A life in the building, a second to destroy.

Zinedine Zidane. "ZZ". "Zizou".

What happened in that 110th minute?

Insult? Jibe? Snide remark? Unsporting comment? Who knows apart from the two players? But we all know what followed. The three-time winner of the FIFA World Player of the Year turned on his heels and shoved his head with determination into Marco Materazzi's chest.

"Le Headbutt".

"Le Red Card".

From hero to zero in one minute twenty. The whole world was shocked by the man's unsporting attitude, and the player whose goals had secured a World Cup and a Champion's League, and whose play had done much more for football all around the world was suddenly also the author of one of the most unsporting acts of the year.

Regardless of the means that lead to Zidane receiving a red card, and regardless of the outcome of the match, I must admit that I am dissapointed.

Dissapointed twice, in fact.

First of all, I am dissapointed that he caved into Marco Materazzi's ploy. As a professional, as a seasoned footballer, as a legend, I was dissapointed to see him headbutt Materazzi. Indeed, I never played football at international level, nor did I play at continental or national level. However, I did play at regional level. As a defender, I was forced to make hard tackles and to prove my physical presence. As a midfielder, I was forced to use my stature to edge out opponents to get the ball, and then to protect or simply play it. And even then, in a measly U16 regional championship, I was often victim of ploys like Materazzi's.

Of course, this doesn't excuse Materazzi in any way, especially if he made comments that were out of the context of the game. However, in the same way as a midfielder I would taunt my opposing number with a shout of "olé" when I got past him, and would not hesitate to tell him that he wouldn't stop me, or even as a defender would tease the winger that faced me when I stopped his run or intercepted his pass, I must admit that I consider taunting to be an integral part of football.

However, I must once more assure you that the taunting and mocking that I condone in football is not at all of the racist, obnoxious or degrading kind that some players used against me.

But the fact remains that in my low level league, taunting and teasing, mocking and rallying was commonplace, and as such I cannot imagine that Zidane was facing it for the first time in his career.

Do you remember Roy Keane? I hope you do. Still a player for Celtic Glasgow, the tough-tackling irishman made his name at Manchester United, and was considered by many to be one of the best midfielders of all time. He taunted. He taunted profusely. He taunted his opponents like no other has been able to do, with witty remarks and small jibes. He was so good at taunting opponents that he pushed them to commit fouls. He forced them to lose their calm, and to fragilise their team. Add that talent to his fiery temper and his perfect sense of tackling, and it is evident why he was seen by Alex Ferguson as the only really important player in Manchester United's midfield. I, for one, remember the great rivalry that he shared with Patrick Vieira, the french midfielder. As Arsenal were Manchester United's most potent rivals, and Vieira and Keane were both the keystones of their side's midfield, it was always a clash when the two met. And I have to admit that I never saw Keane dominated by Vieira. Vieira was always the first to falter, and through his talent to knead Vieira's mental, he secured over the years many valuable points for Manchester United.

Some say Keane was "unfair" and "unsporting" to taunt. How so? Football is played on three levels : Technical, Physical and Mental. Keane was the best there was in the Mental department, and he used his advantage to hinder his opponents' play, in the same way Maradonna's technical upper hand foiled his opponents' attempts to stop him. To say that using a mental advantage is unsporting or unfair would be akin to saying that it's unsporting to run faster or be able to control the ball better than another player! In this light, it's evident that taunting and teasing is surely part of the game. Perhaps not the most glorious, but perhaps on par with tackling...

So, a player who had spent 15 years in the top leagues, who had faced his lot of Keanes, of Vieiras, of Di Canios and other players who used such techniques to have the upper hand against their opponents, how could Zidane falter so seriously? I was dissapointed.

Secondly, I was dissapointed by Zidane's PR choice. What is there to explain about headbutting an opponent in the final match of the greatest competition the sport you play as a professional? What is there to explain? Nothing. Such an act will never be quelled by explanations, no matter how true they are. Why? Because going down that path shows two things : firstly, that he is no better than his opponent whom he says threw the first stone, as he did neither ignore the remarks, nor bring them to the attention of the officials. Secondly, that he has not yet acquired the guile to assume the full consequences of his acts.

Let us ponder on these points.

Yes, it can be hard to be razzed at for 90 minutes. Even harder to be razzed at for 110. But he could have talked to the referee to ask him to pay attention to what Materazzi was saying at half-time, at full-time or even at half-time of the extra time! So to hold it all back was surely not a wise choice. For a professional, I'm surprised there are even insults that can make him have a reaction, and even more that such insults can compell him to head-butt a player after only 110 minutes of contact, during wich most were probably contact-less. I cannot imagine Materazzi tagging Zidane for 110 minutes to have amusing banter with the french legend, since Materazzi was well in the Italian defence, and Zidane more often in the region of Gattuso and Pirlo than Italy's back 4... So for a professional to have a mental break-down after perhaps 40 minutes of discussion with another professional seems rather hard for me to imagine, especially when he played games when he was in contact with far more aggressive and mentally able players for much longer, such as Juventus vs Manchester United in 1999, when he was man-marked by Roy Keane and proved ineffectual to halt the Red Devils' progression, unable to find his free-flowing style of play. And he didn't feel compelled to test his taekwon-do moves on Roy or his team-mates.

Secondly, when he gave his interview on Canal+ and on TF1, I must admit that I felt I was listening to a 13 year-old. "Yes... What I did wasn't good... But he started it! I shouldn't really be punished because he started it! He was really nasty!". C'mon. Cut it out. You're 34, pal. The only player who make such mistakes as to reveal his extremely violent side and yet managed to retain my respect was Eric Cantona. Let's go back to the 25th of January 1995. Eric Cantona had won back-to-back league titles with Leeds and Manchester, and the previous season winning the Double, and he was the masterpiece of a succesful Manchester United side. And yet it would all smash down in the space of a few minutes. Cantona lashed out a kick at Shaw, the Palace defender, and was on the receiving end of a red card. But then the improbable, the unthinkable, and the unenviable happened. Taunted by a supporter, Cantona lost his temper, and launched a kung-fu kick at the abusive fan. This act was just as unsporting as Zidane's. However, Cantona made the perfect riposte : he never made any explanations. "When the seagulls follow the trailer, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea". That's it. Later on, he would admit that he was "ashamed" of his "terrible" act, and that he wanted to present his "deepest excuses" and his "most profound regret" upon the incident. But he never asked for the fan to be in the wrong, nor for any lenience. He had faulted, and he admitted his mistake, for he knew that he was sole responsable for his acts. I'm dissapointed that Zidane, a player who was far more influential than Cantona in the footballing world, does not assume the consequences of his actions, and reacts like a young child, attempting by all means to reduce his fault and to incriminate others, and as such deresponsabilising himself from his acts.

But then again, perhaps that is what will come from "modern" football. Players who are more and more unstable, who assume less and less their acts, and who are sadly not as mature as once would expect a role model for society's youth to be.

But then again there's hope. If players like Lillian Thuram, Eric Cantona, George Best, Socrates and Edson Arantes do Nascimento were influential more than Ronaldo, Zidane, Rivaldo, Luis Figo and Ronaldinho, then perhaps there are others like me... Others who might have a bright future on the pitch, and will bring their calm and sense of purpose to the beautiful game.

Cultural e(uro)volution...

Sunday 21st of May 2006

And that's that : Finland 292 points.

If I say Eurovision, you probably say "pop, ballads and prefab music". And quite frankly, I'm not one to disagree with this statement. But all this could change. Recently, the Eurovision has crowned rather boring "artists", most of whom manage to completely dissapear from the public eye as soon as the Eurovision is over. Can anybody remember Sertab Erener, Marie N or even Ruslana and Elena Paparisou? I, for one, cannot. And yet, I still have hope for the Eurovision.

In most cases, I think that televoting is the stupidest thing that could happen. After all, who is going to pay to be able to vote for something that is globally unimportant, such as a music contest? I wouldn't vote for Pop Idol, nor for Star Academy or another variant of the concept, because I think that it's just giving money to a big TV group, and it's quite annoying to be forced to vote between different variants of the same bland sounds. But perhaps even if televoting is still quite inadapted to represent perfectly a nation's tastes, it is better than the Eurovision's previous method : panel voting.

Panel voting would be adapted if the members of the panel were able to represent correctly their country. But now, it would be impossible to find a panel as diverse as any country, leaving televoting the only way to get a thought of what a country likes as a whole.

Let's just look at France one of the oldest memebers of the Eurovision, who sent Michel Drucker as commentator to the contest. And he both showed that he were completely in contrast with his country's culture, tastes and cravings. Drucker spent the whole program repeating that Virginie Pouchain's "Il était temps" would sweep the board clean, and have all the other countries reeling in front of the beauty of the song. Come Finland, all in monster suits garbed, and he was almost having a nervous breakdown in front of 3.5 million spectators, visibly annoyed by Finland's outrageous courage to send something anti-conformist to such an institution. His fellow commentator, Claudy Sair, was no better, saying that Virginie Pouchain would "surely finish amongst the five best songs" and that Lordi had no chance at all.

And yet, France itself would disavow their opinion, awarding Lordi 8 points, and ranking them as the third best group, just behind Armenia and Turkey, both probably recieving more political votes from the french armenian community and the french turc community than the french finn community awarded Finland... So, once they had heard that France had dissaproved their snide remarks, and chosen Finland as one of their favorites, would it not have been normal for Mrs Drucker and Sair to plug it and calm their agressivity? Seeing every country in europe (save Albania, Andorra and Monaco) award at least 4 points to the Finnish quintet should at least have been an indication that Lordi were perhaps not as rubbish as they wanted them to be, and they should have been prepared to accept something that they may not like, and yet is liked by those they represent. But the icing came during the final song. As Lordi took to the scene to play an encore of their winning song "Hard Rock Hallelujah", Mrs Drucker and Sair were unable to keep quiet, and spent all of the extra commenting on how they were dissapointed that Lordi had won, that it was a bad joke, and making snide remarks as to their supposed faltering fanbase.

We can all agree on one point : Lordi were the only group to all sport an instrument, and one of the two groups that were completely self-sufficent as to their music, the other being the quite intriguing and yet not at all boring Latvian quintet. So, to say that they are "not musical" would be quite an offence, especially if you consider that France, Monaco or even the UK's entrys were musical. Hard Rock Hallelujah was clearly one of the most inspired acts, one with the most heart and will, something that lacks in the Eurovision, and perhaps it won becuase of that. What a pity it would have been if only people like Drucker and Sair could vote, as it would mean the end of all cultural differences.

Lithuania's LT United brought new cheekiness to the Eurovision, Finland's Lordi brought new rock vibes to the Eurovision, Lettonia brought subtilty and innovation. Perhaps the Eurovision is going to change for the better, when countries will no longer send in bland uninteresting false pop artists, and really use it as a launching pad for their talented new artists. Drucker might have nightmares of a world where Lordi would come to "Vivement Dimanche", but perhaps Mr Lordi has the same nightmare. And on that point, I'm inclined to side with Mr Lordi, as a fearer of all that is bland that Mr Drucker promotes so shamelessly.

Yes, the times have changed. In the 60s, the Beatles were unruly young men, as were the Rolling Stones, and they changed the way a whole generation saw music and culture. Today, the people who grew up with these changes are refusing a new change. Perhaps Lordi is just one of the many holes that will end up tearing down the wall of cultural isolationism and conservatism.

As for Virginie Pouchain... Well, nobody really had hopes for her except Mrs Drucker and Sair... Even a well-informed betting company had higher odds against her than against Moldavia... A whopping 211 to one.

Perhaps at last we'll get rid of the ancient monsters of our current TV, and replace them with someone who is able to appreciate more kinds of music... And not make a fool of himself.

Before the night falls...

Thursday 18th of May 2006

Isn't it sad to place all your hopes is something you know will falter? Isn't it sad to wager your life on a result you cannot control? Isn't it sad to be unsure of how to act and live, and to waft through events without any understanding of them?

What's worse than finding out that what you feared losing was already lost? What's worse than loving so hard you're scared to lose, and to lose because you were scared? What's worse than making a choice, and then realising that your choice had no incidence?

When one thinks of freedom, one often forgets that before any social, political, cultural or civic freedom, there is a far greater freedom within each of us. This freedom is the one to choose how to wish to act. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to act as we wish, but at least we can choose how we wish. Of course, like all choice, the choices we make are biased. Biased by the choices of others, by our education, by our experience, and by our nature. Since none of us is the same as his neighbour, we cannot expect to decuce an absolute truth through introspection, for this truth would infact be not at all free, albeit biased in favour of our nature, our upbringing, and other elements. However, we can define for each and every one of us a code of conduct that limits this freedom to choose how we wish to act. "Every man's freedom stops where his neighbour's freedom starts". How appropriate to recognise that there is no reason more powerful to ligitimate rights than that of duties. How moral to demonstrate that there is no duty, as it is but another facet of freedom. And yet, we must wonder are we all constant? Do we not change our needs, do we not change our ways? Do we not change how we wish to act?

Were I to attempt half the things I do each day three centuries ago, then I would surely be outside my rights. Indeed, more than nature or experience, what will legitimate our rights is what our neighbours wish to recognise I have as rights. Were my neighbours robbers, then it would be legitimate to steal, for no member of our community would oppose to it, and as such, it would not be an infringement of one's rights. We should rather expose that it is through our enviroment that we determine what is moral, what is immoral, and what is neither. Today, it is perfectly moral to have sex before marriage. Only a century ago, was it such? No. And yet, the fact has not changed, the act has remained the same. Hence, it must be that there is a difference between the enviroment that existed a century ago, and the one that exists today. Then, we are in a position where we must question ourselves as to what changed the enviroment in such a manner? How come social, cultural and political norms are not prepetrated, as were upbringing the only denominator there should quickly come a point when change no longer exists? Could nature itself be our source of freedom?

Nature itself is not free, as it does not act knowlegeably on its surroundings. Of course, nature has order, nature has a reason, nature may have a spirit. But to claim that nature acts knowlegeably would presuppose that nature is conscious of its existance. The first act of knowlege is to recognise one's existance. When a young child will grasp his mother's finger with his small hand, or when an elderly person will talk with a shopkeeper, it is though this action that they both concretise their existance, they become conscious of their existance through their action upon something "other". Nature, however, cannot act upon anything but itself. Since nature is by premice all things that exist (for were they made by man, then they would still be natural, as man is nature, and as such, his makings are the actions of nature upon itself, and are as such part of nature), then we cannot conceive the existance of something that is not nature, and upon wich nature could act. Since nature can only act upon itself, it is surely not knowlegeable of its actions, for it cannot interact with anything that it does not incarnate. Were I to touch my arm, then I could not be knowlegeable of my existance, for I alone am not able to prove my existance, and to exist, I must knowlegeably act upon another person, thing or substance. Since nature is not free, what could force it to change society in such a profound way? Were it subjugated by something, then what are the intentions of its masters? Or is there something else that could be the reason for all the aforementioned changes?

Nature may not be free, but it is not because one is not free that one has a master. Nature is limited by itself, its own master and slave. As such, nature is nothing more than a perpetual cycle, or rather grouping of cycles. But these cycles, by essence are not stable : the seasons change, rabbit populations decline and then increase, storms come and go... Mankind, as part of nature, is not stable. Hence, it is through nature that the changes in our society have come, but not through a choice of nature, but rather the essence of nature. We have transformed our world in accordance to nature's wills, but with many modulatory factors. Indeed, to compare the Maya culture and customs with the Ancient Greek culture and customs would be absurd, even though they both were pure creations of nature's oscillations. Why? Because nature is to vast to be comprehended by the lowest social common denominator. Let me explain. When Men choose to live in society, as it is their nature to do, they must establish rules that are in accordance with their actions. As such, for a rule to be accepted, then all (or more than half) the members of this society must agree to it. However, all men cannot understand the same rules of nature, due to nature's fluctuations. This leads to different rules being chosen for different societies, and to different principles being the core for different cultures. Through this, different educations will develop, different paths of thought will blossom, and the only modulatory foctor should be nature's fluctuations. But, do Men not interact more between themselves than before? Can the recent fad for all things striped and starred be called a "fluctuation of nature"? Should we live in determinism because there is no way to elude nature's grasp upon us?

Since Mankind left its cradle, it has forever been constructing, de-constructing, re-constructing and renovating societies. But each time one of these is done, it is done under the influence of another society. Rome conquered Greece and Egypt, and as such, the de-construction of the Greek and Egyptian societies were equalled by the renovation of the Roman society. So, it should be taken for evident that interaction between societies plays a strong role in their existance, their evolution and their ambitions. Since societies do not exist only for themselves, but for the people that form them, it is in fact the influence of one Man on another that will create the changes in a society. When Marco Polo returned from China laden with silks and tales, he forever transformed the vision that both the West had of the East, and the East had of the West. As such, he modulated nature's influence on those societies' evolution. But the interactions can be much stronger. Even within a society, one Man may convince another that the rules are not representative of their actions, and as such should be changed. This is a delicious involution of society : it will innovate even when left alone. Perhaps this is somewhere connected to nature, however there are so many intermediaries that we can outlaw determinism when we are talking about societies. Since societies are as involutive as they are changed by other societies, we must question ourselves as to why there is no unique society. Well, this is due to the fact that all men are not the same, and do not act in the same way. In fact, society's involutions are often opposite to the influences of other societies, as people who have been brought up in an alternative manner, who have lived and learnt other things, defend the society they have built, in the hope of maintaining it. So, since we live in a society that is built through nature, albeit limited by man's understanding of it, and our upbringing, can we not suppose that we are free in it? Would we not be free to live as our upbringing and our nature indicate us to? Would we not be free even when we feel contrived, sice the constriction we feel is nothing more than the limit we agreed to so that our own freedom would not be infringed?

Indeed, freedom is far more than just what I can do. Freedom is also what I can't do, because I constricted myself though my freedom, and had I not used my freedom to create a social norm, then I would not be able to do anything, for as I am in opposition with both my upbringing and my nature, I would merely have the illusion of being free, whilst I would in fact be the servant of my desires, my pulsions and my fears. True freedom resides in going beyond fears, pulsions and desires, to find our essence. Once we have found our essence, then we should no longer fear lacking our freedom, for our essence is where resides our freedom : the freedom to be ourselves, to no longer hide behind the mask of what others reflect towards us of our nature, nor behind the veil of ignorance.

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I didn't mind finding out I had lost what I feared losing so much, because my essence knew that it was already lost. Perhaps I'm insane, but I didn't feel sad losing someone I loved though my fear of losing her, but rather I felt relieved that I no longer had to worry about losing her. Perhaps I'm a few prawns short of a seafish salad, but I no longer mind making a consequenceless choice, for at least I lived the thrill of choosing, the thrill of being myself, the thrill of being free.

No need for knowledge nowdays...

Thursday 11th of May 2006

Latin sucks.

Latin sucks a lot.

And when I say that latin sucks a lot, I'm gentle about it. After all, what reward do I get for having ploughed through 6 years of it? Nothing. All right, I'm getting a 3 point head-start in a test that I need 250 points to succede. Brilliant.

After all, why do we do latin? Is it really for the lengua latina that we're constantly taught? I'd hope not, because if it were, then it's one of the least efficient language classes that I've ever been in. In my whole 6 years, and the 4 teachers that I have had, I have yet to meet someone who could talk latin. And even were I to meet someone who was fluent in latin, wouldn't his efforts been in vain? Is there a reason to learning latin?

It's not all black and white though. Indeed, the language per se is particularly uninteresting. Virgil is quite interesting the first time, moderately the second, and quite boring the third time when you can't understand the finesse of his use of latin. I for one have yet to feel latin. I hear the rythm, I hear the rhymes, I hear the various rhetoric ploys, and I understand the flow of the text... And yet I feel like I'm missing something. The texts seem eerie, broken, damaged, unnatural. Perhaps latin should focalise less on teaching grammar (Cicerone consule or rosa, rosa, rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa...) , and more on making the students enjoy the subject.

After all I have said against latin, you could ask yourselves why I went on for 6 years, 6 years of mind-numbing declensions, translations and vocabulary lists. Well, I went on because latin is quite a contrasted subject.

Latin classes are in fact two completely seperate classes. The first are there to teach the dead latin language to mainly uninterested students in an uninnovative manner, relying on completely absurd texts that the students are hapless to understand (no 13 year-old that acts even twice his age can care about nor understand the more subtle passages that show minor differences between Marcus Aurelius and Cicero's understanding of Stoicism). The second class is a class that attracts great interest from the students, thanks to adapted content and complexity for each level; the cultural part of latin classes.

When a latin teacher gives a class that is within the boundaries of the cultural part, then firstly there is no lengua latina. After all, everything that falls within the cultural part is either similar to a history class, an art class, or a social studies class. And for all these, the only latin that is used is the latin that names whatever is being discussed. When talking about the Punic Wars, the teacher will bring up Caton the Elder's famous "Carthago delenda est", and yet they are not attempting to teach their students any grammar, because the class is about the Punic Wars, their timeline and their main caracters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you remebered "Carthago delenda est" and not "Arma virumque cano, Trojae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit", even though the second is probably the one you studied for far more time, as it is the beginning of the Incipit of Virgil's Aeneid (I met it 3 times as I went through my classes, and each time dwelled on it for at least a good month). But why do you remember one and not the other? Well, I think it's because you relate to Cato's words with more intensity than you do with Virgil's. Not that Cato is a better orator than Virgil, but rather that his catchphrase is clearly situated, and is instantly associated with one single idea.

I love learning about things like that. I find it wonderful to relive the stories of treachery, love, passion and cupidity that are at the root of our common culture. Nero, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Hannibal... So many great names, so many great stories, so much to learn, so much to rediscover! And yet, when the time of the exam comes, you could have been better off not losing 6 years learning latin at all.

How does the latin exam work, for this abberational exam? Is it something that allies both halves of latin classes? Is it something that makes you feel rewarded for your years of toil? Is it a test where you need to have been to 6 years of latin classes to succede?

Well, to cut a long story short, no. You don't need to have even touched a latin text before to get a good result at your exam. The exam is simple : translate and comment a text that has been prepared during the year. Sounds class, right? Well, the downfall is that it's "been prepared during the year". In other words : you're a dumbass to have been to 6 years of latin when you could have just stupidly recorded the translations and the commentaries
that the teacher did this year, and blurted them out without understanding a word you were saying to get the best possible mark.

Indeed, being able to talk latin is completely crazy, and even if you could, then it wouldn't really be an advantage, as you'd not get a single point if you didn't manage to comment the text properly. And if you've understood the text, and can comment on it for hours, but not translate it, you're also doomed. To get the best mark, it's best to not really know what you're talking about, and just blurt out the words you learnt by heart, in the order you learnt by heart. No knowledge required to get a good mark.

But what's even more dissapointing is that all the cultural part is completely absent, and will not bring home a single point. Let me explain. You start the test with -10 points, and can get at the best 10. The cultural parts are worth 6 points, and the lengua latina parts worth 14 (translation 7, commentary 7). I was never into learning the latin language per se, as I see no interest. Of course, to know a couple of latin expressions is useful in everyday life, and to get the overall picture of what's being said in a latin text can be interesting. But I never felt compelled to delve into the functions of the ablative, nor into the uses of the subjonctive pluperfect. Now, I've been an average student, spending time doing the homework that the teacher set out, and participating in class. I've also spent time in class chatting, scribbling notes to my neighbours, and been late for class. But so has every child.

Now, the thing that I don't understand is why I'm going to regret not having learnt latin. Ok, I'll only get +3, thanks to 6 points for the culture part and 7 for the average translation and bland commentary combo. If I'm under 8, then I'll have regrets; or at least that's what the school wants me to understand. You get 79% in a maths test, well it means that you've got to improve, because you'll only be content with yourself once you get 100%. But I don't think that rule applies any longer to latin. Some of my classmates will get 7, 8 or 9. But they don't like latin any more than me. They simply took more time, had more capacity than me, and learnt their texts better by heart than I did.

So... I'm "bad" because I didn't know how to learn some 14 texts by heart perfectly? That's in contradiction with what school has been telling me for as long as I can remember. "Don't learn these formulae by heart, but remember how to find them again!", "the values can change, so don't learn this example, learn the rule!", etc... And with latin it seems to be the contrary. Sorry, but I don't understand.

I'm dissapointed that I wasn't able to get more, and yet I won't be crying for the 7 points I won't get. But when you hear teachers that bemoan the lack of students that are taking latin, you hear the administrative structure that is having troubles accomodating the receding number of students because of administrative limits to how many students are needed to maintain a latin class, and you're plagued with politicians, great scholars, scientists and artists that are pointing out that culture is receeding, then you begin to wonder if the exam isn't what deters people from the subject.

When you're going to start, your parents are the only reason you begin, for most children. And for most children, as soon as the parental pressure is relaxed, then latin stops. And yet, it could be different. This year, my latin teacher gave me will to learn, and showed me that latin isn't all bad. She wouldn't fit nicely in the box that latin teachers fit into all too often, she thought like a student, preferring to hand out polycopied translations of texts when we weren't in a good enough state to sit through a whole hour of translation with her, and punctuating her classes with cultural moments that brought a whole new dimension to the texts we were reading.

Yes, knowledge of how to use the latin language well is an important factor in the exam, and should remain as such. But it would be far more encouraging for students if the cultural part was more rewarding, as it will be the most rewarding throughout theit whole lives. This year, I met a student who was brilliant at translating texts, and seemed to have a knack to spotting the case each word was in, and which function that word should then have. However, he didn't understand when I commented that I was "between Scylla and Charybdis", nor when I left the room saying to the teacher in a humourous context "acta est fabula plaudite". Can I be excused when I don't believe that he is 'better' than me because he can translate and comment (or rather memorise them) better than I can, and as such will earn more points? I think that 'useful' latin is latin that is part of common culture... Certainly not scholar's latin that translates text.