My take on a "Things to do Before you Die" list, part I

The list is taken from here.

1. Fall in love at first sight
2. Fall in love at the first glance

Personally I'd rather fall in love with someone for their personality than for their looks. Still, to each their own and all that.

3. Visit all continents.
4. Visit a pyramid.
5. Visit Walt Disney World.

I'm not particularly interested in any of these per se. I suppose the pyramids would be interesting, but it would necessitate a journey to Egypt and I can't think what else I'd do there. See the sphinx, see the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and then what? I also have no particular desire to visit Oceania or either of the poles, and I'm quite content to enjoy Disney films without needing to go to a Disney theme park.

6. Take a Zeppelin ride
7. Take a hot air balloon ride.

The Zeppelin ride sounds like the kind of thing one would do purely in order to be able to say that one had done it. I can't imagine it's tremendously different to most other forms of air-flight. A hot-air balloon could be quite fun, however, providing you were doing it over a nice landscape.

8. Go to a drive-in movie theater.

What's wrong with just a normal cinema?

9. Ride a horse on my own.

I'm guessing that having ridden a donkey along a beach (Blackpool maybe?) doesn't count. This goes along with the hot-air balloon idea into the "This could be fun, but I could die perfectly happily without having done it." category.

10. Tongue kissing a woman I don't know out of the blue

I've done this. It wasn't very interesting if I'm honest.

11. Make a full-length film with complete artistic freedom.
12. Write a book.
13. Get a book published.
14. Record a music album.
15. Perform my own songs on-stage.

Making a full-length film would take a couple of years at the very least. Also, if you want other people's help then you're either going to need lots of money, or you'll need to allow them substantial control over the project. I've tried to write a book twice, and didn't get very far either time. Making it professionally publishable would take even more effort, and I don't think self-publishing on the internet counts. I do like the idea of recording and performing my own songs for a public audience, though.

16. Have my own website.

Does a blog count?

17. See at least 10,000 full-length films.

I suppose that across an entire lifetime this works out at a film every three days, which is reasonable. That said, I can generally find better things to do with my time.

18. Go on a blind date.

I don't get the point of this nowadays. If you are looking for a long-term partner, you target your dating towards people with whom you would be compatible, through the use of dating websites. If you are looking for casual sex, you go on Tinder. Blind dates just throw that advantage away.

19. Run nude through a public place.

I can sort of understand the fun of this one. But I've already tried crossdressing, which is close enough and I really don't feel the need to go any further.

20. Test drive a sports car.
21. Drive a humvee.
22. Be hypnotized.

No interest in any of these, but I can understand why someone would be interested in at least the first two.

23. Learn a martial art.
24. Learn to play guitar and piano.
25. Juggle 5 balls at a time.

I've done some basic martial arts, and I think I'd rather just learn to use a gun. I can already play piano and sort-of play guitar. Juggling might be interesting, but there are almost certainly other things which are more impressive, less common, and more interesting.

26. Make love on an ocean beach.
27. Make love in the sea.
28. Make love in the middle of a street.
29. Get road head.

The first three of these must surely be very uncomfortable. I understand the voyeuristic-naughtynaughty-whatever sex appeal of the places, but it's not like any of them are original. Road head might be fun for the recipient, but it would be one hell of a distraction from the road and it can't be the most comfortable position for the person giving oral sex. I assume you're not crouching by the pedals - that would, among other things, be stupidly dangerous - so presumably you're leaning across from the front passenger seat, taking care to avoid the gearstick, and that position can't be good for your back.

30. Send a message in a bottle.
31. Shower in a waterfall.

With regard to the first one, what's stopping you? Just get a bottle with a lid, come up with a message, and next time you're at sea throw the bottle into the ocean. Showering in a waterfall does sound genuinely fun, providing the weather is warm.

32. Throw an evening party.

I've done this. Perhaps he means something more than just umpteen students turning up at a house or flat, getting drunk and possibly heading to a club, but in any case this hardly seems like something out of the ordinary.

33. Sleep a night in a snow fort I built.

I've slept rough twice (once for charity, once because I was stranded) and I'd really prefer a nice comfortable bed, thank you very much.

34. Fly a kite (again).
35. Swim across a large lake, unassisted.
36. Be able to locate 10 constellations in the sky.
37. Flatten coins on a train track.

I really don't see the point of the last one, but otherwise these seem like small, achievable things that are at least worth trying.

38. Live in my own apartment.

Better suggestion: Earn enough to be able to afford to live in my own apartment. Although even then I'm not certain I'd want to, it's nice having people around who you can talk to.

39. Ride a mechanical bull.
40. Ride a rollercoaster (again).

No interest in the first. If I were at a theme park then I would go on a rollercoaster again, but I don't see this happening until I have kids. Speaking of which:

41. Attend a human birth.

I'd want to be there for my own childrens' births. Otherwise, I can think of better ways of spending my time.

42. Visit an asylum.
43. Write a letter to the editor.
44. Write a letter to the editor that hasn't to do with yourself

Scratch that first, the internet will do fine. And letters to the editors of print media are being rendered obselete by online media and comments sections. Perhaps replace these with "Have a top-rated comment on an article at a major site discussing a major issue."

45. Sleep with a person I love
46. Have a kissing marathon with someone I love.

Replace "a person I love" with "my wife" and you're on.

47. Make my own choreography of a dance.
48. Dance it on-stage.

I've done the first and would like the second, although perhaps on-stage should be replaced with "at an actual ceilidh".

49. Achieve spiritual freedom.

What does this even mean?

50. Reach a mountain top (a high mountain).

Define "high". I've climbed several mountains, the highest of which was probably Snowdon. I suppose climbing one of the really high mountains (i.e. several thousand metres) might be fun and would be pretty satisfying, but if it took significant amounts of money and time then I could probably find better things to do with both.

51. having sexual intercourse for the first time.
52. Really love somebody
53. Fall in love again and again.
54. have sexual intercourse with a man.
55. Make somebody fall in love with me.
56. Have a woman say that she loves me

Having sex only once in your life doesn't really sound any better than dying a virgin in my opinion. Certainly, I'd rather die a virgin having made a decision to abstain from sex than have a series of meaningless one-night stands and ultimately fail to achieve romantic fulfilment. Falling in love sounds nice, provided it is a) reciprocated and b) with the kind of person with whom I would want to fall in love. If I had looser sexual mores, then perhaps I would be interested in seeing what it's like to have sex with another man. Falling in love for the sake of falling in love seems remarkably shallow, though. I'm also concerned about this "make somebody fall in love with me". As much as it would be a pleasant ego-boost if someone were to fall in love with me, there are really only two possible endings there: either the two of us end up romantically attached, in which case this description seems severely lacking in detail, or the other person ends up being emotionally hurt to some extent. I don't want them hurt, and the idea that I am somehow "making" them fall in love with me makes it sound like I've leading them on.

57. Be exactly where you want to be, with whom you want to be, how you want it to be, etc. at least once in my life.
58. Be exactly where you want to be, with whom you want to be, how you want it to be, etc. at least once in my life, and knowing everything is all right.
59. Feeling one with the universe, and knowing life is great.

These seem to vague to be of any use. How exactly would you plan to accomplish these?

60. Talking to a director I admire

Replace director with musical performer, author, philosopher, economist, composer, etc...

61. Reciting my own poems before a public audience

If I were any good at writing poetry, then yes this would be a worthwhile achievement. Unfortunately, the only way I can see this happening is through some kind of "ordinary people's poetry reading day" thing in which the victims audience would have to sit through hour after unending hour of utter dross.

62. Going on a long road trip with friends and enough money, without a specific destination.

I could do this, provided we had planned the trip so as to have plenty of interesting places we could visit. Meandering through northern Italy and southern France yes, wandering aimlessly around the Australian outback no.

63. Run in competition for at least 10km.

I've run 5km in competition twice before, does that count? (Bear in mind I was about 9 at the time). And actually, I'm running a 10k race in May so this is a Thing To Do which will soon be under my belt.

64. Having sexual intercourse with two women at one time.

My suspicion is that diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly with regard to sex partners. I only have one penis, after all.

65. Run my own household.

If this means "raise a family" then my response is DUH. Of course I want to raise children. If it means "run a house by myself" then my response is AARGH THE INEFFICIENCY.

66. Play tennis in a competition.

Specifically tennis? I've played in numerous chess and football tournaments, so do they count? That said, I have entertained the idea of taking up tennis at some point, it's a fun sport and I am merely mediocre at it (as opposed to remedial).

67. Being in love with somebody who actually loves me, and knowing it, and living it.

Haven't we already had this?

68. Spontaneously sing a "personal" song for somebody I love.

How spontaneous do you want? I've written music for specific people, and I suppose this would work as a Valentine's Day type thing. That said, I wouldn't put it as something to do before I die.

69. Work on a filmset by someone I admire in one of the lowest jobs, without the people knowing it.
70. Have some of my film-articles published.

Again, I have little interest in films.

71. Discover the meaning of life.

You seem to assume that there is one and that it is discoverable by human reason. Also, if you were serious about this then you'd presumably devote your life to philosophical study instead of spending 20,000 hours watching films.

72. Watch films I love more often with people I love.

This is enjoyable, but in general I would tend to see this as a "neither of us is busy, let's have a relaxing evening" kind of thing rather than a lifetime-highlight kind of thing.

73. Lose the fear of death.
74. Look forward to my own death.
75. Risk my life (more often).

I've done the first. It's not difficult. On the other hand, I would rather put it off and achieve more on earth before I do actually die, and cultivating a habit of risking one's life is just stupid. Perhaps a better idea would be "be willing to risk or sacrifice my life for a good cause."

76. Develop a greater awareness of my body.
77. Train to get an athletic figure (with a six pack).

I'm quite happy with my body as it is, thank you very much. I could go to the gym, or I could improve my mind. Even better, I could go on a run while listening to an audiobook or podcast and so improve both my mind and body.

78. Be more honest.

I would definitely be interested in trying out Radical Honesty. Whether or not it would be a good idea is another question entirely.

79. Shave my head because of a spiritual need.

No. I like my hair, and shaving it will not make me the slightest bit more spiritual. Fool!

80. Tell people I Love them, when I feel like it.

I wish I could do this. Unfortunately, telling people you love them isn't very British and this is the memeplex into which I happen to have been born.

81. Attend a concert by Prince.
82. Attend a concert by Aimee Mann.
83. Attend a concert by Jude.
84. Attend a concert by Julie Delpy.

Change the artists. Unfortunately Johnny Cash died more than a decade ago; I've already seen Half Man Half Biscuit; Muse are hideously expensive to see live...

85. Go to a concert of an artist you love, with someone you love.

Entails finding a romantic partner. This is something of a failure mode for me with regard to this list.

86. Work independently in something I love and be able to live from it.

Next best: become a professor of philosophy!

87. Go hitch-hiking into the unknown with only a backpack, and little money (and maybe a friend).

I don't know about "the unknown". I'm not going hiking in the jungles of South America, and while I intend to go backpacking across Europe at some point I wouldn't really call that "the unknown".

88. See my first big love again (and talk to her).

Entails finding and losing a romantic partner. Even more of a failure mode.

89. Have my own laptop.

What do you think I'm typing this on?

90. Make my own movie.

Haven't we already had this one?

To be continued... possibly.

We need a new terminology for rape

A couple of weeks back in a politics tutorial, I was called upon to defend a Nozickian view of punishment as  being about restitution of the victim. In particular, I was to explain how it is even possible to compensate someone for being raped. (Rape was probably a bad crime to use as an example, being rather a hot-button issue, but it wasn't me who chose it). I didn't make a very good job of it, partly because of a lack of time and because the audience I was explaining to did not understand the axioms of microeconomics. I attempted to draw a standard graph of bundles of goods, with one axis representing monetary income (or rather, the optimal bundle of goods which could be acquired at a given level of income) and the other axis representing not-getting-raped. Due to the limited time available and because this is a rather tricky topic, I didn't get any further than this, but I did just about manage to mention something which had occurred to me: that rather than phrasing it as rape, we should phrase it as "sex one would rather not have."

This isolates the sex-crime, and removes the violence, betrayal of trust, and other wrongs that go along with it. The problem is that this isn't modelling rape - it's modelling prostitution. We can quite easily say "Person X would rather not sleep with person Y, but if Y were to pay X £x in exchange for the sex, then X would accept the exchange." But this wouldn't support a hypothetical-consent defence of rape if Y were to leave £x to X after the rape. Firstly, rape is almost inevitably going to involve some element of force, intimidation, deception, concealment or some other skulduggery. Each of these could be realised in a number of ways, and I really don't feel like describing them further unless necessary.

I would not go so far as to say that such skulduggery is necessarily a part of rape, however. Certainly it's present in the majority of cases, but we can conceive of cases where it was not. Indeed, there are some hideously complicated cases. Suppose a tall, muscular guy and a petite, naive girl meet in a nightclub, head back to the guy's room after several rounds of drinks. The guy then asks consent to have sex with the girl; she has sobered up a bit and doesn't really want to, but is afraid because she's in an unfamiliar place, he's much bigger and more powerful than her, it wasn't unreasonable for him to assume that he would be sleeping with her and he's lost the chance to spend the night with anyone else, and combined with the alcohol she's afraid that he'll get angry. So she says she consents.

This guy has specifically asked for, and apparently received, consent. That alone places him above the vast majority of males engaging in casual sex. And yet, the consent could reasonably be put down to duress and is therefore highly dubious. It's hard to see exactly what the guy has done wrong, and yet he is arguably guilty of rape.

What this tells us is that we need a more nuanced discussion of rape. Not all rapes are identical; not all rapists are necessarily blameworthy. We should distinguish undesirable sex (which someone might voluntarily take part in, in exchange for other services) from the means used to procure it, and we should distinguish between different means. I think we can agree that threatening suicide in order to get someone to sleep with you is worse than assuming consent from a one-night stand, so I think we should have different terms for these.

I am not optimistic for the chances of this actually happening, for reasons which I may go into at a later date.

PhilChat on Realism, Possibility & Conceivability

We had the second UoM Philosophy Chat meeting today, so I'm just writing up a quick post to recount roughly what happened. There were two postgrads who each gave a talk on a philosophical subject which interested them. The first, Aaron, was talking on the subject of "Realism... whatever that is." The main thing I took away from his talk was that yes, the terminology of ontology is terminally screwy. A lot of debate over whether things exist seems to come from different notions of what we mean by existence. He is moving towards a meaning in which "real" is less a  defined label or property (e.g. real = not completely explicable in terms of lower-level phenomena) but more a statement that something represents a valuable way of looking at the world. This seemed very likely to be right, until he said that by by valuable he did not mean from a usefulness or epistemological standpoint, but instead he referred to some new kind of value which he was not yet willing to discuss.

The second talker, a PhD student named Nathan focused primarily on the philosophy of language, had first to explain why exactly he had changed his topic from the previously promised "philosophy of swearing". After this he went into the relation between Possibility and Conceivability, starting with a quote from Hume suggesting that the two were identical before going onto a more recent philosopher who had demonstrated that they are not. There was then a distinction drawn between two types of "conceivability" which, if I remember correctly, had something to do with the fact that I can conceive of the possibility that I went to Exeter University, but I cannot conceive of all the other necessary differences which would be made necessary by that single change. It was interesting, but very complicated with differences between "conceiving" and "believing" and a story from the Old Testament.

As at the last session, there was cake, hot drinks and mocking of continental philosophy.

Why not be immoral?

This semester I have been sitting in on a course on Ethics. Never having previously studied it on a formal basis, I thought it would be worth going along to the lectures in order to see if there are important issues that I am missing. From that perspective, the course has not been a disappointment: I had hitherto overlooked the thorny issue of why people should act morally.

From another perspective, the course has been a disappointment - the proposed answers to this, and the arguments for them, have been remarkably weak. There have been two answers proposed for this question:

1. It is in one's interest to act morally
2. A so-called "rationalist" argument, which I shall outline below

The argument from self-interest seems in on sense to be question begging. Why exactly would one act immorally if it were not in one's interest? That said, perhaps we could argue that there is more to it than this. Humans are not good at judging risk, so perhaps a case is to be made that we tend to err in our judgements of our self-interest, and that acting morally is a good corrective.

This clearly doesn't work as an argument in relation to utilitarianism, where one can frequently be required to sacrifice one's own wellbeing for the greater increase in wellbeing of others. It's hard to see how donating vast amounts of money to the third world is in one's own interest, and yet according to one of the most powerful essays on applied ethics of the last century it is pretty much obligatory. Similarly, any account of virtue ethics which includes a component of "civic virtue" - the propensity to sacrifice one's own interests for the good of one's community - will pretty much by definition fail to consistently serve one's own self-interest. Deontological systems don't necessarily fail to consistently advance one's own self-interest, but then again it would be extraordinarily rare to use a purely deontological system to establish one's view of the Good: usually, deontology acts as a side-constraint upon another system, whether that is virtue ethics, utilitarianism, enlightened egoism, or any other of the myriad moral systems we have developed.

Here is a rough reconstruction of the rationalist argument, taken directly from the lecture slides:

1. What is Right is what is good.
2. What is good is what we ought to do.
3. What we ought to do is what we should do.
4. What we should do is what we have reason to do.

Conclusion: We have reason to do what is right.

There are a couple of crucial problems with this argument. First, there is a problem which was discussed in the lecture: what does it mean to have reason to do something? It means that it is rational to do it. What does it mean for it to be rational to do something? Here lies a thorny debate between those who believe it means that one should want to do something regardless of one's interests, and those who believe it implies a path between doing the thing and achieving one's goals. Since I view the second view as obviously the correct one, the argument fails here. However, I would go further: I would charge that this argument is deliberately misleading and sophist.

One of the key tenets of Analytic Philosophy is being precise and clear in one's meaning. The above argument is not at all clear currently. There is a simple test to see whether an argument relies on the abuse of words: that is, to precisely define every word which is not absolutely obvious in meaning, and then to substitute in the definition for the word, wherever it appears in the argument. I propose the following definitions:

Ought: either that which someone has a duty to do, or that which is suberogatory.

Should: that which it would be advisable for a person to do, given their current set of desires and probable future desires.

I won't go over the whole argument like this; instead, I shall focus upon premise 3. Using the definitions I have provided, it becomes clear that this premise is flawed, and relies upon assuming a desire to act morally. We can try redefining the terms to get around this, but we are inevitably going to face this disconnect somewhere between premises 2 and 4. In ordinary language usage "ought" and "should" feel very much alike due to the ambiguity of the word "should"; however, when rendered in precise, logical language the difference in meaning becomes clear.

I'm not content to suggest that these arguments are not obviously true, though: I want to knock them down completely. For this reason I propose a simple test for the strength of any particular argument as to why a person should act morally:

Suppose a global dictator is to be appointed. This person is to be chosen completely at random out of the set of mentally competent adults of at least average intelligence, and is to have absolute power over the rest of humanity. There shall be no possible way of resisting the dictator's will or of deposing them. Would you rely on this argument in order to keep that person behaving benevolently?

I doubt anyone would be comfortable assuming that it was in a dictator's own self-interest to act entirely morally and honourably (unless they believe in an afterlife, and we prefer to avoid making that kind of assumption). And you can go on all you like about it being "rational" to not maintain a harem of supermodels and to avoid nepotism, but I doubt the average dictator gives more thought to maintaining a veneer of philosophical "rationality" than he does to propagating his genes. Indeed, I doubt that there is any real reason for this absolute dictator to hold back once he is in this position; instead, one would have to act beforehand so as to restrict his power and free will.

There is an objection to this line of argument I can imagine being raised, but which misses the point. This objection is that there is a massive difference between acting morally when one is a near-omnipotent dictator, and when one is an ordinary member of a human society. If a normal person takes up stealing, then they will be arrested and fined or imprisoned. If they start insulting the people around them, then they will face social rejection.

The problem with this objection is that in these cases, it's not morality that we are responding to: it is social incentives. The dictator example deliberately removes all of these other restraints; relying on social incentives is at best a flawed method of achieving good behaviour, for it does not punish many kinds of bad behaviour (e.g. persistence of various hazing rituals, state brutality, and if you believe in it then rape culture) while punishing all kinds of things which are morally neutral or even virtuous (e.g. public cross-dressing, professing and acting based on scepticism of ostensibly well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective or worse). However, this does point in one useful direction, because we have the power to change social incentives.

I suspect that it is not in the interests of the individual to act morally. However, it is in the interests of the individual that other individuals act morally. Therefore, ceteris paribus it is in the interests of the individual to promote social incentives which align with promoting moral behaviour.

Review of Frozen

When it first came out, I had no particular interest in seeing Frozen, but after loving Tangled, hearing a couple of the songs and having it recommended by a friend I thought that I would go to see it. I certianly enjoyed the film, but I have the feeling that there was something off about it.

That thing, I believe, is that the film is undecided about what it wants to be. The first half of the story goes on in the form of musical theatre, which just happens to be animated - a sung opening number with essentially no plot relevance except to introduce the characters of Kristoff and Sven (Frozen Heart), a montage number explaining the rift between Princesses Elsa and Anna (Do You Want to Build a Snowman?), a song explaining the motivation of the protagonists (For the First Time in Forever); Anna and Hans get a jazzy falling-in-love number (Love is an Open Door), a bit of drama leading to Elsa fleeing and singing the musical's most memorable song (Let It Go). So far, so fabulous. This is where the first act ends, and it starts to turn into a drama film. Anna chases after her sister, and via songs meets Kristoff, Sven (Reindeer are Better than People) and Olaf (In Summer).

Got that? We have a first half of the film in which at least half of the time is taken up by songs, and no less than seven songs are used to explain the characters' feelings. Fairly standard for musical theatre. But in the entire rest of the story, there are only two songs, one of which is simply a refrain of For the First Time in Forever and the other of which (Fixer Upper) is, I think it is fair to say, the weakest song in the film. What I would term the third act of the story - from Elsa being captured and Anna being informed that her frozen heart can only be healed by an act of true love - does not include a single song. Every part of the film is good on its own merits, but the inconsistency means that song-lovers will be disappointed by the second half of the movie, while people who'd rather the story moved along will find the first half rather too slow.

That said, what tangential thoughts do I have on the minutae of the film?

First: It's not entirely clear what the Duke of Weselton did wrong. Sure, he's not a nice person. Lots of people aren't. Yes, he only wanted to trade with Arandelle for his own benefit, but so what? It's like the film-makers have never heard of the gains from trade. Yes, he ordered his henchmen to kill Queen Elsa, but to be fair she was a witch and this was back in a time when witches could be assumed to be evil. Besides which, in his eyes she had cursed the whole kingdom of Arandelle and if killing her was the only way to undo the curse, then is her life really to be placed over the thousands of lives her winter is threatening. (Come to think of it, presumably quite a few people died of cold during that winter, even if they did so off-screen). He happened to help Hans in his evil plan, but it wasn't out of malice - he simply wanted someone on the throne who would allow trade between Weselton and Arandelle. You could perhaps justify his maltreatment at the end based on his behaviour at the ball and such things, but cutting off trade is not just unreasonable but plain stupid.

In my review of Tangled I suggested that Disney were promoting a rose-tinted, overly optimistic, and perhaps even dangerous view of love in relation to young women. This film swings so far the other way that I almost think Tangled gives the less dangerous message. Sure, the young man who promises to spend his whole life with you may well not really mean it, but it doesn't generally mean he's intending to kill your sister and probably you too. What I find interesting from a characterisation standpoint is that the reasons for Anna and Rapunzel's naivety is the same in both cases - being kept isolated from the outer world - but they approach the outside world in very different ways. Rapunzel was terrified of the outer world until she encountered it, and prior to leaving the tower was only really interested in seeing the lanterns up close; Anna, on the other hand, was eagerly excited to encounter everything there was to see and meet.

At what point was Marshmallow (the giant snowman monster) actually named as such before Olaf called him that?

The music: if I hadn't already known that the songs were co-written by Robert Lopez (in collaboration with his wife, Kristen Anderson-Lopez) then there's a fair chance I'd have guessed. There's a range of styles used, but most if not all of the songs have little touches which sound very reminiscent of Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon. The link between the chorus and the second verse of Let It Go is one such snippet; the tune of Do You Want to Build a Snowman? is another familiar kind of musical idea, or alternatively the "With you!" "With you!" sections of Love is an Open Door. The instrumental music was fine - generally unobtrusive, and the climax of the music at the end of the film perfectly matched the mood.

In Defence of Ron

By now you can hardly have avoided the announcement. J.K. Rowling thinks, in hindsight, that Ron and Hermione were wrong for each other and that perhaps Harry and Hermione would have been a better match.

I was even more disappointed by Eric Crampton's take, a polemic replete with HPMOR quotes and a determination to ignore the fact that we're talking about an 11-year-old. Yes, Ron inherited some silly ideas from his parents (and from the Wizarding World as a whole) but he also had a cool head under fire and an admirable willingness to put his interests aside to serve others. In the first book alone note that, apart from his heroic sacrifice in the chess game, it was he who had the sense to think of lighting a fire when confronted with Devil's Snare.

I'm not going to attempt to defend the Ron/Hermione relationship - if they managed to be friends for six years and Ron only developed an interest in Hermione when she suddenly morphed into the actress playing her then I'm happy to lump it in with most late-teenage you're-fit-let's-date relationships, albeit with considerably more intense shared experiences than most. Harry and Ginny at least had complementary personalities - Ron and Hermione would never have become friends without Harry's influence. (If we're brutally honest, it's doubtful that Hermione would have had friends at all for at least her first four years at Hogwarts were it not for the troll incident - at least, not among the Gryffindors. Maybe she'd have bonded with Neville over neither of them having anyone else to hang out with?).

I remember one fanfic I read suggested that, in an alternate universe with no Ginny  Harry would (being rich, famous, presumably good-looking) have had his choice of girls, and gone for the one who he found most interesting - Luna. I like this theory, and Luna would certainly be my favourite alternative to Ginny. I don't know that I'd say that Luna was the best girl for Harry, but I would definitely say that (of the characters appearing in the books) Harry would have been the best guy for Luna. He never mocks her, which puts him ahead of just about everyone else to begin with. Let's hope that Rolf Scamander was suitably eccentric.

Drowning less often than previously

One of the key tricks to learn as a kayaker is Rolling - that is, self-righting after you capsize. It generally relies on two things: first, something of a base against which to push, and second, a strong hip-flick. The hip-flick is not too difficult to get the hang of, and will allow you to self-right using a nearby rock/side-of-the-pool/someone else's kayak. However, the base component relies upon one of these being available - which generally isn't the case - or on the ability to create base of your own with the paddle. This is not an easy thing to get the knack of: in order to pull it off while upside down you have to (after not panicking, which is of course the first danger) bring your paddle to your side, lean forward, sweep it outwards, and using your whole torso pull it against the water - all while performing a slow yet powerful hip-flick. I'm probably making it sound harder than it actually is; the point is that it takes a lot of practice to get the hang of. By "practice" I mean repeatedly and deliberately capsizing yourself, while going through the motions, with someone else on hand to dead-man-save you once you need to come up for air.

I've been practising in this way each Tuesday evening for the last few months, and eventually, last night, I performed my first unassisted roll. It was amazing how clean the whole thing felt - just one motion through the water, and before I knew it I was upright. I only managed it twice, in about thirty attempts over the course of the evening; that said, there were a couple of times where I was very close to getting up and only tipped again at the last second.

Hopefully over the next few weeks I'll turn it into a knack and be able to self-right automatically and reliably. After I finished practising for the evening, I spent a while watching over another guy who was better at it than I but still not 100% reliable with his rolls. "Dead-man-saving" someone - that is, righting someone in a kayak when you're not - is actually pretty easy, you just have to get your centre of mass on top of their kayak in order to provide downward force for the roll.