How to survive a Ph.D.

So far I have found my Ph.D. to be far more stressful, and weirdly, personal than I expected. I imagined it would be intellectually challenging, but I never expected the degree to which I would come to question myself, not just academically but every aspect of my life. Everyone warned me that Ph.D.s are very lonely, and I'm starting to see what they meant. This project is mine. The responsibility for my success, and therefore part of the success of my supervisor, is solely in my hands. If I mess up an experiment, I have failed myself. If two or three experiments go wrong, I start to wonder if I'm thick. After a year of pottering about and with no results to show for it, it's very hard not to question whether you're doing the right thing. This is normal, apparently, for a first year. But still, it's very trying at times.

To keep myself sane through what has been my first (and least stressful...) year, I found the following essential:

-iPod. No questions, you need one. Chances are you have a Mac, but if not any MP3/4 player will do. But you DO need it. If you're doing a science research based doctorate like me, you will need something to listen to. You may spend hours by yourself. Late at night, early in the morning. Saturdays and Sundays. I have different playlists for different activities and moods. Rock/pop for times alone in the lab, electronic and chilled for dissections, pop and classical for de-stressing before presentations.
-Non-academic friends. After spending every waking minute thinking about experiments, papers, presentations and what not, you need to detach. So make sure you have friends doing something completely separate. I have a whole group of friends separate from my uni friends, who have jobs and keep me in touch with the "real world".

-A pet. When you've been yelled at by your supervisor and get home late after an exhausting day, you need something cute and cuddly to cheer you up. Somehow housemates don't do this too well. Get a pet.

-Keep in touch with other interests. Take time to go to the gym, learn languages, go to plays and concerts. Anything. What I found odd is that this is generally not encouraged at uni, at least where I work. My supervisor expects me to dedicate ALL of my time to my Ph.D.. Other people in the lab often seem astounded that there are other sides to me than being a scientist, that I could possibly be good at art or sports. I am not a scientist. I DO research, I STUDY science, but it's not what I am.

-Keep an eye on prospective careers. Everyone I know who is doing a Ph.D., bar none (worryingly), has not planned what they will do afterwards. Of course it's easy to say they should have planned, when in fact the final year of a Ph.D. is all consuming and it's very hard to think about anything else. But still. Keep an eye out for opportunities, have something to look forward to at the end of the tunnel!

-You might need to give up dating... Shocker I know. I was told this when I first started, and I laughed. I was told that Ph.D.s and boyfriends are mutually exclusive, and I didn't believe it. Now, a year in, I think there is definite truth to it. My priorities have shifted. It takes all of my energy to get through the week. I spend all day and then some at the lab. I bring home papers and try to read them, but usually in the evenings I just want food and bed. The weekends are my time to catch up on sleep, go clubbing/get drunk and let my hair down, and oh yes go back to the lab and do more reading and work. There is always SO much to be done, no matter how hard I work I don't get through it. The last thing I want on top of this is a guy and all those associated feelings messing things up. I need to concentrate all of the time! I actually don't think I have the time or capacity to have any kind of emotional relationship at the moment. Be warned though, this does tend to strain your relationships with your male friends (if you're female) for various reasons. Just something to be mindful of.

-You do not have to conform to the t-shirt and jeans look. The quintessential academic outfit. As you get steadily sadder the t-shirt may even be one from a conference. Don't do it. You do not have to let your wardrobe decline just because you work in a lab. Just because you're not in a normal office setting, and you're not technically employed, does not mean you should dress like a student. You've been an undergraduate, now you're actually a professional adult, so dress like one. Especially when a lot of the other post-graduates are not English and have their own distinct cultural styles and backgrounds. Sod it, sod them, dress properly. Don't bat an eyelid when they ask why you're wearing tweed. ;)

-Don't just go out to the pub. This is where having non-academic friends can help. Going to the pub with your friends is fine, and a great thing to do, but sometimes you need to do more, and your lab friends might not understand that. For me, I desperately needed to dress up and hit the high-end bars and clubs. If you're British, you might relate to this. In the lab, you don't meet many "like-minded" people, as you may well be the only Brit there, especially if you're middle class. Suddenly you're the minority. Having multicultural friends is a great thing, but sometimes you need to be around fellow Englishmen/Scotsmen whatever.

-Date outside of your field. If you have time ;). For some people, dating fellow researchers works out really well, and I'm glad for them. But for me, the idea of dating a fellow scientist is... quite repugnant. Not least because I need to get away from science once in a while. Talking to other women in my situation turns up similar (and quite familiar, feminine) sentiments- we want a dependable husband. Translation- wealthy, stable, employed, successful etc etc. You are never going to find a wealthy, or even comfortably-off, man in a lab, unless he's a professor or head of department- in which case you will have to compete for his affections with the real love of his life- science. Wealthy men may start in a lab, but go beyond it. This depends of course on what you want from life, and maybe for you this isn't a big concern, in which case that's great. You also might have these worries, but fall in love with a researcher, in which case that's also great. But let's face it, you're doing a Ph.D. in research, so your future financial situation is completely unknown. You might get a job. You might discover a new drug. You might get nowhere and drop out. So when picking a partner, you need someone in a far better financial state than you. Otherwise how will you pay for emergency medical expenses? Cars? School fees? Even "luxuries" like holidays? Having said that, you might find a fellow scientist is the only person who understands the strain you are under, and the extent to which you are obsessed with your work. So in the end it all comes down to the individuals.

-Chemicals... Adopting chemical dependencies, assuming you haven't already done that during your undergraduate degree, is sadly virtually a given during your Ph.D.. Try to make them relatively healthy. Drinking lots of coffee and drinking G&Ts with a few cigarettes at the weekends is the extent to which most people go. But some go further. Don't lose perspective here. Once again, you're not an undergrad anymore, you're an adult.

-Friends in your lab. When choosing your lab, make sure there will be plenty of other people about! My lab is nice and large, so even though a few have left and others are on holiday, there are still people about.Your lab becomes your family. These people are more than your friends. You are united against your supervisor if he's being a tosser. They will defend you. They will share important papers with you. They will lend you reagents, time slots on various machines, and advice. These people are invaluable! Just make sure you remember to pay them back similarly and be there for them too. It's very easy, when you're under serious pressure, to curl up into yourself and panic. Don't- go and spend time with your labmates. They've been there, they will calm you down. This is absolutely essential for surviving your Ph.D..

Fin.

Profiles

I set up this blog as a way of just spilling my guts about the various things I come across and think about during my day. Nothing more to it than that. So when I registered and started blogging, I was quite surprised when I next visited YouTube. A message at the top of the screen said "We notice you have a Google account, would you like to link it to your youtube account?".

Huh?

Link my blog and youtube? I am already debating whether or not to link my blog to facebook. I keep youtube and facebook separate. I've also debated this month whether to link my eBay shop to facebook via a new application to increase sales. Where is all this going to end? All of these sites are merging into one. All of them politely remind me to update my profile. With Facebook, the point is pretty obvious. There are photos of myself, lists of interests and favourite books to share with my friends. But what is the point of a youtube or ebay profile? To what extend is my personality now spread over various websites on the net? Is it a bad thing to have so many profiles?

Profiles that I have-
-YouTube (over 200 favourite videos, 10 subscriptions and 5 uploaded)
-Facebook
-eBay (a sellers profile, with a theme and photo, and "motivations for selling"...)
-Blogger
-Yahoo
-Flickr
-deviantART

Yep, even my bl**dy email account has a profile page, with a little cartoon of me that I can edit to "express myself". On YouTube I can add friends and message people. I can modify the background of my profile and play music, similar to MySpace. With Facebook at least I can control who sees my information, so I can make it as personal as I like. But youtube, ebay, blogger, I like to be anonymous. Sometimes not just anonymous I guess, but someone else. The me in my eBay profile is the me that I need to be to sell things at the highest price. So I need to appear a certain way. Would that be compromised if these people could also see drunk photos of me on facebook? Or if they knew what videos I watched on youtube?

So at the moment I'm keeping most of my profiles un-updated, and separate. I don't want my school friends to know what items I'm selling from my wardrobe. I don't want my colleagues at work knowing what videos I watch on youtube. For now. While I'm not comfortable being exposed online, I think to an extent this trend is inevitable. Something to be embraced in the future?

The first of many magic-related posts

If you haven't already subscribed to MadV on youtube, do it.



What started out as a few neat magic tricks from an anonymous guy with great taste in music has turned into an online phenomenon regarding freedom, tolerance and what it means to be human. Kudos!

Are you excited yet?

I am!!



Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Can't wait for November!

Music of the day: Max Richter

Definitely the sort of thing you should listen to if you're in a reflective mood. My favourite piece by him is actually Arboretum from his album The Blue Notebooks. It features a passage read by Tilda Swinton and is absolutely mesmerising. This isn't just classical music (although his album Memory House is), it's a blend with electronic. It's arty. I love.

Hollywood has no class anymore

So what does it take to become an actor these days?

I think about this a lot, especially given my doubts over my own career choices. I worry about whether I can continue along my current path and be successful. Make money. Be happy.

So this brings me on to careers an success, and making money, and what it all means and whether it actually matters. I see people across the pond (although there is a certain aspect of that culture over here as well- Big Brother for example) become famous overnight. They are photographed everywhere. They are wearing designer outfits. They are invited to events and given free gifts. Why? Some of them are famous for publishing sex tapes online. Others are siblings of people famous for lacking in talent and struggling with drug dependencies. How on Earth has society come to regard these people as celebrities? How can anyone think they are worthy of such attention and fortune? How can these people, with no training or talent, become popular actors? Have we forgotten the likes of Oscar Wilde, Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn? Where has the class gone?

There seems to be a big divide between the sexes here too, which is perhaps worthy of a separate post. It seems that in Hollywood, one doesn't need talent. One just needs to be female, thin, pretty and shameless. It also helps if you feel entitled, crave attention in the worst way, and are not particularly bright. It saddens me that these talentless show-offs are the ones making money, yet the people with brains and consideration are often ignored. Before you shout me down as jealous, I will happily admit to it. Yes I'm jealous. I'm jealous that so far I have been in education for 9 years, followed by 8 years at uni, to get on my career path. And I will never earn as much as they do (assuming, of course, that I continue along that path, which is unlikely, and also topic for another post).

An Ode to Edward Norton

So onto something a little more positive. A celebration of a merger of the two worlds- cerebral and Hollywood. A man, who is sometimes referred to as a Hollywood god, but he would never admit it. He commands nearly $10 million a film, or more now. A man, surely, at the centre of all this glitz and glamour over the last decade. Yet, he's a man many people haven't heard of. They've seen him of course. Everyone knows his work. But his name is unfamiliar. His face and name is unfamiliar outside of his films. That's because he possesses a rare quality in Hollywood. Class. He doesn't broadcast his success to the world in the form of fast cars, LV bags (shudder) and arriving at flashy parties. He doesn't court the paparazzi, desperate to get himself seen in magazines. We have no idea who he is dating, or has dated, because he keeps schtum. He keeps more than schtum, he keeps himself out of the spotlight, any spotlight, at all times. Please, the rest of Hollywood, take note. This is how it's done. Edward Norton. Who is he? Check out this clip and you will reminded of some of the incredible roles he has done. He has gone from redneck to office bum, magician to drug-dealer, neo-nazi to insane to a man nearly eaten by Hannibal Lecter. His trademark is disturbed characters, often either with split personalities or who undergo significant redemption or turmoil.


Seen him in Fight Club? Didn't think he stood out that much? Perhaps he paled when paired with Brad Pitt (and don't mean this in terms of looks, Brad is actually a great actor in my opinion and dominates the screen purely with his presence)? Well, that was the idea. His character in Fight Club is essentially the everyman. A loser. A nobody that everyone relates to because his failings are ours. He lost weight for that role, so he would look scrawny and pale. Brad, in comparison, is the manifestation of what he (and we) wants to be- bold, bright, muscular and attractive. I might do another post about Fight Club because I adore that film and it intrigues me even after repeated viewings (I am still noticing new quirks after the fifth time, which puts this on a parallel with Donnie Darko in my book). The soundtrack is quite interesting too, if you're into that kind of thing. If only for this FANTASTIC song (coupled with a Fight Club video, as an extra bonus). The song that plays right at the end of the film as the buildings collapse:


Why it's cult and not mainstream, and how it slipped passed the original audience and reviewers is beyond me. This is possibly my favourite scene, so so funny:



Anyway, back to Ed. It doesn't end with his acting, he also writes screenplays, directs and produces. He's a Yale history graduate.
Sooo, if you want to see this actor shine you need to see his other films (there aren't actually that many, sadly :( hurry up and make more please). Let me talk you through the goodies.

1. The film that made his career: Primal Fear

A great film this, if a little dated to look at (sorry Richard Gere I'm talking to you). If you haven't seen it, just watch it without reading anything about it. Avoid the spoilers. This film is worth it to see his incredible talent, and his trademark portrayal of a divided character. I wanted to find a video to show his acting, but I can't find any that don't have spoilers. Bear in mind he plays a 19 year old in this film, when he was in fact 27. Baby face!

2. Two films that work well in parallel: American History X and 25th Hour

Both are tough to watch, but very rewarding. The former showcases Norton's acting to perfection, and shows that he can change his body as well as his his character to suit the roles. The innocent babyface from Primal Fear is gone. 25th hour seems to constantly reference AHX, the films mirror each other wonderfully with their themes of redemption. This scene from 25th hour directly refers to the racism of AMX and the discussion about the slave trade. It's also one of the most powerful scenes of the film (there are two others, towards the end, which I won't post because they are spoilers, but they left me speechless and in tears). Take a look:

3. Something a bit different: The Illusionist, Red Dragon

Two films I would definitely recommend you see. Now. Not least because Ed looks rather fine as the man who put Hannibal Lecter in prison. Spoilers beware! Don't watch unless you've already seen the film.




Bring on Motherless Brooklyn!

(None of these videos are mine, I am just embedding them from youtube).

I was less than impressed by The Dark Knight

Yes you heard me. Apparently it's tantamount to heresy, admitting such a thing, but I did not think the Dark Knight was particularly good.

I would even go one step further and say... *gasp* it was a BAD film. Why? You are probably shaking your head and cursing my stupidity from your chair/desk/bed, not entirely unlike all of my friends who similarly thought I was delusional for disliking this film.

Plot spoilers ahead. You have been warned.

Beginning. Middle. End.

This film was boring. For an action film, it was slow and dry. And not, as many people seem to be suggesting, because it was developing characters or, heaven forbid, developing an in-depth storyline (I worry for those who consider this a "deep" film, and would suggest they watch Citizen Kane before using such an adjective for something derived from Hollywood). There was no suspense, we the audience just sat and were hustled through 2.5 hours of meandering plotless events, which rendered many things that happened meaningless and forgettable. Haven't these people heard that the basis to a good story is.. er a good story?! With a beginning, middle and end? Not a vague start, an hour of pointless plot contrivances that we could easily have done without (the Chinese businessman?), a few jumbled clashes with the joker and a anticlimactic ending that was long overdue.

Yes, it was dark. Deliciously dark. I LOVE dark. I go out of my way to seek out dark and challenging films. I like to be rattled and I like films that fire the imagination. I like to think over a film for days or weeks after I saw it. All the rave reviews suggested that Dark Knight was exactly this sort of film, so I decided to see it. I couldn't miss it of course. Nor could millions of other people around the world. We're not all Batman fans. Most of us aren't, really. The reason why this film is making absurd sums of money, the reason why everyone I know has seen it already (some more than once), the reason why we had to see a later showing because the cinema was full already, is Heath.

Oh Heath...

He makes this film. I'll go even further than that- Heath saves this film. Quite honestly his performance and presence on screen is so captivating, so engrossing, so horribly unsettling, I am not surprised by all the calls for a posthumous Oscar. While watching the Joker, I was blown away just like everyone else in the cinema. I laughed when he made the pencil disappear. I laughed when he fiddled with the bomb detonator outside the hospital. I sat open-mouthed when the lorry (truck, for any Americans) flipped over with the Joker in the front seat (I was surprised by this, given that it was shown in the trailer and we all had seen it before- but knowing that the Joker was in the cab made it altogether more dramatic). I sat, eyes open and completely silent, when he confronted Harvey in the hospital. In fact, on reflection I realise that during the whole film I was thoroughly disinterested in Batman, I was bored by Harvey (at least for the first half when I didn't realise what was happening to him). I sat, like everyone around me waiting for the Joker to come back onscreen and relieve us. The interesting thing, and just about the only satisfaction I got from this film, is that the appearance of the Joker did not relieve me. Instead of feeling glad he was in that scene, I felt nervous. I shifted uncomfortably in my seat wondering what he would do or say next. This frightful character who murders people at the drop of a hat. Who holds lives and fates in his hands, and only cares for anarchy. It was exhausting to watch. The Joker could be funny, even hilarious, and he could be dangerous. All the while, we watch the Joker circle death, play with death, even hand a gun to a man who fully intends to kill him. We see him get beaten to a pulp by Batman, laughing the whole time. We watch in horror at his apparent disregard for his own life. We watch, and we are drawn to it, and we cannot look away, because of course this all comes down to the parallel between the Joker and the man behind him. We are so drawn to the joker because he, like Heath, spiralled towards self-destruction.

That's why everyone is raving about this film. That is why this film is "so good". Had Heath not died, the Joker would not have held such an ominous presence onscreen. Yes, he acted well, yes the Joker was convincing, but I have seen better performances that slid by without Oscars or even nominations. I do not think so many people would by crying Oscar had Heath not died. This is demonstrated most poignantly in the scene when the Joker (though not actualy dead) is brought into a room in a body bag and we see a close-up of his face. The cinema went silent. I looked away from the screen. I noticed other people turning their heads or gasping in horror. That scene hit the nail on the head.

Wasted talent, and not just Heath's

Gary Oldman was shamefully wasted in this film. But he must be used to that after Harry Potter. What else? I was surprised by how upset I was that Rachel was blown to bits. I hadn't really expected that (although I suspected the joker had lied about the locations, I assumed on some level that someone would save her). I suppose that added something to the film, another level of nastiness. Which was definitely necessary, because this is not a film about a hero. It's a film about a man doing what needs to be done for the greater good. So yes, he f*cks up, he gets hurt, he crosses moral and legal lines, people hate him, but he, Batman, has to.

While I'm at it I may as well point out that Bale and Eckhart also get short changed here, and unfairly. This is 100% the Joker's film, but there were plenty of parts we could have done without. I thought the "sonar mobile phones", especially how they were used at the end in the fight scene, was insultingly silly and needless. This film was trying to be a more mature take on the comic book series, so why introduce silly technology and digress from the interesting plot? I'm sure there was another way they could have created a moral conflict between Batman and Fox. It was important for the plot to create something which Batman would have to do for the good of Gotham which went against decent morals. Other blogs have explored this plenty, so I shall move on. I do feel somewhat sorry for Bale, who is not only outshone in the script (Batman is to all intents and purposes a secondary character), but now after Heath's death he has lost the film to him completely. What a turnaround after the first film... Poor guy. He has no choice but to stand back and politely agree that Heath's death was a tragedy and this film was Heath's final masterpiece. No wonder he looked so p*ssed off and sallow at the premier.

The only other good thing about this film is Harvey Dent, played to perfection by Eckhart. I mentioned that I liked dark films- well, I really enjoy watching the darkness within everyday characters, watching "good" characters become dark. I like to see the bad side of our supposed heroes. This was superficially explored with Batman, of course in many ways that was the whole point of the film... The "Dark Knight"... But beating the Joker up in a police room, and throwing a man off a fire-escape so that he breaks his legs is not enough. Especially when Batman keeps talking in that ridiculous voice. OTT. Why didn't they fix that after the first film? With Harvey at least the storyline was developed a little more... The Joker, who "doesn't plan", has meticulously orchestrated from the start (although we, like Batman and everyone else, do not realise until it is too late) the steady downfall and descent into madness of the hero of Gotham... How quintessentially evil. How absolutely awful for Harvey and how fantastic to watch as our new Hero (a real man, fighting crime face to face in the courts, a decent guy with a family and normal life) falls and loses everything. How much more they could have developed this tragic storyline, possibly the most interesting part of the story (at least for me), in favour of however long we wasted jumping out of windows in China.

One final point. I enjoyed the finale with the two ships. I am a sucker for Derren Brown (don't fret, I will be making a post about him soon). I am completely intrigued by psychology. While I think the social experiment at the end was a little naïve and simplified (let's be honest, people would be beating sh*t out of each other to get the detonator or hysterically jumping overboard, or at the very least all talking to their families on their mobiles or capturing the drama with cameraphones), I couldn't help but think that this was the kind of thing Derren would be doing. If he were insane, that is. What a fantastic climax (although handled incorrectly in this film, so that somehow it just flops without suspense). I was sad in a way, to see the Joker proved wrong for once, but that is the curse of the "bad guy" I suppose. But what a wicked idea! What vastly superior fodder this was, compared to the usual offerings from Hollywood, especially in this genre (Spiderman 3 anyone?).

All things considered though, this film did not live up to its potential. Even the score, which is fantastic, missed the mark (some very dramatic scenes had no music at all, which in some places worked and other almost seemed like a mistake). It could have been so much more, and I was hoping for much more, and in the end I realise my expectations were probably too high for what is, in the end, yet another Hollywood comic book adaptation created purely to generate profit.

Oooh poor choice of words!

So that I don't go out on a total downer, I thought I would post one of my favourite lines in the film (followed by inexplicable lack of death on the part of Rachel, it seems everyone falls off skyscrapers in films these days and survives!). Enjoy!

To Heath.

Music of the day: Philip Glass

If you have iTunes, do a search in the store and listen to some of his stuff.

This is possibly his most famous piece of work, which, depending on your age, you may or may not have heard of.

Anyone who saw the film The Illusionist starring Edward Norton will be familiar with his skill at creating powerful movie scores. I'm desperate to get my mits on the soundtrack, but it's not for sale in the UK iTunes store, and I haven't seen it in ANY shops, so I'll have to buy it online at some point. Harumph.

Anyway, enjoy.

So... A little introduction is in order

Introduction to follow. All that needs to be said at the moment is that I'm a Ph.D. student studying stem cell research, who regularly wonders whether this was the correct career decision. I wonder what might of been had I followed my interest in art and creative writing... would I be happier?