The Death of the Black Hen

It was lucky I was at my desk or else I wouldn’t have seen them. Two foxes, big ones, and ahead of them flapping, hurtling, racing, mad as a damaged missile – the white hen. By the time I had unbolted the front door, they had had several seconds to continue their attack unimpeded. I was roaring monstrously, but far too slow to deal any damage – the foxes fled before I lay my hands on them. I chased them as far as the tall grass, but then I had to turn back.

The white hen was in the boiler room, buried in a corner with her back to the door. Perhaps she didn’t want to see her end if it was coming. Or perhaps she retained that childish notion that what she could not see, could not see her either. I picked her up and took her to the hen house, locking her in the enclosure. She was hurt, but less badly than I had thought. Her feathers littered the drive, but her attackers had not drawn blood.

I went to find the black hen.

I went through the garden, up and down the drive, and across the front lawn. I found feathers, a lot of them, on the path by the firepit. I found also the little hollow the foxes had made under the wire fence going into the undergrowth. I followed it, and as I advanced something moved ahead of me, retreated still further into the deep green darkness. But I came across a clearing covered in black feathers and I understood that I had come far too late.

Many of the pessimists whom I wrote about last week asked whether life was a good or a bad thing, all considered. One thought experiment they conducted was to ask who would be willing to live their life through again. The answer, they concluded sadly, was few of us. We may have plenty of pleasures and happiness in our time upon the earth, but when we consider the pains – grief, sorrow, illness – we find that they far outweigh the former in intensity, even if in quantity they may be evenly matched.

The girls

Our hens lived good lives. They had a huge area to roam, customers who did not insist on eggs – for neither myself nor my brother actually like them all that much – and food and water and love and warmth. Last year the smaller of the two black hens died of an illness, leaving us with just the big black one and the white one. And now the white one is all alone.

It’s funny the things that a death like this makes you think of. It’s funny really, that it can get to you at all. But I felt guilt, a lot of it, and still do in my way. Earlier that morning I had heard the hens, and I had thought then that it was simply the triumphant clucking of a successful egg-laying operation. But perhaps that had been a cry for help that I had missed.

When a friend visited, he told how all of his hens let him take them in his arms. Ours were much less affectionate. But still, you knew that they loved us. The white hen always let you stroke her if you insisted. And after the small black hen died the big black hen finally let us stroke her too.

More so than a pet, even, you feel a lot of responsibility for something like a hen. A cat or a dog has no real natural predators, at least in restive rural England. We cannot be at fault if an accident occurs because we have done our best. But with hens, it is a different matter. We could never have let them out, to begin with, we could have guarded them more carefully, and so on. Here, responsibility feels more firmly placed upon our shoulders.

Hens have personalities, you come to realise. Secretly, we’re glad that the white one survived because she is bossy boots and a real character. She is always bothering us. She comes and pecks my shins if her food is even a minute late in coming. She is always the most deranged, the wildest, and for all that the most human of the birds we had.

She survived a fox attack earlier in the year too. That was while I was away in Russia. She spent a week living in a little box on the side in the kitchen, and then went back to her business as normal. I am home alone, and boxes in the kitchen are beyond me, but I have brought her food and water, had various discussions and heart-to-hearts with her, and cleaned out her house. I even made her rice, which I was told is a particular delicacy among hens – and she ate the whole pan’s worth.

She limps now, but after a day spent hiding in the hen house, she now comes out into the larger hen run again and hobbles about. She is laying again and already talks. After the attack I was struck by how quiet she was – the only noise she made was terrible, heavy breathing. Understandable, given the circumstances, but so strange to hear coming from her when she is normally so chatty.

All this is to say that I was struck by how human she was. This is an obvious point, but still worth stating. In the relationship you have with these animals in your care they perhaps remain as animals – loved, but not quite fully human. And here the little hen was like a little child.

But the foxes were human too. This was the thing that shook me: the look in their eyes. There was something human about it, but not in any positive sense. We may, from Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr Fox or else cute pictures on the internet, assume that all foxes are rascals with hearts of gold. Like wolves, we may secretly admire them. But these two foxes had a look of hatred, human hatred, in their eyes, mixed with what can only be described as bloodlust. They hated me because I had arrived and driven them off and in doing so had deprived them of their kill. And although I am often annoying, never have I seen that look directed at me. Never have I felt the full force of another’s desire to see hurt come to me, never until then. It is not a feeling I’d like to feel again.

The white hen will recover. She is a fighter, after all. When I was talking about the attack with our gardener, she told me a story about another house she had worked on which also had hens and also was the site of a tragedy. In this place, the hens, about twenty of them, roamed on a field with a pond in the middle. They were rescue hens, taken from battery farms – jittery, nervous, and undersized creatures who have experienced more than their fair share of suffering. But one day two foxes got into their field too, and it was a massacre. Every single hen was slaughtered, all but one. As the others were being ripped and torn apart, she had gone to the pond and flown in. She had gone against her nature out of an instinct for survival that even the battery farms had not extinguished. In a way, it’s inspiring.

Looking particularly like a white onion in this one.

Schopenhauer has a famous example to illustrate the truth of his pessimism. He notes that “one simple test of the claim that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain… is to compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of the animal being devoured.” This is something we instinctively agree with (though as proof of pessimism it probably does not convince us), but I really felt its truth after saving the white hen. The fear, the terror of her eyes – and she had survived. How much more would the black hen have suffered, I can only guess. And all that for a tasty meal that would be forgotten soon enough. A soul extinguished for a full belly. The scales are not in balance, that’s for sure. But then again, neither the eater not the eaten is given much to philosophising. This is just nature at work.

The thought experiment, would you be willing to live your life again, is an old one. Nietzsche turned it around into a positive guide with his da capo (“let’s do it all again”) attitude, saying that the potential for eternally repeating your life should be the guide for how you live it. In the case of pessimists, they answered that we would not wish to live our lives again, and our certainty in this would only grow as we got older. Illness and grief are things the experience of which is simply too great, they argue, to let us want to see the other things. Mara Van der Lugt in her book, however, notes that the experiment uses a kind of sleight-of-hand. If asked whether we wanted to play our lives through exactly as they were, perhaps we would say no. But if we were asked whether we wanted simply to live again, then many more of us would say yes. No matter how well lived, our lives will always lack novelty to one who has already lived them. But a new life, with new pain and new joy, probably tips the scales towards life being something worth experiencing.

But still, would the hens choose to live again? Two or three years of roaming the garden, the drive, the fields, pecking at me and the ground, pestering the gardener and my mother, but ending up being literally ripped limb from limb. Would they choose that?

Our lives are unlikely to end in us being ripped limb from limb. But one thing that has stuck with me after the attack was how unnecessary violence is for us as human beings. We do not need to rely on the suffering of humans and other animals to get our food, our water, our clothing, and our shelter. That we do is simply a reflection of our generally inadequate attempts to build a better world. But still, it must be possible. Whereas for these wild foxes, at least for the moment, a reason not to eat our hens is not going to be forthcoming. All our feathered friends and we, their carers, can do is be extra vigilant.

When I went to see the white hen this most recent time, she was already racing to the door out from her hen run into the world, even with her limp. I have decided that she is no longer a symbol of a willingness to fight to live against the odds. Instead, dear readers, she is simply as thick as beans.

Three Years of Mostly About Stories – A Retrospective

Mostly About Stories is three years old, ish. I am a little proud of the number because I am good at giving up on things and I have not given up on this. I would be lying if I said writing a blog post had become a sort of habit to me. There have been weeks and weeks where I have done nothing, depleting old stores of posts. And there have been times when I have written many posts in one go, just because there was plenty to say. Until recently I had managed to post pretty much every week – it was a kind of unwritten rule with me that I would get one weekend off a month. And regardless of the machinery behind achieving that regularity, I am still chuffed about it.

Most good things come to an end, and I have to admit to myself that I need to change my approach to the blog to keep it running. That most terrible ghoul – one’s personal life – is beginning to get in the way.

This past year I finished my degree at Cambridge and after a few months dilly-dallying about in France and Switzerland and the US and Jordan, I finally got a job. Readers, I hope, will forgive me for the last part, because to the best of my knowledge there are not altogether many options for receiving money in regular and sizeable amounts other than these so-called “jobs”. Even murdering one’s relatives, a tried and tested method, is hampered by their ultimately limited numbers. And though I am not a gambler I am not interested in becoming one either.

Earlier this month I moved to Moscow to take up a job focusing on renewable energy and decarbonisation strategies in a Russian energy company. To a large extent, I am continuing my Cambridge degree by other means. The same cycle of reading, thinking, and reporting exists in both spaces. The only difference is that I now use PowerPoint instead of Word and my exams are all viva voce. My interest in making the planet a better place for all of us is a little less than my interest in great works of literature, but not insignificant either. Anyway, I believe that it would be a dereliction of my duty to others not to work in a way that has an impact on the world.

It is too soon to tell whether I will survive the job or explode like Thomas Buddenbrook. Either way, I have noticed already that I have considerably less time to read and write than I had previously, and this is a problem for the blog. One solution I considered long ago was simply to write about shorter things. In particular, given the blog’s name, I could simply write about short stories every time. This is a possibility. The shorter the work, the easier it is to dissect it, and probably the more interesting the blog post would ultimately be.

Another option is to do more generally thematic pieces, more considerations of a topic than anything else. The problem is that I am twenty-four years old and cripplingly aware that anything interesting on a topic has already been written and so I would rather not waste my readers’ time. Is there really much value in me selecting some obelisk-like word and riffing on it for a few pages? Montaigne could title an essay “on such-and-such” but can I? At school each weekend one had to write such essays – perhaps it’s a habit I should get back into. And, well, in truth much of what I write on this blog has been partly for myself and writing such essays would be good practice for me, after all.

Either way or indeed any of the other ways – more translations, more interludes into my own experiences (I liked the grape picking piece too) – I am not such a huge fan of the regular half-analytical half-descriptive half-homework-helpers half-entertainers that I have been putting out for these past three years, not anymore that is. I don’t want things to become routine and stale. But the terrible truth is that I have begun to notice repetitions in my own work. I don’t just mean the regular references to Conrad, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and so on. I am allowed to have favourites. What I mean is, I seem to be saying the same thing over and over again. Certain observations on the meaning of life and the difficulty of communication, for example, just keep coming up. And as the job and I do battle, I am only going to get more tired and more boring.

I do not like the academic criticism I have read, which is mostly soulless and dead. But there is something to be said for the highbrow prose that lives just on the edges of the academy, in fancy magazines I rarely read. Serious essays, things that require research not to make a point at a conference but as a dish requires spices – to make them a joy to consume. I read a book and maybe the introduction and write a post. This is a function of the time constraints I live in. But it forces me to rely on things inside myself, rather than stretching myself in new directions. Another option for me would be to write much less regularly, even monthly, but each time produce a properly researched piece that actually had something interesting to say.

The truth is, my first month in Moscow has been frightening. Not because of war fears and the pleasures of being treated as a migrant, though the former at least has made me lose sleep. No, what is frightening is that although I am only supposed to work from nine till six each day (and my colleagues log on half an hour later than that anyway), suddenly I find myself almost unable to read. Exhaustion, disorganisation, one can lay the blame on whatever one wants. But the situation is the same. I pick up books and put them down. The pleasure and the attention have gone. No doubt the onrush of routine and stability – because I still haven’t had a normal week yet – will help. And indeed, this past week has seen me read a little.

But from my perspective, I need Mostly About Stories to encourage my growth and development, rather than hinder them. I need it to be a place where I can follow my interests rather than one where I just repeatedly rip the surface contents of a book out in order to say the same things I’ve been saying for three years over and over again. It should not be an echo chamber for my own unchanging self. We all agree that serious literature is good because it rewards thought. My blog posts, generally written the two days after finishing a book, rarely manage to highlight that depth as well as I would like. And writing the posts often doesn’t make me think as much as I would like either.

What form the future of the blog will take I do not know. It will still mostly be about stories. But the posts will be less regular, less predictable in content and timings (though still on Mondays/Sunday evenings). The most important thing is that I would like to write about things that interest me. I would like the motivation for a piece to be not finishing a book but the thoughts that the book has occasioned within me. Three years is a long time, and I’m proud we have made it thus far. But as I am unable to complete a merger or acquisition, and refuse to outsource (though I am extremely grateful to my girlfriend, Marcelina, for helping me with proofreading and so much more) a change of pace will have to do to keep my content from getting stale. I hope you approve.

But do have your say and leave a comment on what you would like to see in posts and approach going forward. I have been really grateful for the additional engagement in my posts this year. This past year I have even had various book recommendations come my way (e.g. Anton Reiser, Riders in the Chariot), which I do note down but cannot promise in the near future to fulfil. Anyway, thank you, readers!


The numbers, for those who like them. In 2019, I had 4635 views, in 2020 I had 17960, in 2021 I had 35570. The most popular pieces continue to be those that are most useful for students – things on Benjamin, Kafka, Gogol, etc. But I am always glad to see more niche things get even a single view.

The books I enjoyed the most last year were Robinson’s Home and Sebald’s The Emigrants.

Big or Small? A Note on Book Sizes

Occasionally, we have serious discussions about the length of books. In the 19th century, when often people were paid by the penny, writers tended to write awfully long books. These days new fiction tends to hover around the three-hundred-word mark, or not even reach that. I myself rarely read a modern book that is longer willingly, unless I am sure I will enjoy it. But because I am busy with exams, I thought I would take a slightly simpler topic for this post, one that gets less attention, but which is still fun to think about – not the length of books, but the size of them!

I remember my surprise at first seeing a French book someone at school was reading – it was so small! I soon learned that what we have in the United Kingdom (and I presume, in the United States as well) is not a global book-size-format but rather, like the non-metric system we use, a size pretty much unique to us. Studying German and Russian I have been exposed to books of various sizes, including those academic books which for no good reason are bigger than everything else on my shelf – I am looking at you, Princeton University Press.

In general the books we find abroad are smaller than the ones we have here. German books from Fischer or dtv are only slightly smaller than their English translations would be, while the lovely little bright yellow Reclam editions are tiny! Russian books are more formulaic, at least if you are looking for literature, with Azbuka and AST the two main editions. However, I also have a few books from the “little library of masterpieces” series, which are about the same size as the Reclam books, but they are hardbacks and generally longer, being single-volume collected editions or long novels.

I have my final exams right now, so my desk is adorned with the books I will be writing about. On the left are my Russian books. You can see how much smaller they are then the Oxford World’s Classics Chekhov near the top. The blue book is my Gogol – it has all of his stuff in, pretty much, from the early Ukrainian tales, to the Petersburg tales, to Dead Souls and even his plays. Not half bad for such a small book!

What are the advantages and disadvantages of these smaller sizes? One of the clearest benefits is portability. You don’t tend to notice the size of your Penguins or Oxford World’s Classics until you try to put them in a jacket pocket. They do, of course, fit into rucksacks and satchels, but you will look rather silly if you try to put them anywhere else. A thick book will remain thick – or indeed, get thicker – when its size is reduced. But for those shorter books the added thickness is nothing compared to the convenience of actually being able to fit them in one’s pocket.

Short wordcount books look rather out of place in big-sized books as well. A hundred pages in an English-size book generally makes me feel cheated or ripped-off, but when the book is smaller, I tend not to mind. Indeed, the smaller size often allows for smaller texts to be given their own book. The Reclam editions are great for presenting readers with one or two novellas, where an English edition would no doubt demand a whole crowd of them. A small size, then, also helps us focus on what we are reading – it gives each story its due.

I feel more motivated to read smaller books too. Shorter books by wordcount motivate us because we get to finish them quicker. But books of a smaller size achieve the same effect by letting us turn the pages more. Anna Karenina is 1052 pages in my Russian edition, but because the pages were so short, I raced through it. And it was a confidence boost too – I felt like I was a master of Russian because of it! For those of us who are not masters at foreign languages deciphering a long page can often take several minutes – and be hugely demoralising – so smaller page sizes can offer a useful counterweight.

My modern German books. You can see how they are just slightly smaller than the English ones in the centre of the pile. Quite a few of these have appeared in past posts – Cat and Mouse, The Emigrants, Three Women, Some Mann, and Else.

Small books are definitely more suitable for certain types of content, too. The main thing that benefits from a smaller size is poetry. In England we do have the Faber “selected poems” series, and the Everyman poetry hardbacks, but mostly our poetry books are just as big as the rest. Has anyone actually read a poetry book cover to cover? I’ve read Leaves of Grass, my favourite book of poems, like that once and it was a dreadful experience. Poetry needs to be dipped into, and that demands a book size that can be carried with you until the right moment arises. That’s why I have two very small copies of Whitman’s Song of Myself. It lets me carry one around all the time, and then whip it out whenever inspiration strikes.

The main problem of smaller books is that they often also have smaller fonts. However, it’s worth noting that English books are guilty of having small fonts too, or even showing no respect to their margins. My copy of Penguin’s Portable Emerson is particularly guilty of this. German books, which are smaller than their English counterparts, often have larger font sizes than they do, something I very much appreciate. Russian books are more unpredictable on that front. In any case, when it is dark, or we are tired, it’s hard to be grateful for a shorter book when that shortness is achieved by making it harder to read.

My Schopenhauer. Chekhov for scale.

The Reclam editions are particularly bad for this. I have a love-hate relationship with them, truth be told. They are so convenient, so portable, but at the same time can be a real struggle to read. And I do find they look ridiculous when they contain big books – my copy of Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation is, at just over seven hundred pages, reasonably sized compared to some of the monsters I have, such as Heine’s collected poems, which go well over one thousand pages. With that kind of length, you often have the feeling that by the time you’ve actually reached the end of the book you’ll need a new pair of glasses.

In the end, though, I do come down firmly on the side of smaller books, even my Reclams. Their portability, and the increased page-turning , just makes reading them that bit more pleasant. I only wish they were written in English, but I suppose I must just get used to that not being the case! Now, there is one area where I think we in the English-speaking world are particularly lucky with our books, and that is in the notes and annotations which most of our serious literature comes with. The Germans are quite good at this as well, but the Russians are absolutely awful. Often their books don’t even have an introduction, let alone a set of notes. Some of my Russian poetry books don’t even have a table of contents! While I don’t always make use of them when they are there, I’d much rather have them than not.

Anyway, readers, how do you like your books? Rare, medium, well done? Big, or small, or somewhere in between?