I think I know what these objects are because I photographed them! Yet even I am not totally sure – and I was there. Let’s consider some possibilities.
Hens’ eggs This is plausible on account of their eggy colour. But their sizes are rather variable – one is much smaller than the others – and they aren’t perfectly egg-shaped. The black one doesn’t fit this hypothesis either. It looks more like a grape.
Other types of egg They could be insect eggs if this is a macro shot. Alternatively, I have an idea that reptile eggs are not as perfectly shaped as those of birds. Maybe that explains their deformity?
Balloons Could be. Could be. Except that balloons are typically brightly coloured. Also you can’t see the bit you blow into to inflate the balloon. Is there a word for that? «Neck» perhaps? There ought to be.
Hard sugary sweets Like those you see in jars in old-fashioned sweet shops – or maybe Mint Imperials. When I was a child, old men often had a manky paper bag of the latter in their pockets. They might even offer you one. Something tells me that sweets like that ought to have a light dusting of icing sugar, but that’s a minor objection.
Stone or ceramic artefacts This is possible except that they look soft-ish, as though they are compressing each other. That could be an illusion though.
Obviously I have an advantage over the reader because I know how big they were – and I’ve carefully cropped out anything that would give a clue as to their size. I did this for aesthetic reasons – not to fool you. It was only after I’d done the cropping that I decided it should be a mystery photograph. Cropping often improves a photograph as long as you retain the definition. You get rid of distractions.
I didn’t go up to them and touch them, so I know nothing about their hardness or weight.
This whole post is a bit too eggy for my taste. I’m not a fan of eggs except when they’re heavily disguised – eg in a cake. An omelette represents the minimum amount of processing I require for dining purposes – and more is preferable. For me, there’s too much of the snail, eye, or testicle about an egg. I feel they’re something that really shouldn’t be eaten. I have no great problem with the taste – it’s just the thought.
I once went round to a neighbour’s house and she offered me quail’s eggs. I ate one out of politeness, swallowing it without allowing it to touch the sides so to speak. But I didn’t calibrate my enthusiasm correctly because I somehow gave the impression I liked them – and she offered me more. I ate more quails eggs on that occasion than the people who actually did like them.
Moving away from culinary objections, I guess there must be people afraid of round objects in a more general sense. I look on the internet for the relevant word ending in phobia – the word I know must exist – and, sure enough, I find sfairesphobia. And, scrolling down, I see another search result that warns me:
Do not share this image with a victim of sfairesphobia.
When I click on the link I see a collage with a reclining female nude in the background. She has large round breasts. In the foreground a clean-cut and brilliantined American-looking man is hurling a bowling ball straight at me. Much of the fear of balls seems to centre around their use in sports.
I suppose you could say that the inverse of a fear of balls is a fear of holes (trypophobia) – and now we’re really talking. If you google the word you will turn up images that I find truly repellent and disturbing. I have known about these images for some time and have taken great care not to expose myself to them since my first encounter.
Now this is interesting. My reaction to the holes is so strong that I assume it must be the normal human reaction – and my reaction to the balls is so non-existent that I laugh at sfairesphobia. But presumably the sfairesphobe’s response is just as strong and natural-seeming to them as my trypophobic one is to me. But my reaction has some basis in reality, I say. Holes are associated with diseased flesh, poisonous fungi and the warty skin of venomous creatures. Take monkeypox as a topical example. But the sfairesphobe might well argue that their response is equally rational. A golf or cricket ball is lethal when travelling at high speed.
There’s an inconsistency as well. I assume that if somebody suffers from a phobia such as fear of spiders (arachnophobia) or heights (acrophobia) they experience anxiety. The Greek phobos means fear. Their heart rate rises, their palms sweat etc. But my trypophobia causes no such anxiety. It is pure disgust and revulsion. We also see this inconsistency in recent word coinages such as transphobia, homophobia, etc – where there is no anxiety, but distaste or dislike or discrimination of some kind. Perhaps, in these cases, we should be using the Greek prefix misos (hatred) that we employ in words like misogyny. So my fear of holes should be misotrypa – or misotrypy – or misotrypia? And let’s get all our language beefs in at once while we’re at it. Homophobia – rather unsatisfactorily – means fear of the same. So what we really need is misohomosexualia – or something like that.
And there’s a further complication. In modern usage misogyny has more of the sense of disrespect or belittling rather than hatred. So do we need a third Greek prefix or suffix for that? This is getting out of hand. We need to bring in a Greek scholar.
And finally, when I say we need in the above paragraphs I really mean people like me who are pedantic about etymologies need. Ordinary people – including most of the learned and the academic – aren’t in the habit of deconstructing words. They know – or think they know – what they mean by homophobia etc – just as they know what a cupboard is. It doesn’t literally have to be a board for cups. But I still think the phobia thing is inconsistent – and I’m determined to have the last word since it’s my blog.