing.  I honestly believe that none of us really have the full story here--we've all got part of the puzzle, but each part is mixed in with some other puzzle pieces and we don't even have all of the pieces for the one we're actually trying to put together.

But before I get carried away with espousing my own beliefs, let's get back on topic.  Today's post is for all you evangelicals out there (atheists, agnostics, and others who have been burned, feel free to sit back with some popcorn).  Yes, you know who I'm talking about.  I'm talking about those of you who go door to door to talk about Jesus, and you cunt monkeys who litter tracts on the vehicles of innocent bystanders.

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have called you cunt monkeys.  Not very Christian of me.

At the same time,  I really don't appreciate finding tracts under my windshield wipers when I come back out of the new age bookstore.  I mean, it's better than finding out my car got towed because I parked in a staff lot for the university, but when I was gone for like 20 minutes and looking to see what books they had on chaos and sigil magic,  it really feels like you're stalking me.

Furthermore, when your tract gets oddly specific, it kinda makes all the rest of us Christians look bad.  For example, the one I found on my car most recently discussed what happens five minutes after you die.

This is what happens when I try to take detail photos with my phone. 

 For those of you can't cross your eyes sufficiently, the pertinent part is, "Unless you have prepared for your eternity in this life, five minutes after you die you will feel the flames of an eternal Hell for ever and ever."  

Ignoring the fact that you'll be in "an eternal Hell" as opposed to "THE eternal Hell" (because you'd think if they only believe in one god and one heaven, they'd only believe in one hell, too), how, HOW do they know it takes five minutes to get to Hell?  Seriously!  I mean,  pretty sure there's nothing about that in the bible (most of the time spans in there are pretty vague.  I think the three days it took Jesus to come back to life may have been the most specific), so how did they find this out?  Did they send researchers out on this topic?  How did they get back with the data?  What's going on during that five minutes?  Are you being judged?  I'd like to think God takes more than five of our minutes to make that decision.  I mean, usually we're told that right after you die (if you've been good, that is) you go straight to heaven.  Why is there this delay in getting to Hell?  And how do they even know that time passes at the same rate (or at all) in the spiritual realm?  Seriously, I genuinely want to know how they came to this conclusion.

I even went so far as to go to the website of the tract printers ( http://www.gospeltractsociety.org/ ,if you want to get in on this) and I sent them an email asking how they knew this, but either they don't work weekends or they assumed I was trolling (I kinda am, but I really do want to know).

The point here is, throwing shit like this out there for the anti-Christians to find is like giving North Korea nukes.  You're just doing their work for them.  

Fire and brimstone doesn't work anymore.  Fear is never the best motivator, and telling people to believe or else, well, you catch more flies with honey, ya know what I'm saying?

I get that you're genuinely trying to do the right thing here.  I mean, after all, if you believe that your religion is the only way to not suffer for all eternity, then it's only right to get as many people to join as possible, so as to save them from that dreadful fate.  At the same time, just going around telling everyone is maybe not the most effective way to spread your message.  After all, what about all the other Christians out there?  They've already heard the word.  No need to preach to the choir, so to speak.  I mean, you've never met me.  Why automatically assume I'm a Satan worshiping heathen?  Is it because you don't know me?  I've gotta tell ya, if that's it, well, generally speaking, if only the people that you know are the ones who believe what you're preaching, chances are good you're probably in a cult.  Seriously, there's billions of people on this planet.  If you've really got it right, there's almost certainly someone you don't know who's in on it.  Personally, I find it rather offensive that you assume I haven't heard the message of Christ (which, for the record, was much more about love and forgiveness than about going to Hell, and that whole born again thing is in Paul.  Paul never even met Jesus, and he was an asshole).  You've just met me, and you already think I'm so horrible that I'm going to Hell?  Not cool, man, not cool.

Long story short (if any of you evangelicals are even left to read this after I called you cunt monkeys), going around and shoving your religion in other people's faces is a really horrible way to convert them.  Either you're preaching at (and pissing off) the choir, or you're openly insulting people.  No one wants to hang out with sanctimonious assholes, brothers and sisters.  By calling yourselves Christians and "preaching the word,"  you're making the rest of us look bad, and driving away everyone who used to be on the fence.  There's a lot of people out there who would be Christians, if somebody would take the time to seriously answer their questions.  And there's so many others who have been driven away from the church by the people in it.  I've heard horror stories about churches performing exorcisms on rebellious teenagers, the pedophiles in the Catholic church (it's really not all the priests, I swear), not to mention the sheer number of atheists, agnostics, and pagans I know who used to be Christians.  Heck, one of the most die hard atheists I know grew up in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses.  If I grew up with that, I'd be an atheist, too.

So, what's my actual point here?  I guess it's that people need to stop assuming that their religion (or lack thereof--atheists, I'm looking at those of you who think people who believe in God are stupid, that's just as bad as the fundamentalist Christians) is the only way.  That they're the only ones who are right.  And that you have to unthinkingly follow the decrees of that religion or you're going to hell.  Cut other people some slack, for the love of god.  Ask questions--unless I seriously misinterpreted something, the whole reason God gave us free will was because He (or She, if that's your pleasure) wanted us to come to Him on our own.  He wanted us to choose to love him.  How do you make that choice without asking questions?  You can't.  So stop expecting other people to just accept your word for it that your religion is the only path to God, and start justifying your beliefs.

(I'm sure Jesus loved the dinosaurs, but let's be honest, it doesn't help our credibility to say so.)

Endometriosis Sucks

So, as some of you may be aware, I've had some health issues the last six months or so.  I've not gone into much detail, mostly because I figure ya'll don't really want to know, especially since it's girly reproductive system stuff.  WARNING: This is ranty and depressing, so you might want to give it a miss.  If I post this at all, it'll mostly be for chicks with endo on google, looking for someone to empathize with the hopelessness of their condition.

But I'm really frustrated, and I just need to get this out, so bear with me. 

Last fall (late summer, really), I went off birth control.  Not because I want kids (as fucking everyone tends to assume), but because I had long suspected there was a hormonal component to my issues with depression and I was sick and tired of the birth control screwing with my head.  Having been on it for around 14-15 years, it took a few months to get out of my system, and those months were pretty rough.  But, by mid October, moving into November, I had reached a point where I was pretty well normal--no random screaming/crying fits (think like a seizure, only conscious and with less twitching), my periods weren't hurting like they had been those first few months, and I was the most emotionally stable I have quite possibly ever been.  Midway through my cycle in November though, I started to hurt.  I initially thought it was normal--since going off the pill I'd had some mid cycle pain (mittelschmerz)--but then it was still there the next day.  And the next.  After a few days of this, I went to my GP, who did a urine test and drew some blood, declared no sign of infection in said fluids, said it was probably a pelvic infection, gave me some antibiotics and told me to use a heat pad.  I'd like to point out that at this time, I was in some pretty serious pain--moving around hurt, as did sitting in certain positions.  But hey, it got better with antibiotics, so I figured all was going to be well.  But as soon as I finished the antibiotics, the pain came back, with a vengeance.  After a second batch of antibiotics and my third visit to my GP (who is no longer my GP because of all this), I finally got referred to an OB/GYN.  By the time I saw her in mid December, I had been in pain for the better part of a month--and we're talking, I can't sit up straight, standing up long enough to shower has me in tears pain.  The GYN did a pelvic exam and a pap (which at no point did my GP do, nor did he even ask when the last time I had had one done was) and finished it off with an ultrasound.  When she hit a certain spot in the pelvic exam, it hurt so much that I think I actually blacked out for a second.  The ultrasound revealed oodles of ovarian cysts, and a laproscopic surgery to remove them would have to be scheduled.  By this point, it was almost Christmas, so it was January before they could get me in.  Again, for most of this time, I'd been in pain severe enough that the closest I could get to sitting up was mostly reclined--I actually had to call into work, because I could not sit upright for three hours (which is the most physically strenuous thing required of me there).  Early January saw me in surgery (the day after my birthday, I might add), and immediately afterward I felt better, except for the pain caused by the surgery.The good news was that she didn't have to remove an ovary--the bad news was that I have endometriosis.

 For those of you who don't know what it is, you know how every month a lining grows in the uterus in preparation for a baby, then it sheds out (i.e. Aunt Flo)?  Well, with endometriosis, some of that tissue somehow gets outside of the uterus and does its thing in other places of the body.  And because there's no place for the crap it's shedding to go, bad things happen.  There is no cure. 

The primary treatment is (wait for it) birth control. 

So, when we discussed this at my follow up after the surgery, I pointed out the massive emotional issues I've had while on BC (prior to going off it, I'd've said 40-60% was hormonal.  Now? 80-90%).  I went over this list of formulations I've tried, and her response was, "So, pretty much everything."  There was one left that I hadn't tried, mostly because it's less effective for the preventing pregnancy thing.  But, because of previous issues, I refused to go back on it without anitdepressants to act as a check.  Because of my history, she wasn't willing to prescribe them, so I had to find a shrink.

I eventually did find someone who wasn't crazier than I am, and started on Prozac two weeks before my next period so that it would be in my system when I started the pill (you start the pill either on the day your period starts or the Sunday after).  Those two weeks were less than pleasant, because I didn't really need the prozac, and being on too high a dose of that stuff makes me jumpy as hell.  But I got through it, and started the pill.  I started it late on Friday that week, and by Monday night I was curled in the fetal position (as much as I could curl, anyway--when those fits hit, my movement is kinda limited) sobbing and screaming, and trying to figure out why it wouldn't stop.  The husband beared with me (bless his heart), and we both decided that I should stop taking it.  Within a few days, I was back to normal (I also quit the prozac, since I didn't need it).

I finally got around to calling the doctor to figure out where to go from here, and it was singularly unhelpful.  They asked if I'd found a new GP yet (no, because I haven't been sick, and can't afford to seek medical help recreationally) and how bad the pain was, and then basically set me loose.

I actually did have a couple pain free weeks in February, once I'd healed from the surgery, but it's been slowly coming back.  Mostly just annoying, but I've been having to take painkillers for most of March.  To be honest, I'm home right now because I hurt (it still gets worse a bit before my period and during the monthly massacre in my pants).

The horrifying thing is that you can surgically remove the lesions and whatnot caused by endometriosis, but it comes back.  And there's no telling when--it could be a couple years, it could be a couple months.  The uncertainty, the, "Should I plan for that or will I be in too much pain to follow through?" is agonizing.  Never knowing when I'm going to be in too much pain to live my life.  Seriously, I'm almost done with school--am I even going to be able to hold down a real job?  And there's nothing I can do.  I can take painkillers, but nothing really kills the pain, and I can't take anything more than naproxen without impairing my mental faculties.  Looking at support groups and resources online really just makes the situation more bleak--it's all about how birth control can keep the pain from coming back.  But what if you can't take birth control?  Just suck it up and deal?  "Oh, use relaxation techniques, get plenty of sleep, and switch to the endometriosis diet (which ranges from vegetarian to outright vegan)."  Riiight.  I'd love to get plenty of sleep, but I have shit to do, like class and work.  And I'm not giving up meat, cheese, and chocolate (aka. the food that makes life worth living).  Can I get some practical solutions here that don't feel like a fucking bandaid?  Can I get a practical solution that I can actually life with?  "Women who identify with the disease experience less pain."  I'm sorry, but I don't want to be defined by what's wrong with me.

And the support groups?  When it's not, "I've had six laproscopies and the pain's gotten worse after each one," it's all about the infertility aspect of it (endometriosis can cause infertility).  I'm not really that interested in having kids--can I get a support group for women with endo who don't want to breed?  Because the focus on fertility is really awkward, because it makes me feel like I should care when I don't.  Thank you for the reminder of that.  Seriously, looking at support groups only makes it more depressing.

Yeah, sorry to be such a downer.  There is no happy ending for this story.  I figure I'll probably have a couple more surgeries and have a hysterectomy within about ten years.  This isn't based on anything my doctor said, but on the basic trends associated with this disease.

But I did find one bright spot in my internet searching, and I would like to share it.
At least I'm hot.

Never Ask a Woman If She's Pregnant, And Other Faux Pas

So, a friend of mine from undergrad has been horribly pregnant (she's having the pregnancy I always imagine I would have) for a while, and I recently discovered she's been keeping a very thoughtful blog about it.  Anywho, last week she had a post about how she was out and people were asking if she was pregnant and while it was cool that people were interested...what if she hadn't been?

This struck a chord with me, a big massive terrible rage-a-riffic chord.  Because I've never been pregnant.  And I've been asked that.

This happened while we were living in North Carolina (for why that should explain everything, refer back to here).  I was heavy--I topped 200 lbs at the time, and while I carried it well, I was very sensitive about it.  It was even towards the end of our stay there--I think we only had a month or two left, which was a good thing, because the incident in question was one of those, "We can't come back here again," incidents.  The hubby and I had innocently gone to the mall food court for lunch, and while the dude at Sbarro was putting together my salad and pizza, the woman in line behind us asked me if I was pregnant (apparently I was glowing or some bullshit).  I exploded.  I tried to be civil, but I was seeing red, and I think I responded along the lines of, "You don't ask a woman that.  I mean, I know I'm heavy, but that's extremely insulting."  And, because this was Greenville, the woman didn't say, "Oh, my bad.  Sorry." No, she reacted to my outrage with utter bafflement.  She honestly couldn't understand what was wrong with her question, and she proceeded to call to her nearby friend and MOCK ME for being upset about being asked if I was pregnant.  It was the closest I have ever been to a fight, and if the hubby hadn't intervened I would've taken a swing at her.

So, for those of you who still don't understand why it's wrong to ask a woman if she's pregnant, I'll attempt to explain.  Please keep in mind that I have difficulty understanding how anyone could ever think that's okay, so coming down enough to clarify it may be tricky.  Fundamentally, it comes down to body image issues.  Women in our country are constantly being told (overtly and subliminally, through pretty much every media outlet) that you can never be too thin.  And by that, I mean that we have it shoved in our faces that we are always too fat.  This results in some pretty poor self images, not to mention a variety of eating disorders.  And, with America's ever increasing girth, we grow even more sensitive about our size.  "Fat" has become a new four letter word.  You wouldn't walk up to a woman and say, "Wow, you're fat!" she'd deck you. 

When a woman is pregnant, she gains a lot of weight--her body stores extra nutrients to feed the baby, you've got the baby itself, and her boobs get bigger because they're getting ready to spurt out milk.  Even the smallest woman in the world gets pretty huge when she's pregnant.

So, if you ask a woman if she's pregnant, you're implying that she looks big enough to be pregnant.  Which, if she's not hauling around a baby inside, means that all that extra size is made up of fat.

That's right, asking a non pregnant woman if she's preggers is the same as calling her fat.

And it can be hard to tell.  Here, look at this picture I found on the internet:

Pregnant, or overweight?

Now, given that I found the picture on a site dedicating to helping obese women with their pregnancies, and the crib in the background, I think it's safe to say she's probably pregnant.  But if you saw her on the street, would you be able to tell?

When we're overweight, we know it.  And, usually, we feel awful about it.  Every time we look in the mirror and see that extra chin, we call ourselves fat.  When we're talking to our adorable skinny friends, we feel like fat cows.  And the bitch of it is, our adorable skinny friends probably feel the same way when they look in the mirror and talk to their even more adorable and even skinnier friends.  For the love of god, don't ask us questions that imply that we are just as big as we feel!

But that's actually not the worst emotional baggage you can bring up by asking a woman if she's pregnant.  What if she recently miscarried?  What if she's been trying to get pregnant, but can't?  Congratulations, you just reminded her that she doesn't have the baby she so desperately wants.

While we're on the topic of kids, let's talk about the other big faux pas people make when asking women about their reproductive history.  Don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids.  Just don't.  Wonder to yourself, ask her mom when she's not around, but don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids.  Those of you who know me will assume that it's because some women don't want kids, which is true.  Personally, I think I can live a fulfilling life and die satisfied without ever popping out another human being.  But that's a topic for another post (yes, I have that many reasons for not having kids). 

No, the primary reason you don't ask a woman when she's going to have kids is this: infertility.

See, like I just mentioned, there are plenty of women out there who want kids, but for whatever reason, they can't have them.  Maybe their hubby's shooting blanks, maybe they have endometriosis or some other disorder, maybe their health and lady bits are such that having a baby would kill them.  Doesn't matter.  What does is that they can't have a baby of their own, even though they want one and would be the most awesome mom in the world.  Just imagine yourself in their shoes.  I expect the internal monologue runs along the lines of, "When am I going to have kids?  Never." Cue tears and sobbing.  Knowing that there are women out there who want kids but can't have them kinda makes me feel guilty about not wanting to have them at all, and often has me hoping that I'm infertile myself.

On a similar note, when a woman tells you she's pregnant, don't always assume it's a good thing.  Most times it is--a majority of women do want to have kids.  But there are a lot of circumstances under which pregnancy is not good news.  If they've been trying, by all means, congratulate them and ask for updates periodically.  If you don't know, well....  I know for a fact that if I peed on a pregnancy test and it came out positive, the first words out of my mouth would be a string of expletives.  Watch their body language and tone when they announce it, and respond accordingly.  If you're still not sure whether congratulations or condolences are in order, ask (politely).

I guess the whole point of this rambling quasi rant comes down to this: a woman's reproductive capabilities are none of your business (unless you're her fella or her OB-GYN).  Don't ask.  It's a sensitive subject.  I'm not advocating political correctness but basic human sensitivity and a respect for other people's privacy.  You don't have a right to know what's going on in my uterus.  If you think I'm glowing, then just give me a compliment, "You look amazing."  If you think I'd be a great mom, put some kids near me and tell me how good I am with them.  We women have to put up with so much crap from our bodies, we don't need you giving us more. 

Worry about your own reproductive parts, and keep your nose out of mine.  If I want you to know, I'll tell you.

Five Books Everyone Should Read

 This is a subject I normally avoid, mostly because a) reading a book covering a given topic is usually more important than the specific book and b) it's virtually impossible to determine a book that is relevant to everyone.  But I was reading 1984 at work and one of the guys was totally unfamiliar with it and I suddenly realized that there are books that I think everyone should be familiar with.  And so, this list.  It was originally going to be ten, but I couldn't come up with ten specific books that I genuinely thought everybody needs to have read.  I did well to come up with five, to be honest.

Before we get to the list, I do want to take a moment to go over the criteria I used to make my selections.  Firstly, I'm going to define everyone as being relatively Western--i.e. European, North American, or Australian.  Loosely, we can say first world nations.  African tribesman and Chinese sweatshop workers are off the hook, although I think this would certainly be an excellent introduction to western culture.  Secondly, I want it noted that these are not the only books everyone should read--there are billions of books out there. There's a lot of ground to cover out there.  If you want a longer list, ask me for authors or subjects.  

The criteria are as follows:

• I have to have read it. (Which covers a lot more ground than one might expect--I average at least 3-4 books a week.)
• cannot be a series or trilogy, but it can be part of one (e.g. The Lord of the Rings is right out, but The Fellowship of the Ring is okay)
• it must either have unique topical content, or be the epitome of its kind (e.g. The Lord of the Flies, The Hunger Games, and Battle Royale all have the same theme and it's debatable which is the best, so none of them is on the list)
• the content must be relevant to "everyone" as defined earlier (e.g. Twilight has nothing to offer anyone with a penis)
• the book should be relatively readable (i.e. not exceedingly boring or overly difficult to decipher--Chaucer is right out)
• the content should be such that it warrants rereading (i.e. you get something different every time)
• the content should positively affect your brain (i.e. loosely speaking, there should be some sort of intellectual value--again, loosely speaking)

I feel like these are pretty reasonable criteria if I'm going to seriously expect everyone to read the books in question.  I'd also like to note that I'm not playing favorites here, either.  While I do have a certain fondness for the books on the list, as a serious reader, I have a lot more than five favorite books, and I can safely say that if I were marooned on a desert island with five books, this would not be my list (there might be some overlap, but not the whole thing).  I will say, if I was marooned on a desert island with five books to last out the apocalypse and reboot western culture with, these might be good (if bizarre) picks.

And so, without further ado....

5. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, by J.K. Rowling

The Why:  All too often, we focus on serious, literary works with all sorts of meaning and allegories and moral struggles and all kinds of bullshit.  While you can certainly read that into Harry Potter, at its core it's just a fun story.  Yes, you have your good vs. evil stuff and you have your extra special hero, but really, that's just the basis for a good story.  Everyone should read a good, fun adventure with nasty villains, mysterious legends, and a fairly unremarkable hero.  While it's part of a series, book one can safely stand alone, and encompasses an innocence that the later books loose.  Plainly put, it's good clean fun, and everyone needs to experience a fun book.  It allows the reader to a) escape b) use their imagination c) enjoy the act of reading.  While there are a lot of books out there that accomplish this, I've picked Harry because of his accessibility.  It's not a difficult read, and we can all relate to him on one level or another. 

4.  Where The Wild Things Are, by Maurice Sendak

The Why:  Picture books, while usually for small children, don't get the credit they deserve.  From a cultural perspective, they are instrumental in teaching children about the world--these books are one of the first ways we begin to teach kids how the world works.  However, picture books also have value for adults both as artistic pieces, and as reminders of what it is to not be bitter, jaded, and all grown up.  The ability to see the world through someone else's eyes--nothing does this like a picture book.  I selected Where The Wild Things Are firstly because of its art. There are a lot of beautifully illustrated kids books out there, but Sendak has a very unique style.  Of his works, this one stands far above the rest in detail and in color.  All too many kid's book have lame illustrations, or really cartoony ones.  Sendak is one of the very few whose work could stand on its own in a gallery setting.  As for the story itself, our hero is a very real character--he's no angel, spouting virtues.  He's a kid who won't listen to his mom and gets punished accordingly.  He runs away, and then realizes that maybe--just maybe--his mom was right.  On a grander scale, we all do that.  We may not literally run away, but we've all had that moment where we thought our parents were full of crap, did what they said not to, and then realized they might have had a point there after all.  And best of all, when Max realizes that and comes home, Mom's forgiveness sits silently on the table in the form of a steaming bowl of soup.  You can guess where I'm going with this.  The point is, if you're going to pick a kid's book with fabulous art and a surprising amount of meaning in very few words, this is it.

3. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess

The Why:  Okay, now I will admit, this one is pushing it on the readability scale, but once you get accustomed to the quasi-Russian slang it's not too bad.  What, you didn't think it was all going to be kiddie books, did you?  Anyway, the why on this one is pretty easy.  A lot of your critics and reviewers go on about the violence (rape victims should hold off on this one until they've finished their therapy), but that's not really the main point of the book.  Your take away from this one is the importance of free will in the whole good vs evil quandry.  Seriously, Burgess pretty well bludgeons us with this in the end, so if you miss it, you might want to just watch the movie (which is not only excellent, but also beautiful).  As a society, we tend to gravitate towards the quick fix, especially when it comes to morality.  It is all too easy to equate a forced good act with goodness itself.  You can't make someone good by force--it has to be a choice.

2. 1984, by George Orwell

The Why:  1984 is always classed as science fiction, most likely because it's a tale of the future (of course, so is our previous entry on the list, but that one goes in fiction).  You can call it a dystopian horror story, but I like to think of it as a cautionary tale.  Orwell is great for those.  This is the only fiction book I've read that is less fictional and more real every time I read it.  There are so many concepts in this book that are relevant today--the idea of Big Brother watching us (this is where the term was coined), those in power reducing the freedoms of the people in order to maintain control, the mutability of history, and the way the masses allow it all.  If you don't get nervous reading this book, you're not paying attention.  This is very much a  warning from the past, and one we would do well to heed.

1.  Cosmic Trigger I, by Robert Anton Wilson

The Why: This may be a bizarre number one choice for a book that everyone should read, but hear me out.  Firstly, I'd like to point out that while it's part of a trilogy, it can stand alone very well, and you can go on your merry way without reading the other two volumes.  That said, those of you with more eclectic reading habits will probably recognize this one and either love me or hate me for it.  The rest of you should be thoroughly baffled at this point, and for you I'll elaborate.

Cosmic Trigger serves two purposes: firstly, it is the best primer on conspiracy theories, new agey weirdness, and alternate theories of consciousness that you will ever find.  It's Kookery 101.  At least half of it is complete and utter crap, but it's up to you to figure it out.  Once you've gotten over that hump (the realization that the author is not taking this nearly as seriously as you might expect), it's a passable deprogramming manual.  If you take nothing else out of this book, it should be that you should be paying more attention and asking more questions.  Don't take everything you're told for granted.

Now, some of you may be asking why I would include a new agey book, but not more traditional religious tomes (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, etc.).  That's pretty simple.  If I were to include any one holy book, I'd have to include them all.  Not out of political correctness, but to give the hypothetical reader of this list balance.  I sincerely believe that no one religion has all of the answers, so to only provide one holy book would make the list biased.  There's also the fact that religion should be approach on an individual basis--there's no one size fits all solution.  Besides, at this point, most of us have taken our sides in that argument, and all of the big religions are respected.  It's the little ones that get written off as being new age mumbo jumbo, in spite of the fact that a lot of that new age crap is no more or less ridiculous than the more "legitimate" belief systems (72 virgins? A guy rising from the dead?  A pantheon of gods repeatedly killing each other?).

The point here is, look at what you're dismissing before you dismiss it.  Make your own decisions. 

Think for yourself.

That's why my number one pick is Cosmic Trigger.  By drawing a wide array of connections, it will force you into thinking for yourself, if only because you can't trust the narrator (Or can you?  A disturbing amount of what he mentions checks out).

Gun Control, Mental Illness, and Massacres

So, I ordinarily try to avoid discussing current events.  They rarely stay current for long, and they tend to bring out the irrational in people, so there's a chance I won't bother posting this.

But the reaction to the most recent shooting spree and a few other trends I've noticed have got me a tad nervous, and I want to be sure I'm not the only one noticing these things.

At the time of this writing, it's been a few days since a shooting spree at a grade school in Connecticut.  The first news article I saw mentioned that the shooter had a "personality disorder," and I immediately predicted that it would soon come out that the shooter had been in therapy for years, much like the last one (James Holmes, who, if you'll recall, shot up a movie theater in Colorado).  Now, we haven't gotten any testimony from his shrink yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

Ordinarily, incidents like this get a public reaction railing against guns, and how we need more gun control, yada, yada, yada.  And there certainly is a contingent doing exactly this right now.  To them I have only this to say:

 

But seriously, you've already made up your mind where you stand on that, and no amount of Willy Wonka pictures is going to change that.  We're not going to go into any depth regarding gun control, because the arguments are already out there.

But we are going to talk about mental illness and guns, because these last couple of shootings have laid the groundwork for a movement that would prevent "mentally ill" people from acquiring firearms.

And there is a lot of talk about this--just google it.  And on the surface, this is a good idea--after all, if we make it so psychopaths can't get guns, they can't go on shooting sprees, now can they? (And if you believe that, let me point you back to Mr. Wonka.)  I mean, I don't want crazy people to have guns.  They're crazy.

But the problem is when you start saying that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.  Because you know what?  "Mentally ill" covers a heck of a lot of ground, most of which is relatively harmless to others.  And mental illness is not necessarily a life long sentence.  Some people have one episode, and are perfectly fine for the rest of their lives.  Others are able to control their problems with a combination of therapy and meds, and still others just have an iron will.  Banning the mentally ill from having guns means that not only people who are legitimately and dangerously batshit insane will be forbidden from having a firearm (which is good), but it will also prevent people with problems like depression, anxiety, OCD, body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia, bulimia, hypochondriosis, pica, trichotillomania, social phobia, and a host of other so called mental disorders.  Now, I'm not saying there aren't some mental disorders that don't warrant some caution--some psychotics and schizophrenics can get dangerous (but they aren't necessarily always violent), and someone in the middle of a depressive episode probably should not have a gun, just because they're a danger to themselves.  But someone with OCD?  They're probably too busy neatly arranging the bullets to kill anyone.  Someone with bulimia?  Too busy throwing up their dinner.  Heck, somebody with social phobia is going to be too afraid to leave their house, much less shoot people.

According the National Institute of Mental Health, around 26% of adult Americans suffer from a mental disorder (mental illness) in a given year. 

About a quarter of our population suffer from mental illness.

A quarter.  1 in 4 people.

And, if you follow that link, you can see exactly what most of those people suffer from.  Here's a hint: it's depression and anxiety, neither of which prompts people to go on shooting sprees.

Am I saying crazy people should have guns?  Of course not.  But I am saying that if you are going to even attempt to legislate something like this, you need to be damned careful how you define "mental illness."  


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, we have a great hue and cry for better mental healthcare.  And I can't support this strongly enough.  Having been through the system a couple of rounds, our mental healthcare system is failing most of its patients.  It's great if you have a relatively minor problem, or it's an acute issue.  But, to be frank, this profession doesn't really know what they're doing.  When the shrink gives you that Prozac, it's because it helps most people.  Do they know what it does?  Absolutely.  It affects the serotonin levels in your brain.  Do they know why that makes some people less depressed?  No freaking clue.  It's really only been since the fifties that we stopped just locking up mentally ill people, and actually started trying to fix them.  Mental health is in its infancy. What even more disturbing is that most of the "professionals"in the field suffer from a variety of mental disorders themselves (I invite you to explore the psychology section of your bookstore and look at the mental illness memoirs--most of them are written by psychologists).  While this theoretically makes it easier for them to relate to their patients, it also adds a pretty heavy element of "the inmates are running the asylum" to the situation.  I don't know about you, but I don't really want someone with a mental disorder branding me with one for the rest of my life.

And that's where we really get into it.  For years, people with mental illness have been trying to overcome the stigma of being crazy.  And there is a stigma.  But most of these people can't help it anymore than someone with diabetes or heart disease.  We've made such great strides--most of our culture is much more accepting of problems like depression and anxiety, even bipolar.  But by branding these insane killers as being mentally ill, we are inadvertently tarring everyone with the same brush.  We run the risk of making mentally ill synonymous with murderer. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help these people--God knows they need it--but, again, we need to be a damned sight more careful about how we word things. 

I'll admit, most of this is just theory at this point.  But we are dancing on the edge of a very slippery slope right here.   I hope to God I'm wrong, and that we're able to enact laws that will protect our children and our freedoms (I'd like to point out that I'm not even going into the potential conspiracy theories associated with increased gun control).  

And I'm sure that by this point some of you are asking, "But, Linda, if we don't enact stricter guns laws and improve our mental health care, how do we stop this from happening again?"  And I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure.  I suspect that we'd have to change an awful lot of our current attitudes and habits.  We'd have to create a society that doesn't put so much pressure on its people.  In short, we pretty much need to overhaul our entire system.  But that's not a practical solution--changing our entire society would simply take too much time and energy, not to mention more change than most of us are willing to accept.  Honestly, we'll probably experience a full on societal breakdown before it even can happen.

In the meantime?  We'll just have to do what we can to prevent it, and show each other compassion and mercy when we can't. 




Next time: We will be returning to the bike trails series as soon as possible.  I've been kinda sick and not overly mobile, so my information gathering has been stalled.  There's one thing I absolutely have to check on the next one, and it'll be kind of exciting, so be sure to tune in! 

Bike Trails of Lexington--Liberty Trail

Parks and rec lists the length of this trail as 1.3 miles, but that's really going to vary depending on where you access it.  With five different start points, this is definitely one of the more accessible trails in the area.  You'll find it just next door to Hamburg, and about as navigable as the shopping area (i.e. you're probably going to get lost).  I started my exploration at one of the two access points one Flying Ebony Dr.--yes, there are two start points on the same street. 

Here's the first entrance.

 The second is much further down the street than you would expect.

It's also worth mentioning that the trail from the further entrance runs right next to the road, making you question why you bothered.

I really was not overly impressed with this trail.  There's not a lot of shade, and while the multiple entrance points provide easy access, they also make for some confusing intersections.

And they all look like this.

This is particularly bad, as one of these forks leads to yet another entry point, which is in a completely different and unconnected neighborhood.

If you live in that neighborhood, this is what you're looking at.

 

 The only people who will use that entrance are the one who live in the Killington subdivision, a neighborhood accessible only from Liberty Rd. (at a point where there's not even a shoulder to bike along).  Having inadvertently wound up over here the first time, I also find it important to note that the maps app on your smartphone may be completely useless.  I know mine was.  There's nothing like getting lost and pulling up a map, only to find out the street you're on doesn't exist.  There are about a million dead ends and a steep hill, too, so be careful not to wind up over here by mistake.

Once you've managed not to get turned around and lost, you'll soon pass by the fourth entry point, which is actually kinda cool.  There's a path that leads down from Liberty Elementary, so, presumably, teachers can take their classes for a walk.

I would have a better picture, but it was recess, and I didn't want anyone to think I was photographing the kids.

Once you get past the school, things are pretty straight forward.  You'll go under a bridge...

 

Okay, this is the other side.  But there's not that much of a difference.

...and then you'll pass by the fifth entrance, which is off of Red Leaf Dr. in The Shetlands neighborhood.

At least this one has a clear view of the street.

From this point, it's all up hill.  Seriously.  It's steep, and there is absolutely no shade.  This is not a trail for hot summer days, trust me.  But hey, surely there will be something interesting at the top of the hill, right?  Maybe the trail connects to nearby Liberty Rd.?

 

Or maybe it just ends in the middle of a depressing field.

Actually, it just sort of ends.  You go through all that effort to get to the top, and the trail just stops.  Never mind that if it extended maybe 100 ft to the right it would connect up to the sidewalk on Liberty Rd.

Numerical ratings:


All areas are out of five with one being bad and five being good.

terrain (steepness): 2 (that hill is a beast)
shadiness:1
length: 3
scenery: 2 (these photos were taken the same day as the ones for Hamburg Trail)
accessibility: 5

Overall: 13/20

Other comments:  The layout makes the trail confusing and annoying.  Not recommended unless you live in one of the adjacent subdivisions.