Fearful Asymmetry
Comments: 9
I don’t know who has an immortal hand in this, or eye toward the effects, but nature, as someone once said, seems to abhor symmetry. I’m certainly not a very symmetrical creature, but a nose broken in late childhood is the only generally obvious manifestation of nature’s abhorence as the numerous subtler inconsistencies tend to vanish in the corona of my dazzling presence. At least until the measurements are taken.
Last summer I bought new eyeglasses and their fitting turned into a greater drama than the usually terrible and humiliating selecting of the frames. It was a job for two people: the poor woman who began the delicate task of “eyepoint placement” eventually gave up and called for help. Not only is one eye a tiny blink higher than the other, but my ears are a semitone off. Factor in the broken nose and you’re running calculations that could place a probe on a distant moon, only in eyepoint placement you have to do it twice.
Then later in the year I finally bought a pair of Shure E5c headphones. They’re in-ear phones and come with a selection of earbuds in different sizes and materials. My left ear canal is slightly larger than my right one (and prefers a different material). Luckily they seem to like the same music.
Omitting the more traditional asymmetries of the middle regions and continuing south, there’s disturbing news from the feet. Roger of the Athlete’s Foot I visited recently in Australia tells me that one foot is a size larger than its partner, its length of arch 13 compared to the smaller’s 12, and its width A/B to C/B, whatever that means. Are you sure?, I asked him, but he just nodded. The results come from the “universally accepted Brannock foot measuring device” which never lies.
This strikes me as very strange because I’ve never once in my life suspected that my feet are different sizes. The shoe on one foot has always felt like the shoe on the other foot. If I sit on the floor and put my soles together, I’m heel to heel and toe to toe. Which makes me wonder: what other eager reminders of the general disappointment of the flesh lurk on my physiology, patiently awaiting discovery?
Herbert Badgery, the 136-year-old hero of Illywhacker by Peter Carey, introduces himself at the beginning of the book by telling us how doctors come to study him, and giving us a list of the ways his body is falling apart. He says, “I think I’m growing tits.” Longing for death, he decides to stay around “to see what my horrible old body does next.”
I think I know how he feels. Surely there’s a little bit of Herbert Badgery in everyone.
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2005.01.15 (Sat) • 14:07
Comments
Posted by Steve Hubbard 2005.01.15, 22:17
Two points about your posting.
First, it’s not uncommon for people to have different foot sizes. In fact, I’d say it’s more common as everytime I buy shoes I get asked “which is your larger foot?” And, like your good self, I’ve one that is size 12 and the other 12.75 - unfortunately.
My second point - more of a question really. What’s your impression of the Shures? I’m stuck between them (E3) and the Etymotics (6i).
Posted by Jeff 2005.01.16, 03:14
Jeremy, Herbert Badgery would not be surprised to discover that, as we age, our feet get bigger (let’s leave our growing noses and ears for another time). The ligaments “relax” and so we require slightly larger shoes.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out one of my feet is larger than the other. However, I was shocked to discover the new shoes I had just bought (identical in brand, style, and size to my worn-out but favorite Eccos) were too small. While I used to take a 43 in this shoe, I now required a 44. Luckily, the store gladly exchanged them a week later.
I hate buying shoes. You never know if they will ever “break in” and be as comfortable as you would like.
Posted by Matthew Aaron 2005.01.16, 05:53
Nature abhors symmetry? Do you really think so? Look at the shape of your body. And of trees, leaves, and seastars. I see a huge amount of symmetry in nature.
I do, however, see your point. Imperfection and variation are as abundant in nature as its patterns. Such is the nature of nature.
Posted by Evan Jones 2005.01.17, 05:45
I’ve lost track of how I found your blog. You were on someone’s good example list, I suspect. Anyway, it’s one of my regular stops now. I wish to quibble over the use of “physiognomy” in this post. It refers to the face, not the body as a whole. You may have meant physiology. If that is so, perhaps you could just change the word and delete this comment. Otherwise, my compliments on a very interesting blog.
Posted by jh 2005.01.17, 08:23
Evan —- I cavalierly went with definition 4 from dict.org, but you’re right to point this out: physiology is better.
Posted by em 2005.01.17, 13:39
im also more (out of/in) line with those apects related to optical devices for my cranium and particularly every time i purchase new corrective lenses. they always appear fine at the merchant after their whole straightening, nipping, tucking procedure….but the moment i leave this symmetrical domain the frames always fit lopesided, awkward and completely anti-symmetrical… a most baffling mystery?
Posted by jh 2005.01.17, 22:05
Steve —- I’m extremely pleased with the E3. I’m hearing things I’d never heard before in pieces of music I thought I knew well. Some listeners have said that the high-end response isn’t as bright as it could be, but I disagree (I don’t favour overly bright treble, but even ignoring this I think most people would be pretty happy with the clarity and colour at that end). They definitely help channel separation and have a very nice placement; not roomy, but you feel like you could happily walk through it.
If this is what the E3 are like, then the E5 must be fantastic. With one caveat that I’m sure you know all about: in-ear phones are prone to amplifying knocks and rubbings of the cable, transmitting them to the ear as dull thuds and murmurs. It can be a bit like being at a great performance with a lousy audience when you get a big zipper rub along the cable, and the E3’s cable is thick and heavy. These phones are not for jogging (or even walking, for that matter) unless you’re well secured.
I don’t know what the Etymotics are like in this respect, but I recall reading one review that mentioned the effect.
While the E3 are perfectly tolerable for commutes and relatively stationary use, it’s the general phenomenon of transmitted impact noise that stopped me paying more for the E5: if they’re that much better than the E3, my worry was that impact noise would suddenly seem a monstrous irritation in the hushed auditorium of their more perfect sound.
Posted by Meredith 2005.01.18, 08:42
I am drawn to the asymmetry in a face much more so than a body. A scar or birthmark on one side unmatched by wrinkles and a downward turned lip on the other makes for some sort of comfort. The comfort of imperfection that promises us that we’re all more or less in the same boat.
I dig your Carey quote. I once named my cat after one of his character’s from The Horse’s Mouth. Jimson. Oops, wrong Carey. Joyce Carey.
Posted by Katia 2005.05.21, 05:54
I notice more and more how asymmetrical I am. I knew my eyes are different since a young age (one is slightly smaller) but then realised one leg is longer and one hip bone is lower. The whole right side of my body’s bone structure is actually smaller than the other, even my skull. I know this as an osteopath pointed it out. The thing is, no one else notices unless they’re actually looking for it, to me it becomes more and more obvious and I have a complex. I still find it very interesting though. Buying glasses is useless as they are wonky (due to resting on assymetrical ears)
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
