Tilda Swinton, Cornelia Parker and The Maybe

“The Maybe” was a work of art, supposedly by a collaboration of Tilda Swinton, the actress and Cornelia Parker, the artist. I say, “supposedly” because the truth of the matter is that the origin of this work lay outside the heads of both of these ladies.

In the early 1990s, I conceived a performance art work called Lord Valentine the Misplaced. This was an 18^th Century dandy, living in the 20^th Century world. I was fully attired in 18^th Century clothes and had old world airs and mannerisms. I took this work of living art, to both London and New York and it was eventually covered on CNN in 1994, NBC News in February 1995 and Reuters on 14^th February 1995. There was also coverage in the Observer newspaper in October or November 1994, and Time Out magazine, of London, in November 1994. Basically, it was quite a well known work, by the mid 1990s.

Now, an odd thing happened one night, in London. I was attired as Lord Valentine the Misplaced and was to meet a journalist (one Andrew Mosby from Time Out magazine, if I recall correctly), at Beach Blanket Babylon, a rather trendy and ornately decorated bar, in Notting Hill, West London. This was in November of 1994, after an article had come out about me, in Time Out.

As I entered Beach Blanket Babylon, I saw a familiar figure, her head laying on the shoulder of another woman: Tilda Swinton, the actress. I had seen her in person, several times before, but never really spoken to her. She had been pointed out to me, at Cambridge University, when I was there, many years before – since we both attended it, though she was rather older than me (still is!).

This pair were very interested in me. They appraised me with eager eyes, thinking thoughts that would later become clear. I did wonder at their closeness, since Tilda Swinton’s head was on the other lady’s shoulder. I did wonder at what kind of relationship they had. Then again, girls are often much more touchy-feely than guys.

Both studied my 18^th Century attire carefully.

I believe that Tilda Swinton introduced her friend as Cornelia, because she became so labeled in my mind, thereafter.

“What are you doing?”, one asked – I can’t remember which, though I think it was Tilda Swinton – “Are you trying to get cast?”

“No.”, I said, for my purpose was deeper than that. I didn’t explain what I was actually doing though.

The conversation was very brief, but there was something guarded about Tilda Swinton, at the end. She suddenly tugged at her friend to come away, a thought seeming to have come to her. I passed on, seeking my contact within.

It was the following year that Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker, collaborated on The Maybe. This was a simple piece of performance art/live art, in which Tilda Swinton slept in a glass box, in everyday ordinary clothes. Now, what I found immediately interesting about this was that it was a piece of living art – which is precisely what Lord Valentine the Misplaced was. I also thought it very interesting to note, from the pictures released at the time, that Cornelia Parker had been the lady with Tilda Swinton that night, in Beach Blanket Babylon. It was immediately obvious where the “inspiration” for this work of art had come from. I had created a piece of living art. Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker met me whilst I was being Lord Valentine the Misplaced – and Tilda Swinton (it seemed) had the idea of copying my idea and embodying herself as a living work of art, too. Particularly telling was the use of unattractive everyday clothes for The Maybe. Brian Sewell, the art critic, wondered why Tilda Swinton hadn’t dressed up as some kind of Sleeping Beauty (though maybe not in those words). It is clear why not. Had Tilda Swinton dressed up in any kind of beautiful period clothes, she would have revealed the inspiration for her work. She had no choice but to be in ordinary clothes, so as to obscure the original inspiration for the work.

Later on, Cornelia Parker and Tilda Swinton fell out over who “thought” of the Maybe. Both claim to have conceived the idea – though Tilda Swinton makes the louder claim that the idea was hers. It is very, very clear why this argument has arisen: because BOTH ladies met me, at the moment they decided to imitate what I was doing. The reason they can’t agree on who was responsible for thinking of it, is that NEITHER was responsible for the original thought. All they decided to do was to create a “me too” art work, based on my own prior explorations of living art. It is very telling that neither can agree on who conceived it, which indicates that they have something in common, at the moment of conception: that common point was the meeting of me as Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Had only one of them met me at that time, then only one of them would be laying claim to the idea. Their very argument points to the moment of contention: the instant they both met me, and one of them (or both of them) decided to imitate my work, in their own way.

Of course, the fact that they recognized my work as living art (implicitly, since they imitated it), does go to show the success of my work.

Cornelia Parker has gone on to produce other pieces of work, though Tilda Swinton hasn’t. Evidence of the influence of my work on Cornelia Parker can be seen in another of her proposed works. My art work was called Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Interestingly, Cornelia Parker wanted to put a meteorite back into space and used the term “misplaced” to describe this action – so the meteorite would now become a misplaced object. This seems to be a clear adaptation of the idea of misplacement as art. Lord Valentine the Misplaced, was misplaced in time – Cornelia Parker’s meteorite would have been misplaced in space. It is an analogy of my prior work.

We can see here, how Cornelia Parker conceives some of her works. They are adaptations or analogies to other people’s work. She is translating other people’s ideas into a different setting. Tilda Swinton’s The Maybe is a sleeping piece of living art, dressed in everyday clothes. Lord Valentine the Misplaced was a waking piece of living art, dressed in 18^th Century clothes. Cornelia Parker’s proposed meteorite project was a rock misplaced in space. My Lord Valentine project, was a human misplaced in time. These are both analogous to each other, adaptations of the same idea in a different context.

It is important that the true origins of the work of artists and supposed artists, like Cornelia Parker and Tilda Swinton – because the art, in these cases, lies in the idea, for they are conceptual works. If the idea is not truly theirs – as it is not, in both cases, here – then the work of art is not truly theirs either. The history of art is being defrauded if we are led to believe that the origin of these works lay in either of these ladies minds. The history of art deserves better than that. The true background to each conceived work should be known – and the “inspiration” that gave rise to them, should be appreciated.

This blog is but one page in an internet Universe of trillions of pages, thus, very few people will read it. So, please help spread the word about the origin of The Maybe, as an adaptation of the ideas behind Lord Valentine the Misplaced. Tell the story of how Tilda Swinton and Cornelia Parker met me at Beach Blanket Babylon in November 1994 and recognized the artistry in Lord Valentine the Misplaced, enough to want to steal it for themselves. If you have a blog, or other website, please post a link to this article, to help people become aware of it. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.htmland here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

They will never know.

Looking back on my past, an unavoidable thought comes to me: many of the people I remember, are no longer alive, or are very unlikely to be.

Today, I was reflecting on my prep school days. This was a brief, though seemingly long few years of my life, which provided, perhaps, the only island of acceptance, in my whole school career. I shall explain. In the years before I joined this particular prep school (Westbury House School, in New Malden, Surrey), I had been in the state school system. In those schools, I had not been accepted, in any real way, by the students around me. I had “stood out” too much, as someone different. The difference was clear: I was much brighter than the other students – and they were even aware of it, for the names some of them used for me, were pejorative ones, based around the idea of cleverness. There were a few children there, who were well disposed towards me, however, so it wasn’t utterly uncomfortable – yet it has to be said, that it probably would not have been good for me to have stayed there too much longer. For a start, I wasn’t really learning anything, because nothing challenging was being presented. The only lesson I would have learnt, had I stayed longer, was that being clever means being marginalized.

Westbury House School was much better. It was a small school, with small classes and a personal touch. It was actually, as it stated in the name, a house, that had been converted into a school. As a child, I thought it enormous. As an adult, when I saw it again, I saw nothing more than an adapted house, with a playground attached. Yet, it provided something I didn’t know, until I received it, that I had been lacking: acceptance. At Westbury House School, I was not only accepted, but was popular. It is funny, but the teachers and the Headmistress, had managed to cultivate a culture in which being a good student, was to be admired. All there aspired to do well, and did not resent those who did well. It was a good place for a bright young child to be, in social terms, at least. Academic success was not punished by exclusion, as it so often is – but rewarded by respect.

Today my thoughts turned to a particular teacher. I cannot now recall her name – but she was my form teacher in my final year, at Westbury House School. She taught me English, among other things. It is this fact that awoke my thoughts. I realized that her pedantry over words and their use – for she was very particular about them, in a positive sort of way – was one of the reasons why my own use of English, became, as it is to this day: accurate, in its grammar and word usage – at least without any obvious errors. She would explain the rules of English to us, with an absolutism that we did not find off-putting, but actually found reassuring in a way – for, at least, someone knew what the rules were. She also did so without recourse to unnecessary jargon.

She was an old lady then. She had brownish hair, but her face was lined, and her body thin, with the kind of slenderness that comes to some, with the passing of the years. She must have been about sixty, when she taught me. It seems impossible that she might still be alive, since the time I reflect on is about thirty three years ago. She looked severe, in her bodily form – severe and spare – but she was actually quite kindly. She had a policy towards teaching me that I actually found quite liberating. She had noted that I usually finished any task set, long before the other kids. So, she asked me to read a book, instead. This was quite easy to do since I sat at the back of the class, in the corner, with the only bookshelf directly behind me. I would thus, turn my head and browse until I found a book I liked, then I would read until the other kids had caught up.

I loved to read, as a child, so this made my time in her class much more congenial. It also personalized it for me – because the books I chose were always ones that I liked. This policy of hers applied to all classes that she took with me – and that included maths. I also finished first in maths too, so I had plenty of time to read whilst waiting for the other kids.

I remember one book in particular, which concerned the finding by some children of “100,000 francs”, which, at the time, seemed an impossibly large sum and probably was, for when the book was written. What struck me about the book was the drawing the front of the children running. One of the children was me. Yes. It was most odd, but one of the faces of the kids, looked just like me. It was funny. I picked out the book because I liked the sound of the story and it just so happened that the picture looked like me. All the other kids thought so too. It was as if I had actually posed for the portrait myself. It seems the artist may have imagined a face, but that face had turned out to be not so imaginary after all. Either that, or I look like a French kid somewhere, long ago, since the book was set in France and may even have been written by a French writer, in English.

I felt welcome in that classroom, in that school. It was the first educational situation in which I could be myself without the hint of a social penalty. Of course, there was no use of the word “gifted” in those days. Nor was there any differentiated curriculum – at least not in that school. My “differentiated curriculum” was being assigned to read books, at the back, whilst others got the through the work I had already done. I wasn’t actually ever set harder work or different work to do. Yet, I didn’t mind. I wasn’t bored because I had books to read. The time wasn’t wasted and those days reading no doubt contributed to my ultimate familiarity with the written word. As a teacher, she was wise enough to make sure I had something interesting to do and did not leave me sitting BORED waiting for everyone else.

What gets me about this memory is that my teacher, whose name I am sorry I cannot recall, will never know what became of me. She doubtless has died already. Thus, she would never have found out the long term consequences of my presence in her classroom – consequences to which she would have made some contribution, in some way, even if it would be impossible to determine exactly what – other than, as I note, a particular attitude to the English language. She never knew that I became a writer. She has never read this blog. She cannot have read my books, because though written, I have yet to publish them. She never learnt of my scientific contributions – for those papers only began to be published in the last few years. She never learnt that I had acted, in plays, tv and the odd film. She never knew that I had fathered some gifted children and left the UK for South East Asia. She never learnt anything of my adult life. I left her classroom one day, to go to another school – and, from her point of view, I left her life, altogether, too.

It is a pity, in a way, that she never knew. It is a pity that I never got the chance to tell her what effect her bookish intervention had had on me – or how it had me feel so much more interested in my educational experience. I remember now, the feeling I felt as a young boy, being given permission to read at the back of the class: I felt it to be a privilege and an acknowledgement too, that I had done the work and needed something more to do. I felt a boyish pride in being so singled out. I suppose, in a way, that was a very important intervention, in terms of the growth of self-belief. It made me realize that I was special in some way and that that specialness had been recognized. However, it must be said, that there had been many prior occasions on which I had inferred that I was different in a special kind of way – but this was one of the first I can recall, in which another acknowledged that difference and responded positively to it. As such, it is, no doubt, important.

I would like the chance to speak to some of these figures of my childhood and to let them know what effect each had on my development. I would also like the chance to thank those who deserved thanks. Of course, there are those who deserve to be chastised for their conduct, but I don’t think I will trouble myself with them. However, it is, most likely not possible for many of these people, I still remember: most of them will be dead by now. Only I know, who was important and why. Only I know, who contributed positively to my early life – and who did not. They are gone now. They will never have known, the way they touched me. In a way, that is sad – but there is nothing to be done. It simply takes too much time to grow up and become, for those who were elderly at the beginning of the journey, to still be alive at its fruition.

So, I am left, here, to thank one who cannot read my words: thanks, to my nameless form teacher, for inviting me to read, at the back of the class, whilst others poured over problems I had already solved. It meant something to me, at the time, which I never got the chance to say. It means something more to me, now, that I have come to understand its long-term impact, on the person I became. Thank you.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.htmland here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

George Magazine, Cindy Crawford and Herb Ritts.

The first issue of George Magazine had a striking cover, shot by Herb Ritts. In it, Cindy Crawford, the “super model” of her day, was photographed dressed in the 18^th Century costume of George Washington, in the context of a modern magazine about the intersection of politics and celebrity lifestyle – if there is any such intersection.

Apparently, the “idea” for this cover, that is, dressing a modern person up in 18^th century costume, for a 20^th century magazine cover, is attributed to Matt Berman, the “creative director” on the magazine project. The first issue launched in September 1995.

Now, I would like you to consider some background to that year. In late 1994, I appeared on CNN, across the world, including the United States in my performance art piece, Lord Valentine the Misplaced. For those of you who don’t know, Lord Valentine was, as you may have guessed, an 18^th Century dandy, attired in 18^th Century clothes (the same era as George Washington) – yet, in the context of the 20^th Century world. Not only that, but in February 1995, I appeared again as Lord Valentine the Misplaced, on NBC News. On February 14^th of that year, I was covered by the Reuters News Agency, with a topical story on the day.

Given this background, of my having created and performed an 18^th Century dandy, in the modern context, in America (I was visiting New York, as Lord Valentine the Misplaced, at the time of the NBC news story) what do you think gave Matt Berman “his” idea? Can you think of a more likely background reason for why the George Magazine adopted the idea of dressing 20^th Century people in 18^th Century clothing? It seems to me that William of Ockham would have something to say about this.

The simplest explanation possible, for why George Magazine adopted the idea of 18^th Century dress on its front covers, in the context of a 20^th Century magazine, is that they were ripping the idea off from my prior work, as Lord Valentine the Misplaced. It is impossible that the “creators” of the covers of this magazine had not heard of my work: I had been on CNN, NBC and Reuters, as Lord Valentine the Misplaced. The total audience for these networks runs into hundreds of millions of people. It is simply impossible that they would not have heard of it. Indeed, everywhere I went in New York, at that time, people were constantly recognizing me.

What gets me about this, is that this kind of “inspiration” never involves giving credit to the source. It is very doubtful that the magazine covers of George Magazine would ever have been of 18^th Century images, had it not been for my prior work as Lord Valentine the Misplaced: yet this influence was never acknowledged (though, of course, smart people would make the connection themselves, if they were half-awake).

I have the impression that most people imagine that if you do something creative, that the credit for the after effects of that work, are generally credited to the original creator. However, my experience is that this is not so. What, in fact, happens, is that many people are “influenced” by a work – that is they steal its core ideas – but that they try to win the credit for themselves. They never – and I mean NEVER – credit their source. There is a word for this, of course: it is called plagiarism. However, when a high profile person is involved – such as Herb Ritts who took the images of Cindy Crawford – it is very difficult for the original creator, if of lower profile – as I was and am – to get the credit deserved.

All I can do, in my position, is to point out the remarkable “coincidence” whereby I create an 18^th Century character, in a 20^th century context, which is covered in the American media – and hey presto, an American subsequently decides to “create” an 18^th Century character, in a 20^th Century context and stick it on a magazine cover.

It is proven that Matt Berman’s “idea” was not original. If you want proof you just have to check the news records in the year prior to George’s first issue. The essence of what he was doing, had already been done, very publicly by me. I puzzle therefore that he caused so much of a stir, with his cover. It is a bit sad, really…for no-one, at the time – no-one in the media, for instance, who had covered my work – pointed out the remarkable similarity in conception between what Matt Berman was doing and what I had already done. Perhaps there is too much fawning over people in a position of influence, and not enough of actually speaking the truth about them, going on.

After John F. Kennedy Jr. died after a rash decision to fly in bad weather, the magazine soon failed and closed in 2001. Part of the reason, I think, is that only in the context of John F. Kennedy Jr’s life was there truly an “intersection between politics and celebrity lifestyle”. For other politicians, this relationship does not really hold, since few of them are celebrities in the film star mould of one, unlike John F. Kennedy Jr. who was, most definitely, in that mould.

I should have spoken out at the time, about the George Magazine covers – but I was just too saddened to watch such unattributed imitation going on. I also did not know how to make redress. I hope that by writing these words, it might one day be known, how I influenced the image of George magazine – even if that influence was never owned up to by the “creative” Matt Berman, John F. Kennedy Jr and Michael J. Berman his co-founder.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html
and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks. You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

David Foster Wallace writes like me.

Apparently, David Foster Wallace writes like me. Of course, I could have said that I write like David Foster Wallace. The only - and key - problem with that, is that I have never read anything written by David Foster Wallace. The only thing I have ever read by him, is the title of his fairly lengthy work: Infinite Jest (1,079 pages) - and even that is a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet, so I suppose that means I have never actually read anything by him at all.

I was informed of this literary resemblance to David Foster Wallace, by a new website which purports to match a writing sample to that of famous writers, indicating which one it most resembles. The software does this by analyzing the choice of words, and such characteristics as the length of sentences. Yesterday, out of an understandable curiosity, I pasted three different samples from my blog, into the box on the site and invited it to analyze them. Two of the samples were recent posts, one of them, an antique one, from the first days of my blog. It opined that all three were like David Foster Wallace's writing.

Now, David Foster Wallace was, reputedly a writer of genius. He was also given to being, as I understand it, rather complex, at times, in how he expressed himself, not being out of love with long, involved, sentences. Somehow, without ever reading him, there seems to be some resemblance between my work, and his own. It should be noted, however, that the software has a limitation at present: it only has 50 writers' work on board and so can only compare a writing sample with those 50 writers. This creates surprising results. For instance, Margaret Atwood's writing supposedly resembles Stephen King's (or is it that Stephen King's work resembles hers?) This strange opinion arises because no sample of Margaret Atwood's work is on file, with I Write Like.

So, out of the 50 authors in the system, my work most resembles that of David Foster Wallace. However, at this time, there is no indication how much it resembles his work. In future iterations of the software, the intention is to rate works by a percentage of resemblance to a writer. This would be more revealing. Right now, all that this system is saying is that, given a choice of 50 authors, including such writers as Edgar Allan Poe and William Shakespeare, mine is closest in style to David Foster Wallace's. Also note that this is a forced choice in that the software has to choose SOMEONE from the 50 possibilities, without, presently, showing how strong that resemblance is.

There is one thing I find disturbing about the website, though. That is its basic premise is that everyone is subconsciously imitating the work of others and that this programme is able to find out whom you are subconsciously aping. I find this both distasteful and untrue. According to this site, I am subconsciously taking after David Foster Wallace. Well, this is absolutely impossible since no man or woman could ever learn from someone they have never read (and probably never will read). I cannot be striving to achieve a style I do not know, have never encountered and never will encounter. If there are, in fact, true resemblances between David Foster Wallace and myself, then this is purely coincidental. It might just be, for instance, that he writes like me because once he was very interested in mathematics before turning to writing. So, too, with me: my first love was science, before turning to writing, so, perhaps the exposure of both, to logical worlds, lead to a certain way of expressing oneself, one dominated, perhaps, to a greater extent than most writers, by reason.

I Write Like compounds its crime against good sense, by suggesting that users go away and PRACTISE being like various writers and then come back to check if they have succeeded in imitating some great, famous other. Personally, I find the whole idea revolting. No true writer, of any kind, in any time, in any society in human history, would ever set out, consciously, to become like another. Should they do so, then such a "writer" is not a writer at all. Their words are not their own. Their thoughts are nothing but borrowed confections. Such a person cannot, accurately, be described as a "writer", but should, instead, be described as an acolyte, a devotee to another's thought, another's world, another's words. A writer who consciously imitates another no more resembles a creator, than does a typical worshipper the founder of their religion.

Thus, if it is ever said, by anyone, ever, that my writing resembles that of David Foster Wallace's please know this: I do not strive to be like David Foster Wallace, I have never read him, nor ever will (I have no wish to do so). Should there be any true resemblances, these are accidents of the mind, and probably a symptom of similar pathways through life. Remember this: not even the greatest genius - and David Foster Wallace is accounted by many as a genius - can influence someone who has never encountered their work and I never have.

No doubt the number of authors on the I Write Like database will expand. In time, perhaps, the site might point the way to a closer resemblance between my work, and another writer's besides David Foster Wallace. It doesn't really matter which one it is, for know this: I write like only one person in all this world - and that is myself. I do not make reference to other writers, or even pay any real heed to them. They are irrelevant to me for the simplest reason: I am only concerned with expressing myself in the way that is truest to my thoughts and I have absolutely no interest in how other writers may or may not have expressed themselves, or even in what they have expressed. My concern is only to be true to myself and my thoughts, in my writing. The only way to do this, of course, is to write like no other but oneself. The degree to which a writer consciously - or subconciously - strives to write like another, is the degree to which they are failing to be true to themselves. Thus, it is the degree to which they are failing to be a writer and succeeding in being an acolyte.

It is wrong to say that any resemblance I may have to another writer is due to a striving to be like them. I reject, absolutely, all other writers and their ways. Their thoughts are theirs and can never be mine - not only because I pay them no heed, but because they make no impression on me. My only concern, with regards to writing, is what I think, what I understand and how I naturally feel inclined to express it. I write instinctively, letting my words choose themselves with a delicious automaticity that comes from being able to feel just the right words to most fully embody a particular thought, feeling or observation. Such a mode of writing is most certainly not open to conscious influence and it is also not open to unconscious influence, either, since my writing is an expression of my true self. For another writer to impinge upon my written work, they would have to change my very self - and no writer has the power to do that, to me, at least. I write the way I do, because, in so doing, I am best embodying myself in written words. It is my self that shows upon the page, not some collection of external references. My only references are internal ones: glimpses of the self that now is and has become over the past forty-two years.

One day, perhaps, my writing might be well known enough for the owner of the I Write Like site to include a sample of my writing in his database. Should that happen, then any sample of my writing, entered into it, would produce the correct verdict: Valentine Cawley writes like Valentine Cawley. Until that time comes, the software will only ever make errors, by ascribing to me resemblances and influences that could not possibly be, in a causative way, because I have not read such a writer, and so have never even opened myself up to influence by them. Even if I had read them, my mode of thought about the world and my self, does not make me open to influence, in any way: I am closed to external thought, as if I sat contemplating on a mountain top, in some ancient retreat. Such intellectual isolation is how I prefer to be, for in this way, I can best be and embody the particularities of myself that distinguish me from all others who have ever been and ever shall be. That, in my view, is the most important thing a writer can do. For, after all, the self is an irreplaceble, one-off, chance creation that shall never be again. The writer should, therefore, do their best to capture that self, before it is lost to death, time and memory.

If you are interested to learn what I Write Like thinks of your writing, go to www.iwritelike.com and paste some text in the first box. This one is a trick, however since it always says you failed to write like Chuck Norris. The second box offered, upon the "try for real" link, will analyze your writing and compare you to a famous writer's work. You should paste a significant chunk of text - several paragraphs at least - to get an accurate comparison to the present database of 50 writers.

Ironically, however, although each of the three other blog posts I checked says that I write like David Foster Wallace, this post is flagged as being like H.P. Lovecraft. So, why the change? I think the answer is found in the presence of four words, above: "mountain top", "ancient" and "isolation". These would be recognized by the software as Lovecraftian word choices since he was obsessed with isolated mountain tops and ancient horrors. If I am right, which I think I am, then this software is not particularly accurate for normal lengths of writing: just a few words can make all the difference. Of course, if one entered a very long piece of work into it, it would probably become more consistent.

Happy writing, all.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Quotations of Valentine Cawley.

At various times and places, my words have been quoted, by other people. Sometimes, it is in a newspaper, sometimes in a forum, or elsewhere on the internet. It was a surprise to me, when people began to quote me,(the first time I ever noticed was the quote on examinations, below, in a forum). Then, however, I understood that something I had written or said, had made an impression on people, and so they wished to relay that quote to others.

Sometimes, I know I have been quoted because a searcher arrives on my blog, with an exact quote from me as their search term. In such cases, I assume that I have been quoted by a student writing an essay, or some other such context. Sometimes these quotes are surprisingly long - several lines - which can only be from reading it elsewhere, perhaps lifted and placed in an essay.

The quotation incidents that I have seen, have credited my words to me. However, the ones involving searchers off the net with quotes in their search are most probably uncredited quotes, since they never use my name in the quote search.

So, I have mixed feelings about the quoting. The credited ones are OK and I am happy to see that - but the uncredited ones are, basically, plagiarism. Luckily, the internet is my friend in this respect, since any Professor who checks one of my lifted quotes on the net, will find the original source material - and the true author.

I have listed below some of the quotes that I have come across replicated elsewhere, of my own work. I will add to this list as I note others. If you see any quotes, elsewhere, please let me know in the comment section below, since I am interested tracking the usage of quotations of my writing. It is interesting to see when and where they are used.

Apologies for the title for this blog post. I know it sounds egoistic but actually it is just a title for the search engines, to make this post easy to find. Were it unnecessary to flag it for search engines, I would have chosen something much more modest and discrete to label it. I hope you can understand.

"Being a graduate doesn't mean you are smart, it means that someone else is stupid enough to give you a degree." October 31 2008

“Whenever a teacher takes a stand against plagiarism, the entire school should stand behind him or her.” I wrote this in two newspapers in Malaysia, on the subject of plagiarism, recently.

"Education" might as well be spelt "e-r-a-d-i-c-a-t-i-o-n", where creativity is concerned."

“The role of a family, is to make a world that has never been and never will be again, to sustain people who have never been and never will be again. A family is a pocket universe, and no less important than the universe itself, for being smaller.”

“An examination is all about testing you on someone else's thoughts. Many children become expert on other people's thoughts - but have none of their own. In some way, focusing too much on what other people have thought and written in books seems to inhibit the development of the ability to have your own.”

“Jade Goody is worthy because she is known, but she is not known because she is worthy.” (March 12, 2009) This remark made it to a leading Danish daily newspaper, which translated it into Danish, for its readers and referred to me as "The commentator, Valentine Cawley said...". Their journalist had been reading my blog, in research for his article.

“Giftedness is not a measure of wealth - it is a measure of mind - and great minds may emerge in the most unpromising of circumstances.” (August 7, 2007)

“I have thought of a good quote about modesty, but I think I will keep it to myself.” Quoted in an interview with Time Out magazine, in London, in November 1994.

“A good gentleman never reveals his tailor.” Quoted in The Observer newspaper, UK, November 1994, in reply to a journalist asking who had made Valentine’s 18th century clothes. (This may have been: "A true gentleman never reveals his tailor" - it is a long time now since I first said it.)

At the time of writing, I do not know whether the tendency to quote me will remain sporadic - as it now is - or whether it will gather momentum. I suppose that all depends on whether a subset of people find the remarks of interest enough to let others know about them.

Regarding the "good gentleman" quote above. That was plagiarized by an advertising director in London by the name of Edmundo Arigita. His girlfriend expressed surprise, when she overheard me reflecting on the fact that my quote had been published in the newspaper. She said to her boyfriend, Edmundo: "So THAT is where that came from." Clearly, he had been using the remark - and since he makes adverts for a living, I do wonder whether he stole it for one of them. He tried to shrug it off by saying: "Lots of people say that." Err...no. They didn't say it before I did...which is why the journalist felt it worthy of quoting me, in the Observer newspaper.

So, sometimes, the quoting is unattributed - as in, theft.

If you come across any quotes of my writing, or spoken word, attributed or unattributed, please let me know.

Thanks.

Benazir Bhutto's Assassination and Democracy in Pakistan

As all the world knows, Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, has been assassinated. I am not about to write an obituary, for others have done that, but I am going to comment on the wider meaning of this event.

Pakistan is a troubled country, that much is clear. It teeters on the brink of chaos. President Musharraf, who has been much criticized, has great difficulties ahead, in holding his nation together. That much is clear. However, tragic though it is for Benazir Bhutto's family and her party, the PPP (Pakistan People's Party), it has much wider implications for the prospects of democracy in Pakistan.

Already Nawaz Sharif, her political rival, and fellow opposition leader, has said his party will not run in the elections on January 8th. This is the first sign of the effects of this assassination. Politicians are human. They have hopes, fears and ambitions - and all of them, I am sure, have a deep-seated wish to live. Seeing a fellow politician murdered like this, simply for holding views not liked by the murderer will have a truly chilling effect on democracy in Pakistan. Would you, as a politician, like to say what you truly think and feel and campaign for what you truly believe in, if the consequence would be your own death - and the death of many others near you? Many people would falter at such a decision. They would do as Sharif has done: announce publicly that he will not run. I don't know the fullness of his decision making - but surely the fact that running could mean his own assassination no doubt has a great influence.

People of talent and gift, people who could contribute to the building of the Pakistani nation will remember what happened to Benazir Bhutto - and when they come to decide on what they would like to do with their lives, many who might otherwise have chosen to enter politics, may decide otherwise and choose to lead quieter, less influential lives. For what benefit is there in leading a life of influence if the penalty is death?

Ultimately, the long term future of Pakistan will suffer from this assassination rather more than people might anticipate. Relatively few people will be brave enough (or foolhardy enough) to challenge the status quo. Relatively few people will wish to upset the people, as yet undeclared, who prove to be behind this attack. Relatively few people will be truly free to engage in politics. In consequence, every Pakistani will be the poorer for it. A nation of 165 million people has lost a lot more than one charismatic political leader - they may have lost democracy itself.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)