30's Fashion

   With the coming of the Great Depression in 1930, fashion took a drastic turn from the bawdy, free-spirited plumage of the Roaring 20's. Gradually, dresses turned to a more elegant, long style that still kept the free-flowing hem of the flapper era; men kept the classic suit, but traded their flat caps for fedoras.

   In spite of economic hardship, men and women alike still dressed with as much class as they could, so as to offer the impression that they were unaffected by the financial crisis. That being said, at this time many women started making clothing at home to cut costs. Patterned clothing became popular as well, perhaps because the material from flour and grain sacks was often patterned, and more accessible than bolted fabric (this is purely speculation on my behalf; more research is needed to confirm this claim).

Mere Clouds

   I took a look at the clouds on my way home from work today. They were large, fluffy white cumulus clouds; the kind you see shapes of creatures and strange forms in. I remember as a child, with my vivid imagination, I could make out all manner of mythical forms of creatures in them, but today I found myself blank. In each distinct cloud formation, I tried to see something -- anything other than a cloud. Crestfallen, and even a little bitter, I came to the realization that I had finally lost the magic of childhood. Adult life had caught up with me, and I had forgotten how to play. I had once told myself that I would never lose that creative imagination that childhood bestowed upon us all, and today I realized that it had dwindled away without my noticing.

   On that same note, most of us have lost much of the wonder and magic that comes with the ignorance of childhood. When we were all children, the impossible seemed real and very probable. That monster under the bed, that ghost story, the idea that faeries might actually exist; all of that seemed very real to us. And why shouldn't it? In our young and ignorant minds, reason had not disproved it yet and led us to think ‘That is nonsense.’

   Maybe that’s why I thirst for knowledge. Because every time I learn something I didn't know before, a tiny bit of that magic and wonder comes back, even if it’s lost to reason an instant later.

Is it possible to practice imagination? If so, would it do any good?

Understanding Mathematics

If I had a time machine, I would go back and ask the ancient mathematicians “What is it all for?”

   I have always had difficulty with mathematics, formulas in particular. I pondered my weakness for a long time, and then one day in my high school algebra class it dawned on me. In a particularly frustrating lesson in which our teacher was explaining how to solve a certain formula, he asked if we had any questions. For ages, I had struggled silently to wrap my head around the use of these seemingly nonsensical collections of symbols and letters, and that day, I‘d had enough of it. Completely out of character for me, I raised my hand.

“What is it used for?”
“What?”
“The formula.”
“It can be used to solve many problems. You might need it one day in a job, too.”
“I don’t understand. What makes it work? Why is it solved that way?”

   This, I admit, received an incredulous stare, and rightfully so. Anyone would assume at this point that I was trying to be a typical hair-brained teenager, taunting my teacher for mere sport. However, that was not at all the case. I discovered then that the way I learned things is not by learning what something does, but instead why it does what it does. The lesson learned? One should never ask “why” in a math class. The response I got was quite simply “It just is.”

   Some formulas make sense to me once I think them over, such as Einstein’s famous formula of relativity. It has a practical use, and it is truly beneficial to our knowledge of the universe. Moreover, I understand why it works. Pythagoras however, has been done no justice in my life, the poor fellow. I cannot imagine what he was getting at, what his formula was designed for; and perhaps I never will. I assume, or at least I hope, it isn't merely a factor of him drawing a triangle and saying “let’s see what I can do with this thing.”

In case you’re wondering, I never thought he was a bad teacher. He tried to help me understand the only way he knew how, and I respect him for that. And he's right; math is basically part of the foundation laws of nature and therefore is concrete. As he said then, "it just is."

Just completed (finally): The Sign of the Four by A. C. Doyle.
Now reading: The Hound of the Baskervilles by A. C. Doyle.

   The Sign of the Four was not quite as captivating as A Study in Scarlet. Nevertheless, it is still one of those books that make you late going back to work from your lunch break. This may or may not have happened to me a few times. I anticipate the current book to cause this even more, considering its lofty reputation.

  I took a lengthy break in the middle of this one so that I could finish the summary of the book in my previous post, and I foresee this occurring again and again.

How to Analyze People on Sight: A Book Summary

   For the past few weeks, I have been working on typing up a summary of the latest book I've been reading: How to Analyze People on Sight: The Five Human Types by Elsie Lincoln Benedict. It was originally copyrighted in 1921, and is outdated in many ways. That being said, however, don't assume it's lacking in good, useful information for those who are curious on the topic.

   These days, there are many books on human analysis, and it has been broadened upon vastly. It's interesting to start at the root and see how a theory has progressed over time. I intend to read and compare more recent books on human analysis in the months to come.

I've seen no broken-down summaries of the five types of people on the internet as of yet (though I haven't searched extensively), so if you'd like to see the PDF of the book summary I typed, just click here.

A Word Game

   My mother and I had a bit of fun this evening on a short shopping trip. One of us gives two letters and we take turns stating words that begin with those letters until one of us runs out of words to add. The rules are simple: all words must begin with the two letters mentioned, and no word can be repeated. Any other rules can be added or removed at your discretion, such as no proper nouns. The last person who thinks of a word wins the round.

   For instance, let's use the example "BO". Assuming someone has used the word "bore", another person cannot use the word "bored" or "boring", being as they are the same word in a different tense. One however may say "boar" since, while being a homonym, it is spelled differently and has an entirely different meaning. Try it. It's funner than you might think.

On Time

   I have never had a good sense of time. It has always been something of a curse to me, that time seems to pass more quickly than I give it credit. When pondering this, I discovered that I have a very vague understanding of the physics behind time, and so I suppose it stands to reason.

   Being as I am one who loves a good mystery, I decided to delve a little deeper into the subject. I already knew that time varies based on an object's mass, that is, its gravitational force. I had long believed that time was a man-made thing, stagnant and boring. But upon researching further, I find that there is a whole world of knowledge that I couldn't even scratch the surface of, and even more that will take me a while to understand. I'm sure I will be posting more on this topic later.

   Here is an excerpt from a clever website I came across:

"There are a few dozen GPS satellites floating high above the Earth. Each satellite carries an atomic clock that, when on Earth, is perfectly precise and in sync with Earth time. However, when lifted to the less dense gravity of the upper atmosphere, the satellites’ atomic clocks speed up. Were an observer to fly up to one of these satellites and watch the on-board atomic clock, he would see no difference in the length of a second. It would still be that familiar tick, tick, tick of Earth seconds. At that level of gravity, he, too, would be moving faster through time and would therefore see one second to be one plain old second. But, from here on the Earth’s surface and from within our denser gravitational field, we can see that the seconds pass a little more quickly on the satellites."
(For more information, click here.)