From The Mind of Merc - Unicorns

Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics ad occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about unicorns and, more specifically, their inclusion in the bible.

My nan once told me that, when she read the bible, the description of a unicorn – rather than the mystical white equine creature of fantasy – sounded to her much more like a rhinoceros. This intrigued me - could a modern-day mythical animal have been created from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of a much more common (and well-known) beast? I decided to investigate further.

On consulting the text, the biblical unicorn is described as an animal that:
- Has great strength (Numbers 23:22) and ferocity (Numbers 24:8)
- Has a single horn (Deuteronomy 33:17, Psalms 92:10)
- Is not suitable for menial tasks or perhaps untameable (job 39:10)
All of which do not seem to sit with the delicate, ethereal creature with which the word is associated today.
It is also perhaps telling that at one point (Isiah 34:7) unicorns are mentioned in the same context as bulls and bullocks – thus implying that they are beasts of burden not beauty.

The overall impression given is that my grandmother was right – the description of the unicorn in the bible does not fit with the traditional image of the majestic, single-horned (and often winged) horse and instead could be more suitably applied to the more rugged, native African creature – the rhinoceros.

During my searches, I found another theory that exists relating to biblical unicorns which suggests that ‘unicorn’ refers to some kind of wild ox which is now extinct. This theory was developed in 1899 by Johann Ulrich Duerst and likens the biblical unicorn to the auroch – an ancestor of modern-day cattle. It is based on the supposition that the Hebrew word ‘re’em’ (from which the word unicorn is derived) is based on the word ‘rimu’ –the name given to the one-horned oxen depicted in Mesopotamian reliefs showing King Ashurnasirpal out hunting. However, the aforementioned reliefs are inaccurate and the animals being hunted are purportedly shown with one horn to depict the ‘beauty’ of their two horns being symmetrical – depictions of the same animals in Egyptian art show them with two horns and ergo they are not uni-corns.
Some supporters of the oxen argument claim that the creature referred to in the bible has two horns – using references to ‘the horns of a unicorn’ rather than ‘the horns of unicorns’. However, even if this two horn theory is correct, it does not disprove the association of rhinoceroses and unicorns given that not all rhinoceroses have one horn – there are also the two-horned Bicornis –natives of Asia and Africa.*

The association of Duerst’s theory (and some modern translations) of unicorns with oxen could perhaps be explained when looking at the evolution of the rhinoceros – artistic impressions of the prehistoric manifestations of these creatures do not look like our current incarnations with their supposed furry bodies, exaggerated size, and placement of their renowned horn being much higher up on their heads. However, the transformation from these to their modern-day counterparts can be seen in the development of their skulls – from elasmotherium sibiricum (also known as the Siberian Unicorn) through the sinotherium lagrelii to hispanotherium matritense and rhinoceros unicornis.
Also, almost contemporary images of the re’em - such as that in the floor mosaic in the Basilica of San Giovanni Evangelista – match more closely with that of an antecedent rhinoceros than cave paintings of aurochs –i.e. both creatures that would have been around in and known to those of the biblical era and yet clearly distinguished (in depictions) from each other. 

Further investigation revealed a pre-existing association between biblical unicorns and rhinoceroses as in the original printing of the King James Bible, in 1611, in Isiah 34:7 when the word unicorn is used there is reportedly a footnote that says: “or rhinoceros”.
Also, the Douay-Rheims Bible (which precedes the King James Version) uses the word rhinoceros. As does the Latin Vulgate Bible – published c.400AD: “fortitudo similis est rinocerotis”. Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 even goes so far as to define ‘unicorn’ as: “An animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros”

This suggests the words were in fact interchangeable and hence why some versions use one and some the other and proves conclusively the perceptiveness of my grandmother in identifying the unicorn of biblical record as being none other than the cumbersome, ferocious, one-horned beast often found (although, regrettably, increasingly less so) in Africa and Asia.


* Even if the word re’em and rimu are linked it could be that the oxen were labelled rimu to heighten the impression of the beauty of their horn symmetry. Or they might have been incorrectly labelled as rimu as they were believed – from the image - to have one horn.

The Alternative Mermaid sketch - Mercorabilia

Today I thought I'd put pen to paper (or rather finger to keyboard) to write up the alternative ending to Disney's The Little Mermaid that I'd previously come across. It's so simple! And obvious! Although it would have condensed the film quite considerably.
This much in fact:

Ursula: Oh - and there is one more thing. We haven't discussed the subject of payment. You can't get something for nothing, you know.

Ariel: But I don't have any -

Ursula: I'm not asking much. Just a token, really, a trifle. You'll never even miss it. What I want from you is . . . your voice.

Ariel: My voice?

Ursula: You've got it, sweetcakes. No more talking, singing, zip.

Ariel: But without my voice, how can I -

Ursula: You'll have your looks! Your pretty face! And don't underestimate the importance of body language! Ha!
[singing] The men-

Ariel: Alright - deal.

Ursula: Do you mind? I was in the middle of my favourite number!

Ariel: Well, I do have a prince to catch.

Ursula: Fair enough. Sign here.

Ariel signs contract with faint smile on her lips.
Ursula: Paluga, sarruga, come winds of the Caspian Sea.
Now rings us glossitis and max laryngitis,
La voce to me!
Now . . . sing!

Ariel: [Sings.]

Ursula: Keep singing! 

Giant magical hands rip out Ariel's voice and take it to Ursula who stores it in her shell necklace. She laughs as Ariel is changed into a human and rushed to the surface by Flounder and Sebastian.

Fade to beach. Eric and Max are walking near castle.

Eric: [Playing flute.] That voice. I can't get it out of my head. I've looked everywhere, Max - where could she be? 

Max smells Ariel and gets excited.

Eric: Max? Huh . . . what, Max!

Max chases Ariel up onto a rock.

Eric: Max . . . Max - Quiet Max! What's gotten into you fella? [Sees Ariel.] Oh . . . Oh, I see. Are you O.K., miss? I'm sorry if this knucklehead scared you. He's harmless, really - . . . you . . . seem very familiar . . . to me. Have we met?

Ariel nods

Eric: We have met? I knew it! You're the one - the one I've been looking for! What's your name? 

Ariel mouths "Ariel" but no words come out.

Eric: What's wrong? What is it? You can't speak? 

Ariel shrugs.

Eric: Oh. Then you couldn't be who I thought. 

Ariel is trying to get his attention and mimes writing on her hand.

Eric: What is it? You want… you want something to write on? O-ok. Give me a minute.

Eric ferrets through his pockets and pulls out a scrap of paper and a stub of pencil

Eric: Here you go.

Ariel grabs the proffered instruments and begins to scribble away as best she can while Eric watches bewildered. After a while Ariel appears to get frustrated - what she wants to say won’t fit on the paper. She angrily crosses out what she’s written, turns the paper over and tries again. Once finished, she hands the paper to Eric who reads aloud.

Eric: “I am the one who saved you from the shipwreck. If you kiss me, I can prove it.” Oh. Oh, cool. Well, if it’s alright with you, miss.

Ariel nods – yes, it’s definitely alright with her. Eric leans forward and the two of them kiss.

Deep under the sea, Ursula’s shell necklace begins to glow.

Ursula: What the-? It can’t be.

The shell explodes and Ariel’s voice bursts out of it – singing the tune Ariel sang as it was taken - and rises to the surface; evading Ursula’s attempts to recapture it. It bursts out of the waves and heads straight for Ariel. Eric seems to recognise it. The ball of light collides with Ariel’s throat and Ariel’s voice is restored. Eric is stunned.

Ariel: Eric.

Eric: It really is you.

Ariel: I told you so.

Eric: Will you marry me?

Ariel: Of course.

Cut to: Eric & Ariel’s wedding ship leaves port. The merfolk rise up to wave her off. Ursula appears above the waves a short distance

Ursula: That little tramp.

Triton, who is a floating in front of Ursula, turns and sees her. His expression darkens and he raises his trident.

Ursula: Oh sh-

Triton: Ursula, stop!

Triton fires his trident and Ursula explodes into pieces. Satisfied, Triton turns back to watch the ship sail away.

Sixth Sense Sketch - Mercorabilia

A short one today.

Cole: I want to tell you my secret now.

Dr. Crowe: Okay.

Cole: I see dead people.

Dr. Crowe: Where?

Cole’s hand emerges from under the covers holding a TV remote which he points at a set across the room. The TV turns on to show a very old programme whose cast have all passed away.

Cole: There!

From The Mind of Merc - Hairdressers

Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics and occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about hairdressers.

I rarely, if ever, frequent hairdressers. I just don’t like them and I don’t enjoy the experience. This is for several reasons. One is that – despite several attempts – I have never been able to relax in their chair. Secondly, the cost is fairly prohibitive. Thirdly, and above all, of the half dozen or so ‘professional’ haircuts I have had, there has only been 1 I have been completely happy with. That’s it – 1 out of 6. That means on at least 5 occasions (as there may be times where I have gone to a hairdressers but have blocked the experience from my memory) I have come out feeling unhappy, dissatisfied and, in some instances, on the verge of tears (which is then aggravated by having to pay for the travesty that has been inflicted).
I’ll give you some examples – last year I had my hair cut off for Cancer Research. At the time it reached down to my waist and I asked for it to be cut off and styled in a pixie cut with a sweeping fringe. What I came out with was an asymmetric cut which had neither a sweeping fringe nor was of pixie length. (I had to go to a friend of my mum’s to get something even remotely like what I had asked for).
At my most recent cut – for which I frequented a hairdresser favoured by my mum who was eager for me to ‘neaten’ the straggly parts of my hair (a notion which I did not object to) – I came out with the straggly parts duly trimmed but also with subtle ‘adjustments’ to the front of my hair which included the parts further back being shorter than those in front creating an almost inverted v shape on either side of my head (if that makes sense – it certainly did not make for a satisfied customer).

I think the main cause of this is the fact that the majority of hairdressers have become ‘trendy’ - they focus on styles or cuts which are fashionable (often at the expense of the traditional, plain or downwardly popular). Now for the fashion-obsessed minorities, this is probably ideal (however unfortunate the outcome may be). For the rest of us it is at best inconvenient and at worst a complete nightmare as this means that what they will give you is - not the haircut you want but - the haircut they think you should have.
This Is Wrong.
It is my hair – I know what I do and don’t want done to it. I am the one who has to walk around with the result visible to all. If I ask for my hair to be chopped off and be given a pixie cut, I do not expect to be given an asymmetric trim with considerable length left in it. If what I am asking for is not suitable for me – fine – then I will learn from my mistake but it should be my choice to make.
(There is also of course the connected issue of why their ability to cut hair means they will know what will suit their client. It may be said/thought to go with the job but I know of so many instances when that has proven not to be the case.)

Also, I think another reason is that, as many people frequent hairdressers, the hairdressers themselves have an expectation that any haircut they give does not have to be long-lasting or low maintenance. 
This is also wrong.
I am paying for A (singular) Haircut – not signing up for a hairdressing regime on which I am being forced to become dependent based on a) my lack of hairdressing skills or b) the inability of the business to give the customer what they want.
Not only is this unfair it is also infuriating – we should not be forced to repeat our unsuccessful custom especially when we have previously learned that this unlikely to result in us getting what we want or asked for.
(Given the so-called skill of these people) I should be able to get a haircut that is easily managed (or better yet requires little to no maintenance), matches what I asked for and what I want, and does not cost the earth. That is what would encourage me to return.
Also, as stylists are now creating ‘home brands’ which are designed to enable people to get ‘salon quality at home’ we should not be faced with barbers who seem to have the opposite intent.

But maybe I’m alone in this. Maybe I am one of a very few minority rather than those who do regularly frequent hairdressing salons and do come out with a haircut they wanted and/or asked for and therefore do not face this issue. But I can only speak from my experience.

What I struggle to understand is why it is so crazy to expect a hairdresser to dress YOUR hair in the way in which YOU want? It’s as if all hairdressers yearn to take part in elaborate and exotic hairstyling shows and the monotony and banality of the basic requests of their customers leads them to rebel in the only way they know how by attempting to add their own spin on these simple demands.
If this is the case then I feel they should stick to Girl’s World dolls and leave our own tresses blissfully unmolested. (Especially when they then want us to pay for what has been done to us).

I remember recently there was an advert in which restaurant patrons were invited to pay only what they thought their meal had been worth. The idea was to prove how cheap the vendor they were advertising was but oh, how I wish we could do that with hairdressers.
We should not have to put up with (and definitely not have to pay frankly ridiculous sums) for something which we did not and do not want, is irreversible (it is only through time and patience that the travesty inflicted on us can be eradicated), and affects our everyday lives. They see us for 30-40 minutes – everyone else sees us until it eventually grows out. 

It is our hair – it should be our decision and our choice.