A day of fishing




It was grey and cold for early May, but I had half-heartedly brought my fishing gear. After all, the hotel where we were staying for the weekend near Ormea, in the province of Cuneo, the Piedmont region of Italy, was on the river Tanaro, famous for it's trout fishing.
The proprietors of the Hotel San Carlo have managed the fishing reserve for more than twenty years, ever since the municipality of Ormea had granted them the concession and responsibility. It's supposed to be one of the most beautiful and renowned fishing reserves in Europe.

Patches of snow still lay on the mountains. The rich variety of greens of the spring clad mountain side forests, enhanced by trees that were in white blossom, was a treat for the eyes, perhaps even more so veiled in the mist.

The last time I went fishing was about twenty years ago. The regulars at the hotel, many of them French, well equipped with waders, landing nets and spinning gear, seemed to admire my old, split cane fly rods. This encouraged me to decide that I too should try my luck, in spite of the weather and the risk of making a fool of myself.

Fly fishing is perfect when the sky is clear and trout rivers are moderately low and limpid. When the rivers are high and fast after days of rain, the trout lie low. They'll go for spinners, and spoons that resemble foolish little fish and metallic minnows.
Sometimes they might go for a hook with feathers tied to it that might look vaguely like a fly nymph, but that's the big question.

Saturday morning the sky didn't look too bad. Blue patches here and there. So I set out wearing a 'see a mile away', bright red, cotton pullover and a green, cotton, fishing vest with lots of pockets, old jeans and running shoes to the fly-fishing 'no kill' zone. This means that you don't take what you might miraculously catch, as flies as a rule can more easily be removed from trouts' mouths than spinners, which often cause more damage. This is why spinning costs a bit more here. Considering the difference in price and the fact that spinning is always much easier and certainly more effective when the river is high, perhaps taking home some good sized trout would certainly be worth the modest difference.

But fly fishermen don't reason that way. They tend to consider themselves the refined elite, when it's more probable that they're the foolish die-hards, and all the more so in such impossible, conditions.

I eventually found a spot that I thought might weigh fractionally in my favour. Before leaning against a big rock to prepare casting up-stream, I had noticed three or four quite large trout low in the river. They were fairly inactive, holding their own against the current. I would cast over them and let my 'wet fly' nymph come back past them to tempt and tease them.

Time too has a habit of flying by when one is engrossed in trying to tempt and tease, torpid trout. And I had been overly optimistic about the weather. It was again grey with occasional rain showers, and cold. At about midday, feeling numb, I began to climb up the bank, slipped and got my left shoe full of icy water. This was a critical moment. Should I call it a day, go and have a relaxing, hot bath and a nice lunch? It made good sense.
I reached the top of the bank and looked down upon the swollen river where I had been vainly casting against the wind and all odds. Amazingly the trout were still there, facing the current, undisturbed by my arm aching antics and seemingly smirking troutishly. I double checked. It wasn't a mirage.

That decided it. I limp-squelched back to the car, put on a less conspicuous, beige, light-weight wind jammer over my red cotton pullover, put my fishing vest over the wind jammer and limp-squelched all the way back to the place where the indifferent trout were lurking. But this time, instead of casting up stream, I braved the menace of the trees behind me by casting diagonally, upriver to the trout.
Still no go. The nymphs  weren't sinking low enough in the fast water. I tied on one with black feathers and a double hook. Heavier, it should sink a bit lower.

One of the trout turned and flashed. Good sign.
After a while I was tempted to change the fly once more, but finally decided not to.
I was cold. So cold that I felt unsteady on the small rock just out of the water. If I fell in, it would be fatal for the camera, brought along especially, to immortalise a miracle, before it was lovingly, generously returned to the river. My mind was beginning to flip. When will BP succeed in containing Iceland's volcano?

It was at that very moment of mind wandering, when I was blinking tears of cold, trying to pull myself together, that one of the trout took the black, double hooked nymph. Bang!  I too was totally taken by surprise. So much so that I again slipped into the icy water and filled my right shoe to match the left one. But then I was feverishly absorbed in trying to land the trout without breaking the fine parabolic leader cast. At that moment I had visions of myself chest deep in the rapids playing the fighting monster like Brad Pit in 'A River Runs Through it'.

Yet even without a net I managed to get it to the bank, extracted the fly nymph and photographed it as proof, before letting it go.


Incredibly, despite the disturbance, the other trout were still there. Just as brainless as I am. Maybe I could get another one. But I, and perhaps even they, were spared from further foolishness. The successful nymph got tangled up in a branch of the nearest tree. Shivering, I tried to climb up but it was too slender. I got to a point where I was almost within reach- by bending the branch down pulling on the line- before the cast broke.

This finally decided it. It was 5 pm, my lips were blue. I hadn't eaten all day. I was wet, cold and exhausted. But I had had the most wonderful day.
___

Text and mages © Mirino (PW) May, 2010

Sir Thomas More



Today there seems to be no limit to technological achievement, yet at the same time Nature (or God) appears to be more intent than ever in reminding us that She (or He) is still the boss. Paradoxically man's own level of intelligence doesn't always seem to measure up to his technological prowess. Indeed in some cases it even appears to regress.
Under such circumstances, which have to include present religious differences, it might be interesting to refer to a certain passage of English history.

The young King Henry VIII, crowned on Midsummer's day in 1509 was a dynamic, talented and impetuous lover of life. But he was destined to become a tyrant, eliminating anyone thought to be impeding him in realising what in fact proved to be delusory. Yet by divorcing from the Roman Catholic Church and establishing himself as Supreme head of the Church of England, he inadvertently contributed to accelerating the development of independent parliament and constitutional democracy in the green and pleasant land that he loved.
What was delusory was his obsession to sire a worthy son and heir to the throne, when in fact his daughter, Elizabeth I, set a precedent. Some would argue that she was one of the finest monarchs in English history. It was certainly one of the richest cultural eras. It could hardly be otherwise, with Shakespeare.

Henry VIII had great respect for Thomas More who later was to become his Lord Chancellor. More, however, chose to resign when the king married Anne Boleyn, his own faith preventing him from taking the oath for the act of Succession and Supremacy of 1534. In spite of his resignation, Henry wasn't satisfied. More's refusal was still considered as treason. The king spared him from torture, but he was tried, convicted and beheaded in 1535. Four hundred years later, in 1886, he was beatified by the Catholic Church as St. Thomas More. He was also canonised in 1935 and added to the Church of England calendar of Saints in 1980.

Lawyer, scholar, author, and known as a Renaissance humanist, More had great wit and sense of irony. In addition to his important, official functions, his writing earned him an international reputation. Utopia, a political satire of the epoch, was originally written and published in Latin in 1516.

Reading parts of it, one finds it difficult to relate such thinking to the early 16th century, when such barbaric methods of punishment and persuasion were regularly, lawfully used. In fact More also wrote against them in his 'Utopia'.

Like other extracts from it, the following from 'Book 2 (Religions)' is particularly revealing and appropriate in relation to the religious turmoil in the world of today.


'Even before he took over the island, King Utopus had heard that the natives were continually squabbling over religious matters. Actually, he found it easy to conquer the country because the different sects were too busy fighting one another to oppose him. As soon as he had gained the victory, therefore, he decreed that every man might cultivate the religion of his choice, and proselytize for it too, provided he did so quietly, modestly, rationally, and without bitterness toward others. If persuasions failed, no man might resort to abuse or violence, under penalty of exile or slavery.
Utopus laid down these rules, not simply for the sake of peace, which he saw was being destroyed by constant quarrels and implacable hatreds, but also for the sake of religion itself. In such matters he was not at all quick to dogmatize, because he suspected that God perhaps likes various forms of worship and has therefore deliberately inspired different men with different views. On the other hand, he was quite sure that it was arrogant folly for anyone to enforce conformity with his own beliefs, by threats or violence. He supposed that if one religion is really true and the rest are false, the true one will sooner or later prevail by its own natural strength, if men will only consider the matter reasonably and moderately. But if they try to decide things by fighting and rioting, since the worst men are always most headstrong, the best and holiest religion in the world will be crowded out by foolish superstitions, like grain choked out of a field by thorns and briars. So he left the whole matter open, allowing each person to choose what he would believe. The only exception was a positive and strict law against anyone who should sink so far below the dignity of human nature as to think that the soul perishes with the body, or that the universe is ruled by blind chance, not divine providence'.
_____
   
Text © Mirino (PW). Source- The Norton Anthology English Literature. Thomas More (with thanks). 
        Portraits (circa 1527) by Hans Holbein (with thanks to Wikimedia Commons) May, 2010

Alice














It might be fitting to follow Fish and fools by alluding to Mad Hatters, March Hares and therefore Alice. She is, after all, bound to return from time to time, if  time exists and allows, and at such timeless, infinite occasions she should naturally be treated with all the respect she deserves.

Tim Burton's thoughtful and poetic rendering does exactly that. This interpretation fully honours Lewis Carroll's conceptions and endearing idea of first immortalising Alice in a Wonderland where time stands still, and then (in his sequel) of freeing her (and time) by allowing her to assert herself, grow up and leave innocent youth behind.

Burton therefore joins the main themes of 'Alice in Wonderland' with 'Alice through the Looking-Glass', incorporating the 'Bandersnatch' and the 'Jabberwocky'  as extreme challenges- especially the latter- that Alice must come to terms with to become herself, a liberated, young woman in the oppressive, pursed-lip, Victorian society.

Johnny Depp as a poetic Mad Hatter is superb. The feeling throughout the film is definitely Carrollian-  reinforced by a fabulous Tweedledum and Tweedledee pair, and an excellent Queen of Hearts.

We don't miss the henpecked King of Hearts. We don't miss the Duchess. The film concentrates more on the challenge between the White Queen and her tyrannical sister, the red Queen- (on the chess board of Through the Looking-Glass). We don't  miss the Mock-Turtle or the Gryphon- (of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) which also seems to show how complete the film is in itself.

Time then is gradually allowed to start ticking, when Alice, magnificently clad in armour, has to eventually take on the Jabberwocky to free Wonderland, herself and to dethrone and ban the Queen of Hearts in favour of the more worthy, virtuous and beautiful White Queen.

Alice then returns to reality to face the society of the epoch as the newly, liberated young woman she has become.

A subtle and moving, final touch, also to emphasise that time has re-become a 'reality'. Just before Alice leaves Wonderland, the blue Caterpillar ('Absolem') transforms himself into a crystalis.
Having returned and about to depart aboard a ship on a 'real adventure' (after convincing her late father's business partner that she is also perfectly capable of working with him) Alice, on the ship's deck, sees and naturally recognises a beautiful, blue butterfly who flies round her, perches momentarily on her shoulder and then flutters off, as if to wish her peace and farewell ('Absolem').

All this may read like a review. Be as it may. But it comes from yet another visual interpreter of the classic, therefore it might have more significance. It's also written as a homage by a proud father who has had the great pleasure of seeing his immortalised  'Alice' free herself in a similar, fatidic way, and also grow up to become a beautiful queen.

 __ 

 Text and  images © Mirino (PW) April, 2010

Fish and fools






There are three main theories about the origin of April Fool's day, the first of April, and in our troubled times there may be some comfort in the thought that the tradition is almost international. Some theorists claim that it first originated in Persia (the Sizdah Bedar tradition) which could be the most ancient tradition related to practical jokes in the world today, for it dates back as early as 536 BC.

Another theory is that it originates from the time of Noah. It was alleged that he foolishly sent off his doves too soon instead of waiting for the water to give way sufficiently to land. One hestitates to suggest where, but this was said to have taken place on the first of the Hebrew month corresponding with April.

The third legend dates from 1564 when King Charles IX of France was supposed to have changed the national calendar to start on the 1st of January instead of the 1st of April (l'Edit de Roussillon). Those who continued to celebrate the 1st of April as New Years day, or refused to adapt to the change were treated as fools. Paper fish would be stuck to their backs before they were scaled, gutted and decapitated, as 'les poissons d'Avril' (April fish) victims, the French equivalent of April fools.

But why fish? Maybe there's a vague connection with the first, Christian symbol and secret code of 'Ichthus,' (ancient Greek- fish). Or could it have something to do with the sidereal, zodiac sign of Pisces, (Latin- fish) the first of April falling more or less half way through this particular astrological period?


Naturally the world isn't devoid of fish, or fools ('gowks' or cuckoos as the Scottish call them) in any month of the year. This has to include Persia of course. And there are all sorts of fish, schools of which are sometimes 'harangued' or tyrannised by groupers and radical sharks that seem to claim the monopoly of Cod, and without which (certainly for all species of Ichthus) the world would be a safer plaice.

There's no trout that a very close acquaintance of mine was an April fool's victim. Baited, hooked and gaffed on that same, fateful day. But as he keeps persuading himself that there's no such thing as haddock, that there's a bass for everything whatever one's halibut, and that carpe diem is always best for the sole, and other such pleasant philoshifical tunas, he is never overly turbot and always manages to remain reasonably salmon despite his rare herring problem.

(Years later he was offered an excellent bouillabaisse lunch at Cassis, near Marseilles. It was unforgettably good, in complete contrast to much of the above codswallop).

 Top April fool's day hoaxes of all time
 __
                          
Source- Wikipedia with thanks. Text and images © Mirino (PW) April, 2010

L'imprévisible



Le songe d'un paradis immortel est le rêve d'un fou. Comment le paradis, même spirituel, peut-il être stérile? Comment la beauté paradisiaque peut-elle ne pas être mortelle, imparfaite et fabuleusement diverse? Comment la vie ne peut-elle pas y être constamment régénérée afin d'évoluer naturellement? Comment les imperfections ou les intentions de la nature peuvent elles en être exclues ?

Car une partie de la beauté de la vie est qu'elle est imprévisible. Le futur correspond rarement à nos attentes. Ceci particulièrement concernant nos enfants.
Il est naturel de s'identifier à eux, certainement au début, mais il est bientôt évident qu'ils sont déjà des individus, même si dans eux on reconnaît certains traits de son propre caractère.

Leur développement est fascinant. Observant leur évolution, les encourageant à s'envoler, à se soulever encore vers le haut après être rudement descendus par leur premier goût de la dure réalité.

A cet égard nous étions fortunés. Nous n'étions jamais restreints. Et nos parents n'ont jamais essayé de trop nous influencer. Généreusement ils nous ont laissé partir trouver nos propres voies, et peut-être aussi pour cette raison, nous sommes tous différents. Nos chemins, bien qu'ils se croisent de temps en temps, nous ont faits comme nous sommes. Pourtant ensemble, nous sommes toujours comme nous étions pendant notre jeunesse. Ce nœud précieux de famille, les doux souvenirs que nous partageons, qui nous font sourire et rire ensemble tout au cours des années de notre vie, souvenirs épargnés par le temps.

Aujourd'hui de tels privilèges semblent être de plus en plus rares. Les traumas provoqués par les familles divisées sont souvent difficile à réparer, et on est involontairement préoccupé par une volonté de combler une perte fondamentale. Au lieu d'un mari ou d'une femme, inconsciemment on cherche à substituer la mère ou le père manquant ou négligent. Et le moule est ainsi établi pour la prochaine génération, car une telle histoire de famille a une tendance à se répéter, au moins jusqu'à ce que la chaîne en est finalement, résolument cassée.

Ainsi l'histoire est déterminée. Maximilien Robespierre, par exemple, fut conçu hors du mariage. Son père arrangea un mariage précipité au quel son propre père refusa d'assister. Sa mère mourra en accouchant en 1764 quand Maximilien n'avait que six ans. Laissant ses quatre enfants au soin de leurs tantes et de leur grand-père maternel, son père quitta sa ville natale d'Arras, et termina sa vie à Munich, Bavière où il mourra en 1777.

  Alors Robespierre ne put pas avoir tiré un grand bénéfice de ses années de jeunesse, et ce n'est pas déraisonné de croire que ceci eût une influence profonde sur sa vie. Peut-être dans son esprit la Révolution représentait lui-même, et une expression de refus du passé. Peut-être dans une certaine mesure il voyait la République, fondée en 1792, comme substitution parentale pour tous les citoyens français. On a recommencé l'histoire avec le calendrier républicain. Les ancêtres, les parents, auraient appartenu donc à 'la préhistoire'.
Pour lui 'Nous' était le peuple français, et surtout lui-même.

Il est donc raisonnable de croire qu'il y a une liaison entre les inclinations politiques et la vie d'enfance. La substitution de la responsabilité parentale par 'l'Etat' semble être la plus classique. Ceux qui auraient pu avoir manqué d'amour et de sécurité parentale, seraient plus inclinés à adopter l'idée de la protection étatique.

Relativement récemment une politicienne française a assumé le rôle parental en fournissant des moyens contraceptifs aux mineures des écoles dans sa région de Poitou-Charentes, sans prendre la peine d'obtenir l'autorisation parentale.
Comme à l'âge de 19 ans elle a poursuivi son père pour avoir refusé de divorcer de sa mère et de payer ainsi la pension alimentaire et le support des huit enfants; et comme elle (après avoir obtenu gain du cause) avec cinq de ses sœurs refusaient de voir leur père qui était alors en train de mourir du cancer, son enfance n'a pas pu être ni particulièrement sûre ni heureuse.
Pour elle aussi, 'Nous' est le peuple français, et surtout elle-même.

Il y a sûrement beaucoup d'autres exemples pour soutenir une telle théorie. Peut-être même le Président des Etats Unis pourrait en être inclus.

Malheureusement l'idée utopique d'être trop pris en main par l'Etat peut créer un cercle vicieux en encourageant ou en conditionnant les parents, qui devraient savoir mieux, de ne pas assumer pleinement leurs responsabilités parentales.

Quoiqu'il en soit, les parents établissent la 'norme' pour leurs enfants, et c'est évidemment une responsabilité primordiale.
Dans le meilleur des cas donc, la 'norme' devrait être aussi normale que possible, mais une partie de la beauté de la vie est qu'elle est imprévisible. Le futur correspond rarement à nos attentes.  Forcément ceci doit inclure ce qui est anormal, aussi bien que ce qui est normal. Et ainsi continue à tourner le beau monde.
___

Text and heading photo © Mirino (PW) March, 2010 (World image thanks to NASA)

A tale without an end



Once upon a time there were three sisters. When they were small, they would leave the busy town with their parents, to spend each weekend in a big house with a pleasant garden surrounded by fields in the calm of the country side.

The father of the three sisters loved his big house and spent all his free time in trying to make it more beautiful.

The two eldest sisters grew less fond of spending their weekends in the big house. As time passed by they preferred to stay in the town where they thought they could amuse themselves more during the weekends. But the youngest, most comely sister loved the big house almost as much as her father.

The father preferred his youngest daughter, not only because of this, but also because he thought that she was like him in character. When he grew too old to look after his big house, it was almost natural for him to give it to her. The other two sisters would have to be eventually satisfied with inheriting what was left over.

Although this seemed right for the ageing parents, the eldest sisters didn't think it was fair at all. When their parents died, they refused to accept the inheritance and they continued to contest the gift of the big house, and this caused a serious conflict between them and their younger sister.

Perhaps it wasn't so much the difference between the values of the left over inheritance and the big house that the two elder sisters found so unacceptable. It may simply be that they knew how much their father had loved his house in the country, and how much he had preferred their younger sister to them. Rightly or wrongly they felt that they had been deprived of affection, and for them the gift of the big house to their younger sister was a cruel and constant reminder of this deprival.

As always in such tales, there are lots of other extras, circumstances and details, which would involve children, grandchildren, and various animals such as dogs, cats, doves, parrots, fish, as well as all sorts of health concerns. But if they were included, it would only make the story longer and more complicated, without otherwise having any real consequence regarding the essence of the story.

And ideally such a classic tale should have a happy ending, whereby the youngest daughter, realising the futility, waste, anguish and folly caused by such an interminable conflict, would eventually suggest that everything including the big house should be equally shared between all three sisters. But happy endings belong more to fairy tales, whereas reality, which has to include the flaws of human nature, often seems to insure that history endlessly repeats itself.
___

Text and images (for T) © Mirino (PW) March, 2010