Obituary - Rigid contact lenses

Scleral and corneal rigid lenses represented 100 per cent of the contact lens market immediately prior to the invention of soft lenses in the mid-1960s. In the United Kingdom today, rigid lenses comprise 2 per cent of all new lens fits. Low rates of rigid lens fitting are also apparent in 27 other countries which have recently been surveyed. Thus, the 1998 prediction of the author that rigid lenses – also referred to as ‘rigid gas permeable’ (RGP) lenses or ‘gas permeable’ (GP) lenses – would be obsolete by the year 2010 has essentially turned out to be correct. In this obituary, the author offers 10 reasons for the demise of rigid lens fitting: initial rigid lens discomfort; intractable rigid lens-induced corneal and lid pathology; extensive soft lens advertising; superior soft lens fitting logistics; lack of rigid lens training opportunities; redundancy of the rigid lens ‘problem solver’ function; improved soft toric and bifocal/varifocal lenses; limited uptake of orthokeratology; lack of investment in rigid lenses; and the emergence of aberration control soft lenses. Rigid lenses are now being fitted by a minority of practitioners with specialist skills/training. Certainly, rigid lenses can no longer be considered as a mainstream form of contact lens correction. May their dear souls (bulk properties) rest in peace.

Introduction : bringing back theory

In a report in the New York Times about a public symposium on the future of theory held at University of Chicago in 2002, staff writer Emily Eakin suggests that theory appears to have taken a back seat to more pressing current affairs – the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda, Iraq. Further, she reports that the symposium’s panel of high-profile theorists and scholars, including Homi Bhabha, Stanley Fish, Fredric Jameson, seemed reticent to offer their views on what is often touted as the demise or irrelevance of theory. The symposium and other commentaries on the topic of theory have prompted the view that the ‘Golden Age of Theory’ has passed and we are now in a ‘Post-Theory Age’. Given these pronouncements, we need to ask – Does theory matter any longer? Is it time for the obituary? Or are reports of the death of theory greatly exaggerated? The question remains whether to mourn or celebrate the demise of theory, and whether the body has in fact breathed its last. The title of this Introduction – ‘Bringing back theory’ – suggests a resurrection, or perhaps a haunting, as if the funeral has passed and, like Banquo’s ghost, theory returns to unsettle or disturb the celebration. It also suggests an entreaty, or perhaps a return performance. Rather than settle on one meaning, one interpretation, we are happy for all possibilities to coexist. The coexistence of different theories, different approaches, different interpretations also reflects the state of literary and cultural studies generally and children’s literature criticism in particular. No single theory or viewpoint predominates or vies for hegemony. Yet, one further question lingers – what is theory?

Punk’s fairy godfather : Go-Between John Willsteed on Lou Reed

Obituary on the death of Lou Reed, member of The Velvet Underground and acclaimed solo artist.

David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012)

Presents an obituary for David L. Rosenhan (1929–2012). A distinguished psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University, Rosenhan died February 6, 2012, at the age of 82, after a long illness. Born in Jersey City, New Jersey, on November 22, 1929, he received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics (1951) from Yeshiva College and a master’s degree in economics (1953) and a doctorate in psychology (1958) from Columbia University. A professor of law and of psychology at Stanford University from 1971 until his retirement in 1998, Rosenhan was a pioneer in applying psychological methods to the practice of law, including the examination of expert witnesses, jury selection, and jury deliberation. A former president of the American Psychology–Law Society and of the American Board of Forensic Psychology, Rosenhan was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, of the American Psychological Association, and of the American Psychological Society. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty, he was a member of the faculties of Swarthmore College, Princeton University, Haverford College, and the University of Pennsylvania. He also served as a research psychologist at the Educational Testing Service. As generations of Stanford students can attest, David Rosenhan was a spellbinding lecturer who managed to convey the sense that he was speaking to each individual, no matter how large the group. To his graduate students, he was consistently encouraging and optimistic, always ready to share a joke or story, and gently encouraging of their creativity and progressive independence as researchers. The lessons he cared most about offering, in the classroom as in his research, were about human dignity and the need to confront abuse of power and human frailties.