Did the PhD Kill the Masters Degree?

 Should you do a MS or a PhD? Does it matter?
And why is the Master’s becoming more rare as an option?

Over the years I’ve been in Academia, I have seen the number of students completing Master’s degrees dwindle steadily. I think this is a bad thing from the viewpoint of student development–but it is understandable as something driven by market forces and the structure of tenure.

A Master’s degree is intended to do two things: to prepare you to be a professional in a disciplinary field, and to learn how the tools of that field are used to solve problems.   Master’s come in lots of different sizes and flavors; they may or may not complete a research thesis, and sometimes complete a practicum.   A Master’s does not always have to lead to a PhD; in the past it was viewed as a terminal degree in its own right.

A PhD is a long research apprenticeship in which a student is expected to create new knowledge, including creating new tools and techniques and broadening the knowledge base of a field.  PhD students are expected to perform original research with minimal supervision.  It is not meant to be vocational or career-related training, as I have addressed elsewhere.

The problem is…over time a lot of things have changed from that basic system.
Somehow, a PhD and an academic professorial job became the only acceptable choice.   For both MS or PhD graduates, taking a job in “the real world” is seen as “selling out” or “settling.”  Even though the vast majority of people with graduate degrees work outside of Academia, there is an odd bit of denial on the part of faculty about that fact.

Master’s degrees are described in a lot of really revealing ways by academics:  as a “consolation prize” for students who can’t finish their PhD program. Students who just want a Master’s are told “You are smart enough for a PhD”, or that “you can’t get a job with just a Master’s.”  You see the implication here?

Less than.

Our current model of PhD student training produces Doctorates that are trained for jobs that….don’t really exist anymore.  Very few PhDs are going to be a professor at a Tier I research institution (and, fewer and fewer PhDs *want* to do that as a career!).   So, if what is needed by employers are people that understand research, but are primarily problem-solvers, that’s a pretty good description of a Master’s.

The Professional Masters of Science is a new program that is career-oriented, and breaks away from the traditional PhD/Thesis model of academia.  It combines business classes and leadership training with advanced coursework in a particular science or math discipline and project-based research.  For someone that wants to work in industry or government, it’s a great choice. A Master’s should not be looked down upon, but valued as a different path with value of its own.

Why is there such a push to skip the Master’s and go direct to a PhD? 

Simple return on investment.  Faculty get more return for their time and money on a PhD Student.  Master’s students do not produce as many papers as PhD students (or PostDocs). Their work on practicums won’t count as evidence of productivity for tenure and promotion.  Because Master’s projects typically run 2 years, they aren’t as fundable by national agencies (NSF, NIH) as a PhD.

You can pay a Master’s student’s tuition and living costs with a Teaching Assistantship, but that still leaves the issue of funding their research.  That can be a considerable expense, especially for the hard sciences.   Masters just don’t fit into the Grant/Publishing cycle that we now use to evaluate and run academia.

Right now, most students entering science graduate schools are routed directly into PhD programs.  Think about that for a moment.  At the age of 21—often with no employment experience outside academia—students will chose the research topic that will set the primary focus of their future research career.

Your PhD dissertation is your first major branding statement as a new professional:  “Bug Girl works on female-female competition in pheromone systems.”   That’s been true for me for over 20 years, and directly relates to what I did my dissertation on.  You had better make a good topic choice, because that dissertation is the base upon which you launch your career.

From a student-centered perspective, the Masters First –> PhD Second Path makes WAY more sense than direct to PhD from a Bachelors.  A Master’s lets a student complete a smaller thesis project, and learn HOW research is done, from planning to communication.  They know more about the field, the top players, and the hot topics than they did as an undergraduate.  When it’s time to make that choice of dissertation advisor and topic, it will be a more informed choice.

A Master’s can be a really important first step towards stretching a student’s research legs, if you will.  We are asking them in a PhD program to run a science marathon. Why would we not want them to go into training ahead of that event?

So–how do we balance what is good for the student, and what is good for the faculty mentor?  I don’t have an answer, unfortunately, and as long as funding for universities is in flux, I expect faculty will continue to route students toward PhDs.

For some undergraduates who were involved in undergraduate research, this isn’t a big deal.  I work with students that are smarter than me all the time.  Those kids will go straight to a PhD and be fine.  But not all students–for many different reasons–have the experience or confidence to jump straight into a PhD program.  There are many worthy students that need a little extra time and patience to grow as scientists.

My own Master’s degree was one giant string of research disasters, and yet somehow I still produced a useful bit of science that helped reduce the number of pesticide sprays on a fruit crop. I also had quite a few existential research crises that led me to try to drop out of graduate school at least 4 times, and each time my thesis advisor patiently talked me down.  I would never have made it as a straight-to-PhD student.

When I did get to the PhD program, I had grown enough confidence to take the project I was initially offered in a whole new direction after my first year’s preliminary data.  I had the courage to push back against my advisor and committee–and I’m really glad I did, because I found some cool stuff that was MINE in a way that would never have happened if I hadn’t gained confidence in myself by doing a Master’s first.

Academia is a world where your research is your identity (and your value).  It’s important to make a good choice, and an informed choice. You can do a better job of that if you’ve completed a Masters, IMHO.

And let’s stop talking about a Master’s degree as a sign of failure, and value it as a career-building step.  Not everyone has to follow the same path for the path to be a good one.

Bug Girl’s Graduate School Series:

• How are Undergraduate and Graduate School Different
• Should you do a PhD?
• What to look for in a mentor and a graduate department

External Resources:

• Questions to ask when thinking about a PhD
• 20 Questions to ask a graduate program you’re considering
• The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research
• No, You’re Not an Imposter
• The PhD Factory

Stuff the ballot box….with ants!

Mark Moffet is up for a Labby award for this video.  Go vote!

The weaver ants of Angkor Wat Cambodia are a local delicacy, and Mark attempts to get some tourists to sample them.  Warning: contains puns.

Choosing a Graduate Program and Advisor

While data are incomplete, estimates put the number of people who enter graduate school, but don’t complete a degree, around 44%. Let’s ponder that for a moment.

Nearly half of students admitted to PhD programs, some of the smartest and most motivated folks on the planet, will leave their program without a PhD.

Not a lot of research exists on why students leave graduate school, but what data there are suggest that about 30% of students “drop out” in the first two years of grad school.  They generally seem to leave for one of three reasons:

• Their graduate program wasn’t right for them
• Their advisor wasn’t right for them
• The life of a graduate student wasn’t right for them

I wrote earlier about having the right motivation for deciding to go to graduate school, and how that will improve your experience.

In this post I’ll give you some advice on how to try to identify programs and advisors that are good matches for your interests so you can get what you came for.  If you can make an informed choice about the three factors listed above, your odds of completing your degree in a timely fashion should go up.  More importantly, you will enjoy getting your degree a lot more, and will get more out of it!

Choosing a program: Dollar Bill, Ya’ll

Ok, maybe Coolio isn’t the first thing that pops into your mind when you think about graduate school. But he’s right that money makes a difference; and the good news is that as a graduate student in the sciences, you should be offered a graduate assistantship of some sort, which comes with a stipend.  In exchange for that money, you’re supposed to work for 20 hours/week as either a teaching or research assistant.

You also usually receive a tuition waiver so that you don’t have to pay out of state tuition.  Let me repeat that, since it is something that a lot of students let limit their choices.  Most graduate students are offered an in-state tuition waiver, or total tuition waiver, as part of their graduate stipend.

There is a lot of variation in how much additional support graduate students receive; some get full employee health care benefits, some don’t.  If possible, get information about the financial support you’ll receive in writing.  A lot of students struggle with financial issues in graduate school; 80% of students surveyed in a doctoral completion project said that financial support was key to their success. When evaluating graduate programs, ask questions about money!

Choosing a program: Go Forth and Network

Many graduate programs will pay you to fly out and visit if you are a student they are interested in–or at the very least, they will find you a free place to stay when you visit.   The single most important thing you can do on a visit to a prospective graduate program is to talk to current graduate students. They will tell you the truth about what the climate in the department is like for graduate students, how well grad students are integrated into the life of the department, and what it’s like to live in that area.

It is especially important for students of color and women to check out the departmental climate. Multiple studies have found that these groups have a tougher time in predominantly male, white departments.  This is why in-person visits to departments are critical. Your mentor doesn’t need to look exactly like you for you to be successful; but you do need to feel like you’ll be treated equitably and that you are welcome.  You can best assess the departmental climate for yourself with a visit.

A new trend in many lab science departments is to have “rotations.”  Students are admitted to the department, but don’t have to pick a thesis advisor right away.  They go on a round-robin visitation cycle where they spend 10 weeks or so in different labs they are interested in joining.  This is a great way to learn more and really see the management style of someone before you commit yourself to 6 years with them.  Make sure to ask if this is an option.

Choosing a research advisor (and thesis topic)

The relationship you have with your PhD advisor will be one of the single most important relationships you will have in your life, both professional and personal. It will last longer than most marriages.  Just like getting married, don’t commit to a PhD advising relationship without putting some time and thought into it!

A recent paper surveyed graduate students to find out what they thought was an ideal graduate advisor. Here’s the (condensed) list:

• Creates structure for labs, meetings, and communication
• Offers support regardless of student’s career choices
• Makes time for students
• Sets high standards
• Increases challenges as students develop
• Doesn’t let students flounder
• Encourages independent thinking and work
• Encourages attending conferences, writing papers and grants
• Reflective of one’s own advising style.

That last bullet is the kicker; you need to know something about yourself and how you like to work to be able to make a good choice of an advisor.  How do you like to be managed? Hands-off or hands-on?  Do you need to have deadlines set for you, or can you work without them?  What environments have been successful for you in the past? Getting a sense of the work style of your potential advisor is critical.

Once again, visit and talk to potential advisors in person. Then, talk to their graduate students and post-docs.  Use the characteristics I listed above to frame your questions for the students to get a read on the faculty member’s management style (or lack thereof).

Academics talk about “pedigrees” of graduate students as though they were prize show dogs.  Who your “academic sire” is carries a lot of weight.  There are a lot of good reasons to choose a big name; there are a lot of equally good reasons to not choose someone who is famous.   Usually it’s a tradeoff.  The big dogs have big labs with lots of students, post-docs, and money.  You may not get a lot of face time with Dr. Big, but you will be in an environment that has a lot of activity and opportunities.  The shiny aura of Dr. Big may help open doors for you later….but it’s also possible that people think Dr. Big is a tool. Not everyone who is famous is also well-loved.

On the other hand, if you want a slower, more personal experience, choosing a less well known faculty member might be a better choice for you.  Funding may not be as abundant, but if you know that you want  a more supportive, structured experience, smaller can be better.  The importance again is on gathering as much information as you can so you can make a good decision.

Making the decision to become a Grad Student

Once you’ve done all the things I’ve told you to do above:  Listen To Your Gut.
(Sorry that I don’t have a quantifiable formula for this decision, but guts seem to do a very good job of helping you sort things out.)

If you talked to an advisor, and they seem nice, but for some reason you’re hesitating….Listen to that.
Is this someone you can work with for 6 years? (average time to a PhD)
Is this someone who will help you transition out of being a student and into a working professional?
Is this someone who will take your phone call 5 years after you’ve graduated and need advice about a job offer?

You also want to be excited about your proposed dissertation topic or area.  If your response to a proposed research topic is “Meh”….listen to that too.

I like PhD Comics (Piled Higher and Deeper), but I think his take on graduate school is awfully pessimistic.  There is a lot of truth there, though.   You’ll have ups and downs.  Make sure that you distinguish between the funny feeling in the pit of your stomach that says “OMG I’m about to start something huge” and the kind that says “OMG working with this faculty member will be a disaster.”

It’s normal to feel a little pants-staining terror at the prospect of 6 years of hard work.  But it should also inspire you and excite you, because you will uncover new knowledge that no one in the world but you knows.

Other posts in Bug Girl’s Graduate School Series:

• Should I do a PhD?
• How undergraduate and graduate school are different
• PhD -VS- Masters

External Resources:

• Questions to ask when thinking about a PhD
• 20 Questions to ask a graduate program you’re considering
• The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research
• No, You’re Not an Impostor
• Why your mentor sucks (and how to fix it)

Citations:

Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2008). The “Ideal Type” Advisor: How Advisors Help STEM Graduate Students Find Their ‘Scientific Feet’ The Open Education Journal, 1 (1), 49-61 DOI: 10.2174/1874920800801010049
Ülkü-Steiner, B., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Kinlaw, C. (2000). Doctoral student experiences in gender-balanced and male-dominated graduate programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2), 296-307 DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.2.296

Call for papers: Insects in Pop Culture, Art, and Music

Oh, this is going to be really cool! You might remember Jennifer Angus–I’ve covered her work before here. Amazing art work using dried insect specimens.

I just discovered there will be a special issue of Insects (ISSN 2075-4450), an open-access journal.  Edited by Angus!

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 August 2011

Get Busy!

From the Submission Letter:

Dear Colleagues,

Children’s literature is populated with wonderful six legged characters such as the insect companions in Roald Dahl’s James and the Giant Peach or the fabulously glamorous cockroach in La Cuchuracha Martina based on a Caribbean folk tale. In fact, what is considered the first children’s story in the English language which was not a moral tale or fable is The Butterflies Ball and The Grasshoppers Feast by William Roscoe dating from 1808. In the Victorian era, both adults and children were introduced to the natural world through a large number of educational publications in which insects were anthropomorphized so as to have greater appeal to the general reading public. Voracious collecting of all manner of plant and wildlife was extremely popular at that time.

However in this millennium, an adult’s worry of insects extends to serious diseases such as West Nile Virus, dengue fever and malaria. In fact there is a certain hysteria, as insects culturally are a sign of dirtiness and disease in the Western world.

Currently many artists play on the public’s intense dislike of insects. For example American Catherine Chalmers’ gigantic photographic portraits of cockroaches in domestic settings repulse many viewers.  Yet other artists’ use of insects amazes and inspires. In 2002, Belgian Jan Fabre decorated the 19th-century Hall of Mirrors of the Brussels Royal Palace and the central chandelier with the elytra of a million Asian jewel beetles.

This issue is devoted to exploring insects in art, music and literature.

Prof. Jennifer Angus 
Guest Editor

It’s National Pollinator Week!

Once again, It’s time to celebrate the little animals that…facilitate plant sex by moving plant sperm around.

I’ve discovered over time that a lot of people don’t actually know what pollination is, other than it’s something that’s needed to get fruit. That’s certainly true; apples, bananas, blueberries, melons, peaches, pumpkins, almonds, and a whole bunch of other plants need to be pollinated for us to get the food we like.

That’s the what of pollination.  But the WHY seems to be left out.  Plants need lovin’ too, and the options for them to get their freak on are somewhat limited.  It’s tough to “throw a leg over” when you don’t actually have any legs.

Pollination = sex for plants.  There. I’ve said it.

Sure, you can toss your pollen out on the wind and hope it lands in the right place.  And for a lot of plants, evergreens in particular, this works just fine.   Most spring days my car looks like there was a pine tree bukakke fest.

That methodology results in a lot of wasted gametes (plant sperm) though, so for nearly all flowering plants, insects or other pollinators are needed for plant nookie.   Think of bees and other pollinators as little flying plant wangs.

Most flowers contain both male and female sexual parts, and while plants can self-pollinate, it’s a lot more enjoyable productive to have a second (or third…or fourth…) party involved. Cross-pollination also reduces inbreeding.

Plants attract insect pollinators with lovely colorful displays, special smells, and gifts of nectar or extra pollen that makes a nice snack. And in return plants receive a sort of sexual courier service.  This partnership has been going on for over 100 million years, and has resulted in amazing modifications in both plants and animals.

Without pollinators, some of the finest things in life would not exist:

Chocolate.
Coffee.
Tequila.

All brought to you by a bug-facilitated bonk.

The Xerces Society has many free and wonderful publications on how to plant habitat for pollinators. Why not check those out and establish a horizontal hula zone in your backyard?  And don’t forget to give your sweetheart a bouquet of plant genitalia.

Malaria: Visually charting our progress

When I was looking up something for last week’s rant, I discovered this map, which shows the progress that has been made in fighting Malaria.  Sometimes, I think it’s easy to forget that while a lot remains to be done, there also has been a lot of success.  The top map (a) is the extent of malaria in 1900, reconstructed from historic records; the bottom map (b) is the extent of malaria in 2007.

Of course, because this is from a scientific paper, there has to be jargon.  To translate:  the different colors relate to the level of infection in the general population (PR, or Parasite rate).  ”Endemic” means that the infection is maintained in a community at a more or less steady state.

• Epidemic/Unstable means that infections break out periodically in these regions
• Hypoendemic:  less than 10% of the population is infected with malaria
• Mesoendemic:   between 10% and <50% is infected with malaria
• Hyperendemic:  Between 50% and75% is infected with malaria
• Holoendemic: over 75% of the population is infected with malaria

In all but 2% of areas around the globe, malaria infections have declined since the rates before 1968.  This graph helps visually show where the difficult to control hot spots are, and also the range of different countries and environments in which malaria can occur.

I rant often about how malaria is not a monolithic organism, and how it’s transmitted by many different mosquito species in many different environments.  Now you can see what I’m talking about!

Full Citation of the paper that is the source of this graphic:
Gething, P., Smith, D., Patil, A., Tatem, A., Snow, R., & Hay, S. (2010). Climate change and the global malaria recession. Nature, 465 (7296), 342-345 DOI: 10.1038/nature09098

Forbes hits the Conspiracy Trifecta

I read a lot of strange stuff on the internet. I mean, I’ve covered Extraterrestrial Cows and Mail-order public lice.  But I really don’t expect to run into silly conspiracy stuff in Forbes, of all places.

In an article entitled “The Black Death: Longing for the Good Old Days,” James Taylor ties together global warming denialism, DDT boosterism, Edgar Allen Poe, and the Black Death (i.e. Bubonic Plague) to make…a really big pile of something that steams.

He suggests that everything was hunky dory when the climate was hot, but when things got cold–OMGPLAGUE:

“What brought about the Black Death? A thousand years ago, Europe was experiencing a golden age. The fair climate of the Medieval Warm Period, with temperatures similar to or warmer than today’s climate, stimulated bountiful crop production, supported unprecedented population growth,….
Longer winters and cooler, shorter summers decimated crop production throughout Europe. The rains that fell were cold, persistent, and slow to dry up. Famine and plague, which had largely disappeared during the Medieval Warm Period, became the norm rather than the exception. And by 1350, the grim, cold climate brought about the dreaded Black Death.”

He goes on from this to imply that environmentalists want to curb global warming in order to kill us all by bringing back the Black Death. Oh, and malaria, but we’ll get to that part later.

I actually have spent a lot of time over the years researching Bubonic plague, and the 14th century European “Black Death” in particular. I have never read of climate being implicated as a cause for the European plagues.  Never.

I would also like to point out that the Little Ice Age actually occurred several hundred years AFTER the period of the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe.  A recent review paper listed the start date around 1570.  So, the dots he’s trying to connect, in addition to being unrelated factually, are also unrelated chronologically.

The more interesting theories about why the Black Death was so devastating to Medieval Europe center on increasing urbanization and commerce.  In order to have a massive epidemic, you need populations of potential victims to be concentrated. If you get the plague in the middle of nowhere, you will die horribly…and that’s it.  There is no one to transmit the plague TO.

On the other hand, if you have concentrations of people in cities and towns; and you have movement of both people and animals between cities and towns, then you have a situation that is ripe for an outbreak.  If you add in poor sanitation, it’s a dream for a disease bacterium.

There is a well-documented timeline of outbreaks moving from Asia over to Italy, and then up through Europe.  Rats in grain and rats in ships moving from place to place for commerce were probably the primary movers of the disease.  (In case you’ve forgotten, fleas are the vector of plague between humans and other animals. In other words, fleas transmit the plague bacteria from infected people/rats to new victims.)

Mr. Taylor is a lawyer working for the Heartland Institute, which advocates for unregulated trade (and also says that cigarettes are harmless). Somehow he seems to have missed the obvious connection between free markets and plague.  Hmm.

So, what else? Oh, the Malaria–right.  From the article:

“Malaria was becoming a distant memory 50 years ago, but the World Health Organization now reports that over 200 million people contract the disease each year and nearly one million people die from the disease each year. A single, small application of DDT to the inside walls of a hut – in which malarial mosquitoes most frequently infect their victims – will keep malarial mosquitoes at bay for months, but environmental activists have forbidden this chemical infringement on The Natural Condition.”

Let’s start with that first sentence.  50 years ago, Malaria was becoming a memory for the US and Europe; they launched very successful campaigns to control mosquitoes. Malaria eradication was not, however, successful in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. In fact, some areas never were part of any Malarial control campaign.  It’s certainly correct to say that too many people die of malaria each year; but it is not correct to say  that more die now than in the past. If you look at WHO data for most regions, there is a clear downward trend.  Global control of malaria has been slowed by resistance to treatment drugs, as well as mosquito resistance to DDT.

Which brings us to his next claim.  In his second sentence, he claims that DDT can be applied to the walls of a “hut” and provide protection from malarial mosquitoes.  News flash–not everyone lives in huts–your imperialism is showing.  But, hey, let’s run with it.

This is an incorrect statement for a variety of reasons.  Indoor Residential Spraying (IRS) is actually not a preferred methodology for the World Health Organization Malaria group; they specifically recommend against using the same chemical year after year.  Increased resistance to pesticides is strongly tied to indoor sprays in the report I linked.  A quote: ”it is unlikely that universal vector control coverage can be achieved in Africa by IRS alone.”   

Taylor’s pollyanna approach ignores the the reality of DDT and malaria in the world today.  A hundred countries currently have a malaria problem. It is patently absurd to think that one single chemical (and methodology) can solve a problem that is global in scope.

There isn’t only ONE species of malaria mosquito–there are dozens (And they don’t all bite you when you are inside). There is not just ONE kind of ecosystem in which people and malaria interact. Designing a malaria control methodology has to take into account  the political, environmental, and socio-economic situation of a particular community.  What, if any, data do we have on the resistance of the mosquitoes to insecticides? It is not a one-size-fits-all problem with one solution.

His last sentence is also untrue.  DDT is part of current WHO treatment guidelines. It is not “forbidden”.  But DDT is only one piece of a huge, huge complicated problem, and over-reliance on it can actually make things worse by leading to greater insecticide  resistance.

What I want to know now is–Why did Forbes let this douche write an article full of BS that was VERIFIABLY FALSE?  And what are they going to do about it?

BugShot2011!

A brief plug for something that sounds cool and wonderful:

Several of the big names in insect and spider macrophotography are offering to take you on a weekend nature hike and teach you all the secrets of taking awesome photos.

Their photography course and weekend retreat is on Labor Day Weekend 2011 (September 2-5) at the Shaw Nature Reserve outside of St. Louis, Missouri.

You do not have to be a professional entomologist to attend!

Who should go?

• Photographers who wish to learn arthropod-specific techniques
• Naturalists & gardeners who enjoy the little things outdoors
• Bug bloggers & bugguide.netters who’d like to spice up their online imagery
• Entomologists who aspire to improve their photographic skills for work or pleasure
• Anyone looking for an excuse to hang out at the beautiful Shaw Nature Reserve for a long weekend

Register now if you are interested!

I don’t know how I could possibly fit this into my schedule, but DAMN I want to go!

The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents

Since 1983, when the first Discworld novel The Colour of Magic was published, the Discworld novels have been a place for me to dive into that will leave me laughing and happy.

A confession: I like puns. 
There. I’ve said it. 
So does Terry Pratchett.

So when I noticed that The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents was available at the library, I pounced on it.  Pratchett won the Carnegie medal in 2001 for this, his first young adult novel.  It is a delightfully screwed-up reworking of the Pied Piper.

If you are a rat foraging in the University of Wizards’ garbage dump, there’s bound to be some side effects. Like…suddenly talking and reading.  Add in a cat with the usual moral sensibilities of a cat, and a kid that can play a flute, and you have the ingredients for a great scam.

Roll into a town, the rats run around and widdle everywhere (and occasionally tap dance across a pudding), and then the piper arrives and the rats follow him out of town.  For a quite reasonable fee.

The cat is the mastermind, of course. He doesn’t actually do any work.

It’s all told with Pratchett’s love of wordplay, skewed humor, and keen eye for personality–here is the cat not really explaining why he talks:

“So, you really are a magical cat, then?” she finished, pouring the milk into a saucer.  It oozed rather than gushed, but Maurice was a street cat and would drink milk so rotten it would try to crawl away.

“Oh, yes, that’s right, magical,” he said, with a yellow-white ring around his mouth.  For two fish heads he’d be anything to anybody.

“Probably belonged to a witch, I expect, with a name like Griselda,” said the girl, putting the fish heads on another saucer.

“Yeah, right, Griselda, right,” said Maurice, not raising his head.

“Who lived in a gingerbread cottage in the forest, probably.”

“Yeah, right,” said Maurice. And then, because he wouldn’t have been Maurice if he couldn’t be a bit inventive, he added: “Only it was a melba toast cottage, ‘cos she was slimming.”

Pratchett is a genius at creating personalities–his mice and the cat have truer voices than the majority of the human characters I read in books.  One of the things that makes Pratchett’s books so very enjoyable is that his characters inhabit a universe in which they are all basically good, even the crooks.  They are true to themselves in a way that makes us like and care about Maurice, even though he has the moral compass of Gordon Gekko.

Rather than spoil the ending, I’ll just tell you that there are many far larger themes being explored in this book.  The rats construct a religion around Mr. Bunnsy, a rabbit in a waistcoat from a children’s book–and are then confronted with the truth that their theology is based on fiction.  A young rat learns what it means to be a leader.  There are scary bits, heroic sacrifices, and a lot more widdling.

It’s all done without any of the ickle-sweetness that could so very easily be part of a book about talking animals and making ethical choices.  In fact, that’s part of what Pratchett is poking fun at.

I finished the book, happy that all’s well that ends well.  And suddenly, I was crying.

Pratchett was on BBC this week, in a documentary about assisted suicide.  He has Alzheimer’s, and knows that soon he will be unable to write, or take care of himself.  He is planning to go early via suicide.   Pratchett can no longer type, so is dictating what will probably be his last novel–entitled “Snuff.”

I don’t really think I was crying for me, and the loss of the books he certainly would have written–Pratchett’s only 63, and has been a very prolific writer.  I think I was just sad for my inability to FIX things.  It is so wrong for this disease, of all diseases, to strike this person, of all people.

Loosing your words and memory is a terrible punishment for…nothing.  It’s one of those things that strikes down with no rhyme or reason.  Which is wrong, the same way it was so horribly wrong for my sister to get cancer, or for a million other crappy things that happen to good people to happen.

And I can’t fix any of it.

So I cried.

Insect Comic Superhero: Angel Salvadore

The latest X-Men movie has an insect-y bonus: a female mutant with insect powers!

Angel Salvadore has a rich and complex history in the X-men comic universe.  She is a African-Latina American, growing up in poverty and abuse.  (Honestly, the only constant in Angel’s story seems to be that she can’t catch a break.)   When she begins to develop her mutation, she is kicked out by her abusive father.  She awakens in the woods in a cocoon, and is attacked by a group that wants to steal her newly-emerged wings.

And discovers one of her new powers, illustrated at right.

Yep. She flies, and she has acid spit.  She is also able to create a deafening ultrasonic sound with her wings.

The X-Men bring Angel to the Xavier Institute, a high school for mutants, where she meets a boy (who is also a bird. Sort of), falls in love, and has unprotected teenage mutant sex.

With the predictable results. Again, sort of.

FIVE DAYS LATER, Angel’s pregnancy comes to term, since she’s a fly (sort of), and that morphology accelerated the rate of her pregnancy.  She lays a bunch of eggs in Wolverine’s old shack in the woods outside of the Institute.  These develop into larvae over time and hatch.

The ins and outs of the X-men universe is, frankly, too confusing to document here, but to sum up, she and mutant-bird dude eventually end up a happy mutant nuclear family unit, with babies that also vomit on their food to digest it.  The Marvel Universe Wiki has a short summary of her life and adventures.

So there you go, a new Insect Superhero to add to my list.

In the X-Men film, Angel’s wings convert to this wonderful tattoo when not in use.  I would run out and get one immediately if I didn’t think that a million other fan girls are going to do the same thing.

Other Insect Superheros:

• The Bug-Eyed Bandit
• The Red Bee
• Queen Bee and Hellgramite
• Beware the Beekeeper!
• Killer Moth
• Japanese Spiderman, featuring giant Scarab beetles with Laser bras. Really.