My birth certificate names me as Pauline Barbara Pogorelske (my parents had no imagination), but beyond this vital piece of information oft needed as verification of my ‘identity’, a plethora of other names have been ascribed to me. Indeed, at just 10 years of age, I thought Pauline with an ‘i’ looked boring, even prosaic, changing it at school to Paulyne with a ‘y’ which seemed more interesting, such was my pretentious affectation. I also played around with Paule and Paula, shortening my surname to Relske; albeit privately in my diary. These other names didn’t last long; but Paulyne with a ‘y’ has stayed with me since then. In high school, even teachers started writing “Paulyne’ in my report book as I wrote it that way on my assignments, tests and exams. As a journalist, I’ve maintained that spelling all my life. Legally, I have never bothered to change it; and my tax and bank accounts et al record me as Pauline. Does it matter one iota? Friends adopted the abbreviated ‘Paul’ over the years; an ex-boyfriend ‘warming’ it to Paulie; indeed, calling me Pauline/Paulyne, however it’s spelt, has always seemed too formal and cold; even distant to me. My Polish mother occasionally called me ‘Polinka’ while in Spain where I lived, people called me Paulina. The ancient adage that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me’ seems suitably apt. Of course, there have been appealing, and awful appellations over my life; including ‘nicknames’ popularised by Pogorelske; these being Pog, Poggy, Poggles with goggles (I wore glasses as a seven-year-old and am still as blind as a bat), Mabel Poggy Woggy Dog (I was the daughter of migrants), Pogo (I bounced around a lot and the stick had just hit Oz shores), Piggy Pog (I always loved eating, tho’ wasn’t fat), Pigerelske and others I can’t recall. They always seemed affectionate; I was never offended or upset by these names. Over the years, some of the positive others, mostly at work, included The Perils of Pauline (I always lived dangerously), angel, sweetheart and darling, sweetie (which I loathe; an ex-boyfriend’s misplaced charm) and of course, love, dear and mate (I always approved of that one).At the ripe old age of 61, I first used Relske on a published article in a newspaper, and adhered to it for a few years when penning Letters to The Editor of various other newspapers. Just three years later, I resumed Pogorelske, oft ‘playing’ a game returning to Relske now and again depending on my sense of indifference about what’s in a name?
Of course, there have been many disparaging and degrading names applied to me: psycho, paranoid, persecuted, psychotic, (there are copious P words that ‘match’ my initials), Cathy/Kathy (‘stolen’ from my diary; I didn’t ask the psych nurse how she spelt it), and an array of Adolph (no doubt as in Hitler), Anna (after a book I read about a mentally ill woman called Anna), Monica, (another mentally ill in-patient in prison two years ago), along with Charmaine, (appro of the writer who committed suicide tragically) and Leah (a political prisoner in Siberia of the Russians) among others. I’ve also been castigated as a wench, prostitute, fucking whore, lunatic, mad (of course), violent, bad, too, but slut was undoubtedly said beyond earshot. Popular favourites include bitch, dyke (by symbolic means via a cigarette lighter,) even camp, a 70s word for lesbian, paranoid schizophrenic and bipolar. I’ve also been called a snob; tho’ the reasons for this remain less obvious to me. The list is endless. Do any of them mean anything; not much to me. Whatever you think; it’s up to whoever reads this.
Greg Mansell
37 Maud St
W Ulverstone
Tas 7315
64255414
http://www.dissuaded.info
Dear Paulyne
Your article in The Sunday Age was an interesting one.
Real love of self and hence love of others cannot fully exist without real love of God.
I can only love in as much as I know love and God is love.
I can only love God in as much as I know Him.
When Jesus walked in the midst of Israel he came to a people whom God had revealed acts of power and love toward and they believed that they were knowing and loving Him. But Jesus revealed their lack of real knowledge, and hence real love of God, for their belief of their love was based on presumption rather than actual love. His disciples were challenged for he stretched all their preconceptions yet through it they came to know him and love him for they found in him a love like no other for he loved them as he loved himself. So his love for them transformed them, until they met him they lived without any sense of their need of him, but by the time of his death they had come to so rely upon him and his love for them that they could not live without him. When he was crucified they walked like men unable to cope, so when he appeared to them after his death revealing his unchanging love in such a forceful manner they were overwhelmed with joy and wonder and forever changed, for they loved him as he loved them. In this way they were willing to die for him to reveal his love for others in the same manner as they had been loved by him.
We can talk about love and conjecture its depth, its truth, its reality, with or without God, but until we know for ourselves the full reality of how we are formed in love by love for love we will never truly love as we are loved. Because of this the limit of the adage to love others as you love yourself is made manifest, for all the imperfections we have are truthfully the fruit of the absence of love and this absence is part of what we give others not love. So again I say real love of self and others cannot fully exist without real love of God.
Love Greg