btw about Neil Gaiman I periodically agree with the 'Neil Gaiman is annoying' stuff bc I feel like both he and Amanda Palmer seem like people who I would go insane stuck in a room with bc we have very different ideas about art and suchlike. and I also do think that the career trajectory he's on lately is cynically redoing his greatest hits and pretending that was the dream all along when it clearly was not. which is at best meh.
having said which
as far as I can tell by far the most common complaint about Neil Gaiman is "Snow, Glass, Apples is problematic/gross/it's got incest and rape and frames the child as the aggressor"
which strikes me as a weird complaint to pull out of a 40 year body of work tbh when that short story is pretty clearly coming from a place of 'how far can I push this'. like you don't have to like the story. I don't really like the story. but it is. a horror story.
like and this is the thing with particularly 90s alt horror right? a lot of the interest is in transgression and sitting in the worst possible perspective and seeing what happens if you pull those strings. like I really like Clive Barker for example but there's a good chunk of his short stories that I'm like I'm not picking up what you're putting down Clive this seems Kinda Off. but that willingness to write some trite or Bad Message horror fiction that doesn't land is imo a side effect of being willing to try writing uncomfortable and unpleasant fiction at all. which is what horror is for, among other things, it's for creating discomfort as a form of catharsis or engagement.
like I am not a huge fan of the type of sex-horror that pops up in a lot of Gaiman's work and other contemporary horror writers - to me I don't find it upsetting or horny it just ends up feeling kind of edgy and tryhard - but I'm also a bit like. it does seem like a lot of people's beef with Neil Gaiman is that In The 90s He Was A Horror Writer
and this approach to Problematic Horror in Snow, Glass, Apples I find kind of microcosmic of how The Discourse often approaches art in this kind of 1:1 way. if you write a story which seems to line up with rape apologia it can only be because you agree with it. if you write a story about transphobia you're a transphobe. if you write a story that makes me genuinely uncomfortable you're attacking me.
but artwork, especially art like horror that's not necessarily trying to provoke enjoyment as its main response, is necessarily hit and miss. and if what you're shooting for is discomfort then whether it works, falls flat or goes too far incredibly depends on your audience. and making good art - as in art that makes its audience think, art that opens the audience up to discomfort and catharsis and sticks with them and changes them - requires the space to experiment and tbh the space to fuck up. like they aren't all going to be winners and they certainly aren't all going to work for you as a singular audience.
personally I don't see the appeal of Snow, Glass, Apples, less cause it's nasty and more cause it's hack. ooh an edgy monstrous version of a fairy tale where there's lots of rape and cannibalism? you're soooo original Neil. but like. that's fine. I don't really vibe with like 70% of Neil Gaiman stuff I've read but I still like Neil Gaiman because the stuff that works for me really works for me.
idk I think there's a lot of folk on this website who shouldn't interact with horror cause they clearly aren't interested in being horrified. that's not everyone who dislikes Snow, Glass, Apples, but it's a real undercurrent to a lot of the criticism and tbh this kinda vibe is shit for art. making standout art What Is Good also requires being ready to make art which stands out for the wrong reasons. sometimes they'll be the same art to different people.
58 notes
·
View notes
I'm on the tail end of physical therapy for a broken leg that required surgery. It made me wonder if there was anything interesting in Ancient Egyptian medicine that you'd read about treating broken bones.
Oh, certainly! Ancient Egyptian treatments for broken bones were very similar to our methods nowadays - that is, they splinted and immobilised fractures after reduction. The treatments for a broken jaw and a broken nose in the Edwin Smith Papyrus (the largest collection of surgical treatments among the medical papyri) are in fact the exact same a few millennia later. For a broken nose in particular, the physician put two rolls of linnen moistened with oil into the nasal passages to keep the shape of the nose intact after bandaging and during healing. Nowadays, we use vaseline gauze the same way.
There's an interesting case in the ESP where the practice of a closed reduction is actually described. This is case 35, a fracture of the clavicle:
You should prostrate him [on his back], [with] something folded which is in [between] his shoulder blades. You should spread out his two shoulders in order to stretch apart his two clavicles until that fracture falls into its place.
This is, again, a practice that has changed very little over time. Interestingly this case does also describe a splinting, but a splinting that seems incongruent with the actual type of fracture:
You should then make for him two splints of linen, and place them, one of them to the inside of his upper arm, and the other to the under site of his upper arm. You should bind it with imrw* and treat him afterwards with honey every day until he recovers.
That would have done very little to stabilise the clavicle. However, the next case, number 36, deals with a fracture of the humerus. This case first details a reduction, but that reduction is the exact same as the preceding one in case 35, just with the term for humerus substituted for the term for clavicle. A fractured humerus is normally set through the use of traction, and then splinted in the way described in case 35.
Nunn, among others including myself, is of the opinion that this is a scribal error where the splinting for case 36 was appended to case 35, and the reduction for case 36 was incorrectly copied from 35.
But overall, lots of evidence that nothing much changed about the setting and treatment of broken bones!
*We haven't been able to precisely determine the meaning of the ingredient imrw so far. As a term it's only found in the ESP and it is likely some type of mineral ingredient since it's written with the determinative for mineral substances. Nunn suggests it may be an equivalent of plaster of Paris used for splinting as we do nowadays, which would be supported with the phrase "you should bind it with imrw" in case 35. I don't agree with that, not only because "bind it with [x]" sees common use elsewhere for any number of poultices and bandaging in the medical papyri, but also because imrw is used in the treatment of other cases that don’t deal with fractures, such as case 15; a slashed cheek with damage to the zygomatic bone. The Grundriss der Medizin der Alten Ägypter simply lists it as "an unknown mineral substance". Brawanski wants to read it as an "astringent bandage" with the note that the determinative could be ambiguous, so he suggests a reading of a bandaging with metal shavings. Meltzer renders it as “alum(?)”, based on similarities to the Coptic term for alum. Personally, I think it's likeliest a mineral/metallic substance, one that possibly inhibits bacterial growth, akin to e.g. red ochre, and which was used in bandaging and poultices.
Good luck with the rest of the physical therapy and rehab! Surgery-requiring fractures are a nsw.t=f m pH.wy=s
125 notes
·
View notes