#this quote is from the introduction which if you don't read anything else from it that at least is enough | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gothhabiba · 8 months

Note

ooh could you elaborate on how the academic approach to social science topics varies across countries? and how different essay structures reflect those different approaches? what you said sounded interesting and i think it aligns with my experiences but im curious what exactly you had in mind

Not just the social sciences in particular but essay-writing in general is different from country to country, in terms of how essays are divided into different main “types” (e.g. summary, critical lens, argumentative, &c.); in terms of which tone is thought to be appropriate for which type of essay—how much you should argue forcibly and how much you should speculate or leave up to the reader; in terms of how much the language of an essay should mimick the language of speech (from “a subset of a spoken language that is considered formal” to “entire grammatical structures and verb tenses that don’t exist in spoken language” to “literally a completely different language"); in terms of what is an appropriate choice of subject for an essay of which type; in terms of how you should treat other writers whom your essay cites; &c. &c.

In the USA you tend to see, at least at the high school and lower collegiate levels, essays divided into an introduction that does specific things (introduces a wider topic, "narrows down" into the particular text or part of that topic being discussed, ends with a multi-part thesis statement explaining what you will argue); three or so body paragraphs that also do very specific things (argue one sub-point of the thesis statement, in order; begin with a topic sentence; continue with examples and arguments in support of the topic sentence, incorporating quotes to support your argument in one of a few specific ways and then analysing those quotes one by one; end with a sentence transitioning to the next paragraph); and then a concluding paragraph (opens with a restatement of the thesis; continues to summarise what has been argued; concludes with a statement of the broader relevance or importance of what the essay has argued). This will be called the "argumentative essay structure" or "hourglass essay" or "5-paragraph essay."

The tone should be forcefully argumentative, should not include statements such as "I think," "I believe," or anything else that seems too speculative (or indeed any first-person reference to the author at all); should not include any appeal to the reader to make up their own mind; &c. At a higher level, research essays should include sources, not so that these sources can be used to support the main point, but so that the essay's author can disagree with these sources in order to indicate that they are sufficiently "critical" and are contributing to their field (this is also true in the UK). Professors will probably want you to evaluate the assumptions that other writers are making, measure the merits of one writer's position against another, and argue for your own interpretation strongly and clearly in such a way that you don't seem to believe it to be an interpretation but rather demonstrably true. They may expect you to anticipate and 'disprove' counter-arguments that could potentially be levelled against your argument. The point is to 'convince' the reader of something. You'll often hear things like "you can argue whatever you want, as long as you can support it"; you are meant to chuse the topic and argument of a paper yourself, and a teacher or professor is not strictly meant to grade a well-structured essay poorly just because they disagree with you.

In terms of style, a sufficiently formal register (which excludes certain expressions and words used in everyday speech and in other kinds of writing, and includes others not used in speech) is expected; varied sentence structure is valued. At a lower level, you are expected to summarise enough background information to allow someone who has not read e.g. the novel you're talking about to understand your essay; at a graduate level, you may assume familiarity with the plot points of canonical texts.

These are all really particular ideas that go along with a specific philosophy about the purpose of writing in general, or in the social sciences and humanities in particular. They're not inherent to what "an essay" is (much less to what "writing" or "good writing" is).

French essay-writing is similarly extremely specific, but is completely different in structure. A successful French 'dissertation' (not 'dissertation' as in 'thesis'; basically an argumentative essay) needs to demonstrate strict adherence to a certain organisational structure. It should open with a 'problématique,' or central question / idea, which the entire essay will be conceptually and structurally centred around. Rather than arguing sub-points of a larger thesis one at a time, the essay's three body paragraphs are linked to each other with a dialectical, interrogative logic wherein the first paragraph will evaluate one side of a question (thesis), the second another side of the question or the opposite argument (anithesis), and the third will argumentatively compare these arguments (synthesis). Each segment of the essay should be more or less exactly the same length. These dissertations are further divided into 'thematic,' 'interrogative,' and 'implicit' essays, which each have their own expectations and guiding principles.

The first parts of the essay should not contain the author's own opinion or argument; this should be reserved for the concluding section, in which the student may relate their opinion to the arguments that they have discussed earlier. The introduction should include an overview of the structure of the essay. You are not asked to argue resoundingly for one point of view over another, but to examine a question from all sides, to evaluate it dialectically in its full complexity, and to evaluate different arguments with respect to the central question or idea against each other. Influential ideas about the topic are not cited just so that they can be argued against.

The style is expected to be, in my opinion, more clearly delineated from French as it is spoken than is the case for English-language essays; variation in sentence length or structure is not thought to be of importance; sentences of much greater length (as compared to standards for contemporary English-language writing) are considered acceptable. You should not introduce background information about the author, plot elements, publication date &c., which is considered extraneous to the essay's structure.

I know less about essay-writing in other academic cultures, but I'm sure information about this can easily be found. On a quick search, Japanese essays seem to be structured and styled quite differently from English-language ones, being more open to speculative statements such as "I think," and less insistent on front-loading a clearly delineated thesis statement.

In the Arabic-speaking world, memorisation, repetition, and recitation are highly valued in lower education. "Literacy" may look very different than a conception of "literacy" in the USA, where recitation of the Qu'ran with special attention given to its spelling and pronunciation (remember that this pronunciation will sometimes differ wildly from that of any language that students speak in their daily lives) may supercede analysis or interpretation of what is being read. Higher education tends to take place in Standard Arabic, a language in which correct expression is of religious importance. An abstract on Arabic-language essay-writing in Malaysian secondary school summarises the qualities of a successful essay-writer:

Students obviously have wide vocabulary; who able to create simple sentences; able to attach the Quranic verses, hadiths and virtuous phrase in their essay; know and able to make use of dictionary; master the techniques of memorizing main ideas of an essay and have group discussions and love writing. [...] They use various Arabic vocabulary and master in grammar. They are also skillful in using Arabic language to form correct sentences and also know how to utilize paragraphs for each content of the essay. Moreover they know when to use punctuations correctly.

Of course there are exceptions within any given country, university, or department, and essay-writing expectations differ by field and by level. I invite the reader to speculate about the potential ideological drivers of what is considered 'acceptable,' 'good,' or 'correct' versus 'undesirable,' 'inappropriate,' or 'unorganised' writing in different academic cultures.

#questions #Anonymous #long post

118 notes · View notes

soracities · 7 months

Note

Hello, I wanted to thank you for sharing so many interesting quotes and excerpts from Sarah Bakewell's book on the Existentialists. I'm really enjoying what I've read so far on your blog and I'm thinking of buying it (I really liked the book she wrote about Montaigne and his fascinating friendship with La Boétie). What do you think of this reading so far? What can I expect? Does this constitute a good introduction to the works of the philosophers cited? I know this book has been reviewed on Goodreads and elsewhere, but I really want to get your perspective!

Oh I would absolutely recommend it, anon, I think it's an excellent introduction! It's compelling and engaging to read (also quite funny), but also so well laid out; she spans about hundred years worth of thought, crossing through different, mostly, European writers with fairly different biographies but it flows together so seamlessly--really, it's just a wonderfully-written book in general. Even with the various figures populating its chapters, I didn't feel lost or overwhelmed by the lists of books, essays, lectures, names etc., simply because I was having fun..

I also think (and it's what I appreciated most) it does a really good and attentive job of placing existentialism and the philosophers she looks at both within the very specific cultural and historical moments they (and their ideas) arose in, but also in relation to the philosophical heritage that started it all and the legacy that comes after--she breaks down their ideas but also places those ideas in conversation with each other, either by looking at the many relationships and interactions these writers had with one another and / or their work, where they converge or diverge, their relationships with their respective societies, their experiences as a result of these societies, and all the different ways their various strands of thought reverberate and find new expression elsewhere. It's not just an analysis of each individual writer, but also of all the different points at which their thought and the world around them meet--in the end, It really does highlight and clarify the very human drama underpinning a lot of existentialism and which does, in a way, define it, and I loved that.

I have a list of essays and novels I want to read now thanks to this book which is always one of my criteria for something being a "Great" read, so I genuinely hope you get to enjoy it as much as I did, anon (and please don't hesitate to let me know your thoughts, too, if you want to of course). I hadn't read anything else by her but I am adding her book on Montaigne to my list because I have read his essay on friendship and to this day it's one of the most touching meditations on the topic I've come across, so thank you for that 💗

#genuinely great book truly!!!#and im only a little bit biased bc she talks about merleau-ponty quite a bit and i absolutely LOVE him #ask #anonymous #book talks

24 notes · View notes

mickeymilkovichsimp · 10 months

Text

I've been in the fandom for a few years now here on Tumblr, and I've had a few decently popular gallavich posts (when I remember that this app exists every few months haha), but I realized that I've never actually introduced myself on here. I saw this fun introduction post made by the amazing @callivich, so I thought I'd join in on the fun :)

Name: - Hannah

Age: - 22

What made you fall in love with Gallavich? - I feel like I started shameless completely blind to the ship. I started watching it because a bunch of my family members were watching it and talking about it during the covid quarantine time period, and I thought it seemed interesting, so I started watching it myself. I remember being shocked when they first hooked up, but never really having an opinion on Mickey until season three, and as you guys can probably tell by the username, I became obsessed haha. season 4 is when I really fell in love with the ship.

How long have you been a fan? - I kind of answered above but around summer 2020 during covid. The only season I watched live was 11, which maybe is a good thing because I don't think I could have handled season 5 or 7 in real time.

Favorite Gallavich moment/scene? - maybe basic, but I am obsessed with the prison reunion at the end of 9x06

Favorite Shameless character apart from Ian and Mickey? - I am a Sheila Jackson stan first and human 2nd. I missed her so much after she left

Do you write or draw or make edits? - I have 2 works on ao3 (same username), but I hate them both - some of my shitposts here on Tumblr are funny

Favorite type of Gallavich fics? - I am a sucker for some hurt/comfort and angst with a happy ending - other fics I enjoy include: jealousy, post canon (anything with husbands gallavich), fluffy smut, fix it fics - I like some AUs like high school/college, but tbh I don't read many AUs unless I find the plot super interesting

Favorite Gallavich quote? - The whole "I gotta worry, you're my husband" convo in that scene that they should not have deleted in season 11 - "I didn't know which Bs to get, so I just got all the fuckin Bs"

Anything else you’d like to share about yourself? - I was raised on a farm, which surprises people because I generally don't give off that vibe - I am one year away from getting my bachelors degree in bio engineering (nerd) - My favorite artists are Fall Out Boy, Doja Cat, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Tayor Swift

#gallavich #mickey milkovich #ian gallagher #shameless #about me #mickeymilkovichsimp

7 notes · View notes

alittlefrenchtree · 8 months

Note

Ok I'm sending you some of your own RWRB questions: Number 1,2, 5, 7, 10, 13,14, and 19 (i had to stop myself from sending the whole list lol)

Thank you so much! Maybe I'll end up answering every question on my own anyway but it's nice starting with your selection 🥰

#1 What was your introduction to Red, White and Royal Blue? How did you become aware of it, what was your first impression of it?

I didn't know anything about it until @petitmimosa started rambling about it a few weeks/couple of months(?) ago. I think she saw the trailer on prime, read the book then watch the movie? I was only half listening (she rambles a lot about a lot of stuff) because I was pretty sure I wouldn't be interested at all (romcoms aren't really my thing).

Then FREAKING TUMBLR decided that RWRB would be the only thing I'll be seeing on my dash for days and days. So I'd say to myself, if I'm going to be forced to look at pics and gifs of these two guys AGAIN and AGAIN, may as well know what this is all about. So I've watched the movie and surprisingly had a good time. And since Internet (and algorithms) keeps showering with rwrb content (nothing else is happening in the cinema industry anyway), I've decided to roll with it and enjoy the said content. I read the book quickly after and even if it was fun, I think I like the movie better.

#2 Team Alex or Team Henry? (I know you love them both equally but choose anyway. OR choose depending of the circumstances. Like, "I’d go shopping with Alex but I’d marry Henry. Or I’d hug Alex but I’d go karaoke with Henry. I don’t know. Try something.)

Even if I like Henry and find him very precious, I think I'm Team Alex. I like how refreshing he is. You can't really be sad watching him and not only because he looks cute af. But all love to both, obviously.

#5 Choose one scene from the book to add to the movie.

I'm not sure because I don't know the book that well but I know how I felt reading this

“Dear Thisbe, I wish there weren’t a wall. Love, Pyramus”

and I wish they'd found a way to include it in the movie. Maybe not in the way of the book, because that might have not worked as best as it should but in some way. I don't know.

#7 Tell us something you like better in the movie than in the book.

Oh man, so many things. One of the main thing, I like that Alex is more freaked out by being into Henry that being into guys in general in the movie. There are important scenes following, about owning the term bisexual in front of other people but being into guys feels less a big (and long) deal than in the book for him. Which is good. I feel like the "i'm bi, so what?" is a good mood to put out there in 2023.

I know the point has been quite a debate here and there so I hope I put the right words to express my view on this.

And tell us something you like better in the book than in the movie.

A couple of things :

I would have liked for Bea to have a bit more substance as a character in the movie.

and, and that could have been an answer to the "share an unpopular opinion", I'm not the biggest fan of the parisian night scene. Not by Taylor and Nick's fault because the shots of their faces and how they acted are very delicate but I'm very not into the directing, the blocking and the editing of this scene. If felt too heavily romcom coded for my taste (and for my french person leaving near Paris' eyes), when one of the strength of the movie (for me) is being fresh and fun with the romcom codes.

10- You’re in a difficult situation where you have only one call to get help (or to save your life), who are you calling? Amy, Zahra or Ellen?

Zahra, every day, everywhere. I wouldn't trust anyone more than someone who reminds me that much of Sam Marquez in the tvshow Las Vegas.

13- A detail you feel like it’s not enough discussed. Whether it’s a scene, a quote, a frame, a piece of acting, a decor…) Time to ramble about it!

Oh I have two actually! The first good thing I have said about the movie is how much I like the opening credits. The music is good, the visuals are good, I like it a lot.

The second has probably been discussed over and over (and my recording sucks) but

I need daily screaming about the softest, smoothest, most determined "no." I ever heard in my entire life.

14- Favorites outfit(s) in the movie? (You can pick as many as you want, from as many characters as you want. But if you reply with a screenshot of a naked person, I’m going to put you in horny jail).

I wrote the question with one outfit in mind

My only regret is that he's not wearing matching pants (there must be matching pants, right?) cause I feel like AGCD wouldn't have shy away from them. And that would have been epic.

Honorable mention for the denim look 💙 that was wasted on Miguel.

#19 is going to take me forever to answer so I'll add something later :)

Thank you again for playing with me 💜💜

All the questions here !

#alft asks #red white and royal blue #rwrb

6 notes · View notes

aeterna---amantes · 2 years

Text

|| Stranger Things's season 4 felt like a bridge between season 3 and 5. I have so many thoughts.

Personally, I really enjoyed this season - especially Eleven's origin and the introduction of Henry Creel and his storyline, it felt like it was more about him than anyone else - but the last episode felt so... off. It felt like nothing got revealed. Everything I wanted to be resolved just remained hanging in the air. Yes, I know, we need to be kept at the edges of our seats because of season five, but there're numerous ways this could've turned out.

For starters I really thought that Max will die. How El resurrected her (and messed it up) felt so, so wrong. Yes, she wanted her to live, but now she ended up in a state that's perhaps even worse than death. I know they wanted to make it clear how different Eleven and One are - One brings death, Eleven protects life - but since when does any of them have necromantic powers? You can clearly, easily kill with telekinesis, and I know Henry possesses maaad powers, he's waaay more advanced than Eleven, but to resurrect? It was a tad too much. Like it was put in the show so nobody really important (to Eleven) dies, but lives a life not worth living because she's clearly not there anymore.

It doesn't just feel like Eleven can't lose a loved one, it also feels like the Stranger Things writers themselves are afraid to kill off Max (or anyone from the core characters). The amount of shit they've done to Will, a death, in comparison, isn't that frightening. I would've felt sorry, yes, but she was so miserable during the entire season - even she admits she wanted something awful happen to her -, her death would've been a relief for her character. It would've been better than being in a coma from which she can never wake up. At least this is my opinion as a writer.

This just tells me that the writers were afraid to kill a 'lead' child of the show but I don't understand why when we've seen Henry systematically slaughter kids in the show. I mean constantly. We expected he'd kill someone we were invested in because everyone kept telling us this episode will hurt a lot! We were mortified Steve would die, for example. And One purposefully targeted children - starting with each and every one in the lab. I wonder why he hates kids so much, he could easily eleminate adults as well, everyone's powerless against him, so why kids? And why not write Max out when the opportunity arises? I mean yes, what happened to her did hurt, but from a writer's point of view, I don't expect they'll use her for plot or anything in the upcoming season considering the state she's been left in.

I was also so sure we'd get One's and Eleven's explanation said out loud - that she is his daughter. I've suspected this since they met, because I just felt he was One in episode five already and also the clues are all over (how he said she reminded him of One), it was even more obvious with the last episode when he said you and I, we are different. But no. It remains just a suspicion, maybe it'll be in the last season (as countless other things).

And while I'm happy the gang stayed alive, and suspected they would kill Eddie off, they kept telling us that heads will roll - I expected something far worse. Maybe that to get to Eleven, One targets Mike? Maybe that Mike is in danger and Will, being the purest, most selfless and loving character he is, saves him - or attempts to, but fails? (I'm sorry but he is the heart in my opinion, he fought for his friends to stay together, he tells others that they're valued and needed while Mike has been… sidetracked… for the past two seasons, diminished to protector of Eleven who can only repeat over and over again how much he can't lose her reminds me of Jon You're My Queen Snow.) Yes, it would've hurt and I would've hated it, but it would've had a more serious tone that I expected after seeing the hype in Twitter posts and articles quoted by the actors and creators.

Also Eddie, I've read a lot of complaints about Eddie's death in particular. I think of what would've happened if Eddie went back to the real world.

He was branded a murderer, a crazy mass murderer Satanist by the entire town. People who died were all linked to his name. The Upside Down is a place that you have to see with your own eyes because it's basically unbelievable if someone tells you about it. How would he explain what happened really? He had no chance to redeem himself in the real world, if he told the truth nobody would listen and he'd be locked up - either in a prison or in an asylum. Even in the closing scenes he had been talked about as a murderer.

When he stopped running, I think he knew this - and on top of this, he had to win the others time and had to protect Dustin, and he had no idea Vecna had been distracted on multiple lines already. He had to keep those creatures back from going after Dustin, and potentially, in the real world. If you look at it from this point of view, his sacrifice can be accepted. He wouldn't have a good life back in reality anyway, so why not go out with a boom?

(This doesn't mean I like the way he was written out. I still think it was a meaningless death. He had so much potential.)

One pointless side plot: Jason had a huge group of people and yet when they arrive at the old Creel house there's only two of them. Why? Where's the rest of the gang? Why make them seem to be a big problem in the end game when they aren't simply there when it goes down?

Another plotless side plot: Enzo and Jurij. Jurij kept being a major asshole and all his turning took one monologue from Enzo to turn? If it had been built for 2-3 episodes, I probably wouldn't complain. But it took three sentences and suddenly he's good again? It's so unbelievable. I also would've liked it if Enzo maybe remained to be the bait, maybe tell Hopper to tell his son he died in fight bravely, and blow up the entire facility with the Demogorgons in it. I'm not doing writing for a living, but Enzo was, and is, a totally expendable character, and if it doesn't matter what happens to him after escaping - because the last scene with him and Murray were in the copter -, then why not choose this line?

Will being gay and the way he's trying to deal with it hits hard - I've gone through the same hardships once and I can totally understand and feel for him. It's amazingly captured, the pain and struggle and not being sure if he'd be accepted by everyone as he is if he came out. It's also the 80s, which makes it even worse. I love how Jonathan noticed it in the car and how he tried to talk to Will about it, gently leaving the option open so he could come out if he wanted there and then. (And it's completely understandable that Will did not come out in the end.)

What was off putting for me was how Mike seemed to know when Vecna is fighting her and when the fight was over - how could he know that? And Will's nudging to urge Mike to give her strength to fight, and Mike finally told her he loves her - that was unbelievably, immensely painful because like I said I feel for Will and he was witnessing and hearing it all right beside him, that's salt in an open wound.

There's also a little mistake when Eleven explains that she could enter Max's mind and fight Vecna there: Eleven doesn't know Henry/One is also called Vecna. Mike has left for California when Dustin, Max, Steve and Robin talk to Eddie in the boat house and they name him Vecna there in episode two. Mike, Will, Jonathan, Argyle and Eleven can't know Henry/One is also called Vecna by the other group, and yet Eleven in that one scene explains like this:

"This is Max. When One attacks, he'll be in her mind. But I can do that too. I went into Mama's mind, into Billy's. I can go into Max's. She can carry me to Vecna. I can piggyback."

It was strange. I don't remember her hearing this name ever before, let alone using it for One.

And then - they had built Steve and Nancy's relationship and yet, it couldn't go anywhere. We got information about the relationship between Nancy and Jonathan, and Jonathan was struggling with telling her the truth, Argyle gave him a speech and yet at the end he still lied to her. These also felt like they'd carry it to the last season and it's so frustrating because you get these side plots you're invested in and yet nothing happens, they just keep standing in one place without moving anywhere. At least Joyce and Hopper got reunited and I really, really loved that. They had like, how much time to be happy together before reality started to melt with Upside Down, two days? Eleven getting back her real father was also very very touching for me. I'm so happy they could reunite. They got a tiny break together and it was lovely.

And I have to add it in because I'm always drawn to evil/morally grey characters all the time and I was extra excited to see this one particular actor in the show: Jamie Campbell Bower is absolutely slaying it as Vecna, his reasons and storyline is amazing and his motivations are understandable and well depicted, coupled with Jamie's acting we got a real villain we can love to hate. He delivers every single line and look and touch flawlessly. Once again, Jamie proved to me that he's an amazing actor who can play absolutely anything. Seriously. Give the man the attention he deserves.

So overall, I enjoyed it, there are so many things that still interests me, it didn't make me want to rage quit halfway the last episode (like cough Game of Thrones cough), but it felt like this was all an impossibly loooooong season that was only the build-up to the final season. Stuff happens but not really. If the fifth season came out already, I'd be really excited and say "okay, next one, NOW!" because the Real Big Fight is about to go down right now.

Despite the flaws, I still love the show, I'm still invested, and I can't wait to see more. 🖤

#ooc #Stranger Things #Stranger Things spoilers #spoilers #long post #🐍 relax. nothing is in control.

5 notes · View notes

pazodetrasalba · 8 months

Text

For your eyes only

Dear Caroline:

I would not describe myself as a real user of 'this blue website', as don't do or read anything in it, besides your older posts. When once or twice I have tried to see what somebody else was posting, I got quickly bewildered and frustrated by the 'reblog' thing, as it seemed that other people's thoughts were the alpha and omega of a recursive loop in those pages I visited. It was also annoying in your own tumblr, as it sometimes requires no trivial effort to discover -when you reblogged and commented- which part is actually you, which is the only interesting one (at least for me).

I haven't discovered either how you can check visitors and views, but it is not something that bothers me anyway. As I think I have made clear in some other post, what I write here has only one pair of eyes reading it in mind: your own. If they do it someday, that is all I would hope for - or rather, not all. Their main purpose is to be of help, empathize, interest, entertain and support you, and should they succeed in that, they will have completely served their purpose.

Talking about entertainment: I am really enjoying Eugenia Cheng's introduction to Category Theory, The Joy of Abstraction. I wonder if you would enjoy it: I know of your mathematical savviness, but you actually didn't write much about math you liked in your tumblr, so I am a bit in the dark. I'd guess you would have perhaps relished more the most applied part -Statistics and Probability, but that is just a guess with very little evidence to its favour. And anyway, it is you who makes the book recommendations here...

I am rather more confident that you would like this article on how PIE developed the feminine gender from a starting point with only two (animate-inanimate). I just discovered it through a tweet by Rob Bensinger.

Quote:

It is argued that different origins of gender systems imply higher relevance of either function of gender in individual languages, and that this may have consequences on the values of gender within specific gender systems.

#caroline ellison

0 notes

nicklloydnow · 10 months

Text

“February 27, 1989

Dear Ken,

As CSP would say: It's a sweet thing, my dear Ken, for you to want to dedicate your book to me. But it may be misleading to dedicate to me CSP's Reasoning and the Logic of Things, your edition of the Cambridge Conferences Lectures. I'm not sure CSP would approve. Let me explain.

As you well know, I am not a student of Peirce. I am a thief of Peirce. I take from him what I want and let the rest go, most of it. I am only interested in CSP insofar as I understand his attack on nominalism and his rehabilitation of Scholastic realism. I am only interested in his "logic" insofar as it can be read as an ontology, or, as CSP said, insofar as he "takes the Kantian step of transferring the conceptions of logic to metaphysics."

Which is to say, I have not the slightest interest in his formal logic, existential graphs and such like. I use his "logic of relatives" for my own purposes, that is, as a foundation for my own categories. That means that I expropriate his two categories, Secondness and Thirdness, as the ground of an ontology, setting aside "Firstness" since it, Firstness, is an idealized notion and is not to be found exemplified in "reality." As CSP put it, "it is the mode in which anything would exist for itself, irrespective of anything else. . . ." But, of course, nothing exists like that but only in relation to something else.

Accordingly, if CSP defines himself as a logician, as he does in these Cambridge lectures, I am rather massively uninterested, same only when he strays from formal logic and allows his "logic" to stray into ontology.

But this is not the worst if it. What would set CSP spinning in his grave is the use I intend to put him to. As you probably already know, and if you don't, let us keep the secret between us, I intend to use SP as one of the pillars of a Christian apologetic. CSP, of course, made himself clear about religion in general, "a barbaric superstition" - and Christianity in particular - especially "the miracle mongers of the synoptic gospels." To be specific, I think that CSP's notion that Christianity was a development out of earlier Asian traditions, especially Buddhism (to quote you), is the silliest kind of nonsense. I have seen it, ever since reading Kierkegaard, as quite the contrary. Kierkegaard (and I) would see Buddhism, and most of the great contemplative religions as "scientific" in a broad sense, that is, as professing general truths which can be arrived at by anyone, anywhere and at any time. Christianity (and Judaism) would fall into what Kierkegaard land I) would call the "religious" stage, that is, the being open to "news," of the singular (scandalous) event, the Jewish covenant, the Christian incarnation and news of same.

As you may know, I have been at some pains to sketch out an "anthropology," a theory of man by virtue of which he is understood to be by his very nature open to the kerygma and "news." You can see why I not only diverge radically from CSP here, but find him in the enemy camp when he says things like: "The clergymen who do any good don't pay much attention to religion. They teach people the conduct of life, and on the whole in a high and noble way." So did "Booda," Socrates, Gandhi, and yes, Jesus. But Jesus taught something else far more subversive.

So if you want to dedicate this book to me, please do so with the understanding that I admire at the most one percent of it (two pages) and with the understanding to that it would spin CSP in his grave. Naturally I love the idea - using CSP as the foundation of a Catholic apologetic, which I have tentatively entitled (after Aquinas) Contra Gentiles.

As I was saying, what I hope to do is to use CSP's "ontology" of Secondness and Thirdness (not Firstness) as the ground for a more or less scientific introduction to a philosophical anthropology. Such an ontology, I think, would debouche directly into the phenomenology of the "existentialists," like Marcel, Heidegger, Buber, et al.

Anyhow I'm afraid you can't enlist me in your attempt to publish CSP's book and I think you see why. But good luck.

This is a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon, sounding off at you.

Best,

Walker”

#percy #walker percy #ketner #kenneth laine ketner #peirce #charles sanders pierce #kant #heidegger #buber #kierkegaard #logic #ontology #christianity #catholocism

1 note · View note

inchistory · 1 year

Text

6 Things the Media Hasn't Told You About Homeowners Insurance

Introduction

If you're like me, you love the look of a window and want to replace them all. But replacing windows isn't cheap—and if you don't have homeowners insurance, that can make it even harder to afford. Luckily, there are ways around this problem! more help related this article how to get homeowners insurance to pay for new windows

Tell your home insurance agent you want to replace the windows.

When you call your insurance agent, make sure you tell them that you want to replace the windows. Some agents may ask for an estimate of how much it will cost and if there is anything else they should know about the job. If so, give them an estimate and explain how much it would cost in detail before starting any work on your home.

If possible, get a quote from multiple companies before making a decision on which company to use for repair or replacement services. This can help ensure that all options are considered equally when comparing prices and services provided by different companies throughout their process of getting approval from homeowners insurance policies within their states' laws regarding coverage upgrades like replacing old windows with new ones through either on-premise inspections or off-premise inspections depending upon where each individual case falls under state regulations concerning such matters (see below).

Check the policies for replacement cost coverage.

If your homeowner's insurance policy does not include replacement cost coverage, you may also want to consider getting a separate policy that does. This type of insurance will typically pay for the actual cost of replacing your windows, not just the materials used in making them. If you have replacement cost coverage on your current policy and still need new windows, this should make it easier for them to be replaced without any out-of-pocket costs (including labor).

Related Article :-

how to get homeowners insurance to pay for new windows

Make sure your policy contains a deductible.

When you buy insurance on your home, there's a chance that the deductible will be lower than $500 or $1,000.

This means that if you have an especially large window replacement project and end up having to pay out of pocket for most of it--and if that doesn't involve replacing just one or two windows--you won't have to pay as much in premiums each month because they're already quite low due to the low cost of replacements and repairs in general. This is general article, you no believe me but very help me please read now how to get homeowners insurance to pay for new windows

Get estimates for the windows and the installation.

It's important to get estimates from at least three companies for your new windows, as not all installers are created equal. Make sure that the company you choose has experience installing glass sliders and has been in business for a while. If possible, ask for references from previous customers who have used this company before. Ask about warranties and guarantees on their windows as well--you want to know that they will stand behind their product if there are any problems with them in the future!

You can usually get homeowners insurance to pay for new windows by asking for it.

If you're looking to get new windows installed, it's important to be prepared. Your agent will probably have a few different estimates for your project and you should choose one that fits within your budget. You'll also need to find out about the size of your windows and other details like whether or not they can be removed after installation is complete.

You should also make sure that the installer has proper insurance coverage for their work and can provide proof of such coverage in case an accident occurs during installation or repair. The best way to do this is by asking them if they carry replacement cost insurance before signing any contracts with them--and then verifying if they do indeed have it through online searches (or talking directly with their agents). Are you Confused homeowners insurance to pay for new windows don’t worry Read this Article more help you Visit Now.

The last thing: once everything has been put together properly, make sure all four corners are square by checking them against each other as well as any surrounding structures such as fences or walls; otherwise there could be problems later down the road when trying again after an emergency situation arises unexpectedly!

Conclusion

Hopefully, this article has helped you understand the ins and outs of replacing your old windows. If you have any questions about homeowners insurance or how to replace them, feel free to call our office at 1-800-876-1700. We’re here to help!

#Homeinsurance #insurance #finance #windows

0 notes

crownquill · 3 years

Text

Disclaimer: Don't read this post if you are a terf/exclusionist/aphobe/biphobe/panphobe

dont even touch it or I will block you on sight you little pissbitch

also if you start discourse I will punch you.

dont add shit to this post unless you are adding on/being supportive

just saw some exclusionist say "OmNI iSNt a REaLL lABel I bET iT wAs MADe UP LaST wEEk tO hurT BiSEXUAls"

and like

first of all buckeroo. other lgbt+ people arent the enemy. get your head on straight. dont try to fit people into neat little boxes lol

and second of all this made me so fuckin angry I went on a deep dive of omni history. unlike pansexuals and bisexuals, omni [and also ply people] dont really get that much recognition

so here's some omni stuff!/history

The word omnisexuality appears as early at the 1959 beat poet Lawrence Lipton's The Holy Barbarians,[1] but the first time it was described in the context of the current definition was in a 1984 text titled simply Sexual Choices: An Introduction to Human Sexuality.[2] This text described omnisexuality as "a state of attraction to all sexes", stating that some researchers believe that every individual is born omnisexual before developing their sexual attraction into the labels of homosexual, heterosexual, or other orientations.

The term spread even further in the early 1990s as M. Jimmie Killingsworth undertook an analysis of the poet Walt Whitman.[3] In Killingsworth's study, he found that Whitman had a general omnisexual character throughout his work The Leaves of Grass. In the 2010s, The Atlantic noted that his poetry expresses sexuality towards all genders, sometimes even the sea or the Earth.

Omnisexual was a common message board term in the 2000s. The media made several non-monosexual terms known in the mainstream as that took place. Many popular articles discussed omnisexuality alongside these celebrities' pansexuality.

Some fictional characters, such as Jack Harkness from Doctor Who, and Kevin Crawford from Paradise P.D. have been canonically confirmed as omnisexual.

The omnisexual flag was designed by Pastelmemer on or before July 4, 2015.[4][5] It is unknow if the colors have any meaning, but a purposed meaning is as follows: The light pink and light blue represents the gender spectrum. Pink represents attraction to femininity and women. Blue color represents attraction to masculinityand men. The deep purple (sometimes depicted as black) represents attraction to people whose gender identity falls outside of the named categories.

There is no one way for identifying as omnisexual to look. “Identifying as such looks like feeling great about yourself and standing strong in your identity,” says D’Allaird. “No one can really tell you who you are, if you find this word and it really connects for you, then look in the mirror.” [sidenote: I hate fucking cosmopolitan but this quote slaps]

Dino nuggies, Scythe, scarves and bandanas, Bang by AJR and basically every song by AJR, Hydra, Grim reapers, anything of Ben ten because of his Omnitrix, ins-OMNI-a, and maybe eating peanut butter/Nutella straight out of jar (we are debating on that one) and .... jazz hands

[on what omni culture might be/is]

“We come to a corner where there are a few people protesting the festivities. I don't understand this at all. It's like protesting the fact that some people are red-haired. In my experience, desire is desire, love is love. I have never fallen in love with a gender. I have fallen for individuals. I know this is hard for people to do, but I don't understand why it's so hard, when it's so obvious.” ― David Levithan, Every Day

a t-shirt!

just some art :DD

^^every letter is an art piece

Idk which omni person needs to hear this tonight/today but there are people who support you out there! You're awesome and valid and have just as much a place in the lgbt+ community as anyone else!

#omni #omnisexual #omni pride #yeet yeet #lgbt #lgbt+#yall are valid #there are people that support you!!

44 notes · View notes

reflections-in-a-critical-eye · 3 years

Note

Hi. You mentioned in your introduction that, out of BTS, you have a special interest in Jimin and Jungkook as artists and content creators. I don't know if you intend to critique their work through analysis of sign systems but that seems like a cool idea.

Roland Barthes himself never made any explicit statement about his own homosexuality in his work. In 'Incidents' he alludes to participating in gay erotic activity in Morocco. The obvious conclusions have been drawn by readers and scholars from this as well as biographical accounts. His work has at times been analyzed through lenses of textual suppression and the gay erotic. His own sexuality has been brought out when looking closer at the textuality of his writings.

Jimin and Jungkook have likewise never explicitly stated that they are partners or queer. A lot of people accept some of their art as showing familiar canonical codes and signs of gayness. This also extends to some of their actions and presentation. Where do you stand in regards to talking about that? Most of the discourse about this on tumblr is from bi, lesbian and straight cis women. There are instances of fetishization, exoticization and gatekeeping. It can be frustrating watching from the sidelines sometimes (I am a lurker who never commented despite reading Jikook blogs for years. Yup that's my life).

You have been reading Jikook blogs for a while, I assume. I am still not sure if discourse about undisclosed queer identities on the basis of spectator's feelings is ethical but I am not against it at all. What are your thoughts? Do you have a background in queer theory? If you isolate Jimin and Jungkook from the rest of BTS that becomes a queer reading of text, doesn't it?

Hello there! I assume you sent me 3 more anon asks, right? I tried to give an answer here that can maybe answer all your questions. If you also were the one who asked if I could have some cinema blog that you know of, the answer is no, I do not have one. Now, let's get to the main topic.

I have seen the discourse on Jikook blogs, I am fully aware of what is being written. Not only on tumblr, but on other platforms as well. Most of them are focusing on their relationship and the speculation surrounding it and few have written from an entertainment and media perspective without making definite assumptions about the nature of that relationship. Shippers, supporters or anything else for that matter, they have a place in the fandom discourse.

As to my own perspective, I do not talk about individuals and their personal lives, but I write about official content (that can be a vlive, the way they present themselves online, other media content such as GCF) and most importantly performances. Analyzing art is not speculating or definitely talking about the artist's identity. Since BTS in general, and Jungkook and Jimin in particular don't usually talk in depth about their concepts, the reasons behind it – we still don't know much about MMA Black Swan for that matter (all the background information that we would usually find if it were a film, theater play, performance of any kind), all I can possibly do is look at the performance and try to make sense of it. Sometimes the artist's identity is tied completely to the performance and sometimes it's not. In this case, there hasn't been anything explicitly said about it, so there's only one option left: audience reception through interpretation, which happens regardless if the artist offers his own key of interpretation.

You mentioned the ethical aspect, so in response to that all I can say is that a lot of discourse surrounding Jimin and Jungkook or them as a pair/unit (especially when it comes to art and media) is based on publicly released content which means their company and they themselves are ok with it.

Using queer theory to talk about K-Pop is not something unique and there are plenty of performances out there (not just what we see in regards to Jimin, Jungkook or BTS in general) that have been analyzed and talked about through that lens.

I recommend this article by Chuyun Oh and David C. Oh, Unmasking Queerness: Blurring and Solidifying Queer Lines through K-Pop Cross-Dressing and I will add two quotes that perfectly explain how/why queer theory is used and how it is a legitimate perspective that can be applied to certain K-Pop acts:

''Historically, performance has been a site for liminal actions that transgress pre-existing boundaries and social norms (Turner and Schechner). Performance can present queerness in between homosexuality and heterosexuality without specifically being marked as queer or homosexual. Focusing on liminal features of queerness decolonizes Asian queer aesthetics by unmasking Western-centered gay subjects. Queer is often understood as a Eurocentric concept with the implication that the non-West queer subject should follow Western models.''

''K-pop becomes a source of Asian queer aesthetics. SY and SJ’s ambivalent construction of homoerotic role-play signals that anyone can act like, feel, and be queer without the danger of directly being marked as “gay” or “homosexual.” Such ambiguity has potential to liberate individuals and to allow alternative sexual identities, moving away from stereotypes of homosexuality embedded in Western culture. A certain body that does not belong to existing categories produces “anxiety and fascination,” and challenges the homogenized classification of gender roles in society (Albrecht 706).''

There are many other articles on similar subjects, not just focused on art, but on queer Asian identities. People are researching these various topics and it's all out there for anyone who wants to read about it. All I can say is that it's important to inform ourselves of cultural context on all matters and leave the BTS bubble (not talking about you anon, since I don't know the extent of your knowledge) and see that Korean queer art/artists exist publicly and online and people are talking about it, including on tumblr. It just depends on where you're looking at.

#asks #jimin #jungkook #jikook #queer theory in kpop #bts

28 notes · View notes

delicrieux · 3 years

Note

"Pack it up armies hammer"

PLZ, PLZ,PLZ, PLEASE

Hello btw, loved the chapter, hate u for cliffhanger; they say between love and hate there's a thin line and I'm currently wanting to strangle u with that line. (I trade mark that sentence ok)

,,, Chile anyway ,,,

WHAT DID U MEAN BY THAT QUOTE,,,? GOOGLE SAYS THAT DUDE IS AN ACTOR PLZ EXPLAIN.., (seriously please)

Also I DONT KNOW ANY ANIME REFERENCES OR LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE, SO MOST SHIT FLIES OVER MY HEAD(talking about other chapters, like that hentai shit,,I kept googling that bs and google refused to give me any results, I proceeded to go to YouTube into a sketchy channel that explains porn shit and yea. I remembered ik something about hentai but idk what so yes. Google hates me atm, its ur fault. The chrolo shit-idk how to spell that- googled that too. the Nathan show tv thing with the ghost choking didn't get that until U mentioned it. Strawberry cows weren'ta thing to me, still don't know why they are such a big deal-i gtg google that too-. SHOULI KEEP GOING?!)

ANY WAY

Give corpse some love or we have problemS (plural)

(Ps; this is ask is a mess but I'm ok i promise)

(Ps x2; I am not like this irl ong)

✋😭

1) armie hammer is rumoured to be a cannibal idk how u missed the numerous headlines when u googled him 💀

2) hentai is anime porn. if google doesn’t show u instant result you’re either on perental child mode or smth lmao & if u r then u r too young to be reading myso 💀💀

3) chrollo is a character from hxh & is known for having an insanely horny fandom which is referenced & explained in the introduction

4) strawberry cow is pretty self explanatory— its a cute pillow pet?

5) you can go on if you want to xx

#myso #make you say oh #nonnie

17 notes · View notes

unproductivx · 3 years

Text

Emma - A Review

Book by Jane Austen + Movie (2020)

First impressions

Now, I wasn't entirely sure I'd love the book when I started it, because I'll be honest, save for Emma and Mr Knightley's interactions and banter, I did not really find much to love. I found it less exciting than Pride and Prejudice, and even Persuasion felt like it had more of a flow to it. In part, I feel this due to the fact that Emma has little going on for herself, and much more for others and people around her.

As goes the movie, when I saw the introduction, I just knew immediately this was MY kinda movie. I loved the typography, the cinematography, and my love for the gorgeous Anya Taylor Joy just added to it. There was something witty and charming that the movie just exuded. Soundtrack was pleasing too. The movie is bright and cheery, and as much as Regency era clothing doesn't quite suit my taste, I did quite love some of the looks from the film.

Overall Review [BOOK, mentions of the movie]

To me, despite what other strong opinions I've read about the book, Emma is the main character of a slow burn, friends to lovers story. She is never reduced to being just the potential love interest of men, though often many fall in love and expect her to return those feelings. And I think their shock, particularly Mr Elton's, that she could not possibly have any feelings for him, is part of the critique that Austen tries to shows. In the film, this is portrayed satirically well and perhaps gets across what is hard to convey with long, difficult words that a facial expression can do easily. Emma is independent, but that is not her entire personality. We can see she cares deeply for people, and whilst she remains very 'uptight' and classist, acting sometimes very shallow, she is not so vindictive as to enjoy putting people down, and oft feels horrible for having done so. She has a heart, and honestly, given her upbringing, it is unsurprising she should act so.

The ROMANCE - okay, Emma/Mr Knightley interactions are cute. I love and adore their banter, and their honesty with each other. Considering so many of the characters in the book, and the entire plot really, is driven by the fact that so much is expressed and misunderstood in nuance, their straightforwardness and ability to be frank with each other is refreshing. Above that, they enjoy each others company and I feel they match very well. Kind of frustrated Austen made us wait so long for them to even bloody dance together, but she still had me squealing like a baby when Knightley confessed (and I was ecstatic to discover the origin of the age old quote, if I loved you more I might be able to talk about it less, oh isn't that dreamy?) At this point in the book, I was suddenly reminded of their age difference, but honestly, 16 years is not bad and considering that George Knightley had only really started to be in love with her prior to Frank Churchill's arrival, I don't understand why some people feel this relationship is outlandish or too concerning. Given the nature of the characters, their interactions prior to this when Emma was a child would have certainly been brotherly and sisterly.

Discussion point - Was Emma "tamed" and had her independence degraded by the end of the book? I really think not. I've read some very strong opinions who argue that from the lens of feminism, Emma of course had to have her opinions changed by an older, wiser man and the older, wiser man only ever married her because she was submissive to his opinion and lecturing. I really think that isn't the case here. Has Emma changed by the end of the book? Yes. How so? She's determined to become less arrogant, more humble, and as a result begins to consider others words, opinions and feelings with greater weight. Why? Not only did she observe the consequence of her actions to Harriet and the pain caused, but also because acting as her friend, Mr Knightley pointed out her wrongs. Given that almost nobody else does this, which they should really, that doesn't mean she's changed to suit his whims. She has changed because she realises who she was before was not someone she wanted to be. Honestly, Emma's just as independent, strong willed and witty as she was to begin with - save a little humbler. My man Knightley literally leaves his home to come to Hartfield. Emma literally doesn't lose anything. He is an angel at heart, and deserves the praise and admiration he gets.

Mr Woodhouse - his character is cute. I say that because I also know people with particular eccentricities, though he came across as less peculiar and energetic in the book than the movie. I adore Mr Woodhouse in the movies, he is there for comic relief but is less of the withered, concerned, seemingly feeble (that's the impression I got from the book, at least) old man with a sweet heart than in the book.

Things That Surprised Me

DONT KILL ME

3 notes · View notes

frankiefellinlove · 4 years

Text

This is it! The whole article where John Landau writes that Bruce “is the future of rock n roll”. Long but so worth the read, to see that quote in context.

GROWING YOUNG WITH ROCK AND ROLL

By Jon Landau

The Real Paper

May 22, 1974📷

It's four in the morning and raining. I'm 27 today, feeling old, listening to my records, and remembering that things were diffferent a decade ago. In 1964, I was a freshman at Brandeis University, playing guitar and banjo five hours a day, listening to records most of the rest of the time, jamming with friends during the late-night hours, working out the harmonies to Beach Boys' and Beatles' songs.

Real Paper soul writer Russell Gersten was my best friend and we would run through the 45s everyday: Dionne Warwick's "Walk On By" and "Anyone Who Had A Heart," the Drifters' "Up On the Roof," Jackie Ross' "Selfish One," the Marvellettes' "Too Many Fish in the Sea," and the one that no one ever forgets, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas' "Heat Wave." Later that year a special woman named Tamar turned me onto Wilson Pickett's "Midnight Hour" and Otis Redding's "Respect," and then came the soul. Meanwhile, I still went to bed to the sounds of the Byrds' "Mr. Tambourine Man" and later "Younger than Yesterday," still one of my favorite good-night albums. I woke up to Having a Rave-Up with the Yardbirds instead of coffee. And for a change of pace, there was always bluegrass: The Stanley Brothers, Bill Monroe, and Jimmy Martin.

Through college, I consumed sound as if it were the staff of life. Others enjoyed drugs, school, travel, adventure. I just liked music: listening to it, playing it, talking about it. If some followed the inspiration of acid, or Zen, or dropping out, I followed the spirit of rock'n'roll.

Individual songs often achieved the status of sacraments. One September, I was driving through Waltham looking for a new apartment when the sound on the car radio stunned me. I pulled over to the side of the road, turned it up, demanded silence of my friends and two minutes and fifty-six second later knew that God had spoken to me through the Four Tops' "Reach Out, I'll Be There," a record that I will cherish for as long as [I] live.

During those often lonely years, music was my constant companion and the search for the new record was like a search for a new friend and new revelation. "Mystic Eyes" open mine to whole new vistas in white rock and roll and there were days when I couldn't go to sleep without hearing it a dozen times.

Whether it was a neurotic and manic approach to music, or just a religious one, or both, I don't really care. I only know that, then, as now, I'm grateful to the artists who gave the experience to me and hope that I can always respond to them.

The records were, of course, only part of it. In '65 and '66 I played in a band, the Jellyroll, that never made it. At the time I concluded that I was too much of a perfectionist to work with the other band members; in the end I realized I was too much of an autocrat, unable to relate to other people enough to share music with them.

Realizing that I wasn't destined to play in a band, I gravitated to rock criticism. Starting with a few wretched pieces in Broadside and then some amateurish but convincing reviews in the earliest Crawdaddy, I at least found a substitute outlet for my desire to express myself about rock: If I couldn't cope with playing, I may have done better writing about it.

But in those days, I didn't see myself as a critic -- the writing was just another extension of an all-encompassing obsession. It carried over to my love for live music, which I cared for even more than the records. I went to the Club 47 three times a week and then hunted down the rock shows -- which weren't so easy to find because they weren't all conveniently located at downtown theatres. I flipped for the Animals' two-hour show at Rindge Tech; the Rolling Stones, not just at Boston Garden, where they did the best half hour rock'n'roll set I had ever seen, but at Lynn Football Stadium, where they started a riot; Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels overcoming the worst of performing conditions at Watpole Skating Rink; and the Beatles at Suffolk Down, plainly audible, beatiful to look at, and confirmation that we -- and I -- existed as a special body of people who understood the power and the flory of rock'n'roll.

I lived those days with a sense of anticipation. I worked in Briggs & Briggs a few summers and would know when the next albums were coming. The disappointment when the new Stones was a day late, the exhilaration when Another Side of Bob Dylan showed up a week early. The thrill of turning on WBZ and hearing some strange sound, both beautiful and horrible, but that demanded to be heard again; it turned out to be "You've Lost That Loving Feeling," a record that stands just behind "Reach Out I'll Be There" as means of musical catharsis.

My temperament being what it is, I often enjoyed hating as much as loving. That San Francisco shit corrupted the purity of the rock that I lvoed and I could have led a crusade against it. The Moby Grape moved me, but those songs about White Rabbits and hippie love made me laugh when they didn't make me sick. I found more rock'n'roll in the dubbed-in hysteria on the Rolling Stones Got Live if You Want It than on most San Francisco albums combined.

For every moment I remember there are a dozen I've forgotten, but I feel like they are with me on a night like this, a permanent part of my consciousness, a feeling lost on my mind but never on my soul. And then there are those individual experiences so transcendent that I can remember them as if they happened yesterday: Sam and Dave at the Soul Together at Madison Square Garden in 1967: every gesture, every movement, the order of the songs. I would give anything to hear them sing "When Something's Wrong with My Baby" just the way they did it that night.

The obsessions with Otis Redding, Jerry Butler, and B.B. King came a little bit later; each occupied six months of my time, while I digested every nuance of every album. Like the Byrds, I turn to them today and still find, when I least expect it, something new, something deeply flet, something that speaks to me.

As I left college in 1969 and went into record production I started exhausting my seemingly insatiable appetite. I felt no less intensely than before about certain artists; I just felt that way about fewer of them. I not only became more discriminating but more indifferent. I found it especially hard to listen to new faces. I had accumulated enough musical experience to fall back on when I needed its companionship but during this period in my life I found I needed music less and people, whom I spend too much of my life ignoring, much more.

Today I listen to music with a certain measure of detachment. I'm a professional and I make my living commenting on it. There are months when I hate it, going through the routine just as a shoe salesman goes through his. I follow films with the passion that music once held for me. But in my own moments of greatest need, I never give up the search for sounds that can answer every impulse, consume all emotion, cleanse and purify -- all things that we have no right to expect from even the greatest works of art but which we can occasionally derive from them.

Still, today, if I hear a record I like it is no longer a signal for me to seek out every other that the artist has made. I take them as they come, love them, and leave them. Some have stuck -- a few that come quickly to mind are Neil Young's After the Goldrush, Stevie Wonder's Innervisions, Van Morrison's Tupelo Honey, James Taylor's records, Valerie Simpson's Exposed, Randy Newman's Sail Away, Exile on Main Street, Ry Cooder's records, and, very specially, the last three albums of Joni Mitchell -- but many more slip through the mind, making much fainter impressions than their counterparts of a decade ago.

But tonight there is someone I can write of the way I used to write, without reservations of any kind. Last Thursday, at the Harvard Square theatre, I saw my rock'n'roll past flash before my eyes. And I saw something else: I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen. And on a night when I needed to feel young, he made me feel like I was hearing music for the very first time.

When his two-hour set ended I could only think, can anyone really be this good; can anyone say this much to me, can rock'n'roll still speak with this kind of power and glory? And then I felt the sores on my thighs where I had been pounding my hands in time for the entire concert and knew that the answer was yes.

Springsteen does it all. He is a rock'n'roll punk, a Latin street poet, a ballet dancer, an actor, a joker, bar band leader, hot-shit rhythm guitar player, extraordinary singer, and a truly great rock'n'roll composer. He leads a band like he has been doing it forever. I racked my brains but simply can't think of a white artist who does so many things so superbly. There is no one I would rather watch on a stage today. He opened with his fabulous party record "The E Street Shuffle" -- but he slowed it down so graphically that it seemed a new song and it worked as well as the old. He took his overpowering story of a suicide, "For You," and sang it with just piano accompaniment and a voice that rang out to the very last row of the Harvard Square theatre. He did three new songs, all of them street trash rockers, one even with a "Telstar" guitar introduction and an Eddie Cochran rhythm pattern. We missed hearing his "Four Winds Blow," done to a fare-thee-well at his sensational week-long gig at Charley's but "Rosalita" never sounded better and "Kitty's Back," one of the great contemporary shuffles, rocked me out of my chair, as I personally led the crowd to its feet and kept them there.

Bruce Springsteen is a wonder to look at. Skinny, dressed like a reject from Sha Na Na, he parades in front of his all-star rhythm band like a cross between Chuck Berry, early Bob Dylan, and Marlon Brando. Every gesture, every syllable adds something to his ultimate goal -- to liberate our spirit while he liberates his by baring his soul through his music. Many try, few succeed, none more than he today.

It's five o'clock now -- I write columns like this as fast as I can for fear I'll chicken out -- and I'm listening to "Kitty's Back." I do feel old but the record and my memory of the concert has made me feel a little younger. I still feel the spirit and it still moves me.

I bought a new home this week and upstairs in the bedroom is a sleeping beauty who understands only too well what I try to do with my records and typewriter. About rock'n'roll, the Lovin' Spoonful once sang, "I'll tell you about the magic that will free your soul/But it's like trying to tell a stranger about rock'n'roll." Last Thursday, I remembered that the magic still exists and as long as I write about rock, my mission is to tell a stranger about it -- just as long as I remember that I'm the stranger I'm writing for.

33 notes · View notes

10ambuzz · 4 years

Text

3.25 stars

"You are like a living rose among wax flowers. We may last forever, but you bloom brighter and smell sweeter, and draw blood with your thorns"

I had to really think about that rating because this book left me conflicted. Some aspects of this book were great but were the good parts enough to outweigh the absolutely horrible? I'm still not certain.

so...

In short:

This book reminds me of fanfiction, a particularly well-written one but fanfic nonetheless. It's as though the author wrote this assuming I was in her head with her and knew the world in which our characters lived. Any worldbuilding is few and far between even the passage of time in this book is questionable and you get the sense that it's all meant to be an afterthought and we should really only focus on Isabelle and Rook's relationship. If you can focus wholly on the characters' relationship and ignore dubiously described...everything else you'll love this book!

In long:

Welcome to the town of Whimsy where it is endless summer and all the citizens live for enchantments and glamour that they win solely by entertaining the fae. Now in this world, the fae can't lie nor can they create anything. I'm serious nothing, no writing no painting no original thought. They depend entirely on humans to provide this for them so that they can feel something, humans, in turn, provide the services so that they can be as close to fae as possible.

Our main character is Isobel, she's a painter who lives with her aunt after her parents were brutally murdered, this murder is unimportant and we will not revisit this information in any sort of depth. Isobelle, at 17 is a master of her craft, and one day she ends up having to paint the Autumn prince Rook's portrait but in doing so she makes a mistake and paints him with human emotion and I guess to the fae emotions equal vulnerable which equal possibly getting murdered. Rook immediately sweeps in to have her stand trial in court because of this. Yes, all of this is ridiculously unbelievable but that part was in the description of the book and we all bought and read it so we can't be mad now.

What we can be mad about though is how we don't actually learn anything about Rook, his life, his childhood, how he feels about ruling, nothing. He's just a snarky love interest who reminds me of Carden Greenbriar if Carden had grown up with love in his childhood. Even Isobel we don't learn about her childhood, her life or friends. There is no introduction to the politics of this world. Sis wrote this book and said she's giving us the bare minimum and we're going to have to like it. AND YOU KNOW WHAT?? All of that aside I did really enjoy reading this book. It's 300 pages and for once we have a protagonist who does not wish to abandon the human world, who hates it so totally and is jaded by mortality but enamoured with the otherness of the fae. Our main character has no sense for adventure in the beginning and just wasn't to live and paint and love her family and die. She's witty, she calls out bullshit when bullshit should be called out and speaks directly to the reader when she's about to do some dumb shit. That and only that makes this book worth the read. Then you get to the end and well stop before the last couple of pages and you can leave with your dignity.

If the author had given us even 100 pages more I know this book would have been done the justice that the idea deserved. But reading it reminded me that old quote from Troy (no I never watched Troy but saw it on a Tumblr post in 2013 and it stuck with me)

"The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again."

#an enchantment of ravens #fairies #fae #books #ya novels

8 notes · View notes

thebookbud · 4 years

Text

The Haunting of Lannister Hall

A BookBud Review

By Amy Cross

Finished 05-25-2020

Genre: Paranormal Fiction

Basic Plot: Katie finds herself at the start of a new scientific breakthrough, ghosts have been declared real. As she travels with Dr. Carter and another assistant, Josh, to Lannister Hall, they hope to see this research in action for themselves. Once in the house though, Katie may begin to understand how meddling with death, in any form, can manifest in the worst ways.

Notable Quote(s):

“I promise you, though... Human nature's anything but benign.”

“I suppose, in that way, we carry ghosts of ourselves around with us. We are ghosts, and then we die. And after that... I don't know if there's really anything more.”

“I think humanity only works if those things are kept in the shadows.”

Overall Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Readability: 5/5

Plot Interest: 5/5

Creativity: 5/5

Honestly, this book held everything I could want from a ghost story. High anticipation, a very creepy tone, and overall downright disturbing. It felt like so many other ghost stories, so as to warrant a familiarity in how these things are to be handled. But also so extremely different and creative. I almost want to equate this to if Shirley Jackson (The Haunting of Hill House) and Charlotte Perkins Gilman (The Yellow Wallpaper) came together and made a novel, that would be like reading this twisted story from Amy Cross. This was impeccable writing, strong ties to enacting strength and virtue. I also found the format of her style to flow wonderfully and to fully captivate attention. She also displays emotion in a way I found relatable and fulfilling without being overdramatic.

I settled on a 4.5 out of 5 even though I loved it so much. But I found one very prominent detail to hold me back from a full 5 star rating. If my question is answered and it was due to a misread on my part, I will more than happily upgrade my rating, but there is a specific scene in which the Lannisters are introduced that, based on my reading, was never clarified. Literally everything else went answered, but this detail I felt should have not been missed due to it’s prominence in the overall build and introduction. Because of this, even though I found it undesirable since I enjoyed so much of it otherwise, I decidedly left my rating below a five star. Although, if you do not share this same unfulfilled feeling that results from a plot hole and want to read something decently creepy, I would highly recommend this book. I personally still look forward to reading more from Amy Cross and highly respect her writing.

View on Goodreads

Buy on Amazon

#The Haunting of Lannister Hall #Amy Cross #Cross #Reading #Reading Reviews #Book Reviews #Personal #Booklr #Bookish

2 notes · View notes