#for not taking into account the context that the book is written in | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fridayiminlcve · 1 year

Note

what is your problem with tiktok or booktok and colleen hoover lmao its not that bad surely

the fact that it actively promotes overconsumerism, the way it sells books to you by just playing into already heavily milked out tropes with very specific character niches that are seen in every book nowadays and how the reading is just seen as something aesthetic or a part of the "it girl routine" maybe? if those are enough reasons for you?

does the fact that these books are the first things you see when you walk into a bookstore not bother you? when you ask someone for a book recommendation they'll follow it up with "its a romance slow burn enemies to lovers". it's always about the aesthetic of the book, how many lines can you take out of context and post as a compilation of your super cute romantic annotations page on instagram. no analyzing the book, no theories, no symbolism or meaningfulness at all. how people stand reading those kind of books and still feel any kind of emotions over these flat as hell books with no world or character building is genuinely baffling to me

no one seems to know about actual literature anymore, which not to sound like a boomer but i think its definitely true. there's always been trend cycles, i agree such as the harry potter craze from the 1990s to the 2000s and the dystopia hunger games/maze runner/divergent blast in the early 2010s but tiktok has just.. shortened these cycles so much. as a result, people like our darling colleen hoover whose written around 46 books since 2015 (according to google) try come up with as much fresh content as they can as quickly as possible for the readers (see overconsumption). the fact that this lady outsold the bible is not outstanding to me, its fucking concerning.

and after all that, the result is badly written books with characters who're about as dimensional as a piece of paper, overuse of tropes, read like they've been written by a toddler, toxic-ass relationships being romanticised, very unnecessary sex scenes and countless other things. seriously if i wanted to read about the kind of stories hoover tells i would just open a wattpad account.

not clowning on those who made the choice to read it. i'm trying to highlight some of the flaws i find in authors like colleen hoover, sjm, ali hazelwood, casey mcquinston. some of them might be good, i wouldn't know because i actively try and avoid them at all costs. also i am BEGGING u all who will have an objection to this post to reach out of your comfort zone and read something different like non-fiction or fantasy or one of the classics for once if you only read booktok like seriously it might be hard but just do it for the love of god!! if you're annoying on this i will block you by the way i don't care

#nike muses #asks #anon #anti tiktok #anti booktok #anti colleen hoover #anti intellectualism

4K notes · View notes

maplewozapi · 9 months

Note

Hey! I have a question if that's ok with you. I am White British but I am interested in Native American history (I think it's super cool and I love learning about cultures different to my own). However someone I was talking to about it (a bookseller who I bought a book abt native history off) said that i'm committing cultural appropriation by being interested in non-white history. Is it cultural appropriation for a white person to be interested in the history of non-white people, because if it is I will totally stop being interested in it. It's just sad because I find it really interesting, but i totally don't want to perpetrate racism :(

Studying others history is not at all cultural appropriation and not learning can actually perpetuate ignorance and stereotypes believed about a group. And if someone is stopping you from learning history I’d say that’s an underlining way of them trying to get you not educated. I mean there is overstepping when trying to learn our ceremonies and religious practices without permission and I even say it’s odd to do so in another land that doesn’t know those practices.

When reading literature about native history I’d try to stay with books with native authors or help from tribal members and the tribe it’s self whether than one individual member. Many anthropologist would only interview one person and take their beliefs has everyone’s and cause false information. I’d even limit the publishing dates to the later 2000s, so you can find more nuanced literature. (Some of these book below are fiction but show the Native American condition)

I’d think you find a great overview with "indigenous history of the United States", it’s a great introduction to the head space of ethnology of native people has been and recorrecting it.

I would also say to not limit yourself to your idea of "Native Americans" you’ll find most literature follows plains tribes, and instead I’d recommend you research all indigenous peoples spanning north to South America.

Much of the literature you may run into are written from out of context accounts from expeditionists, or missionaries/priests and it’s important not to take everything at face value. I’d just suggest reading accounts from native people before try to describe biased and mistranslated literature.

💖I’d also keep in mind native history is still continuing to today 💖

#books #native books #native american #indigenous #ask

557 notes · View notes

literallysatanofficial · 2 years

Text

Alright, I'm going to attempt to hopefully clear up a few misconceptions and assuage some worries about this Disco Elysium sequel and the general situation at za/um right now.

I see the shitshow that is unfolding on social media, and as someone who has known about this whole disaster for over half a year now I'd like to weigh in on it and provide some context for everyone who may not know the full story.

First off, Robert Kurvitz was fired at the end of last year. December 2021. As is strongly implied on Martin Luiga's twitter, the reason for this is greed (calling them "money men" and "crooks" and other similar statements for like, months now), and the executive producers, Tõnis Haavel (who has previously been tried for fraud) and Kaur Kender (who has previously been tried for... other things.) screwed everyone over. Kender provided funding for the game, as the majority of the original za/um cultural association did not have the financial means to.

The original za/um cultural association consisted of Robert Kurvitz, Jüri Saks, Martin Luiga, and Aleksander Rostov, originally founded in in 2009. The group, along with Argo Tuulik, played many different ttrpg campaigns over the years, several of them set in Revachol (centred around Precinct 41), and slowly built the world up from there. Kurvitz released the book The Sacred and Terrible Air, set 20 years after Disco Elysium, back in 2013* but the novel flopped, and it was decided that they would make a video game. Rostov has always been more than just an artist for Disco Elysium, as you can see from the dev threads he frequently updated promoting the game, as well as on his personal instagram, tumblr sketch blog, and several other accounts he used while the game was first gaining traction.

*The most notable credits for TSaTA are as follows:

Author: Robert Kurvitz, Editor: Martin Luiga, Cover Design: Aleksander Rostov, Worldbuilding: Robert Kurvitz, Martin Luiga, Kaspar Kalvet, Argo Tuulik. Helen Hindpere and Kaur Kender also appear in the credits.

I say this because some of the staff at za/um are now accusing fans of being unable to overcome the "auteur theory" of it all (ie. seeing Kurvitz as the singular creative mind behind it all) but the fact is that they have now lost not only the original ttrpg campaign's game master, The Sacred and Terrible Air's author, and Disco Elysium's lead writer/director (Kurvitz) but also their lead writer for the Final Cut's political vision quests (Hindpere) as well as their "co-founder" and art director/designer (Rostov). They are all CREATIVE LEADS, and not just well known only for their reputations/titles.

Luiga himself (who originally broke the news) was an Elysium world builder and provided much of the pale and innocence-related lore. He was also a part of the original tabletop campaigns (Chester McLaine is his player character!), but left midway through Disco Elysium's development due to creative differences (or as he says, "bad vibes" at the company). He is credited as an editor, but claims to have written a good chunk of the text in the game, including much of Joyce's dialogue about the pale. I have seen people discredit him due to his early departure, but Rostov also tweeted out confirming that he, along with Hindpere and Kurvitz were no longer at the company, with no additional comments. Rostov also posted a drawing on his twitter several months back depicting a man jerking off over an NDA, so take that as you will.

So what does this mean for the future?

Luiga has said that he has hope for the sequel, which could either mean that the script was finished or nearing completion before Kurvitz was fired (likely, and fits a pattern in the industry) and it's just a matter of finishing the actual game development aspect, or it may be that he has hope for the original za/um creatives to be able to re-acquire the IP.

I think it's worth pointing out that the original pitch for "Disco Elysium" was actually "The Return", and Disco Elysium was meant to be the smaller-scale prequel to introduce players to the world. Considering that the team was planning on this sequel all along, I think it's possible that a large amount of the "original" game was written years ago, so it's not all that far fetched to believe that the basic outline may be finished, or even that a large portion of the script already exists. Keep in mind that there are a large number of writers for both Disco Elysium and The Final Cut, and it may still be possible to work with a base that the others provided. We have no idea how far into development the sequel may be. Of course, proceeding without three key members of the original team is kind of a kick in the balls, and imo really quite disgusting, especially with how long the company has been keeping their departures secret (dishonesty is not a good look lmao), but it may still be canon, true to the authors' vision, and genuinely a good game in the end.

Argo Tuulik, original Elysium world builder and part of the old ttrpg campaigns, as well as a main writer on Disco Elysium, is still working at za/um. Justin Keenan, former writer on The Final Cut who wrote the political vision quests alongside Helen Hindpere, still works at za/um (and has been promoted to lead writer, according to his LinkedIn), as does Kaspar Tamsalu, who painted several character portraits, (René and Gaston) and worked as a concept artist on the original game. Plenty of the original creatives still remain. The sequel could very well still be in good hands at the development level, even if the higher ups are "crooked".

So, in conclusion... If this game comes out and they still haven't worked things out with Kurvitz, Rostov and Hindpere? Honestly... fuckin' pirate it. But it is very likely it could still be a great game that plays out as it was meant to! All that being said, FUCK za/um as a company, don't support them through Atelier or their merch store. I wish everyone luck if they do attempt to get the IP back, and I sincerely hope this fan pressure will help get things moving for them.

#disco elysium #ada speaks #if anyone would like sources i can supply them #i just didnt want to bog down the post with links just in case it doesnt show in the tag #im leaving out a lot of shit for Reasons but i hate to see people upset because i do genuinely have hope for the future of elysium #but i will vouch for the quality of the sequel myself.#some minor updates as i accidentally stated argo was part of og za/um

3K notes · View notes

traegorn · 2 years

Text

The uselessness of Witchcraft Author "Blacklists"

Every once and a while I see a "Witchcraft Author Blacklist" either in the tags or getting passed around here on Tumblr, and never in my life have I thought it was a remotely useful thing.

Because every single time, they lack and semblance of nuance. Like yesterday I ran across one that literally equated Scott Cunningham with Stephen Flowers. Yes, Cunningham, a person who wrote some things that need to be read critically is, apparently, as bad as a literal fucking Nazi whose books help fund the AFA.

Like are there Cunningham books I wouldn't recommend? Absolutely. Should most of his works be read with a critical eye and take into account the state of the community and available information when he was writing them? Yes. But... like... there's a huge fucking difference between these two things.

Also, this list claimed because Cunningham wrote about Wicca his works were somehow homophobic. Have there been homophobic Wiccans? Of course - but Cunningham, an openly gay man, was not one of them.

Additionally, there are people who get included on these lists where I wouldn't recommend anyone read their books to learn witchcraft per se, but their works have important historical significance.

Like Gerald Gardner - should anyone learn from Gardner? Fuck no. His works are full of misinformation and outright bullshit. But it literally is where the modern witchcraft movement was birthed, so there is value in understanding where we came from.

Aleister Crowley falls into this category too - harder even. Crowley was gross as heck, but how can you understand what in the modern community is still descended from his works or propagating his gross ideas... if you're unfamiliar with his works?

Also, he's super dead, so it's not like he's benefiting from someone reading his stuff.

It's just so deeply frustrating that people make these lists to start with. Like, I have written or talked about how certain authors should be avoided -- but I always do my best to include context, reasons, and explanations why. I will specifically explain why I don't think they're valuable to read. Making a laundry list where you make unsourced or unexplained claims about a huge list of people doesn't help someone understand what might be wrong with them.

Also, my recommendations are usually about how a new witch shouldn't read their work, because it's about not having the experience to see what is and isn't bullshit in what they read yet. They don't have that baseline yet. That doesn't mean that some of these books might not be significant or worth reading at some point in their journey. Just not at the start of it.

It's just... a complete lack of nuance. Like I don't recommend Silver Ravenwolf because her books are, frankly, poorly researched and bad. I don't recommend Stephen Flowers because he's a fuckin' overt WHITE SUPREMACIST whose publications have been used to fund the AFA. These are not the same. When we pretend that they are, we are doing a massive disservice to all of us.

It... it honestly feels like Christian purity culture repackaged. If you can't handle nuance, I don't think you can really handle that much witchcraft to start with. The world isn't black and white -- there are overt evils out there, but most everything else is a shade of gray and pretending otherwise is poisonous.

#witchcraft #witchblr #beginner witch #baby witch #blacklists #wicca

1K notes · View notes

thefantasyden · 2 months

Text

Thanks for stopping by~ ♡

If you would like to learn more about me, my content, or my request guidelines, please open this post.

I post fake texts, reactions, drabbles, and full fics (anywhere between 1500 and 6000 words). My texts are most commonly split between Hyung Line and Maknae Line, and they can vary quite a bit on how raunchy they are.

I'm very kink friendly and have been an active member of the bdsm community for 5+ years so I do not shy away from the vast majority of kinks, but they will always be written as realistically as possible. This means if you request heavier kinks or kinks that are on the deeper end of safety risks, I will do my best to write negotiation and consent checks into the story. I know we all love heavy fantasy content, but I personally will not write themes that imply any character is doing something against their own free will. I WILL, however, consider writing heavier themes if it is an idea that really sparks my interest.

I do not write anything involving character death or heavy angst, but I will write things along the lines of Yandere themes and criminal acts. Anything that does not involve the reader or main character being unwilling or having violent acts committed against them is fair game.

I do not write for ships, but I will write certain points of mxm interaction if it benefits the story (such as threesomes etc.)

I am VERY enthusiastic about fantasy creatures and will HAPPILY write your kinky werewolf fanfic if you ask nicely! I also won't shy away from A/B/O dynamics if you're so inclined... or hybrids. I love me some hybrids.

If you're unsure about whether I'd be willing to write your request, please take a look at my list below of wills and wonts. If you don't see what you want on there, shoot me a message or an ask.

Ult group: Stray Kids

Bias: ♡♡Changbin♡♡

Wrecker: Seungmin

Personality: I have been described as Spicy, Witty and Dog Coded. I love deeply and aggressively and usually communicate that through being cheeky, flirty and a little bit of a bully to the people I'm giving affection too.

Personal Account: @bunniebinnie for kpop, @bunniedreams for the uhhhh horny kinky stuff

Favourite Song now: Last Breath - Mark Tuan

Favourite Colour: Pastel Yellow (true yellow, not the orange or green tinted yellows)

Favourite Book: Ultraviolet

Hobbies: writing, photography, collecting plush toys, gaming, drawing

Age: 25 years old

For the astrology hotties: Libra sun, Aquarius moon, Pisces rising

Pet peeve: The sound of chewing gum

How long have I been writing: I have been writing fanfic for about 7 years. I had 2 old blogs, one dedicated to nct and one for stray kids, but I chose to start over after an extended hiatus (moving, work, life).

You may recognise some of the content here, and if you do, please feel free to ask. I will never copy another persons work, but I may repost some of my old work that I enjoyed with some edits.

Do you write cnc?

A: Depends on the context, but generally, I will say yes as long as there is no violence (oitside of impact play) and I can write it with negotiation and context.

Is your favourite content to write?

A: I really like doing drabbles and anything Hybrid related. I love hybrids. Have I mentioned that I love hybrids¿

Do you only write Sub Reader?

A: Nope! I'm a switch through and through so I will write whatever role the people are interested in!

Do our request have to have kink in them?

A: Not at all! I love wholesome vanilla content just as much as the messed up spicy stuff.

How do we send requests?

A: Just jump into my ask box and ramble your idea to me. You can be as detailed or vague as you want, but please include if you want it to be written without the use of pronouns!

Why do you add banners to everything?

A: I just think they're fun! I like my cute lil doodles.

Do you have any other blogs?

A: ooft, quite a few! @thefantasydenarchives for all my asks and polls, etc so I can keep this blog somewhat organised, @bunniebinnie is for my kpop fic recs and anything else kpop related, @markmein for my NCT content (needs work) and @bunniedreams for my personal stuff

Will write:

Edge play kinks, fictional creatures (hybrids, werewolves, ghosts), ot8 scenarios, threesomes and anything above a threesome, dubious consent, unhinged member x reader, violence NOT committed against reader, ftm reader, marijuana use.

Will not write:

Pregnant reader, lactation kink, barely legal, high school, young reader x much older member and vice versa, dad stray kids, parent reader, hard drug use, violence against reader, character death, heavy angst, cheating.

60 notes · View notes

familyabolisher · 1 year

Note

Sorry to ask something somewhat related to the recent discourse, but do you have any advice to someone trying to teach themselves lit analysis or lit theory? Seems like most online advice ends at "get an English degree lol"

first of all sorry for leaving this for so long, between work and various other Demands in my life i didn’t really have the time/energy to sit down and write up a proper answer for a while. anyway: imo, what’s more important than working your way through a long list of critical theory is honing an ability to respond to a text yourself; being able to take notice of your emotional responses, being able to ask questions about what the text does and what it responds to and whether you think it succeeds or fails. questions like ‘what is the text about?’ are often too vague, and assume that critical practice is a task limited to investigating the ‘correct’ metaphysical properties of a text that we have to uncover, as well as presenting literature as wholly utilitarian (under this framework, a text becomes a vehicle for a ‘theme,’ and nothing more.) in the list below, i’ve tried to be a little more precise about the kinds of questions that can help you become a more confident + critical reader.

[disclaimer: i am not any kind of expert, i have studied english lit at degree level and i do read a lot / make a habit of talking about what i read, but i would not consider myself especially ‘qualified’ and nor should you. i’m explaining a process that works for me, not providing a one-size-fits-all solution to the question of analytical methodology.]

the essence of literary practice is that a text has a terrain where it has to be met with, and where it will be accountable to forces that are often beyond its control or beyond its immediate borders, and a terrain where it asks to be met with, and towards which it will attempt to navigate the reader; the reader’s job is to meet with it on both terrains, synthesise them, and respond to them. so, some of the questions you should be asking about a text include:

what is its context? this can mean a lot of things: when and where was it written, and how might the conditions contemporary to its creation be informing the inner working of the text? is it considered part of a particular literary movement; how does it interact with the core characteristics of that movement? does it invoke other works; if so, how does it respond to them? what biographical information about the author might be relevant to the piece? some books will come with an introduction which, if written well, would cover at least the outstanding details on this list; you can also have a look on wikipedia or other such websites to get a feel for the conditions under which the text was created.

how does it respond to this context? rather than assuming a text to be a passive body onto which its external conditions are exerting their unilateral force, we should always understand a text as being in active dialogue with the context that shaped it. what are the questions typically posed within the movement or genre to which it belongs; how does it answer these questions? does it build on its predecessors in any way? if it’s a responsive text (ie. consistently invoking an earlier text), what does it have to say about the text to which it responds; how does it develop or contravene the template from which it was building? how might it be responding to the questions of its time; which paradigms are challenged? which are endorsed, actively or tacitly? what goes unmentioned? i emphasise critical engagement with context so heavily because it’s often where the meat of the text can be found.

what are the conditions which made this text possible? this is a little different to questions about context, which have a far broader scope; this is a question which seeks to treat a text not as a thing that came into existence of its own accord, but as a thing that emerged as a result of a process of material production that depends upon particular conditions. is it a mainstream publishing house, or an indie press, or self-published? how does this affect its authority, or the standard to which we hold it? how does this affect its relationship to narratives of cultural hegemony? what can that tell us about what hegemony can and cannot absorb? this is me being a big marxist about it but i think this question is woefully neglected in literary studies lol

why did the author make the choices that they made? one of the most important things to remember when it comes to literary analysis is that every choice made in a text is deliberate; every choice about what happens, what a character says and does, what a character looks like, how particular characters interact, how scenes and objects and settings are described, what prose style is employed, what word is used in a sentence, etc., is a deliberate choice being made by an external agent (ie. the author, sometimes/arguably also the editor, also the translator if a text is in translation), and those choices are accountable both to the deliberations of the author and the external cultural narratives with which they necessarily enter into a dialogue. ‘why does a character behave in a particular way’ is not a question that invites you to treat the story like a riddle for which you can find an ‘answer,’ but a question that engenders the following: what does their behaviour reveal about the character, and how might this be situated within the discourse of the wider text? does this behaviour reveal any biases on the part of the author? what sort of expectations does this behaviour establish, and are those expectations met or neglected or subverted? the same process can be applied to themes, settings, plot beats - anything, really. why is this particular adjective used - does it have other connotations that the author might want to draw attention to in relation to the object being described? why does this chapter end here and not here? nobody in a novel has agency that extends beyond the boundaries of the novel itself; part of the practice of analysis means discerning which choices were made and why, and whether those choices were good or bad.

what is your response? analysis is a misleading term for this practice; it’s less about dispassionately picking at a text in search of an ‘answer’ and more about evaluation - assessing the text’s successes and failures and cultivating your personal response to it, which means paying attention to your responses as you go along. some people would argue that ‘did you like/dislike this’ is a juvenile question, but i would disagree - knowing whether you liked or disliked something and being able to describe why it evoked that reaction in you is crucial to an evaluative practice. a text can be conceptually excellent, but falter if its prose is clunky or uninspired or unimaginative; being able to notice when a text isn’t engaging you and asking why that is is an important part of this evaluative process. similarly, what do you make of the themes and developments present in the text; does it dissect its themes with precision, or does it make broad gestures towards concepts without ever articulating them fully? is it original? does it have sufficient depth to it? do you agree with it? are you compelled by it? if you were asked the questions that the novel tries to respond to, what would you say; do you think that the novel misses anything out? has it challenged your own perspective? what are its limitations?

literary analysis is a learned skill, but by its nature of being a skill it gets a lot easier over time, and some of these questions will become intuitive. a good way to hone the skill and develop a greater intimacy with a text is through close reading; this refers to the practice of selecting a passage (or even just a sentence) and picking it apart line by line (word by word, even) to describe in intimate detail exactly how the sentence(s) came to be formed in the way that it/they did. i’ll use the first few sentences of daphne du maurier’s rebecca as an example.

Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again. It seemed to me I stood by the iron gate leading to the drive, and for a while I could not enter, for the way was barred to me. There was a padlock and chain upon the gate. I called in my dream to the lodge-keeper, and had no answer, and peering closer through the rusted spokes of the gate I saw that the lodge was uninhabited.

so a close reading of these sentences might identify:

‘last night i dreamt i went to manderley again’ is in iambic hexameter; this rhythmically satisfying invocation makes for a smooth opening sentence, and contrasts with the longer, more complex sentences that follow on. the change in rhythm through such a contrast helps to maintain momentum throughout the paragraph.

the first sentence also introduces a few key pieces of information - that this story is being told from the first person, that we are opening with a dream (and that the narrative places stock in the significance of dreams), and that the speaker is going to manderley ‘again’ - ie. that this is opening after an event in which manderley was significant. that the speaker going to manderley ‘again’ in a dream holds importance implies an exile from manderley in the ‘real’ world; this already gives us hints at the broader shape of the narrative.

the speaker’s intimacy with manderley and disregard for ‘telling’ the reader what it is (we do not get, like, ‘manderley is a house’ or something - the passage continues as though we know what manderley is already) helps to develop our sense of immersion in the dreamscape. it also sets manderley up as a place of immense significance.

both ‘it seemed to me’ and the later ‘i called’ have a matter-of-factness to them, a certain dry reporting of the events of the dream which, rather than situating the reader within the texture of the dream itself, refortify us as outside of it, listening to it be explained after the fact.

‘for a while i could not enter, for the way was barred to me’ continues the theme of implied exile that the first sentence gestured towards. the iambic trimeter on ‘the way was barred to me’ creates a lilting cadence which, along with the use of the passive voice, detaches the speaker from an emotive response to this being ‘barred’; it is a reported dream that will not consciously acknowledge the speaker’s feelings about being exiled from manderley at this time. (we instead infer these feelings through how the chapter develops.)

‘there was a padlock and chain upon the gate,’ as a short sentence, falls into the same matter-of-fact register as that which i alluded to above, partly through the use of the passive voice, and - as i explained earlier - varies the length of sentences such that the paragraph retains a particular buoyancy.

the development from the speaker calling to the lodge-keeper to not getting an answer to seeing that the lodge is uninhabited tells a story wherein the speaker at first has authority such that a lodge-keeper would respond to her and let her in; this authority is negated by the lack of response; the lodge-keeper is found to be absent in a development that took place whilst she was herself away, presumably in the state of exile that we have inferred her to be in. ‘uninhabited’ is the kind of word you would expect to be used for an area of land, often with a colonial connotation; this introduces a theme that this chapter (& the book as a whole) goes on to develop, of manderley being a site of colonial decay; as reinforced by the ‘rusted spokes.’

in my experience, close reading is a technique best practiced on poetry, but it’s a very helpful skill to develop in general, and implementing it with prose can elucidate the nuances of a text far more clearly than you might initially realise. in a well-written novel, language is very deliberate and precise!

i think the best thing you can do to develop your skills as a critical reader is to read carefully, and to keep track of your responses to a text as best as possible. keeping a note of what you think a text achieves and how you respond to it each time you read one can be a good way of sorting your thoughts into something coherent and developing your ability to articulate a response. anyway, hopefully this has provided something resembling a guide for how to develop the thought processes that go behind critical practice!

#ask #long post #resources

543 notes · View notes

literary-illuminati · 3 months

Text

2024 Book Review #4 – War in Human Civilization by Azar Gat

This is my first big history book of the year, and one I’ve been rather looking forward to getting to for some time now. Its claimed subject matter – the whole scope of war and violent conflict across the history of humanity – is ambitious enough to be intriguing, and it was cited and recommended by Bret Devereaux, whose writing I’m generally a huge fan of. Of course, he recommended The Bright Ages too, and that was one of my worst reads of last year – apparently something I should have learned my lesson from. This is, bluntly, not a good book – the first half is bad but at least interesting, while the remainder is only really worth reading as a time capsule of early 2000s academic writing and hegemonic politics.

The book purports to be a survey of warfare from the evolution of homo sapiens sapiens through to the (then) present, drawing together studies from several different fields to draw new conclusions and a novel synthesis that none of the authors being drawn from had ever had the context to see – which in retrospect really should have been a big enough collection of dramatically waving red flags to make me put it down then and there. It starts with a lengthy consideration of conflict in humanity’s ‘evolutionary state of nature’ – the long myriads between the evolution of the modern species and the neolithic revolution – which he holds is the environment where the habits, drives and instincts of ‘human nature’ were set and have yet to significantly diverge from. He does this by comparing conflict in other social megafauna (mostly but not entirely primates), archaeology, and analogizing from the anthropological accounts we have of fairly isolated/’untainted’ hunter gatherers in the historical record.

From there, he goes on through the different stages of human development – he takes a bit of pain at one point to disavow believing in ‘stagism’ or modernization theory, but then he discusses things entirely in terms of ‘relative time’ and makes the idea that Haida in 17th century PNW North America are pretty much comparable to pre-agriculture inhabitants of Mesopotamia, so I’m not entirely sure what he’s actually trying to disavow – and how warfare evolved in each. His central thesis is that the fundamental causes of war are essentially the same as they were for hunter-gatherer bands on the savanna, only appearing to have changed because of how they have been warped and filtered by cultural and technological evolution. This is followed with a lengthy discussion of the 19th and 20th centuries that mostly boils down to trying to defend that contention and to argue that, contrary to what the world wars would have you believe, modernity is in fact significantly more peaceful than any epoch to precede it. The book then concludes with a discussion of terrorism and WMDs that mostly serves to remind you it was written right after 9/11.

So, lets start with the good. The book’s discussion of rates of violence in the random grab-bag of premodern societies used as case studies and the archaeological evidence gathered makes a very convincing case that murder and war are hardly specific ills of civilization, and that per capita feuds and raids in non-state societies were as- or more- deadly than interstate warfare averaged out over similar periods of time (though Gat gets clumsy and takes the point rather too far at times). The description of different systems of warfare that ten to reoccur across history in similar social and technological conditions is likewise very interesting and analytically useful, even if you’re skeptical of his causal explanations for why.

If you’re interested in academic inside baseball, a fairly large chunk of the book is also just shadowboxing against unnamed interlocutors and advancing bold positions like ‘engaging in warfare can absolutely be a rational choice that does you and yours significant good, for example Genghis Khan-’, an argument which there are apparently people on the other side of.

Of course all that value requires taking Gat at his word, which leads to the book’s largest and most overwhelming problem – he’s sloppy. Reading through the book, you notice all manner of little incidental facts he’s gotten wrong or oversimplified to the point where it’s basically the same thing – my favourites are listing early modern Poland as a coherent national state, and characterizing US interventions in early 20th century Central America as attempts to impose democracy. To a degree, this is probably inevitable in a book with such a massive subject matter, but the number I (a total amateur with an undergraduate education) noticed on a casual read - and more damningly the fact that every one of them made things easier or simpler for him to fit within his thesis - means that I really can’t be sure how much to trust anything he writes.

I mentioned above that I got this off a recommendation from Bret Devereaux’s blog. Specifically, I got it from his series on the ‘Fremen Mirage’ – his term for the enduring cultural trope about the military supremacy of hard, deprived and abusive societies. Which honestly makes it really funny that this entire book indulges in that very same trope continuously. There are whole chapters devoted to thesis that ‘primitive’ and ‘barbarian’ societies possess superior military ferocity and fighting spirit to more civilized and ‘domesticated’ ones, and how this is one of the great engines of history up to the turn of the modern age. It’s not even argued for, really, just taken as a given and then used to expand on his general theories.

Speaking of – it is absolutely core to the book’s thesis that war (and interpersonal violence generally) are driven by (fundamentally) either material or reproductive concerns. ‘Reproductive’ here meaning ‘allowing men to secure access to women’, with an accompanying chapter-length aside about how war is a (possibly the most) fundamentally male activity, and any female contributions to it across the span of history are so marginal as to not require explanation or analysis in his comprehensive survey. Women thus appear purely as objects – things to be fought over and fucked – with the closest to any individual or collective agency on their part shown is a consideration that maybe the sexual revolution made western society less violent because it gave young men a way to get laid besides marriage or rape.

Speaking of – as the book moves forward in time, it goes from being deeply flawed but interesting to just, total dreck (though this also might just me being a bit more familiar with what Gat’s talking about in these sections). Given the Orientalism that just about suffuses the book it’s not, exactly, surprising that Gat takes so much more care to characterize the Soviet Union as especially brutal and inhumane that he does Nazi Germany but it is, at least, interesting. And even the section of World War 2 is more worthwhile than the chapters on decolonization and democratic peace theory that follow it.

Fundamentally this is just a book better consumed secondhand, I think – there are some interesting points, but they do not come anywhere near justifying slogging through the whole thing.

#book review #history #war in human civilization #azar gat

54 notes · View notes

ishcliff · 5 months

Text

canto V speculation/spoilers, featuring discussion of moby dick and lots of guessing.

a note that with my predictions, i am just spitballing here.

still fascinated with the fact that queequeg is a former member of the middle. i would assume she was one of the more skilled members as well, even if only just to play off her original counterpart's position as nobility in his tribe. lest we forget his strong proficiency in harpooning. i wonder if we will have ishmael reference queequeg in being instrumental to her skills with a harpoon?

given ishmael mentioning in the blubbering toad's logs having someone long ago comfort her while crying over something, i have to wonder if this was queequeg, and if queequeg ended up being a mentor to her. the way the members of the middle are referred to as either "big brother" or "big sister" makes me think of a shield/protector sort of role being advertised by them, even if it ends up being a farce. perhaps queequeg had some disillusionment with the operations of the middle? a contrast between the middle's (probable) brutality and queequeg's (if we go by the source) kind-hearted nature?

i think often on source queequeg's sentiment that his exposure to the white christian world have become a taint in his soul, and that he feels unworthy of returning to his home. the world of the city being, for better and definitely for worse "aracial" makes much of the relevance and themes of moby dick a little tricky to translate, imo. for those who might not have read moby dick, my favorite thing to say about it is: "the whale is white for a reason."

schools in the united states often teach that the lesson about race to take away from moby dick are simply not to judge another person by the color of their skin, but that is a vast oversimplification. moby dick was released pre-civil war and asserted that the very concept of whiteness is an inherent evil. it condemned slavery, argued against the merits of the very-popular-at-the-time "scientific" school of phrenology. most importantly, it suggests that the glorification of whiteness as a designation of purity and the reason to guide the "lesser non-white races" is the source of all of christianity's evils. with this in mind, i'd like to bring up that sometimes people nowadays make a show of "wow, moby dick was a commercial failure, but now it's considered one of the greatest american books ever written. thank goodness we discovered it." what actually happened is that moby dick was critically panned in virtually all liberal (in the classical/socialist sense) media circles, but celebrated in socialist ones. you can probably guess why.

perhaps that gives context to my skepticism of how queequeg will be handled in a thematic sense. some people point to queequeg in moby dick as a progenitor of the harmful "noble savage" trope, and i don't think that's entirely without basis. but the difference between moby dick and many other media with "noble savages" is that queequeg was created as a philosophical counter to the very notion of white (and christian) supremacy, whereas the majority examples use this to show the virtues of white society. there is also the fact that queequeg and his fictional home were based on actual indigenous polynesians whom the author, herman melville, actually lived with for several years and maintained strong friendships with. i personally believe that matters.

so how will project moon translate that to queequeg? i don't really know. perhaps her home was a smaller syndicate in the backstreets. maybe she's even an outsider, especially given that ishmael has spent a lot of time exploring the outskirts. ishmael seems to be a blend of the character and a biographical account of herman melville's well-recorded life and philosophical quandaries. i am definitely curious and trying to be optimistic.

there's also the presence of tanya, who was obsessed with strength and survival of the fittest to the point of distortion. maybe she will end up being retroactively made a foil to queequeg? human!tanya in a flashback, maybe? i think she can be a very interesting point to develop PJM's take on queequeg, since queequeg abandoned the middle entirely.

so yeah. needless to say. i have been Pondering. there's a lot left to discover and understand, and i'm excited to see where they take it.

#limbus company speculation #canto v spoilers #lcb ishmael #lcb queequeg

72 notes · View notes

coinandcandle · 1 year

Text

Familiar Spirits and The Witches' Familiar - Coin's Notes

What is a familiar, and how do they fit into modern magic?

Definition

Familiars are spirits that act as assistants or guides to magic users, helping them with domestic and/or magical duties.

Familiars were and sometimes still are classified as a type of demonic spirit that often take the form of an animal, mostly thought to be cats, dogs, toads, and hares.

They are thought to help witches or magic users in domestic areas as well as in their magical affairs. Familiars can take on any color or shape.

In the 17th century, Familiars were more likely to be called “Imps”!

Etymology

The word Familiar comes from the Latin familiaris meaning "of or belonging to the family". Familiaris may come from the Latin word famulus meaning "slave" or "servant".

As far as we know, the first usage of the word in the context of witchcraft is attested from the 1560s. Before this, it was used as a noun meaning “familiar friend”.

History

The idea of familiars being a witch’s helper spirit was especially strong in the 17th century when King James I wrote about them in his book titled Daemonologie in which he talks about witches and their supposed "relations" with the devil.

This belief was most popular in East Anglian Europe and was scarcely found elsewhere during the witch trials.

The first recorded witch trial to reference a familiar in witchcraft is that of Dame Alice Kyteler, in 1324 (Wright 1833, p. 2) but it would be two centuries later that the idea of the witch's familiar took off.

Margaret Alice Murray talks about two different kinds of familiars The Witch-Cult in Western Europe: "those by which the witch divined and those who attended on the witch to obey her commands." *

Many historical accounts that we have regarding the confessions of supposed witches were likely falsified since the people being accused were under duress as they were being tortured. This doesn’t mean all historical accounts of Familiars are false, but we should take them with a grain of salt.

Most of the time those accused of witchcraft and of having "familiars" were lonely or isolated folks, likely older in age, that would talk to the animals probably similar to how we speak to our pets now.

However, keeping animals as pets wasn't too popular among the working class, and relationships with animals that were more than a farmer and his stock were seen as unnatural.

Cunning folk practices were said to involve familiars as well, though were often thought to be different than the witch’s “demonic” familiar and were sometimes referred to as the “fae” or “fairy” familiar in literature.

Side Note: We can’t talk about familiars without talking about demons!

“The noun meaning 'demon, evil spirit that answers one's call' is from the 1580s (familiar spirit is attested from 1560s); earlier as a noun it meant "a familiar friend" (late 14c.). The Latin plural, used as a noun, meant ‘the slaves,’ also ‘a friend, intimate acquaintance, companion.’ The usual ancient Greek sense, ‘supernatural agent or intelligence lower than a god, ministering spirit’ is attested in English from the 1560s and is sometimes written daemon or daimon for purposes of distinction. Meaning ‘destructive or hideous person’ is from the 1610s; as ‘an evil agency personified’ (rum, etc.) from 1712.” (etymologyonline)

Famous Familiars

Familiar spirits were confessed to during the witch trials of Huntingdon. Two of their names were Greedigut and Grissel and they were given to the witch in spirit form by a demon who went by the name Blackeman. They were said to look like black dogs with hoglike, bristled hair on their back. -> It was said that they would do whatever their master requested and when they were not given a task would attack or rob passersby.

Agathion is a type of Familiar demonic spirit that can appear as an animal or a man. Once bound as a familiar it will live inside a ring or talisman of some sort. They were said to only appear at midday or to be most powerful at midday.

Sybacco was the familiar to the Comte de Corasse, the Comte de Foix, and Adriano Lemmi. Described as having bull horns and three eyes on his forehead, he is under the command of the demon Botiz.

Thomas "Tom" Reid was said to be the Familiar of Bessie Dunlop of Scotland, who was tried in 1576. Tom was described as the spirit of a soldier as well as an honest, elderly man. Tom told Bessie that he lived in Elfhame with the fae.

Boye was Prince Rupert’s dog that some believed to be his familiar due to their closeness and Boye’s tagging along during the British Civil War, though this was likely a smear campaign against the prince.

Similarities and Comparisons

Fylgr, a Norse guardian or “follower” spirit, was attached to a person related to their fate. These were often only seen by those with the ability to see the supernatural. In some cases, they would foretell the death of the person they followed but they weren’t inherently a sign of death.

Ancient Romans had genii that fall under the “helpful spirit” category, such as Lares Familiares which were household deities or spirits that were guardians of the family.

The Greeks believed in daimons which refer to supernatural beings between men and gods, such as minor gods or spirits of dead heroes. -> Some believed you could have personal daimons that acted as guides, guardians, or spiritual companions. Socrates was said to have a personal daimon, see: De Genio Socratis.

Fetches, historically considered bad omens, are now sometimes seen as a servitor spirit with a time limit that a person creates for a specific purpose. The Fetch will disappear once their task is completed or they’ve been dismissed. (pg 63-66 Barbarous Words) -> Originally, fetches were seen as a sort of spectral doppelganger, and seeing one foretold the death of the person they took the shape of.

Familiars in Modern Magic

Not dissimilar to their old definition, Familiars are seen as spirits that aid and guide witches. They are teachers, helpers, and companions.

Familiars can teach you magic, help with spells, or perform tasks for you.

They are not a pet. Treat a Familiar the way you’d treat a colleague or even a friend.

Divination is a great way to contact familiars. If you've done spirit work before then it's similar to contacting any other spirit.

Familiars are usually seen as a contractual spirit relationship.

Enjoy my posts? Consider leaving me a tip on my ko-fi!~

Resources and References

On Familiars Familiar - Britannica Etymology of Familiar - Etymology Online Notes on Familiars by Early Modern Whale Guardian spirits or Demonic Pets by James A Serpell CunningFolk and Familiar Spirits by Emma Wilby Paltrie Vermin, Cats, Mise, Toads, and Weasils: Witches, Familiars, and Human-Animal Interactions in the English Witch Trials. by Helen Parish

On the Witch Trials Witch Persecutions edited by George L. Burr. Malleus Maleficarum or The Witch’s Hammer by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger The Witch-Cult in Western Europe by Margaret Murray Daemonologie by King James I

*Note: While her witch-cult theory has been thoroughly debunked, Murray helped shape modern witchcraft whether she meant to or not and as such her texts are worth a read.

Misc Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures by Theresa Bane The Folklore of Isle of Man ch. III by A. W. Moore Barbarous Words: A compendium of Conjurations, British folk magic, and other Popish charms by George Hares The Witch’s Familiar and the Fairy in Early modern England and Scottland

#familiars #witchblr #witch history #witchcraft #familiar spirits #coin's notes

254 notes · View notes

drakaripykiros130ac · 4 months

Note

I don't understand how anyone can like the Greens in the series. I like them in the books because they are good villains, specifically Alicent. I would have given anything to see her come to life on screen rather than the pathetic thing we were treated to. That doesn't help with the fact that apparently Ryan Condal has finally confirmed he's team Greens... I'll never understand this guy. How could he read the book and say that no, the Greens were justified in any way ?! Also, the guts you have to have, even within this fandom, to openly say you support the group of misogynistic and blood purist usurpers... In the sense of saying that they are completely right or that Blacks are just as horrible! But in what universe ?! Ryan Condal would also have said that we would probably change preferred camps in season 2... Man, you can still dream, even with your stupid supporting documents for TG everyone still prefers the Blacks team. It's distressing that the director of the series himself doesn't understand anything he's adapting and that so many people are going in this direction. The number of idiots who tried to explain to me that both teams were equally horrible, that the Greens can't be pure villains because GRRM only writes complex characters, it's obvious. Like GRRM has never written a pure villain ? Are you sure you've read the books he wrote ? No but I swear that since the release of the series, asoiaf fans are worse than before in their unjustified hatred of the Targaryens... These people think they are moral by wanting to put the two teams on the same level or by saying that the Blacks are worse. That revolts me.

Essentially what neutrals think ;

“Yes, it’s not good what the Greens did, but the Blacks are no better seen as they dared to fight back for their rights.”

Like... What dimension did I land in ?!

Just last time, I received comments from someone supposedly accepting that the Greens were worse, but trying to explain to me that Daemon groomed Rhaenyra (which is false book or series), that the murder of 'a Greens child is unjustified (while the Greens shed blood first and we are in a feudal context) that Lucerys taking Aemond's eye is unjustified (Wtf ?!) ah and the best thing was to me say at face value that Daemon was not a gray character and that he was like Aegon IV... (Again... WTF ?!)

https://www.tumblr.com/darklinaforever/701570671006875648/i-hate-when-people-say-greens-and-blacks-are-on

(Afterwards I wasn't gentle in my answers either, but I'm fed up with this type of people)

I personally never liked the greens in the book. To me, they were always the villains. Always. I never viewed Daemon and Rhaenyra as pure innocent angels, don’t get me wrong. I recognize the few mistakes Rhaenyra makes in the book, as well as Daemon’s many, many faults.

For instance, yes, Rhaenyra should not have had Vaemond murdered (even though what he spoke was treasonous and threatened her position as well as the lives of her children). She should not have gone so far with the taxes during her reign (even though she was left with no choice).

However, in this story, despite all their faults, I always felt Rhaenyra and Daemon were perfectly justified. Because their good qualities kind of eclipse the bad stuff. The Blacks are the anti-heroes of the story. They have done some questionable things, but all of them have been justified/done with good reason and good purpose.

The Greens are a whole different story. Everything they have done (mainly Alicent and Otto), they have done out of jealousy and pure greed (hence why they were given the color “green” - the color of greed and envy). 95 % of the war crimes are done by the Greens. Literally the only thing the Blacks are to be held accountable for is B&C. Other than that, every crime was courtesy of the Greens.

To me, the Greens have always been split between those who are anti-villains (Aegon, Helaena, Daeron), and those who are pure villains (Alicent, Otto, Aemond).

For the anti-villains: The one time Aegon presents some goodness is when he has reservations about usurping his half-sister. Other than that, he is pure evil; Helaena can’t be considered a pure innocent soul either. She has good qualities, but she is extremely underdeveloped as a character in the book and we don’t know her thoughts, her motives. She didn’t protest the usurpation and accepted the position of queen consort easily; Daeron is somehow given a free pass by certain people because he is “the daring”, and while that’s true, these people forget how he burned a whole village of innocent people alive.

For the pure villains, not much need be said. Alicent and Otto are a bunch of opportunistic hypocrites and vicious upstarts. I haven’t sensed any bit of goodness in them. Aemond is a psycho with zero redeeming qualities.

Now, in the show, I don’t feel as if the Greens are portrayed better than they have been in the book. I feel like the show writers (mainly Ryan Condal) are trying to come up with lame excuses for them, and it’s just not working. The great majority of the viewers still hate Alicent as much as they did in the book, regardless how many times she presents those “doe eyes”, and the great majority still believe the Greens are in the wrong.

In the show, when it comes to the Greens, there’s always some sort of “reason”, some sort of “accident”. Alicent didn’t mean to shoot her mouth off and convince Larys to murder the current hand, Lyonel Strong, so that her father could return as Hand (even though that is exactly what she wanted). Aemond didn’t mean to let Vhagar know that he wants Lucerys dead (even though his pursuing and direct attack showed his intentions to murder the boy). Crispin somehow didn’t mean to crush Beesbury’s skull in that ball, even though he acted aggressively towards the man for simply speaking the truth and nothing but the truth at that treasonous Council meeting.

These excuses the show writers make for the greens make no sense whatsoever. They should have stuck with the actual canon portrayal, because it’s just ridiculous at this point.

So what if the two sides are not evenly matched?

They’re not supposed to!

GRRM doesn’t write purely good vs bad in his universe, that is true. He loves the complexity of the characters and the stories. However, that does not mean that he intended for the Blacks and the Greens to be evenly matched in this story.

He himself admitted that he wrote the book more in the Blacks’ favor because that’s how he felt (ironic, considering that Fire and Blood is told from the point of view of green supporters). It’s his story. I have seen people accuse him of being biased, always in favor of the Blacks.

Yes, he clearly wrote the Blacks as the protagonists, with better developed characters, with the best allies, the most heroic/epic deaths, most dragons, most Houses supporting them.

I mean, the Starks are TB, while the Lannisters are TG. That alone should give you a clue as to which side you’re supposed to be rooting for.

Clearly GRRM is Team Black, but who says he can’t be? Who says that the sides have to be evenly matched? It’s his story! If he says the Blacks are right, the Blacks are right.

TG stans are just in denial at this point.

30 notes · View notes

taylortruther · 1 month

Note

I just did a lot of research on death of the author recently for one of my hobbies (I'm a book youtuber lmao) and people misinterpret what that means alllll the time and now it's one of my biggest pet peeves haha. The original french essay, and the context with which it was written, has been completely twisted.

The original essay was written at a time when literary analysis was focused ONLY on an authors intended meaning, and that there was a singular CORRECT answer and interpretation, and you would find it by researching everything about the author. Death of the Author posited that an individuals reaction and interpretation to a piece of art outside of this was *also* valid, and that it shouldn't be ignored as irrelevant. That art could stand on it's own and that wasn't immediately to be dismissed.

People now tend to use it in one of two ways: as a binary (you can only have death of the author! There can't be author understanding AND personal understanding!) OR as a way to say "I don't like this author's political stances but still like their work" which is even further from the original meaning lmao.

Anyway, you and Jaime understand this clearly already but it drives me crazy when people use it to act like you can't be interested in Taylor's intended meaning and history as WELL as your own interpretation of the art. Both are valid, and often both are necessary to fully understand literature and other art.

i was literally just about to make this post so i'm glad you did the work, thank you bestie. also, it's not a law, it's a lens or theory of interacting with the work. it's not the only way. and btw, it's already happening with taylor's work (in that people worldwide relate her music to their lives already, her music already lives on beyond her and interpretations change per person and with the culture, and no one is being forced to only take taylor's experiences into account when interpreting her work?)

what people mean is that they find gossip about her writing to be annoying. which is fine. but they can just say that lmao

#writing paragraphs about taylor swift

19 notes · View notes

liberty-or-death · 1 year

Text

Meaning of 陈情 Chenqing

This is going to be a rehash of the old Taming Wangxian footnotes, but I’ll be adding a little more.

The term 陈情 Chenqing has two meanings. The first would be to reminisce past relationship (former friendship), and the second would be to provide a full account of (an issue).

To gain further context about this term, let us look at where it originated from. It was first originated from Wenxuan (‘Selections of Refined Literature”) compiled by 萧统 Xiao Tong, the Crown Prince of the Liang Dynasty. In the Wenxuan, there is a segment called the 陈情表 Chenqing Memorial (to the throne), which is a letter written by Li Mi, a scholar of the Western Jin Dynasty to the Emperor Wu of Jin. The Emperor Wu of Jin had employed him to work in the palace stables but Li Mi wanted to take care of his elderly grandmother. His father died, his mother remarried and he lived with his grandmother. So he wrote this heartfelt letter about his family circumstances and the hardship that he’s facing. (It’s basically a resignation letter lol). The story didn’t end well and he was removed from his post, defamed and he died at home.

This term is also used in the modern context of confessing before a court. Hence, a 陈情 Chenqing is almost like a plea of sorts. It fits so well as firstly, Wei Wuxian is essentially treated like a criminal throughout the entire book and everyone in the series expects a “confession” from him. The confrontation at Nightless City was almost like a court that wanted to trial him. And secondly, from the historical context of the word, it could have hinted that it wouldn’t make a different no matter what he said and he wouldn’t have ended well.

陈情 and 随便 are commonly thought to depict the shift in Wei Wuxian’s character. 随便 (suí biàn) represents his youth; he is carefree, relaxed and without worry. 陈情 on the other hand, is a depiction of his loss and loneliness. Chenqing was created from his time in the Burial Mounds - it’s a turning point for him because at this juncture, he had no means to give his own account or prove his “innocence”, simply because he has walked the demonic path. He’s unable to tell his loved ones that he lost his jindan, and as much as he misses his past relationships, he’s unable to relive them because he’s labelled a “demonic” Yiling Laozu.

An interesting titbit can be found in the title of the Untamed, 陈情令 (chén qíng lìng). There are two possible interpretations to this.

(i) The main focus of the story is on Wei Wuxian and his character growth, hence placing 陈情 in the title puts the emphasis on him.

(ii) 陈情一曲令天下 (chén qíng yī qū lìng tiān xià) - According to a forum, the producers have used this line to describe the drama’s title. It can be translated to, “a song from Chenqing commands the world”, aptly depicting Chenqing’s power.

#mdzs #mdzs meta #cql #cql meta #wei wuxian #chenqing #wei ying

338 notes · View notes

rukafais · 5 months

Note

This is maybe a complicated question but what sources (which for this purpose includes both novels and sourcebooks) would you recommend for learning about drow lore?

For Forgotten Realms drow lore specifically... I haven't read all of it by a long shot! Keep in mind that Menzoberranzan is one of many cities while you read these!! I haven't gathered all information about what different drow cities are Out There, but out of what I've read, I would recommend:

Sourcebooks:

Drow of the Underdark (SECOND EDITION DND, this is the TSR one. You want the one written by Ed Greenwood, NOT the third edition sourcebook of the same name). Some of it is editor mandated (such as prosthetics) but it's still a pretty good source. Should be available on archive.org or floating around on websites, I don't know if you can actually pick it up physically anymore.

Menzoberranzan Box Set (AD&D box set): Available on archive.org if you can't find it elsewhere. No account needed. Explicitly expands on Menzoberranzan-as-trade-hub, more details about the Houses, etc., all things that don't fit in novels.

Underdark (3rd edition supplement) - Play supplement for the Underdark. Expands more on non-Menzoberranzan locations and Underdark adventures and resources.

Out of the Abyss (5e adventure module) - covers a lot of the Underdark, including Menzoberranzan. You get a snapshot of Menzoberranzan in 5e as well as a bunch of other Underdark stuff.

Novels:*

War of the Spider Queen (Dissolution, Insurrection, Condemnation, Extinction, Annihilation, Resurrection): Six books, takes place during an event called the Silence of Lolth. Varied perspectives. Gives different views of various parts of drow society.

Liriel's trilogy (Daughter of the Drow, Tangled Webs, Windwalker): Three books by Elaine Cunningham. Very different protagonist from Drizzt, gives some context and greater fleshing out of the conditions priestesses go through in Menzoberranzan.

Side stories: Rite of Blood (prequel), The Direct Approach (takes place mid-trilogy), Answered Prayers (epilogue). You can find Rite of Blood in Best of the Realms vol 1. Direct Approach and Answered Prayers are in Best of the Realms vol 3, which can be found online in (cough cough) places, I don't think it's in print any longer. Drizzt's books: The character that quite literally started it all in Forgotten Realms, at least as far as drow publishing history goes. If you're buckling in for the marathon: Here is a slideshow of what to expect, with a text transcription.

Here is a reading order.

If you just want a crash course to get basic Menzo lore into your face:

Dark Elf trilogy (Homeland, Exile, Sojourn only if you're invested in Drizzt's story because that's his story of how he gets to the surface). Generations (Timeless, Boundless, Relentless). Generations revisits the Homeland timeline from the view of Jarlaxle and Zaknafein, both characters you'll be introduced to in the Dark Elf trilogy. *There is also Lady Penitent, that follows on from the end of WotSQ. I have read it, but it's not included in my overview because it explicitly addresses drow lore about their origins that as far as I can tell has been retconned as the editions advanced. However, if you are interested in reading it regardless, it is a trilogy with the books Sacrifice of the Widow, Storm of the Dead, and Ascendancy of the Last.

Peripherals:

(insert screaming about polyhedron and dragon magazine, i haven't even begun to go through all that yet, but if you want another example of a 'good drow' in the 2e era that isn't Drizzt, I recommend Polyhedron 97 which you can find here, which gives an example in Dusk, a drow tutor.)

ANYWAY UHH hope this helps a bit lmao. There's so much! And a lot of it is not consistent between editions either!

#rukamemes #theres so much and i have yet to go through it all #b

49 notes · View notes

school-of-roses · 1 year

Text

📚How to Read an Academic Paper📚

"The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go." —Dr. Seuss *̥˚✧

Reading an academic paper can be as much of a challenge as finding the source in the first place, if not more so. Knowing how to approach the process can help take you from struggling through it, to learning what you need to know in the least terrible way possible.

Structure of a Paper

Academic papers tend to follow a similar format. APA is as follows:

Title

The name of the paper, authors, dates, etc.

Abstract

A short summary of the paper.

Introduction

Introducing the paper. Sometimes this is written before the experiment starts. You often find the hypothesis here for an experiment. Sometimes it’s written after, but they’ll usually write it as if it was written before.

Methods and Materials

How they did it and what they used.

Results of the Study

What they found and how they analyzed it.

Discussion

What they concluded from the results and why, often with sources from other similar papers.

Conclusion

What this means and what they concluded.

(No Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion [IMRaD] you are most certainly not RAD. >:( )

How to Read Papers by Type

Different papers from different fields can present unique challenges to reading and understanding.

Start with the abstract. Once you’re done reading the abstract mosey on down to the conclusion! Ignore the middle bits! Most of the time the middle bits are there to tell other researchers “I gotta make sure this is up to the standard of academic research!” Once you’ve read it once you can go back to the Method and judge how they performed it. However, at first this is a lot so go read the conclusion! It should be short, sweet, and tell you what they have spent the last so-and-so pages arguing. This will make it easier to understand.

It may seem counterintuitive to go in this order because we are taught to read books top-to-bottom left-to-right, but academia is full of clowns who speak in code.

Humanities Papers

Humanities papers are the most likely to dunk the format of a research paper. They are also usually based on the researcher’s interpretation of a primary source.

Because humanities papers are often based on the researchers' (albeit very educated) opinion it lends itself to a critical analysis of everything from translation to cultural or social bias from the researcher much more easily. (What primary sources did they base their conclusions on? Would you have done the same? What have other researchers said? In the cultural context of the time, does this translation make sense?) However, this tends to come after you’ve successfully understood what the researcher is trying to say.

Primary Source

A primary source is first-hand knowledge of something. These can include a writing from a time period by someone who was there, a record made at the time, a photograph, or even an artifact.

Secondary Source

A secondary source is second-hand knowledge. These are the papers written on the subject, textbooks, and accounts written by the people who were not around when it happened. They are not inherently worse than secondary sources, and are very important for spreading knowledge, but research based on secondary sources tends to be a compilation of a lot of research rather than direct investigations. [See: Historiographies. Synthesized studies. Meta Analysis.]

Scientific Papers

The abstract is your best best friend!!! They are not hiding the ball, it’s in the abstract. Then once again take yourself on a trip to the conclusion. Scientific papers almost never deviate from this format. Read it once, twice, and thrice again until you understand what the abstract is saying. This will help you understand the whole paper better.

Additional Complications for Scientific Papers

Experimental design can be, and has been, the subject of many an entire college semester for many people. Don’t expect to understand it outright if you’re new! For the results of most studies, the relevant concept is going to be "statistical significance". This is the probability that the results were found by chance. It is generally decided ahead of time based on what is being measured and notated similarly to p<.05. This means that the statistical probability of getting those results by pure coincidence is small enough to be significant.

Often in the discussion section you’ll see the author talk about their sample size, their potential biases, and the limitations of their experimental design (if they don’t the other academics will laugh at them). While you can look at this yourself and decide, this often gives a good idea of where there could be room for error.

Qualitative vs Quantitative

Qualitative data is the how, what, and why of research. Quantitative is the numerical measurements. [Think “quality vs quantity”.] There are different statistical terms and analyses for these different types of measurements, but that could be a whole course, let alone document, in and of itself. They use big words like they’re being sponsored by WebMD and Webster both.

Think of it like this: if you do an experiment and adding something to someone’s drink causes it to taste sweeter, that’s a qualitative measurement. If you’re adding something to someone’s drink and it raises their blood pressure from 100 to 120, that’s a quantitative measurement. Differentiating between them can be tricky, but a good tip to keep in mind is if it’s studies with people is that qualitative research is usually done with small groups of people - often 100 people or less, while quantitative research will often be upwards of the hundreds. This is because with quantitative research you often need large sample sizes for the data to be meaningful.

There are many types of qualitative research, including interviews, ethnographies, oral history, case studies, focus groups, record keeping, different kinds of observations, etc, while on the quantitative research side of things, we have our surveys, descriptive research, experimental research, correlational research, comparative-causal research, and more.

Causing you Problems

Those are the general rules and advice, now let's talk about how they are broken.

Style

The structure of an academic paper differs by style. APA sticks to this format very strictly. However, Chicago (my mortal enemy) is going to have footnotes to contend with, but could still have an abstract and a conclusion. If it has neither of those, lament them, shame them, and curse the author to the pit before skirt skirting your way to the first paragraph (approximately the abstract or introduction), and the last two or three paragraphs (approximately the conclusion). They tend to have generally the same information as would be found in a labeled heading.

The code clowns not only said “make it complicated”, they made it complicated across several different paper writing formats. If by some unholy tragedy you find a writing in MLA? Bite the author with your real teeth, and hope your highschool prepared you for this. At the very least MLA tends to be easier to read by starting at the beginning.

Jargon

Academic papers are often incredibly dense! Academia knows this! Please don’t be afraid to look up words you don’t necessarily understand! It’s not shameful! Shame them for using big words, like the pompous elites they are, and pull out a dictionary. Understanding is important! If all else fails, no one needs to know you looked up a word, you can just do a quick Google search and look like a pro. I do it all the time.

Plus there are often tons of educational materials for learning academic jargon because no one is born educated. They had to learn it, they are just expecting their audience to be someone who has already gotten a degree on the subject. It’s dense and boring, “no one else is reading this shit, surely,” they think while dunking a donut in a cup of hot Red Bull.

320 notes · View notes