Your Mental Health Awareness

This week is just another week. Well, for most people it is. For some of us it's Mental Health Awareness Week. But this is something that we all should be aware of - and not just this week.

An article published on Young Minds this week makes a very valid point - just because you haven't been diagnosed with a mental illness, does not mean that, at some point in your life, you haven't sat somewhere on the spectrum. It talks of the importance of eradicating the 'us and them', and think of mental illness as more of a 'variety of experience'. Did you know, for example, thinking that a random coincidence is full of meaning is one symptom used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illness? It's a topic that is far from being black and white - so don't assume that you don't need to be aware of your mental health. 

Just like our physical health, everyone is responsible for their mental wellbeing - and for the lucky ones who have control over it, being mindful of your mental health is imperative to living to your full potential.  

We all get stressed, we all feel a bit down sometimes, and we all worry about things that we have no control over. We also have the ability to target our negative thought patterns and make them more conducive to living happily.  It's the everyday things that niggle away at us that we can control how we respond to. An annoying colleague or a rude neighbour is only a problem if you let it be one - and it will only have a negative impact on yourself if you do. In terms of the impact it has on our bodies, stress is malevolent.

Mental Health Awareness week is more relevant than every before. Mind has reported an 18% surge in the number of calls they've been getting over the past year, and the amount of anti-depressants prescribed to patients has increased. We're back in a recession and our Prime Minister doesn't know what LOL means. These are tough times, and there's no getting around that. But we need to look at the bigger picture when little things get us stressed.


For the three quarters of you who won't directly experience a debilitating mental illness in your lifetime, you're still responsible for your mental health. In turn, your mental health is responsible for how you perceive the world around you and how much you can enjoy it. 

Psychopaths - should we change our perceptions?

I've been thinking about psychopaths, recently. It started a few days ago when I watched a BBC documentary about a 16-year-old girl who murdered a man. Though her circumstances were tough, I did wonder how much genetics came in to play. I then came across an article on the New York Times asking if you can call a 9-year-old a psychopath. The article, all nine pages of it, talks about the ability to detect psychopathic traits in children. It centered around one boy in particular, Michael, who took part in an experiment disguised as summer camp.

The article talks about the genetic differences in psychopaths –  studies have proven that there are 'significant anatomical differences in the brains of adolescent children who scored high on the youth version of the Psychopathy Checklist — an indication that the trait may be innate.' 

Differences can also be found in the blood - 'cold-blooded behaviours' have been linked to lower levels of cortisol and 'below-normal function in the amygdala, the portion of the brain that processes fear and other aversive social emotions, like shame.'

This means that with 'callous-unemotional kids', as the article refers to them, (in other words, pre-psychopathic), they don't experience uncomfortable or ashamed emotions when punished for doing something wrong. 

Research on adult psychopaths has proven that they have 'significant anatomical differences: a smaller subgenual cortex and a 5 to 10 percent reduction in brain density in portions of the brain associated with empathy and social values, and active in moral decision making.' Researchers say that this inability to register negative feedback in the correct way is most likely genetic.

Psychopaths get a very bad name - of course, this is understandable, but is it really okay? If someone has significant anatomical differences that mean they are unable to empathise or feel remorse - shouldn't we be cutting them some slack? One common trait in psychopaths is abusive treatment to animals in childhood - but this stems from a genuine curiosity to see what will happen - as if they cannot comprehend that it is wrong.

The article doesn't show sympathy for Michael - it talks about how fed up his parents are and how bad his behaviour is. But, is this fair if he really doesn't process things in the same way as the rest of us?

Those who are mentally ill often have this taken into consideration by the legal system. Someone who is deemed 'psychopathic', however, gets bad press and morbid fascination from society – they’re labeled ‘psychopathic’ almost as if it’s a different breed. A clinical psychologist says in the article, “this isn't like autism, where the child and parents will find support. Even if accurate, it’s a ruinous diagnosis. No one is sympathetic to the mother of a psychopath.” This begs the question - can we judge/punish someone if they don't fully understand that their actions are wrong?

The debate of the not-so-real-women's magazines

Guardian journalist, Eva Wiseman,  has written what appears to be on a lot of people's minds. In a recent article she says that glossy women's magazines are behind the times and out of touch with modern women. She says that we've found new places to talk about women's issues because these magazines are no longer getting it right. She doesn't specify which magazines she is referring to, but I don't think that needs to really be clarified.


The article says that these magazines have outdated content - 'You look down at a page and lose a decade.' Of course, monthly women's magazines can't really be at the forefront of issues, no matter how hard they try. Something happens in the news or on television and it's being discussed on Twitter immediately. With the instantaneous sources of public dialogue we have, it's no wonder  monthly magazines are lagging behind.  This isn't an excuse, though. Unfortunately, many other types of magazines seem to manage keeping up with the times just fine. 


The closest I've ever come to being behind the scenes of a magazine is when I met with a journalist at Private Eye and got a glimpse of Ian Hislop's office (one year on and the excitement still lingers...). Therefore, I can't make presumptions. With a mass market to appeal to, however, it would seem that a Guardian journalist and her readers may be a little more discerning than the general public that these magazines target. That sounds highly offensive, but I'm on a roll so pretend I re-phrased that in a nicer-sounding way. 


The thing is, articles on what your boyfriend is thinking when you sleep together, what your boyfriend thinks about your friends and what your boyfriend thinks about your friends sleeping together may not be nail-biting stuff. It must, however, have some appeal to the mass market, or these magazines wouldn't survive. 


The interviews are the worst. A female actor promoting her latest film turns into an account of how she eats three chocolate brownies on set, despite looking impossibly tiny in the charcoal jeans and off-white knitted jumper she turned up in, with her hair scraped back and only a touch of make-up on. And how come the interviews always conclude that she is just having fun, figuring out who she is and doing normal stuff with her friends?


Although this perpetual set-up frustrates me, I resign to the fact that it must make a lot of readers feel content, like they've had a real glimpse of the actress and that's that. And that's fine - just don't expect these magazines to represent modern women. Very few of their articles take me by surprise or inspire me. But if I want to read something unpredictable and exciting, I read something else. 


We just need to realise that, whilst those that are criticising these magazines are ageing (slowly and gracefully, may I add), the magazines' target audiences are not. How to be a strong, self-sufficient and confident woman you will rarely learn from women's glossy mags, but you will learn how to stop your man cheating on you (and what he's thinking if he does, of course). 


The articles ends: 'Contrary to the narratives they tell, our lives are no longer measured out in wedding cake.' This is, however, the case for some women - it may not be the majority, but at least there's an abundance of stimulating conversation going on elsewhere for the rest of us. 

A memorable post

I've just started writing a short story for a competition, but aside from the usual performance anxiety, there's something else that concerns me - whether or not the judges are going to remember reading it. Can you remember any details of the last book you read?


I came across an article that talks about evidence suggesting that most of us can’t recall the contents, title, author, or even the existence of a book that we read a month ago. The article makes a good point - why bother reading books if we can’t remember their contents for very long?


 The writer of the article asks a neuroscientist/ literature major whether it would have made any differece if he hadn't read the books that he had. She says that reading books does alter how we think, by strengthening different mental processes and creating neural pathways in the brain. We store information that, in turn, is used in our decision-making processes, without realising. “You are a sum of it all”, she says.

Part of the reason I read is so that I can hopefully take what I learn and apply it to my own writing. I've often wondered how I sometimes manage to pleasantly surprise myself when I read something  I've written. Now I know it's because I don't remember learning what I know, and don't consciously apply it. 


I can vividly remember reading Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl. I can't remember the names of any of the other characters, or any exact details of the book. I remember the haunted feeling I had for some time after reading it, though. I'm pretty sure that some of the sense of perspective I have is because of reading that book. 


I guess that this can be interpreted as the brain's ability to cope - remembering things that will be practically useful in the future, but forgetting unhelpful things, such as minor details about a book. Remembering everything would be impossible, or almost. There is an extremely rare brain disorder, where sufferers' memories work in overdrive, remembering every detail of their lives, which one sufferer understandably describes as a burden.

I guess the same can be said for life in general. The memories of our past experiences help shape our future selves  - the decisions we make and how we make them are a product of nature, nurture and what our brains have learnt from past experience (and books we've read).
I don't know if the judges' brains will take anything from my short story - but at least the pressure's off to think of good names for the characters. Say hello to Christopher Cockshit and Minnie Balls!

Redefining feminism

In today's Observer there is a rather berating article about Britain's got Talent judge Amanda Holden, accusing her of being an 'awful' woman. Amanda admitted on  television show Alan Carr: Chatty Man that curiosity had led her to watch Tulisa Contostavlos' recent 'sex' tape. The writer's apparent problem with this is that Amanda is a woman, calling it a 'a high-profile act of girl-on-girl treachery, full-frontal female betrayal'.

If this journalist had done her research better, she might have found that Amanda isn't the only person in the public eye that has admitted to watching it. Russell Howard admitted on his Russell Howard's Good News program, last week, to seeing the video. He's a man, though, so according to the article, that's okay. Amanda, however, might as well have secretly filmed it herself and posted it online.

The writer says that feminism is 'women trying to look out for each other'. Yet, the woman writing the article wasn't quite doing that. Feminism definitely isn't about bitching about a woman for doing something, because she's a woman - and letting a man get away with it.

Thankfully, the writer ended with such a clever reference to Britain's got Talent, saying that she'd 'buzz them off' - so we don't need to worry about anyone taking her seriously.

Running in heels...or not.

As with any creative profession, being a writer comes the risk of rejection. A good writer is accepting of criticism, and honest enough to admit that their writing might not always reach the required standard. This week, however, I was brutally kicked to the curb after sending an article for publication to a website. The worst part is that the person who did it quite possibly got a sexual thrill from it.

I can accept criticism. Honest. But the woman I was emailing about this article was just on a power trip. After I emailed her asking about freelance opportunities, she requested examples of writing. She said my blog wasn't a very good example as it was different to writing articles, so I sent her a few other things I'd written. She came back to me with, "some are good and some of these aren't up to our standard in all honesty. I'd like you to have a go at writing a short test feature."

Now, what annoyed me was that the "not up to our standard" comment was completely unnecessary. She gave me a chance anyway, so why did she feel the need to make that remark? My guess is that she just wanted to feel like she had  a slither of purpose to her life.

As the conversation continued, she became increasingly blunt. I apologetically explained that I haven't been freelancing for that long so I don't have a great deal of work to show her that I'm really proud of, yet. She ignored this and replied as laconically as possible. I sent her my article a week later and she said: "I'm afraid this isn't the standard we're looking for".

Taking criticism is a great attribute to have - it may not be my strong point but I promise I'm not picking faults just because I'm bitter.

So here's my mediocre, not-up-to-standards article. The brief was: 'Statistics show that people borrow more crime fiction and ‘chick lit’ from their local libraries than so-called good literature? So are all books created equal? And what constitutes ‘good reading?’ I'll let them off with the misplaced question mark, because I'm a nice human being.

How do you classify 'good' reading?

People borrow more crime fiction and chick lit from local libraries than so-called literature. According to the

Romantic Novelists’ Association (RNA) - romance is the most popular genre of fiction. This genre, however, is widely criticised. Critics say that crime and chick lit books follow a simple formula, and once you’ve read one you’ve read them all. If that’s the case – why are these books so popular? And what constitutes ‘good’ reading?

The best books that I’ve read are the ones I’ve taken to the cinema and read until the lights have dimmed and walked around supermarkets with them in my hand. The greatest stories seep through my consciousness and become intermingled with my own reality – I find myself thinking about the characters as if they are real.

A good book helps to change the way you think about things. It taps into an emotion, provides escapism and makes you feel an indescribable comfort. It allows you to recognise streaks of your personality in the characters you’re reading about and taps into thoughts that you previously thought were only your own. A good book is subjective, it’s personal. How can we criticise a genre that has this effect on so many people?

Celebrated, classic writers, such as Hemingway and Tolstoy, are poles apart from modern writers. The

disparities in lifestyle and culture are palpable in what they have written. It is almost, therefore, questionable as to whether they are comparable.

One of the best books I’ve ever read was by John Steinbeck. It wasn't the story that struck a nerve, though

– the writing was just astonishing. I’ve grown up without reading any great classics, or the words of any

perceptively ‘classic’ writers. Now I’m grown up, I’m bingeing on them. But that doesn’t mean I prefer them, or feel that I get more from them.

The John Steinbeck book that I read altered my breath, it dried my mouth out a little. This reaction, however, was due to the fact that I want to be a writer – so I’m hyper-conscious of everything I read. For those reading just for pleasure, however, modern writers have a lot going for them. Jon Ronson, to give one example, is a modern writer. His self-effacing, honest way of writing is unique, and he sits somewhere in-between classic and simple-formula crime.

I treasure books – and whilst I may not read crime or romance novels, I don’t always just stick to classic writers, either. If you take one thing from a good book, it’s that the world is a majestic place, and the most interesting of stories come from unexpected places that are uncovered without preconception. Anyone who exclusively reads classic books – books that you feel proud to get out in public to show off – won’t grasp the ultimate reason behind the existence of books – to open your mind and learn new things. 

This mindset reminds me of a famous quote, said by P.J. O'Rourke – “always read something that will make

you look good if you die in the middle of it.” I wonder if book-snobbish people go home to a James Patterson stashed under their pillows that they hurriedly devour in case they do die and, god forbid, someone realises what they’ve been reading. A good read is in the eye of the reader – and no writer worth his salt would encourage snobbery when it comes to books.

Introspective happenings.

We all know someone who has the habit of making every conversation about themselves - and if you don't, my guess is that it's probably you. Well - living in a tiny Cornish village leaves little room  for human interaction outside of work - so you can only imagine my excitement when I witnessed what I am about to share with you. Humans are the best source of inspiration, after all.

This morning, I was stood in my local corner shop when I couldn't help but overhear a conversation that almost made getting out of bed on a Saturday before 9 AM to find that the shelf that is usually home to fresh croissants was empty.

I was in the queue (surely I'm not alone in not being able to leave a corner shop without buying something?). The man in front of me was talking to the woman serving him, and this is how the conversation went:


Man: I'm knackered. Only got a few hours sleep last night.

Woman: Oh dear, work?

Man: No, I don't work. I did until last May, but then my Missus ran off and left me to look after our daughter.

Woman: Oh my god, I couldn't be doing with that. No kids for me, thanks!

Man: Yeah... so I look after her now.

Woman: God, I'm far too young to be saddled with a kid. I have work!

Man: Well, it wasn't exactly my choice...

Woman: No. Well, I wont be having kids anytime soon I can tell you that!

Small talk is a tedious activity at the best of times, but I'm so happy that my little village finally gave me something to write about.