The Yule Tree...

Once every nine years, the Teutons/Germans would adorn the tree with the bodies of sacrificed slaves and animals. Today the decoration of the xmas tree is a little more symbolic but has its origins in that tradition.

I recall that the Roman 'Sun' God "Sol Evictus" was also involved in the solstice festival.

In the interests of keeping readers of Online Opinion informed as to the background, vested interests and credibility of its contributors, in respect of Helen “Dale” I can do not better than refer readers to an article that appeared in The Age newspaper, appropriately enough, last April Fool’s Day:

Unmasked novelist snaps
The Age, April 1, 2006

Helen Dale, aka Demidenko, says law is much more satisfying than literature, reports Simon Caterson.

THE woman who caused the biggest storm in Australian literary history, Helen Dale, nee Darville, aka Demidenko, has broken her silence to justify her role in the affair and settle a few scores.

It has been more than a decade since Australia's most notorious publishing hoax was revealed, but Helen Dale (her new name) has a promising new career in Brisbane's legal world. In 1995, Dale's novel The Hand That Signed the Paper was revealed as a hoax after the book won Australia's most prestigious awards for fiction and attracted lavish praise from literary figures.

Dale was found to have fabricated her Ukrainian authorial identity, which included making appearances in what appeared to be national costume. She was accused of anti-Semitism and plagiarism.

An article by Dale has just been published in The Skeptic, the journal of the Australian Skeptics Inc, an organisation that "investigates the paranormal and pseudo-science from a responsible scientific viewpoint". In "The Hand Behind The Hand Behind", Dale describes her dysfunctional upbringing as a dyslexic child whose father was a con man. She complains that she was denied a fair go by the literary establishment, and says she has abandoned writing to pursue a more satisfying legal career.

The full article is most enlightening and can be found at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/unmasked-novelist-snaps/2006/03/31/1143441339451.html

Regards
Doc.

This article falls into the trap of historicism. That is, it is an attempt to debunk a cultural phenomenon by exposing its historical roots. One is left with the conclusion that such and such is “just” the outworking of certain historical practices or events. You can do this with all and sundry and expose marriage as “just” the attempt to order society or protect property etc. You can do it with Gallipoli and expose it as “just” a bunch of military mistakes made by the hated British generals.

While this may be interesting, and I have no doubt about the veracity of the historical descriptions, it is often the case that cultural phenomenon have acquired a much more solid basis in society than the scorn heaped on them by historicism. I would suggest that Christmas is one such example. After all, it is Christ’s Mass that is celebrated. Sure, many pagan festivals were taken over by Christmas but that is not to deny the place it has assumed in the liturgy of the Church. It is in the church’s calendar that the importance of the festival is fully recognised and this is not effected by the obviously pagan goings on in our society.

Of course Matthew and Luke traced out stories to fill in the background of Jesus. These stories are not historical in the empirical sense but neither are they myth but rather theologically loaded legend without which the Christian story would be impoverished.

Let us not talk about Christmas as being the celebration of Jesus’ birthday, that is a trivialization of what it is really about; the coming of the Saviour of the world.

In short this article is too slick. While it might give support to the persecutors of Christianity, its reductive historicism is a danger to all culture.

At our place we've celebrated Saturnalia rather than 'Christmas' for years. More fun and less bulldust, in our experience.

On the subject of bulldust, Sells should be congratulated for his inspired "theologically loaded legend". Such weaselly words so early in the year!

So this is wrong....

Thanks for the background Doc Holliday, it does put "helen's" article in context.

For instance, in her talk about Matthew, Luke, Herod and Quirinius, she fails to mention that archaeology confirms that Quirinius (Probably another person with the same name) was a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11bc until the death of Herod.

That Helen says that early christian's thus 'sensibly' left the date of birth of Jesus alone is therefore somewhat, well, dumb. It is helen that should have sensibly left things alone, as archaeology has shown that her own out dated statement is wrong.

It doesn't just stop there either. The birth of Christ was celebrated by Christians in Alexandria about 200 AD, well before Constantine made it the official religion in 325 AD. The celebration of the birth of Jesus on the 25th of december (it was earlier used to commemorate the birth of other early Christian leaders) is first recorded around 380 AD, well after Constantine made it the official religion in 325AD. (It was recorded as the birth of Christ, without celebration around 350AD)

Most scholars also put Saturnalia as a 7 day feast (growing from being originally a 1 day celebration), not a 12 day feast.

Kissing under mistletoe was derived from Norse, not Roman myth.

Helen is obviously overextending herself in her efforts to reach the Saturnalia/christmas link. As Sells said, the whole article is merely using the genetic fallacy.

Looks like I've manage to irritate some Christians - well, that wasn't the idea.

I have absolutely no problem with people celebrating Christmas, or Saturnalia, or some other variation of same, or not bothering at all (as the JWs do). Ultimately, it's up to the individuals concerned. I'm not trying to be some sort of anti-Christmas grinch. I wrote a light-hearted piece on (some of) the origins of Christmas. I also wanted to try my hand at some Latin translation, which I haven't done for a while (for some reason OLO has dropped off the translation credits, which were on the article when it was published over at Catallaxy).

And for those far more grinch-like characters who are interested in Mr Caterson's burblings (I've since met him - he's a fairly bog standard literati type, and probably doesn't get out enough), you may be interested in the article he was riffing on, which ran in Quadrant and is available here:

http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2006/08/27/my-life-as-a-young-australian-novelist-quadrant-may-2006/

You may also be interested in dropping by Catallaxy, Australia's leading right-leaning group blog:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/

Cheers!

http://www.xenos.org/classes/chronc.htm

That might help on Jesus birth chronology.

My understanding is that the early church actually discouraged the celebration of Christmas, and no Christian should be upset by Helen's writings here.

The important festival for Christians isn't really Christmas at all, it is what we know as Easter, mainly because that is the convenient name for it.

Unfortunately Easter is another one of those pagan festivals co-opted by Christians to fit in with the calendar. It is particularly unfortunate that we do not have a better name for the time to celebrate the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ the Saviour than a weekend named after a pagan fertility 'goddess'.

(It also happens, of course, that the pagan festival for Oestre was at the same time of year as the Hebrew Passover, because that is when Christ was Crucified.)

After all, Easter is named after the goddess Oestre, also the root of the word oestrogen, hence the symbols of fertility, eggs and bunnies. The strange thing is that the rabbit was only incorporated into Easter because Oestre's real animal symbol, the hare, was also associated with the witches' familiar and celebrating witchcraft at the same time as fertility was a bit much for the organisers of the time.

So Helen, anyone who is offended by your words simply cannot see past the earthy nature of our existence. Yes, it is possible to celebrate the festivals of Christmas and 'Easter' in Christian ways, so long as we don't get tied up in the pagan messages and remember the central nature of what we are trying to celebrate.

For those who want to be pagans and celebrate the winter solstice (in the Southern hemisphere - blink - ) or a fertility festival during the onset of the winter months - then that is okay with me. They just should remember what they are actually celebrating by their actions.

Helen, thank you for the history lesson.

Thanks very much Hamlet - you've taken my piece in the right spirit.

Well done Doc Holliday !? If you have no answer to the question or statement attack and denigrate the writer and no doubt it makes a person like you feel so righteous eh? Your guts is exceeded only by your decency and look you sucked 'Grey' in WELL DONE!
The writer, no matter about her background, is spot on - christmas is totally,completely and utterly PAGAN as is easter and other so-called christian holy?days. There is 'The Way' that taught by Christ and the Gospel writers and there's churchianity with its bells and smells with pretty dresses and funny hats for the priests and primates [apes?] etc. Regards, numbat

Thanks for that, Helen. Good piece that puts Christmas into perspective.

As for that person who had to bring up the past, well, I guess at least you're remembered for something, Helen.

I remember reading your book years ago, and I remember the controversy. Everyone has an opinion about it I guess, but moving on is a good thing. Seems to me that you've done that, Helen, but some of the reading public haven't.

Let it go, and respond to the article as it appears

So much bitterness, wormwood and gall over an entertaining study of an event that so many take for granted.

Gratuitous ad hominem from Doc Holliday. Interesting alias, Doc. Your namesake was a callous murderer who was shacked up with a drunken prostitute, which probably has about as much relevance to you as your little piece of spite towards Helen.

Probably.

Sells then takes us down his usual blind alley. "Let us not talk about Christmas as being the celebration of Jesus’ birthday", as if millions of children out there would have the slightest interest in a "theologically loaded legend" if it didn't have some kind of direct meaning for them. Lighten up, Sells, no-one is forcing you to celebrate the birth of Christ.

Grey - ah, where would we be without your permanent grumpiness - tries to act superior.

>>Kissing under mistletoe was derived from Norse, not Roman myth<<

True, there is the story of Balder brought back to life by Frigga's tears, and her promise to kiss anyone passes under it. But the use of mistletoe as part of a kissing ritual comes to us from the Greeks, via the Romans - via Saturnalia, just as Helen tells us.

As for the actual day - Grey, which calendar were they using in the fourth century?

Omitted from your ramblings was this tidbit:

"French tradition explains why mistletoe is poisonous. It was the tree that was used to make Christ's Cross, and so was cursed. Denied a place to live and grow on Earth, it became a parasite. In Brittany, it is known as Herbe de la Croix for this reason..." (h2g2 2002)

I see that some dolt has decided to complain about Helen Dale's name. I see that he thinks she has done something quite awful. No doubt he is correct! Would you believe that she Helen Dale has actually adopted her husband's surname when she married. Now who has ever heard of such a scandalous thing?

Those petulant persons who express their dissatisfaction with this article by trying to shoot the messenger need to lighten up. Or to read more. As any classicist, historian, widely-read person - and probably the writer herself - could tell you the ancient world abounded with December 25th celebrations.Osiris, whose worship has been traced back to the Neolithic but was the Main Man for the Egyptians, was given a birthday on December 25th (Btw. his titles included King of Kings, Lord of Lords and, in reference to a passage wherein he led his followers to "green pastures" through the "valley of the shadow of death", The Good Shepherd). The birthday celebrations of Greek Dionysis, whose followers honoured his flesh and blood by eating bread and drinking wine,was also December 25th. Persian Attis - who was crucified on a tree on "Black Friday" and rose from the dead 3 days later in March/April was also allotted the December 25th birthdate. Perhaps Helen refrained from explaining that the birth of Mithras (for whom Saturnalia was celebrated) on December 25 was supposedly attended by shepherds and gift-carrying Magi while he and his 12 "disciples" celebrated a last supper before he ascended to the heavens on March 21 because she thought you'd all put out death-threats to her.

These are arcane but interesting pieces of our collective heritage and getting your knickers in a twist over them doesn't change them. Besides - this article appeared in the "Best of.." blog so the poor woman has probably already endured all this hoo-ha the first time it appeared in OLO. My personal feeling is thankfullness that, from time long past until now humanity has allotted a period where those who wish to can join together in love, friendship and equality at least once in every year.

I always thought that the joke in the Demidenko "scandal" was on the judges of the Miles Franklin. When I studied English literature we were taught that the book was a thing which stood on its own feet. A bad author could write a good book, and vice-versa, and the author's view of what was in the book was no better than anyone else's. To think otherwise is called "the intentional fallacy". Ditto for Helen's essay on Christmas.

BTW, we do have an acknowledgement that the poem was translated by Helen, so authors even miss things that editors don't.

I've no idea why this essay has provoked both Christian and anti-Christian alike. Most of what Helen has is not new information to me, although a fair bit is as well. You couldn't be a serious Christian and unaware of the general gist of the article, and able to live with the fact that the church has from time to time borrowed dates and practices. No big deal. It would be a pretty strange organisation if it hadn't changed and evolved over 2,000 years. But then, it would be a lot easier to attack!

I'm posting this on behalf of Skeptic Lawyer aka Helen Dale. She's run out of posts, and in the seasonal spirit I'm gifting her one of mine, particular as relying on my memory means my post above is misleading. I thought the prize had been rescinded, but it wasn't hence the judges did the right thing. Anyway, this is is what Helen says:

"I wanted to point out that the piece didn't run in OLO first time around, it ran on a blog - this is the first time OLO have seen it (and no, Catallaxians were fine - we're a pretty open-minded bunch) and also to point out that the MF judges knew the deal - they judged my book on its merits, and refused to change their minds once my cover was 'blown'. For which I am grateful - it was worth a decent amount of cash at the time, allowing me to travel and do a lot of other stuff that I could otherwise never have done (some of us don't have filthy rich parents). If anyone finished up looking like a bunch of dipsticks, it was Robert Manne and friends (I was one of the two reasons I'm told he got booted as editor of Quadrant) and some of the more absurd proponents of multiculturalism, who seemed to think that an author's writing ability was linked to their ethnicity."

Hey, under the idea of deconstructionism and post-modernism the 'death of the author' was a much touted concept by many, except of course those authors who still wanted credit and some hard earned royalties.

One cannot judge a book by its cover - or by its author for goodness sake: I remember in a particular post-modern sociology course (it would have to be sociology..) being presented with Proust's soggy cakes (the infamous Madeleine's) , as part of a sentence which spanned a whole page, as an illustration of memory (Remembrance of Things Past - as if his was unique - like every time I smell freshly mowed grass it brings back memories of football on Sunday mornings- but I won't write a book about it).

If I had written any of my essay's in the way that Proust wrote I would have failed that subject entirely and rightfully!

In the same subject the lecturer stated, sincerely, that if you see a group of children playing with a ball you have to ask if the children are playing with the ball, or the ball with the children? (Poleeese! What about human agency?)

Who cares who writes a piece of work, so long as it can be justified by argument and reference if non fiction, or by 'common sense' and enjoyment if fiction?

So I read the article that started this thread without knowledge of 'who she was' and I didn't really care: it was her words that mattered. It was only after I read comments that I found out 'who' wrote the piece, and the piece stands or falls on its own, whoever the author is or isn't and whatever blog it has called out from to the world.

Helen I work with Judges' Associates every day, and have done so for about eight years now. I want to state here, publicly, how much admiration that I have for the unsung work that Judge's Associates do.

Enuff of my rant : Helen, please keep writing: please keep posting.

Interesting article.

I haven't read my Bible sunce I was abot 14 years of age. I will re-read and have a big think.

Cheers
Kay

Numbat - The credibility of a writer who has been found to have made stuff up to make a name and money for herself is always clearly in question.

SkepticLawyer. I'm not irritated, nor suprised given your history, that you would continue to push a line of discredited rubbish. Your skepticism obviously only extends to things you don't like. I merely post to point out the glaring errors in your poorly researched piece.

Pericles - I find it highly amusing that you were entertained by Helen's factually incorrect article. That fits you quite well.

Romany - any 'classicist' or 'historian' would laugh you out of their office. Attis' christian parrallel's are either plain old false (e.g. the 25th of december birthday [no such date is historically recorded], death on 'black friday' [He was killed by a spear or the boar in a boar hunting accident or he bled to death after self-mutilation at the base of a pine tree]) or are merely spin (e.g. the 'virgin birth' or rising from the dead -> Attis was stopped from decaying, and his hair continued to grow, but that was about it)

Similarly, Dionysus, Osiris and Mithras parrallels are plain wrong
Stories of parrallels may fool those who want Christianity to be merely a set of stolen stories, but to anyone who bothers to research, it is clear they are just pitiful attempts by desparate and dishonest people.

C'mon Grey,

You know as well as I do that Helen Dale is basically correct in what she says. Hair splitters like you can always find trivial matters to dispute in anything important. How else do you think that Christianity got split into hundreds of sects - with more emerging all the time?

I realize that you would like Christianity to be more than just a much tarted up collection of mostly recycled myths and legends. This, I presume, is because you fear death and really, truly wish that you will live again. Sorry mate, it wont happen. You will die and rot like the rest of us.

Grey, I assume that you an elderly curmudgeon, but you should try to cultivate a hobby that does not involve a head full of angry fantasy. Life is immensely good and should be lived. If you tried it you might even like it and maybe, one day, even like yourself.

You should also use your real name, or does the thought make you quake with fear?

Farewell,

Fred Thornett

Lol Fred. You're funny.

Helen is indeed basically correct, except for the factual errors, logical errors and red herrings that make up the bulk of her article. Your generalisations are just as useless as my last sentence.

Perhaps Fred, when you start to do some real investigation into history and logic you may learn something other than out of date and refuted arguments. I won't be holding my breath though.

I don't care whose religious festival it is.It is all about our history that has brought us to this point in time.

Without the discipline and passion of those who believed,we would have all been lesser beings.

I'm agnostic,however I still see a lot of worth in the traditional religious institutions in terms of ethics,fairness and the rule of law.

Our greatest dilemma is;how are we going to replace religious,sacrifice,dedication and honesty with secular,hedonistic self indulgence?

Arjay, interesting comments. You seem quite cynical about atheism. May I ask why you are agnostic? Is it because you can't see any reason to believe either way? (Just curious).

Thought this, written by one of my friends, was relevant to the discussion:

"American Dad: "If I can't say it, we can't celebrate it!"

I don't like stooping this low but Christmas gets me in the mood! I see the santas, the reindeer, shopping, fake snow and it gets me into that spirit! And it's this spirit that gave birth to this idea:

Christianity needs to take every secular holiday, give it an overtly Christian message, then advertise that message publicly and get offended when people don't adopt our new take on the holiday.

That's absurd Adam!

Why? People are doing the opposite to Christmas!

I find it ironic that it took Walmart stepping in to save 'Merry Christmas' from 'Happy Holidays'. The very idea that people get offended at 'Merry Christmas' makes me laugh. This is what I'd like to see happen, if you don't like 'Christmas', that's fine. Celebrate 'Holiday'. But leave the Santa, the riendeer, the elves, the presents, the fake snow, baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the barnyard animals with Christmas (even though 1/2 that list isn't really Christmas) and find a new way to celebrate your greed and consumerism (I'll even let you keep the 25th, hell, we stole the day from the pagans!).

There, I said it.

Merry Christmas."

Grey, as you know, it is my life's work to keep you in chuckles:

>>Pericles - I find it highly amusing that you were entertained by Helen's factually incorrect article<<

I note with a tinge of sadness that you didn't respond with any factual rebuttal of my comments on your own inaccuracies, but that would be a little too much to expect. Ad hominem is far more your style, together with glib generalities.

It is probably far too late to suggest that you actually get a life?

Numbat – what an appropriate name! Me thinks you doth protest too much. Are you a friend of the author or just a fellow closet plagiarist, fearful of discovery? If you focus your criticism of me on your own response, you will see the hypocrisy of your blathering.

Goodonya, Grey! Stick it to them. Let me give you some assistance.

Pericles – My propensity for sanguinary behaviour and my choice of sexual partners may well be up for judgement – but the decision is well-and-truly in for this author: she is an adjudged fraud, hoaxer, plagiarist, and anti-Semite. No-one with those crimes on their slate can ever again think that their public writings can stand on their own. (Take note, Numbat.)

Fred Thornett – Speaking of dolts, Fred, you should really read the content of the postings a little further. I’ll explain it in terms that even you can understand: The real problem is not that ‘our Helen’ adopted her husband’s name of ‘Dale’but that she dropped her real name of ‘Darville’ and took on the fake name of ‘Dimidenko’, perpetrating “Australia's most notorious publishing hoax”. Got it now?

Romany – In case I’m one of those “petulant persons” to whom you refer, we are not trying to ‘shoot the messenger’; she’s the author.

Hamlet – I am not surprised that one who has passed through the hallowed and rigorous halls of a School of Sociology would harbour the view such as “Who cares who writes a piece of work[?]” Unfortunately for that view, universities that spawn sociology departments keep them in line by enforcing a university’s most academically paramount rule: that against plagiarism. My concern has now become skewed towards incredulity by witnessing your alignment with (or is it “as”?) a Judges Associate that takes such a cavalier approach to the truth.

Pericles - I understand your point about my “gratuitous ad hominem” but, if you look to the posting of “our Helen” (‘skepticlawyer’) in her criticism of the journalist, Simon Caterson, it moves from ad hominem quickly through to ad nauseam.

Regards
Doc.

Doc

I only did two sociology subjects: one was more anthropology than sociology, the other one was subject that I found appalling.

My majors were actually history and politics / international relations, and in both schools post-modernism was dealt with critically rather than being assumed to be the way to the truth (which is understandable because in post modernism there is no 'truth', or so I am told).

My personal opinion about post-modernism is that it was thought up by the French in the aftermath of WW2, because the French were closer collaborators with the Nazis than even some of Germany's allies. What better way to excuse crimes against humanity than to produce a system of thought that claims that there is no right or wrong?

What better way to dicredit what people think as truths in other areas?

I actually know Foucault about post-modernism (no, its not original).

I have my favourite historians, those who I credit with more and detailed research than others. To add to this education, the uni that I attended required study in four quite simple half subjects from outside of the school in which students are majoring. I was happy to do these subjects from the schools of science, medicine and law.

Contrary to an opinion expressed on this grate sight, I do not work as a tea lady for judges' associates. I have been known to get a judge or two a cuppa when their staff are not available, however.

Doc, anyone who has said in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5327#66482 that "You can take the boy out of Croatia, but you can't take Croatia out of the boy" is hardly in a position to call someone else an "adjudged anti-semite" or any other form of racist.

Helen has indeed been judged as an anti-semite. At one point, I believed it myself, until I looked at the facts: the Devil was indeed in the Details. A hoaxer she is, and a sancti bovinicide par excellence, to mangle three languages in a single sentence. But any form of racist? No.

Now how the heck did a post about the many Pagan traditions that have been continued, and are now looked upon as part of "traditional Christmas" degenerated into such a vituperative argument?

If Helen is wrong in some minor details, then by all means give URLs showing where and how. If she is wrong in the main thrust of her article - implying that for example, many Christian sects do not look upon the traditional Santa Claus/Christmas Tree/Celebration as a Pagan abomination - then they should give URLs about that too. I would be extremely sceptical of that last though, having attended an English Baptist Church when young.

Please, less heat, more light, and the attack on the author is most un-Christian. Doc, I've read some of your posts, this isn't like you. Despite the Croatian remark I alluded to, which some of the hard-of-thinking would take out of context and call Racist, if you're racist, ik ben Nederlandser.

And may I request the militant atheists to moderate their tone too? After all, if this really is all there is, it costs little to be polite, and even indulge people in their belief in imaginary friends, if it does no harm.

But above all, More URLs and less emotion please!

I am beginning to think that this list is composed mostly of weird folk with major personality problems.

Sure Helen Dale did assume a pen name - and persona - when she wrote her book. How about that? An author actually used a pen name when composing a book that won the Miles Franklin Award. Now unless I am mistaken, Miles Franklin was in the pen name business too.

I think that it is precious of those of you who are upset about Helen Dale. Sure she has irritated many a second rate academic and has made immense fun of Australia's self appointed literati. But her book was either good enough to win the Award on its own merits, or the award was given to the author because of her presumed Ukrainian ethnicity.

I find the whole furore ludicrous, but then I do not think that puncturing the egos of pompous academics is even an intellectual misdemeanor, let alone a cultural crime.

If the waffle on this thread is typical of the generality of posts on this site, I guess that I will have to turn to something of a higher intellectual level for amusement. Perhaps commercial TV would be somewhat more substantial.

Helen Dale is correct in the bulk and substance of her assertions. If you cannot see that then you have greatly flawed awareness. Second rate minds will find enjoyment in quibbling and hair splitting, but Helen Dale is very much cleverer than you lot. And I reckon that this is the root cause of most of the chagrin and vituperation about her.

And I still cannot understand why so many of you shelter behind idiotic pen names. Who do you think you are? :)

Dear Zoe Brain,

Thank you for your words of moderation. We can sometimes let our egos get control of our keyboards. I stand chastened and apologetic.

As I hope you are not Dutch (as per the tenor of your translation), I am certainly not a racist. (In fact, one of my current incarnations has me on a committee with the UN supporting universal human rights.)

I will try to be more circumspect in my future posts.

Regards
Doc.

This has been quite the stoush while I've been away, although it seems to have calmed down now, for which I'm grateful. Thank-you Zoe for your thoughtful remarks. I hope you don't mind me telling people here that you thought me a racist until you read my novel.

Yes folks, Zoe took the time to get in contact with me. That's what you call good sleuthing and an unwillingness to be swayed by media/propaganda (for that's what much of it is, these days). I also think Fred's point about commercial television is well made. This site has a lot of good material on it. I'm sure it's possible to do better in our commentary than the shallowness that one sees in various cruddy shows (which I won't name because we all know what they are).

Doc, I harbour no ill-feeling towards you. When you write for a major blog, you get used to stoushing. I would ask you, however, to remember that Zoe exposed an infelicity of yours in much the same way as the media did to me some 11 years ago. I don't think you're a racist - not for a moment. But the comment looks bad, and spread all over the interwebs (as is so easy these days) it may be hard to fight off that implication. That is how media reporting works - it waits for some public figure or politician to put their foot in it, and then runs with the stuff-up for all it's worth. And we wonder why our politicians and community leaders speak in cliches and sound-bites.

Once again, I invite the (obviously large number of people) who've stopped by this page to visit the rest of the crew (many more than just me) at http://catallaxyfiles.com/

Doc, that last post of yours is much more in keeping with the impression I'd got of you from previous posts.

And in no way, shape or form am I Dutch :)

It doesn't surprise me that you are actually doing something about Human Rights either, you seemed that kind of guy.

I have my own Human Rights issues, I'm of a genuinely oppressed minority (actually two of them), and both of them are some of the few that no UN convention offers protection to.

For example, it is unnecessary or undesirable to give people like me an Australian Passport, despite my Australian Citizenship. They can't legally make a decision to refuse, they just don't issue one (see Australian Passports Determination 2005 Explanatory Notes). Section 12 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights doesn't apply to people like me, at least in Australia.

Thanks to both yourself and Helen for your kind words to me, I hope that this thread will proceed in then same spirit of respect, with pardonable misconceptions and even egregious errors gently corrected.

Fred, possibly off topic but you've mentioned the issue of pen names a couple of times in this thread
eg -
"And I still cannot understand why so many of you shelter behind idiotic pen names. Who do you think you are? :) "

I can't answer for every other poster but for some of us the use of an alias/pen name provides some protection against real world consequences to expressing views that might otherwise cause us trouble. In my case I'm particularly interested in issues surrounding family law.

My ability to comment (with examples) on issues in that sphere would be significantly impacted on if doing identified myself, my son or my ex. I do believe that personal examples are important in helping people understand how some issues are played out in the real world but that doing so does not require the use of real names.

I've no desire to end up on some private hit list maintained by a zealot at CSA because they were able to link my name to comments critical of CSA.

Others comment on fields in which they are employed but where they may not wish to expose employers or clients to harm by being identified with views that may not be popular.

R0bert

A few days into this BBP06 and we can see already how wonderful this initiative is. And a good time to have it, where we can take the time to enjoy it.

Given it will run for a month, surely there must be cause to allow the author of a post to come into comments and answer questions byeond the three comment rule?

I note with gratitude Helen has been granted leave of this rule, above; perhaps site editors may be able to inform us as to whether we can more fully engage an author during the month, should the author wish to?

In the hope authorial leave is granted, I have a question relating to the author/reader dynamic for Helen.

I'm picking a slice from a comment above where Helen was otherwise engaged, and with that I'm acknowledging the quick-response nature of blog commenting as often misleading. I'll be interested in Helen's responses (if allowed here) all considered..

Here is Helen's remark: "Thanks very much Hamlet - you've taken my piece in the right spirit".

Helen, as the author, what do you mean by "you've taken my piece in the right spirit"?

Robert, the two post rule binds everyone - including editors, so don't expect me to come back and use my second shot on this thread too quickly! Helen only got two bites earlier because I gave her one of my turns and posted for her.

The number of posts is governed by the program, and it's not possible the way it is currently set-up to exempt anyone. The model we used in determining limitations was that of the "Town Hall" meeting. Think of the article, or the original post, as the motion. Then everyone after that, including the mover of the motion, gets an equal right to engage in debate.

The article forum is more restrictive than the general forum. This is intentional - we're trying to make the general forum more conversational.

We originally allowed any number of people any number of comments. That led to flame wars and what was essentially bullying by a few posters. The restrictions seem to me to have lifted the tone considerably, and I think when you compare our threads to those on most blogs the contributions are far more considered and complete.

This part of the thread is essentially off-topic. The general forum was set-up to allow discussion of issues that weren't related to articles. Why doesn't Helen or someone else set-up a thread there http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index-general.asp to quizz Helen about her literary forays?

Well I waited all night and Jesus didn't come down my chimney again this year.

He doesn't come if you are awake, Rainier.

I thought everybody knew that.

Matthew 24:42-44 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

More Sherry?

Sherry? Erk... who drinks sherry any more?

Tea ladies on Friday nights maybe...

Both the lord and jesus coming down my chimney, I'd like to see that!
I'll pretend to be asleep next time.

Rainer,the magic in religion is is not found in conspicuous miracles,but found in dedicated people who do try to help their fellow man by making the world a better place.

I don't believe,however we are going to find it very difficult to fill the void of security,honesty and dedication that religion gives to many people.What is going to replace notions of being part of a greater consciousness as opposed to being just protoplasm,that strives really hard just to reach oblivion?

Religion is a double edged sword,just like sex.Too much of anything can make you go blind.

Sorry for the delay in response, been away doing other stuff.

When I said that Hamlet had 'taken my piece in the right spirit', I meant that he both got some useful information out of it, but at the same time didn't take it too seriously - it's meant to be fairly light-hearted. As I admitted over at Catallaxy, this piece was as much about showing off some of my Latin translations as anything else. I'm pretty sure that the average punter isn't going to read a bunch of mouldy old poems, but I figured they may be interested if those poems are put into context.

Cheers Graham; understood and appreciated.

Thanks for replying, Helen. Your response is fulfilling of itself; without room to move here to look further into the writer/reader dynamic, and you may not wish to, there remains for me questions regarding a writer's expectations (if any) for the nature of any (or all) reader's response. He or she may have them, of course, as writer; up to them. But is a reader entitled to respond in accordance with whatever he or she takes from the piece? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts fleshed out on this. While it seemingly can't happen here, please accept a thanks for your contribution and outlaying your intentions.

I think I'm about to blow my second post for the time period, Robert - so if you want to continue the discussion (which is very interesting I grant you), then you'll have to hop over to Catallaxy. I suggest you camp on the other Roman post I've got up over there: http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2302

Anyway, back to your question, where you wrote:

"there remains for me questions regarding a writer's expectations (if any) for the nature of any (or all) reader's response. He or she may have them, of course, as writer; up to them. But is a reader entitled to respond in accordance with whatever he or she takes from the piece?"

Many postmodernist theorists would answer in the affirmative, and to be fair, they do have a point. Once an author is dead (literally, not figuratively), then it's no longer possible to go back to them and ask 'what did you mean by X?'

However, I do believe that this can be taken too far. Elucidating meaning can be very difficult (I see this all the time in my day job - I'm a lawyer). But it can be done. When a court construes a statute, it uses a combination of earlier legal decisions (precedent), principles of statutory interpretation, parliamentary speeches commending the bill and academic commentary. Lawyers can draw fine distinctions and settle on a reasonable range of possible meanings. They usually don't presume to identify 'one' single meaning, though.

[Continued from the previous post, where apparently I exceeded my word limit. This is rather awkward]

I think an author's input is similar to the speech in parliament commending the bill (often - but not always - the second reading speech). If an author says 'I wanted my work/this poem/this scene to mean X', that view has to be accorded respect. That doesn't mean other readings are meaningless or somehow illegitimate, just that they shouldn't be accorded the same weight. Obviously this process becomes harder once the author dies, although many writers leave comprehensive notes and commentary about their work in one form or another, which can be examined. If the author is alive, though, then it's a simple matter to ask.

All that aside, though, each reader reads a book in his own way, and brings his own history to it. People who struggle with brutality in fiction are going to struggle with a lot of my stuff - I don't 'spare' the reader. I accept that. By the same token, I'm not forcing anyone to read what I write, either!

There is a very comprehensive blog citing sources about this subject at
http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/x-mas-truth/
It has a lot in common with Helen Dale's article.

I am not going to read all 45 posts so I may just be repeating what somebody has already said.
The winter solstice was celebrated in all sorts of forms across Eurasia and North Africa. Saturnalia came out of the earlier Greek festival celebrating Kronos. In a way modern western Xmas is the same thing, employees get time off to celebrate the winter (summer in the Southern Hemisphere) Solstice to celebrate the fruits of their labour as they have done long before the invention of Judaism. It was from Roman invasions of Britain that the word ‘God” was brought back to Rome. God the Anglo –Celt god of beer or mead celebrated the year’s beer vintage at the Winter Solstice. It warms me to see every year the amount of eskies pass through the door to the great feast. Australian Xmas celebrations would do God (the western Celt god of beer) proud. Keep it up ye righteous, cheers.

Now Ester, that’s a similar story of a pagan festival stolen to plug up the gap that the absence of a date for the crucifixion and the absence of evidence for the crucifixion. To cut a long story short the crucifixion and resurrection story was most likely inspired by northern pagan rituals over Ester the fertility and resurrection of the sun. The Easter bun got its cross from string tied to offerings destined for spirits. Offerings were hung from ceilings to prevent rats from stealing the offerings. This practice continued until quite late in history until a more prosperous and christianised urban class consumed the offerings to the spirits themselves.

I for one find all these traditions beautiful and relevant and they connect us to our ancestors and roots wether we are Atheist, pagan or Christian, Jew Moslem or Buddhist.
Future generations may worship Harry Potter but they should continue the ancient joy of this season for what ever the belief on some level it brings everybody together.

The only threat I can see is the modern worship of capital and extension of retail opening hours.

Barney25, did you click through to the original article?

http://www.stevethepro.ukf.net/xmas/articles/spirit1.htm

It has a lot more in common with Helen’s essay than just facts. Some of the text is identical.

The following lines of text from Helen’s essay appear to have been lifted verbatim from Steve the Pro’s website, specifically this page:

http://www.stevethepro.ukf.net/xmas/articles/spirit5.htm

“Christmas, of course, does not belong to us.” [the first line of prose in Helen’s essay]

““Put the Christ back in Christmas”, we’re always told.” [the second line]

“In fact, when you celebrate Christmas by eating too much, drinking too much, feeling up the boss’ wife at the office party, driving the porcelain bus and or spending a fortune on presents almost, but not quite, entirely unsuitable for the person to whom you gave them, you come rather closer to the real spirit of Christmas.” [third para]

“Rome’s Saturnalia was a curious mixture of ancient fertility rite and social event.” [seventh para]

“Romans decorated their doorposts with holly and kissed under the mistletoe. Shops and businesses closed and people greeted one another in the street with shouts of Io Saturnalia! On one day of the 12, masters waited on their slaves at table while, in the legions, officers served the ranks. A rose was hung from the ceiling in banqueting rooms, and anything said or done sub rosa went no further than the front door.” [the entire eighth para]

“Christmas is a venerable pagan festival, on a sort of permanent loan from Ancient Rome…” [second-last para]

Oddly, that last line is not verbatim to the original:

“Christmas is a venerable pagan festival, on permanent loan (or should we say stolen) from Ancient Rome.”

For some reason Helen seems to have been a bit shy about alleging theft there.

The original website suggests the original article was written in 2005, here:

http://www.stevethepro.ukf.net/xmas/articles/index.htm,

so it appears highly unlikely that it took the text from Helen’s essay. More likely, Helen copied the text and passed it off as her own, without attribution.

I think an explanation is required.

Yes Clive i did. I came to the same conclusion as you.

Helen, thank you for your further response to our brief discussion regarding the author/reader dynamic, particularly in relation to your appreciation for a reader "taking the piece in the right spirit."

Perhaps we can explore this a little more later.

I wrote the original piece some ten years ago. An earlier version is archived at the National Library, available here:http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10072/20030203/www.uq.net.au/_enhdemid/christmas.html

Retraction, please.

I have made this comment at Catallaxy on the relevant thread. It is worth repeating here:

Two people who obviously have no desire to hang on to their assets have accused me of plagiarizing a 2005 piece on Christmas at OLO. These claims were repeated at Larvatus Prodeo by Liam, Fyodor and FDB. Since then, Mark Bahnisch, LP editor, has deleted the relevant comments because they are obviously defamatory. To do him credit, also Fyodor attempted to post a correction. It too has been deleted, however.

I wrote the first draft of this piece (and did the bulk of the translations) in 1997. The piece was archived for posterity (along with a great deal of my other material) at the National Library of Australia. If you peruse my archive (link below), you will note that the piece appears in every iteration of my material going back to 1998.

I strongly suggest the parties concerned withdraw the implication that I plagiarized something written in 2005. I should also note I am posting a full account of this matter here and at Catallaxy due to the deletions at LP.

My archive at the NLA is here: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/10072

The link to the article in question is here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10072/20030203/www.uq.net.au/_enhdemid/christmas.html

Helen, I'm sure you appreciate that was important to clear up. Thank you for doing so, happily, from my perspective at least. May we go on?

I first came across your piece here, and while I appreciate your diligence and efforts with Catallaxy, I am not so much interested in terminology such as "post-modern" and "Libertarian" simply because I feel these can box people up, arbitrarily and uselessly, and much time is spent in talking about those terms themselves, rather than getting to a useful jist - though I do understand these terms achieve that for those who choose them so. That is, maybe you will find it acceptable to continue on here at On Line Opinion.

However, it is clearly a matter for law to wish to pigeon-hole things, and this raises some interesting questions regarding creative authorship for public receipt.

I haven't quite been given to your parliamentary analogy, probably due to not giving it thinking time, and that it throws up too many loose interpretations on first blush.

These points certainly resonate:

"I do believe that this can be taken too far." [In the context that a "reader is entitled to respond in accordance with whatever he or she takes from the piece"].

"If an author says 'I wanted my work/this poem/this scene to mean X', that view has to be accorded respect."

(continued)..

(cont..)

Effectively, it appears then that you consider it a matter of 'weight', is that so? That the weight of "rightness" as to what is the spirit of the piece resides with the author? (If so, maybe this raises the question that there is then an onus upon the reader to "elucidate" the right spirit?).

I am not in disagreement with you; though there is another perhaps conflicting perspective, which for which I am the same. That you are a lawyer and a creative writer is interesting in these discussions, because, is it not (also) true, that creative writing serves to explode that which is pigeon-holed? (As in the context of art; spoken of as it is in terms of nourishing, enriching and even developing the soul, humanity.)

If so, does creative writing explode pigeon-holes by supplying insight which unsettles an original premise, or two? And is there then inclination towards the settling of another (new) premise?

Or does it do it, if so, by drawing together premises already in existence?

What of all this does the reader supply?

It's seriously good fun stuff. Not the least of which, that law and creativity are not as separate as may appear, upon respectful reflection. And should I use premise or premiss, in speaking of art?

Just to clarify some aspects of Helen's comments.

I'm not the "editor" of Larvatus Prodeo, just one of its bloggers and its founder.

Comments were deleted from a thread at LP after I was alerted to them via email from Helen, taking into account her view that the comments were defamatory of her.

Thank you, skepticlawyer/Helen, that response proves you were the plagiarised party, and not guilty of plagairism. Of course, I retract any implication you were in the wrong.

Although I made an honest mistake in assuming you wrote your article only last year, I also apologize totally for any offense given, particularly as this is clearly a sensitive issue for you.

Regards,

Clive

I apologise for any inference in my response to Clive which may have reflected on the verisimilitude of SkepticLawyer.
That was not my intention.

Barney

Strewth! What is this all about really?

I wonder what Wanda Koolmatrie thinks about all this tip toeing around possible litigious action?

Thanks, people. I do appreciate you coming back and retracting. As Clive points out, this kind of thing is very irritating, as well as detracting from what had been an interesting and lively discussion up until that point. Poor Robert - who'd put all that effort into asking such good questions - got short shrift as I had to waste my comments for the day on trivial stuff.

May I make one small request for the future? Going off half-cocked is not a great look, and shoe-leather tastes pretty ordinary.

I'll come back later today when I've had a think about Robert's questions.