When artist and author Magali Duzant noticed her father, a native speaker of Antillean Creole and then French, was losing English words, she wondered if it had something to do with aging. It turned out to be dementia. While witnessing a loved one experiencing this is never easy, she also saw beauty in it and even noticed that parts of their relationship deepened. Duzant found herself relating to him, too, as she moved to Switzerland and began learning German, as there were now moments where her own words were not her own. To process his diagnosis she began taking notes on both of their experiences and researching dementia. Eventually she wondered if her ideas could become a book. The result is the art book La vie is like that, also one of her father’s expressions, published by Seaton Street Press in 2024.

La vie is like that is constructed like a children’s alphabet primer–A is Aphasia and B is for Blumen, for example–but it’s interspersed with personal narratives, history, research, and photographs. It is guided by the principle of the Ship of Theseus, or Theseus’s paradox: if all of an object’s parts are replaced, is it still the same? We go back and forth with Duzant in time in short essays as she explores her father’s life before and during dementia; before and after his passing in 2021; as she understands how language makes us who we are; as she understands that even in its tragedies, dementia can have its own moments of light. With wit and grace, Duzant thoughtfully takes us on her journey with her. In a culture that can be so fearful of dementia’s darkness, she reminds us that the people it affects are never truly gone.

I spoke to Duzant, who is also a dear friend, about La vie is like that, turning lemons to onions, memory, personhood, and more.

[vimeo https://vimeo.com/1024840290 expand=1 site_id=26881454]

How did you arrive at the concept and structure of the book?
I’ve been working in book format for a number of years now. When we got the diagnosis, I was writing in my own journal to come to terms with it, but also making notes about how he’s switching onions and lemons and sand and snow–I thought there was something beautiful and interesting about that. When he died, then it was a way to process his dementia diagnosis, the grief of losing a parent, and not being there when it happened. I had also been researching dementia in general. I wondered if I could share this information because I was so interested in these themes of language: this forgetting, but also this replacement of finding something when a word didn’t exist. When my father was still alive, he would forget something or be unable to place a word or term or and I realized I was doing that as I tried to learn German. There was something here and I wanted to talk about it.

When I told people about my father’s dementia, their immediate response was always really extreme, that it must be the most horrible thing. “Does he know who you are?” I realized most people’s idea of dementia is shaped by media where it is this horrific, frightful experience, and it is, and it can be, but there’s a lot that comes before that. I wanted to respond to that, to my own experience and my father’s experience and try to figure out things for myself. I went back to these lists of words I was jotting down–he stopped saying salad and said leaves, and then he lost leaves, and it was paper. There was something about that that was kind of childlike, and that is how I came down to this alphabet guide. I thought this was a great way to introduce these various topics, to link these episodes and essays to make it a bit more approachable and talk about something difficult. I wanted to work with a non-linear narrative because that was how my father was experiencing things.

Selection from Magali Duzant'su00a0La vie is like that Magali Duzant

You mentioned your interest in what happens before the frightening parts of dementia–which ones specifically?
There were parts of my father’s personality that deepened as his dementia became more apparent. That was his goofiness and this mischievous, impishness he always had. He was always very affectionate when I was young, but that deepened in this way that was really beautiful and important. When you can tell you have less time with someone, to have this lovely ease of showing care and affection was only stronger. When people think about dementia, they immediately think of, oh, someone doesn’t recognize you, someone can’t take care of themselves. Someone’s lost all the time. Those are all things that can happen and are heartbreaking and incredibly difficult. But I spoke to my father for an hour every day, at least, when I moved to Zurich. Sometimes I had to follow his bent on a conversation, and sometimes it was a little repetitive or goofy or strange or even a little confusing, but we could have a conversation. He was interesting, he would listen, he could still give me these really wonderful bits of advice. Sometimes he’d say things like he was watching the fish fly by the window, and it was birds. But he was there. I think there is this fear around dementia that is incredibly valid, but also sometimes overshadows that there’s still a person there. People change with time and with illness. I wanted to talk about the fact that just because someone is experiencing dementia, and especially early on, they are the person you’ve known, and they might change a bit, but that doesn’t mean that they should be treated as less than or as someone to be afraid of or to pity. I wanted to talk about the fact that my father was still this really lively, interesting person and that I learned so much from him at this time. That was really important because I wanted to share a portrayal of someone that was three dimensional. I didn’t feel that I had seen enough talking about even these early stages of dementia or connections like that.

What had you seen in other literature about dementia at the time?
Much of the work I make is influenced by experiences I have. As I was looking around in visual art and photography, I saw so many photographic projects where people in mid-to-late stage dementia were being photographed in these ways I found difficult. I think it’s important to see things that are difficult, but what most people see and what they’re afraid of is people who are so diminished physically, which happens, but sometimes these people are photographed in this way sometimes feels exploitative. I want to be very careful about that, because I know everyone finds a different way to explore something. But I kept seeing these photo series of elderly people, if they were in memory care facilities or homes and I compared it to how people would respond when I said my father has dementia. I felt, oh, that’s what people know of this if they don’t know it personally, and that has a role, but I think it also overshadows a more complex view. I had read this book called On Vanishing by Lynn Casteel Harper that was incredibly beautiful and was about the ways in which the language we use in society and the portrayals we see shapes our understanding of dementia and shapes the way we treat other people, that our fear allows us to push people with dementia in shadows. For example, when you’re talking to someone, you don’t have to continually correct them, maybe just go along with them. Whose experience is taking a hierarchy, and who is saying what that person is experiencing isn’t correct, isn’t right? That influenced me positively. So much of what I had seen in photography and even in some film, was about the fear and the diminishment that people focus on and there was even less about the arc of dementia.

Selection from Magali Duzant's La vie is like that Magali Duzant

What was the process of including moments of lightness into the book?
So much of it comes down to, this language that gets used, “he is not there, he’s not the same person, who’s in there.” Whose reality are we judging or condemning? The humor aspect was so important to me because if we only say this is tragic or horrible, then we force a person into this role, and at times, dementia can be playful. There is a person, you can have a conversation. Why do you have to force someone to say what they’re experiencing isn’t real? To a certain extent, it is because it’s their experience. So many of my conversations with my dad included us laughing, and it was because he said something and maybe I didn’t follow, or because I told him something and he thought it was funny or just because he was playful and loved to joke and laugh. It wasn’t about making fun of anyone. It was more about feeling joy, a sense of excitement, and the love of being in someone’s presence. That, to me, is so important. That was important in our relationship beforeI knew he had dementia, and still afterwards. I think you can have two things at once. You can have something tragic and have moments of levity. Why deny the moments of humor, of levity, of funny confusion? It’s important to find space for connection and for humor and for taking a breath.

How did you want the book to interact with the portrayals of dementia we regularly encounter?
I wanted to look at dementia in a larger context and give some of the background. I wrote the chapter “D is for Dementia,” where I looked at the history of dementia, in terms of its study, but also the way it was discussed from the ancient Egyptians through the “discovery” of Alzheimer’s. Then in a larger sense, how can we relate to it? I was lost as I struggled to learn a language, and I had trouble expressing myself fully. I could feel how other people looked at me, because all of a sudden I wasn’t expressing myself the way that I could in English, and that was so important. It’s not the same, but it allowed me to think about how the loss of language or the being at sea in a language can affect the way one feels about themselves and navigates the world. I think many people can relate to that, whether it’s in moving to a new place, language or not, if it’s migrating to another country, if it’s just kind of finding oneself at sea in any kind of space you don’t know. I wanted to allow people to try to find something they might connect with there, and hopefully to find some more empathy through that. Mixing in some humor and some stories of familial connection and frustration, it might open up the conversation.

Selection from Magali Duzant's La vie is like that Magali Duzant

What do you hope audiences take away from the book?
I hope if somebody is a caregiver for someone with dementia they feel some of their experiences are reflected here. I hope if some people read it and have never met anyone experiencing dementia or have no idea about it, that maybe they’ll give pause to how they think about it. I don’t want to be language police, but sometimes when people say, ‘oh so and so is demented,’ or, not to make it political, but how people would speak about Biden as “Dementia Joe”–why are you using this as a way to take someone down or as a dig? I hope it helps people have a broader concept of it, to understand a little bit more, even if it’s just that there are different stages, and they shift and reflect. I’d also want people to think about how language is so integral to how we experience the world and how we affect others around us. For me, it was also important that the book didn’t shy away from humor. To me, humor is one of the most important things in life, and how do you deal with anything if you can’t laugh every once in a while? I know there are people whose caregiving is so difficult–it’s not trying to undercut the seriousness of it. It’s also for a population that doesn’t know anything about dementia, trying to help people understand that someone experiencing dementia should still be treated like a person, the person you know, and not like a living tragedy.

Selection from Magali Duzant's La vie is like that featuring her father,u00a0Jean Gu00e9rard Benou00eet Duzant, as a young man. Magali Duzant

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Literature Stories

Literature

In 1964, Wizard of Oz co-stars Judy Garland and Ray Bolger reunited for a profound interview

Literature

Bestselling author shares the liberating freedom of letting others be wrong about you

Literature

The big reason why ’90s restaurants were loud and fun and now everything is beige

Literature

Eric Idle says this classic Beatles moment shows they were ‘just as funny’ as Monty Python