The Sempiternal: Ainan’s first film as director/writer/editor.

On the 15^th December 2013, Ainan premiered his first short film, The Sempiternal, as director/writer/editor at the Malaysian Shorts film festival, at Art for Grabs, Annexe Central Market, and HELP University (on the 16^th December 2013).

Ainan conceived, wrote, directed himself and edited the film, too, with a co-editor in Ignas Versinskas. This film marks Ainan’s first venture into a new realm of creativity building on his composition of the film score for the film Reflection, at the age of 12. This latter film was premiered at the Vilnius International Film festival earlier this year.

This recent revelation of artistic gifts, as writer, director and composer, may surprise some people, who have long seen him as a scientist...and in a way, it surprises us, too, to look back on how he was, when he was very young: ultra-focussed on Chemistry and Maths.

Ainan is beginning to explore the creativity within him – and I am doing what I can to facilitate him – in this case, making sure he has the crew and resources he needs, to make the films he wants to make (or whatever else it is he wants to make).

The Sempiternal will be entered for other festivals in the coming year. Eventually, we will make it available online for all to see – and as a permanent record of his first filmic work as writer/director/editor.

Incidentally, one of the judges of the Malaysian Shorts festival said after the film had been shown: “If we had an award for best actor, this would be it”. He was referring to Ainan’s film, The Sempiternal. I found this heartening, for one simple reason: I was the actor he was referring to! Thank you Diffan Norman, for your positive feedback.

The IMDB listing for The Sempiternal has begun to show on the site, at this time. It can be found here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3417252/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1

Ainan’s IMDB listing is here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/?ref_=ttfc_fc_dr1

My IMDB listing is here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/?ref_=tt_ov_st

Ignas Versinskas’ IMDB listing is here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4715489/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr4

Diffan noted that Ainan was the youngest film-maker (13 years old at the time), to EVER show a film at the Malaysian Shorts in its entire ten year history. Malaysian Shorts is a quarterly event and in that ten year period, would have shown about 500 films. So, that Ainan should be the youngest person out of 500 or so film-makers, does put his achievement into context.

Well done Ainan!

Thanks to everyone who made this film possible, including Nabyla Feyaerts, Michael Hagerty-Roach (my body double) and Ignas Versinskas (the Director of Photography). 

A special thanks to Diffan Norman and Amir Muhammad (the founder of Malaysian Shorts), who were the judges for the competition, for choosing to show Ainan's film, The Sempiternal. Thank you.

Written 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.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/11136175To 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.) 

The New Media and the Old Media.

Much is said of the new media providing an alternative to the old media. Blogs have become a valued alternative to newspapers. Yet, it is not as simple as providing an alternative. An event a few days ago, leads me to think that the new media and the old media are interdependent. They feed off each other.

I noted, a couple of days ago, in my surfing, that a leading Danish daily newspaper had quoted my blog. They termed me a "commentator", and quoted several lines from one of my posts, to provide them with a key insight for their article. In a way, I was impressed with their intellectual courtesy. Instead of just lifting my insight (as some, no doubt, have done), they credited me with my own words and built the latter half of the article around my view.

To me, it seems that the new media (or at least from the evidence of my blog, as an example of it) have come to be sufficiently respected by the old media, that they are now considered a valued SOURCE of material, to be used in traditional articles. This is a healthy development for it increases the diversity of material available for use by the traditional media and should lead to an enriched media, therefore.

As for me, it felt odd to be quoted in a national newspaper, in this way. It made it clear that they thought of me as someone whose words were sufficiently weighty as to be so quoted. Often, I have seen newspapers refer to others, in this manner, by quoting from their work. However, it is a different matter when the one quoted is oneself. It made me realize that my writing is beginning to have an impact. People all over the world are reading it. Some are thinking about it. Others are even writing about it. I am, in a sense, becoming a successful online writer. This is a gratifying development because the online writer (or blogger) has a freedom to write as they please, that no other writers in history have ever had. It is rewarding, to see that my thoughts are sufficiently regarded, in some quarters, to now be used as a source of commentary.

In reality, there is no new media or old media - there is only words and ideas and their transmission. Both "media" are engaged in the same business of transmission of thought. What differs, however, is that the "new media" are much more democratic and open: all have access to them. In this way, they better reflect the ideals of a democratic world. Furthermore, they lower the barriers to entry into public discourse by allowing all a voice. This is a marvellous freedom, which has never truly been before.

By quoting my work, the Danish newspaper did something else. It acknowledged the worth of the new media and the whole blogging enterprise. It said that this new democratic communication mode is worthy of respect. So, though a small thing, in a way - the mere quoting of words from a blog post - it is also much bigger than it seems, for it shows that the new media are truly a form of media that has reached maturity and achieved respect. It is not only a genuine alternative to the old media, but a complement to it too.

For the curious, the passage the Danish newspaper quoted (in translation) was on the subject of modern fame:

"Once a person becomes famous that, in itself, is enough to justify attention directed towards them. Jade Goody is better known than many of much greater merit, but she receives the attention precisely and only because she has already received attention. That is it. There is nothing more to it. Jade Goody is worthy because she is known, but she is not known because she is worthy."

I have highlighted in black, the part of the passage that they focussed most upon.

I should note that this is not the first time that my online writings have been quoted and referenced. Yet, it is the first time that a traditional media outlet has done so, to my knowledge. I found it surprising, actually, because it meant that someone, far away in Denmark, had gone to all the trouble of reading my blog, thinking about it, and building part of an article around it.

I have but one pair of eyes, so if you notice other instances of my work being quoted, I would be interested to hear of it...so please mail me or comment below, if you spot such references.

Thanks.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight 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, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Sacha Baron Cohen and the lost accent.

Sacha Baron Cohen, as most of you probably know, is an Englishman, who bills himself as a writer, comedian and actor. Now, I have reason to question one of those billings, as anyone with an attentive ear, would have.

Last night, I saw Sacha Baron Cohen on the Conan O'Brien show. Amazingly, we actually get this show in Singapore, on one of the many cable channels available. It is quite fun to watch since Conan O'Brien manages to entice a wide variety of interesting people on to his show. Not all of them are A listers, but many of them are, perhaps, more interesting because they are not. Sometimes, it is good to watch people who are less famous and less familiar, since they may bring something new.

Sacha Baron Cohen appeared, last night, as Bruno. He was introduced as Bruno and interviewed as Bruno. He arrived wearing silver trousers and a dark sleeveless top. He was, as expected, rather camp. Sacha Baron Cohen, as Bruno, proceeded to "act" in character, throughout. He made jokes and observations as Bruno. He interacted as Bruno. He pretended to an attraction to Conan O'Brien, as Bruno. This was all very well, if not very convincing. At no time, for instance, could anyone watching Sacha Baron Cohen, as Bruno, conceive the understanding that this was a "real" person. He didn't come across as a real person, at all. He came across as a rather overdone caricature of a gay man, given to an excess of flamboyance. This, in itself, was rather disappointing, since I had understood that the whole point of Sacha Baron Cohen's work was to fool people into believing that his creations were real, so as to secure, from them, reactions to this supposed reality. That, however, was not what was happening on the Conan O'Brien show. What was happening was that an Englishman of rather limited acting ability was attempting to portray what he thought to be an over the top gay Austrian.

Now, why do I say "rather limited acting ability"...well, quite simply because at no time was he able to create a coherent reality for this character, Bruno. The actions of the character were not done convincingly, in any way. In fact, they came across as a painting of a gay man "by numbers"...meaning he was going through a routine: "now I do this, then I say this, then I do that..."...it just felt lifeless, like a man going through empty motions, that had no meaning for him. The actions did not seem motivated by any genuine inner drive, at all. This was not a gay man expressing himself, rather loudly, on a tv chat show. It was an Englishman giving a very slipshod caricature of his idea of a gay man, in such a way that none of the individual actions were convincing and the whole just did not hold together, in the least.

I was very disappointed, since, after all the hype surrounding this man (Sacha Baron Cohen)...I rather expected a higher degree of acting skill.

Now, I must come to the real failing of Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of Bruno: the accent. Bruno is supposed to be a young gay AUSTRIAN man...and so, presumably, he is supposed to speak with an Austrian accent. Yet, that is not what I heard, last night, on the Conan O'Brien show. The accent was only very occasionally remotely akin to an Austrian's. Most of the time, Bruno - an "Austrian" - spoke with an upper crust ENGLISH accent. His accent kept slipping in and out of a well spoken English accent. Presumably, given his Cambridge University background, that well spoken English accent is, in fact, Sacha Baron Cohen's own. When his accent wasn't clearly an English one, it was most often not an Austrian one, either: it was a confused mix of many influences that just didn't convince one that it was from anywhere in particular.

A talent for accents is not universal among actors. However, almost all actors are able to be consistent with the voice that they use, for a role. Sacha Baron Cohen's biggest failing was not that he can't do an Austrian accent (he can't...he really can't), but that he can't keep his accent consistent. Every few words, he would slip into a different accent. His voice was just all over the place.

The fact is, that if Sacha Baron Cohen's performance on Conan O'Brien had been an audition for any acting job, there has ever been, in the history of acting, he would NOT have got the job. His performance was simply too poor, too amateurish, too hammy and just plain unfunny to persuade any casting director, or director, at any level, to give him a job. The funny thing is, of course, that Sacha Baron Cohen has a job...Bruno. He is just not doing it very well. In fact, he is doing it very badly.

The most embarrassing thing about the Conan O'Brien show, for Sacha Baron Cohen, was that he was followed, on the show, by a real actor. By this I mean that the actor could actually act. The difference between them was stark. He was an English actor from True Blood, a show presently popular in the US. He did something that made Bruno look excruciatingly bad: he used accents, perfectly. He slipped from a standard English accent, to a Cockney, to a Somerset accent, to a Deep Southern accent from the US...all in moments. Each accent was absolutely convincing, stable, didn't drift, was perfectly accurate in its rendition and seemed to be accompanied by a character, too. The voices were different, interesting and truthful. There was just one thing he could have done to make Bruno look even worse: an Austrian accent. Thankfully, for Sacha Baron Cohen, he didn't do that...though, if he had been mischievous, he could and should have done.

I think the problem with Sacha Baron Cohen is that he is too successful. No-one is telling him: "Hang on Sacha, but you know that accent you have got, is just not working...in fact, I am not sure what accent it is that you have got. You should get a voice coach or failing that, don't bother with the accent."

No-one, basically, is telling him the truth. The truth is, he is able to think up characters that have some comic potential. However, those characters are sometimes beyond the range of his abilities as an actor to portray effectively. Bruno, for instance, appears, from the evidence of that interview on Conan O'Brien, to be way out of Sacha Baron Cohen's range. From my point of view, he failed in every respect with that character (except possibly the costume design, which was probably someone else's work). Thinking up an interesting character is not enough, if you are going to be the performer of it: it has to be within the range and ability of the performer. An Austrian accent is not within Sacha Baron Cohen's ability range. In fact, the stability and conviction of any accent he gives, is doubtful, given the performance last night. Thus, Sacha Baron Cohen should steer clear of doing accents. He shouldn't even try. Then he should consider the range of actions required of him, by the character: he should ask whether he can actually perform those actions convincingly. Bruno was not a convincing gay man, in many ways. Thus, if he was ever intended to be convincing, he failed to do so.

I note, from articles written about him, that Sacha Baron Cohen is often praised for "keeping in character"...well, maintaining an accent is part of keeping in character, and this Cohen was unable to do for more than two or three seconds, in last night's interview. So, it would seem that there is a difference between the PR surrounding Cohen and the actual abilities of the man.

It will be interesting to see what Sacha Baron Cohen does next. If it involves accents, I hazard to think just how unconvincing it will be. We will see.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight 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, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals.If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The best student writer I have seen.

I have written much about the quality - or lack thereof - of writing amongst the students I have taught, over the years. Rarely, have I seen competency in the most basic of all skills: literacy. However, one student comes to mind as coming closest to what I would consider to be a good writer.

I would like you to think about what kind of person you think this student is. Is this student a scholar? Is this student a girl or a boy? Is this student Chinese, Malay or Indian? In fact, is this student local, at all? Picture the student in your mind. Consider whom you think is most likely to be the best writer I have seen since 1999, while working in Singapore.

The writer in question, is an Indonesian boy.

Were you surprised? Did it upset your preconceived views of who is likely to be the best at a literary task?

When I saw this boy's writing, I was surprised by the vision he showed. He seemed to have a very clear idea of what he wished to say. His writing shone with understanding. Each word was well-chosen and added to the picture he wished to portray. There was also great detail in his writing, detail of observation, thought and feeling. Here, I thought, is someone who knows how to write.

There were occasional blemishes in his work: some words were misspelt, for instance - but overall, he showed great ability in expressing himself with words.

He was a foreign student studying in Singapore, in a normal secondary school. He was not a scholar and was not on any special programme for the "best and brightest" - yet his writing was better than any I had seen since my arrival in Singapore. This made me very curious.

I asked him: "Who taught you to write like that?"

"I taught myself.", he said, quietly, without pride and perhaps without awareness of how good he was.

He had taught himself. That warmed me - and surprised me - in equal measure. I have often observed that the best people at any given task, are often self-taught. The genius of a person can only live when the instructor is oneself.

"It's very good.", I observed, with an encouraging smile. He looked down at his work and up at me in a way that made me understand that few, if any, others had said as much. That is a pity, for his work has much promise.

Since I have come to Singapore, I have observed that quite a few Singaporeans look down on their South-East Asian neighbours as somehow "less" than they are. I have always thought this somewhat unwise. Yes, it is true that Singapore is more developed than the neighbouring countries - that it has organized its economy more efficiently and the infrastructure is good - but and this is a BIG but - that doesn't make the people, themselves, any better than those of their neighbours. Singaporeans risk making serious errors of judgement if they think that they are innately superior to their less developed neighbours.

Consider Indonesia, for instance. Many Singaporeans have an Indonesian maid - and quite a few look down on them - and on all other Indonesians, by association. Yet, this is not a very reasoned approach to the situation. Indonesia is a vast country with 235 million people. That means that Indonesia will have more gifted people in its population than Singapore's entire population put together. What that means is that for every ordinary Singaporean of average intelligence, Indonesia would, by force of sheer numbers alone, be able to counter with a gifted person of high intelligence. To a lesser degree, the same argument applies to the other countries in South-East Asia, some of which are also very populous.

Thus, it makes no sense for Singaporeans ever to look down on any other nation - for those nations can outmatch the whole of Singapore, with relative ease, should they wish to try. What impedes them, of course, are infrastructural, political and economic failings. Were these failings ever rectified, it would not be long before Singapore was drowned out by the much larger voices of its larger neighbours.

Yes, some Indonesians are maids. However, one should not forget that others will be as my former student was: the best student writer I had ever met in Singapore. There is a lesson in that, that wise Singaporeans should learn from. The "superiority" of Singapore is a fragile thing and not really founded on a large body of talented people. It could easily decline. Other nations in South-East Asia have many more gifted people to offer than reside in Singapore. In time, they may be afforded a chance to shine in their own countries. When that time comes, Singapore won't seem as bright as it now appears to be.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight 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, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Was William Shakespeare a writer?

William Shakespeare is the world's most famous playwright, noted as the greatest writer and poet in the English language at any time. But was he?

This is the odd question posed by the "Shakespeare Authorship Coalition" - a group of 287 people who are, as far as I can see, British actors.

Why would actors of all people doubt the authenticity of the great Bard himself? This is a question that has been troubling me since I heard of this group. You see, when I was younger, I acted in Shakespeare's plays including Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet (in two different shows) and The Taming of the Shrew. I have, therefore, a personal acquaintance with the issue. I also familiarized myself with many other works including Hamlet, Macbeth, Cymbeline, Henry V, The Tempest, Much Ado About Nothing, Othello, As You Like It, Love's Labours Lost, Twelfth Night and Julius Caesar. I have either seen or read all of these plays.

So, my remarks on this question come from three perspectives: one is that I have actually learnt, imbibed, understood and performed Shakespeare's works from several plays; the other is that I am a writer, too, so I know deeply what a writer is and does - and thirdly, I know what a genius is, too, and what they are capable of, having been witness to such in my life, more than enough to know the breed.

William Shakespeare was reputedly born in 1564, on April 23. I say "reputedly" because the date of birth is not recorded - only the date of Christening, which was April 25. Curiously enough, he died exactly 52 years later in 1616, also on April 23. Perhaps birthdays didn't agree with him.

During his life he is credited with having been an actor and playwright for some 25 years, during which he penned 37 plays, many sonnets, and a couple of longer poetic works. That is quite an output for one life - and it is this fact that has alerted the doubt of some of his thespian detractors.

Sir Derek Jacobi, a British actor who has worked on Shakespeare's plays, said that he subscribed to the "group theory...I don't think anybody could do it on their own."

Now, he may have a knighthood, but that doesn't mean he also has a brain. He believes that Shakespeare's plays were written by a group, a committee, a let's-sit-down-and-see-what-we-can-put-together-today consortium. I am flabbergasted that he should think so. I have acted in Shakespeare's plays, learnt his lines, let them become part of me and roll off my tongue in performance as if they had formed themselves in my mind - and I can tell you one thing about Shakespeare's works that is clear: he has a very personal style. His works are definitely of a oneness. They all carry the same mental flavour, or verbal sign. To hear one of his lines, is to know his work. How could a committee of writers ever create something of such unity? Would not their disparate styles jar and clash? Would they not be unable to create such smooth, expressive poetry that all runs together perfectly upon the tongue? It is staggering to think that an actor, of all people, could not have observed how alike all Shakespeare's works are in verbal style. They are definitely the work of one man. It is nonsense to suggest that they are the jottings of a group working together.

Poetry does not emerge from a group. It emerges from the heart and mind of a sole creator.

In interpreting Sir Derek Jacobi's comment I can only assume that he is projecting himself onto the task when he says that no one man could do it. He is basically thinking: "Well, I am the great Sir Derek Jacobi, Knight of The Realm of England - and if I couldn't do it, no-one could." Well, I don't think so, Sir Derek Jacobi. An actor may be a writer - as Shakespeare was - but an actor who is not also a writer - like Sir Derek Jacobi is not - really has no ground to stand on. His opinion is not founded on personal acquaintance with the issue. Sir Derek Jacobi is neither a genius nor a writer - so how can he make an informed judgment about whether a genius writer could write such a body of work in a fifty-two year lifetime?

Well, there is one way to look at it, which might help. Let us analyse Shakespeare's output by comparison to the output of a writer I know well. Shakespeare's surviving works amount to 884,647 words, in total. Look at that number. Is it a lot, do you think? Is less than 900,000 words a great output for a lifetime of writing? Well, I have another number for you to consider: the number of words in my first book (yet to be published), is about 750,000 words, or thereabouts. Therefore, my own lifetime output, when my other works are considered actually exceeds that of Shakespeare's in terms of number of words, somewhat significantly. One work alone is almost as much as his entire output. So, indeed, it is more than possible for one man, alone, to accomplish so much, in terms of quantity of output. That really does lend perspective to Sir Derek Jacobi's belief that no one man could do it - of course one man could do it - and in a lot less time than 52 years, too. It could easily be done before the age of 30 by a motivated genius, with great verbal gift. I had written more than Shakespeare by that age - and if one person could do it, another could, too - especially one as verbally gifted as Shakespeare.

The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition believes that it is impossible for "a 16th century commoner and son of an illiterate household" to have penned plays so versed in law. They are laughable. There is such a thing in this world as a book. Anyone can learn anything if they are bright enough, no matter what their background. Clearly this group of 287 actors don't have a single intellectual among them. If they had, they would know that the only limit to the knowledge of a truly gifted person is their time on this Earth, and access to books. All Shakespeare would have to do is read - or talk to a lawyer every now and again over a pint of ale. There is no deeper mystery to it than that.

I am not a lawyer - but my brother is. If he can do it, so can I - and so could William Shakespeare, who was more than smart enough to handle the task.

As for the "illiterate household" bit, I marvel at their lack of historical research. His mother, Mary Arden, was of the landed gentry: a high born woman of substance. I really rather think that she could read. His father, though a yeoman, rose to be High Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon by 1568. This a position akin to mayor. Clearly, in terms of giftedness, Shakespeare had gifted parents. I don't for a moment believe that they lacked the ability to read - or to teach him to read, too. Even, for argument's sake, if they were illiterate, they clearly were of gifted stock - and so he would no doubt find it rather easy to pick up the skill himself.

What I find really interesting - and telling - is that the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition seems not to understand the contribution that imagination makes to a writer's work. They critique the probability of Shakespeare being the author of his own works, by presupposing the non-existence of his imagination. They say that he wrote mostly about the upper-classes - so suggest therefore that, since he was not a nobleman, he could not and would not do this. Well, wait a minute, I know of writers who write about dragons - but that doesn't mean that they are personally acquainted with them. Their arguments are all very weak, and presuppose that the writer of Shakespeare's plays had a limited mind and imagination - rather like their own, I presume. The upper classes were the players of Shakespeare's day - all that was significant seemed to revolve around them and their actions - so, of course, he was interested in writing about them - in doing so he was being what a playwright should be - dramatic. There is drama in the passions of rulers and the doings of the great. Focusing on the deeds of a peasant would not have "put bums on seats", in Shakespeare's day (or even now for that matter).

The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition also question Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy. They say that because he got the details right of how Italy was in his day, that Shakespeare could not have written it. Well, how odd. Shakespeare could have travelled there, or spoken to people who had, or read books about it. There any number of means by which he could have come by this information. That Shakespeare was careful about his research does not prove that he did not write his own works - it proves only that he was careful about his research!

This Shakespeare Authorship Coalition recently unveiled a "declaration of reasonable doubt" concerning the authorship of Shakespeare's works, at the Minerva Theatre, Chichester, West Sussex, England. The list of supporting names included 20 prominent doubters of the past, including Sir John Gielgud (what is it about these Knights and their doubts?), Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles and Mark Twain.

Sir Derek Jacobi proposes Edward de Vere as the most likely candidate - or the foremost member of the "group" who, according to him, wrote Shakespeare's plays. Edward de Vere was an aristocrat and therefore in line with the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition's bizarre belief that only an aristocrat/nobleman could have written Shakespeare's plays. They seem to be suggesting two things: firstly, and most offensively, that only a nobleman could possibly be gifted enough to write such great works - and that secondly they seem to have too much knowledge of the upper classes to have been written by anyone who wasn't himself noble.

I find the whole argument ridiculous. A writer can write about anything or anyone - he - or she -needs only three tools: talent/genius, good research and imagination. All the rest is just effort.

Sir Derek Jacobi appears to have overlooked the awkward fact that Edward de Vere predeceased Shakespeare by over a dozen years and wasn't even alive to have written the later works supposedly written with his involvement. Perhaps Sir Derek Jacobi believes it was a ghostwriter.

I think this whole argument comes down to a simple fact of life: little minds cannot imagine the capacity or capabilities of great minds. Those who propose that William Shakespeare could not have written his works are saying that they, themselves, could not have written his works - so they doubt that he could, also. They are saying that William Shakespeare's works are of such genius, that only a superman could have written them. So they propose that it must have been a nobleman (ie. a selectively bred superman of his day) - or that a group of hardworking lesser humans like themselves must have done so. I marvel at their essential vacuity. They clearly do not understand that genius does not come from groups - it arises from the superlative gifts of one unusual human being. I once read a good metaphor here. If you want to find someone to jump seven foot tall, in the high jump, you don't look for seven people who can each jump one foot: you have to find one person who can jump seven foot high! No matter how many "lesser mortals" you throw at the problem, they will never equal a single Shakespeare: individually and collectively they simply cannot jump that high. So, Shakespeare's works could not have been written by a group - because you are not going to find a group of seven foot high jumpers. Furthermore, using Occam's Razor, only one such high jumper is necessary to jump seven feet. It seems foolish to propose a whole bunch of them. Especially since the actual lifetime quantity of output is not even as much as one blogger's (me).

There is one final point which I think really kills this whole argument, in one word: credit. Do you really think that the "true author" of William Shakespeare's works is going to sit idly by while this actor got all the credit for being the greatest writer in the history of the English language? I don't think so. If there truly had been another author, he would have said, at some point, "err...excuse me, I wrote that." The only possibility is that someone conspired for unknown reasons of his own, with Shakespeare, to create a false public persona of a playwright for works written by him or her, instead. But why, oh why, would anyone wish to hide their authorship of the greatest plays in the English language? Occam's Razor defeats this one - it is just too far fetched that there would have been a great conspiracy, initiated by the author of the plays, to hide his own authorship. Only in such circumstances, could there possibly be an author who didn't come forward to claim authorship, other than Shakespeare himself. I find it absurd in the extreme. No creator would, I feel and think, do that to themselves. Even if they wanted a quiet life, it would make no sense not to reveal authorship, upon one's death.

I, for one, have no doubt that Shakespeare is the genius he was reputed to be. I have no doubt that he was the author of his works. I equally have no doubt that should there have been another author, that that author would have come forward to claim ownership - for why ever would they not?

In some ways, this is all rather sad. Imagine that you had been Shakespeare, that you had written all your life long and created the most beautiful of poetic works - and then, hundreds of years after your death, the very people who have made their living from putting on your works: British actors - start proclaiming that you were too much of a commoner to have written such noble works. It is tragic really. All of this actually tells us little about Shakespeare - but a lot about the actors who attack him. I will leave you to decide what it tells.

I will leave you with an eyewitness account of Shakespeare's gifts from his time. First Folio publishers John Hemminges and Henry Condell said of Shakespeare: "His mind and hand went together and what he thought, he uttered with that easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers."

William Shakespeare, poetic genius that he was, and greatest of writers - wrote almost perfect, error free copy. That is testament enough for me: to write such wonderful plays, without a blot.

Rest in Peace, William. There are still many who believe in you (and 287 who don't).

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen 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, 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.)

Are many gifts better than one?

If we look back at the past, some of the figures we most admire, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, had many gifts. He was a man who, seemingly, could do anything excellently. Is this situation the ideal one?

In one way, it would seem to be, for it lends the bearer of the gifts, many opportunities and choices: there is nothing they cannot do if they have gifts in the sciences and the arts, practical gifts and theoretical gifts, musical gifts and athletic gifts. Such people may do as they please in life. That is the clear advantage. However there is one disadvantage that is not so clear. With many gifts, there will be a tendency to dilute one's efforts among them and so reduce the likelihood of success in any of them. In the modern world, therefore, the person of many gifts may not succeed in the way that a person of one gift would: eminence requires focus and effortful attention over many years. That does not come easily to someone who has half-a-dozen areas of expertise. Such a person may sparkle brightly in one way, and not at all in another.

I have seen such a tendency in my own early life. I had many areas in which it was easy for me to shine - science, acting, writing, music, art and academia. Yet, having so many areas meant that I was pulled in several directions and so did not dig sufficiently deep in any of them to satisfy my potential in those areas. Many years were perhaps "wasted" pursuing one gift at the expense of others. Although I would say that pursuit of any of one's gifts makes one grow - and so makes the whole person more complex and more interesting.

I was a physicist for a time, with a government laboratory, at 17. It was at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middx., UK. I enjoyed it and completed two research projects while I was there - a major and a minor, if you like. I worked as an Arts magazine founder and editor, for a couple of years - and again, found it enjoyable and rewarding. I have written two non-fiction books and done major work on two others. (The process of publishing these has begun). I used to draw very distinctive compositions as a teenager...but gave up due to personal injury at 17. I have yet to return to it. Though, a piece of my performance art, "Lord Valentine the Misplaced" was global news on CNN, and Reuters, among others, in the 1990s. The interviewer at CNN, was Richard Blystone who was, or became, the European Bureau Chief. As a child, singing was one of my greatest joys. I went to Cambridge University and studied Natural Sciences, taking my B.A and later M.A. This I did not enjoy for reasons too diverse to discuss here, though I would point out that I was unlucky enough not to find a mentor there. I have also acted on stage, TV and the odd film. I appear regularly on TV in South-East Asia of all places.

Yet, there has been a price for this diversity: the cumulative effect of working in one area with focussed effort over time, is to establish a rather large presence in a field. That doesn't happen in a short time if you are working in several fields. Would I do things differently had I the opportunity? Perhaps - but then I would have paid a different price - the lack of diversity of experience that I have garnered in my varied career.

Why do I write this? Well, many parents are worried about the development of their children. They want to see them become all-rounders in some instances, or to shine at one thing in others. Is either superior? Well the first gives great flexibility of choices - but the latter could be superior from the career point of view. You see the person focussed on one thing is infinitely more likely to become a great shining success in it, than the person who has several mini-careers. That being said, of course, if the person of several mini-careers becomes famous for any one of them, he or she may become known as a polymath, and admired for that characteristic - and rewarded with opportunities in the other areas, too.

Ainan, my scientific child prodigy son, shows great focus on science, at present, although he has shown aptitude in music and art among other things. If his focus is maintained as he grows up, he is likely to make a significant impression in whichever scientific area is his choice. I don't worry that he might be less "polymathic" than I was - for I see something now which I did not understand then - there is a definite advantage in picking a strength and working with it. He has other strengths and each may develop at different stages in his life - but it is as a scientist that I think he will most readily shine - for that is the subject of his focus.

So if your child has many gifts, or just one: don't worry - for both have paths to success - and in some ways, it is the child of one great gift who has the easier path.

(If you would like to read more about Ainan Celeste Cawley, my scientific child prodigy son, aged seven years and one month, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Creative genius and social isolation

The creative genius is often portrayed as a solitary figure. Why is this so?

Firstly, because it is generally true. To be a genius is to possess certain characteristics which are not conducive to wide acceptance by others. One of these characteristics is that one's thinking may simply be too different from others to be readily grasped. In general, people will not marvel at new thoughts: they will look askance at them, and their bearer. In many societies and many times, the thinker of new thoughts is not praised, but attacked; is not courted, but shunned; is not accepted, but opposed. Ill-treatment is often the fate of genius. It is only after many years, sometimes decades, sometimes, sadly after the genius has died, and their ideas prove themselves to be true, that they are finally - and reluctantly accepted. The world is often unkind to geniuses, in person, and only kind to their memories long after they have passed away.

There is another major reason why genius is often solitary: necessity. A genius cannot create while surrounded by social distractions. A genius must be alone to create, in whatever field they do create. Their thoughts must be uninterrupted, unbothered by others. Most people of genius do not mind solitude - indeed many like it - for it is when alone that they may be themselves unencumbered by social conformity. It is when alone that they may think their thoughts without fear of ridicule. It is when alone that the genius can focus, to the exclusion of all else, on that which really matters: their creative work. The creative genius is the rarest of humans for many reasons, but one of them is that a genius must have the strength to stand alone, the strength to bear solitude sometimes for many years, on a single project, if their genius is ever to create anything. A genius must therefore not only be capable in mind, but strong in heart: they must be independent in thought and in social need. Not many manage to possess both characteristics in ample quantity - and so not many turn out to be geniuses.

I can give one personal example of the necessity of solitude to create anything of value. I have written two books - almost three - but it is the writing of one to which I wish to draw your attention.

When I was twenty-five, I began writing a book, a long book, a deep book, a book that soon took over my life. To write this book, I sequestered myself alone, at night, in an office about fifteen minutes walk from my house. Each night that I wrote, (I didn't write all nights), I would walk down to this office, through dark unlit roads, savouring the encroaching solitude, for in the darkness and quietness, would I be able to focus on my work. I would walk across a golf course, at night, down some darkened steps, across a railway track and into a second floor office, in the converted attic of a building.

It was the quiet that I liked. There was only myself, the hum of a computer (which I didn't then have of my own), and my thoughts. It was in that solitude that I wrote, nightly, until the brightening of the dawn, never interrupted by a phonecall, never taken away from my work by the call of a voice. It was a kind of peace that I have not found since.

I wrote in that way for five and a half years, until the work was complete. It is 750,000 words long - that is three-quarters of a million words. It, to me, is a thing of beauty. I have not yet published it, but I intend to do so in the coming year or two. Whether it will be acclaimed a work of genius or not, I do not know - but one thing I do know is that any genius who wishes to create must find their own solitude in which to do so. Genius never created in a social tumult.

So, genius is solitary - but not in a sad way. A genius is alone, but not lonely. A genius enjoys solitude, not fears it - for in solitude the genius is alone with their thoughts - and that is not being alone at all. A genius uses the focus and peace of solitude to create. So, if you have a child who likes solitude, who works on things alone, let them be: they may be a genius in the making, a person who will use periods of solitude in their life to create their greatest works.

(If you would like to read about my scientific child prodigy son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and one week old, then please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I write also of child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general.)