Averil Mary Burleigh (1883-1949)
Illustration for “Imitation Of Spenser” by John Keats

@theartofmadeline

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
RMH
YOU ARE THE REASON
NASA
The Stonewall Inn

tannertan36

shark vs the universe
Claire Keane

oozey mess
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Noah Kahan
𓃗
hello vonnie

pixel skylines
Sweet Seals For You, Always
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

gracie abrams

No title available
KIROKAZE

seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Australia

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Japan
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@hiddenhibernian
Averil Mary Burleigh (1883-1949)
Illustration for “Imitation Of Spenser” by John Keats
Shkoder, Albania
Weird Fantasy (1950) #18 written by Al Feldstein and drawn by Joe Orlando, with editor Bill Gaines
So he said it can't be a Black. So I said, "For God's sakes, Judge Murphy, that's the whole point of the Goddamn story!" So he said, "No, it can't be a Black". Bill just called him up and raised the roof, and finally they said, "Well, you gotta take the perspiration off". I had the stars glistening in the perspiration on his Black skin. Bill said, "Fuck you", and he hung up.
Al Feldstein, Tales of Terror: The EC Companion
Just to add context for those not aware of the impact of this story.
The reason it was so important for narrative purposes, was that the plot concerns the visit of the Astronaut, in his completely opaque spacesuit, to a planet populated entirely by self-aware robots (originally from Earth) who have built their own society and are petitioning to be allowed to interact with Earth again as equals.
They have a democratic government and free choice of careers etc. as the orange robot serving as guide tells the Astronaut.
The Astronaut notices that there are two different types of robot on this world; the orange ones, who are in charge, gifted access to all information and facilities. and the blue robots, who are seen as more limited in function, have less access to information and resources, and are not allowed positions of power or as wide a choice of employment opportunities. Even transportation is segregated.
The Astronaut investigates further and discovers that the blue and orange robots are actually structurally identical, there is absolutely no difference between their potential or capabilities, and it is only because the orange robots are instructed by their Educator system to consider themselves superior, that the difference exists.
The Astronaut tells the robots they are not ready for re-alignment with Earth, until they come to terms with their own unfairness, and how Earth had had to deal with this issue themselves. When that time comes, the robots will be able to ally with Earth.
Then he leaves in his spaceship, and it's only in that one final panel that we see the Astronaut is black.
Not subtle, nor should it be, but for 1950 this was a breathtakingly powerful statement, perhaps the first of it's kind in the genre.
The black character was not a caricature, or comedy relief, he was a main character in his own right, a human who "simply" was black.
Ok, but this story is sadly revolutionary even now. That is not just a human who happens to be black, as far as every other character in this story is concerned this is the most important, maybe even the only human they ever see, who happens to be black.
As depressing as that is, but a black person just casually representing the entirety of humanity is a breathtakingly powerfull statement even today, a quarter of a century later.
*a breathtakingly powerful statement even today, three quarters of a century later
Re: "anticipating one's vows"— What level of sexual contact was permitted (or tolerated) for an engaged couple in the regency era? Are the jokes about shockingly healthy "preemies" born 6-7 months after a wedding accurate? Would that have been somewhat common, or would it be super scandalous?
I know I've answered this question before somewhere but I can't find it. People didn't write these sort of things down, so we just don't know exactly what they did and what would have been common. However, the fake preemies were actually "discovered" using church records, so that's not a joke or rumour, it was reality:
At the end of the sixteenth century, a full quarter of the brides in certain rural English parishes went to the altar already pregnant. The percentage dipped during the Civil Wars and Interregnum (possibly because of issues with record-keeping rather than an actual change in practice), and came back up to about a fifth in the first decades of the eighteenth century, increasing to about forty percent by the end of it and into the nineteenth. (source)
Anyway, it was less likely for the gentry to engage in premarital sex, mostly because the daughters would be better protected, but it must have happened because why else would a woman be perceived as damaged goods if her engagement was broken? Yes, it could be because of her personality, but people are likely also wondering if she crossed that line.
Something else to consider is that engagements were pretty much guaranteed to lead to marriage except in rare cases (in the gentry, which is the class that Austen writes about). Premarital sex in the period between proposal and marriage would probably be seen as less dangerous because of that.
The Regency was also a more permissive era before the crack down of the Victorians, a common trend in history. So that is also a factor.
But yeah, this question can't really be answered because no one was writing down in their diary: "Met with my fiance today, gave him a hand-job and got some cum on my muslin gown. We agreed to remember to bring a bigger handkerchief next time." Except Anne Lister but you know, she wasn't exactly engaged.
George Sherwood Hunter (UK 1846-1919 )
Jubilee Procession in a Cornish Village 1897
When people argue that food from Chinese and Mexican restaurants in the US are not 'real' representations of that culture's cuisine ignore the historical reality that these dishes were developed by diasporic communities striving to recreate the flavors of home with available resources. Such criticism frames adaptation as a loss of authenticity, rather than recognizing it as a sincere and evolving expression of culture by people separated from their homeland.
Too good to leave in the tags
Women have consistently earned a larger share of humanities degrees than men, but the humanities constitute a diminishing proportion of the
Women currently earn the majority of advanced degrees in the humanities. This has been the case at the master’s degree level since 1970 and
sources for gender distribution of classics degrees
I just went back to the two chapters of Pride and Prejudice directly after Wickham tells his lies to Elizabeth – Chapter 17, where she talks with Jane about it, and Chapter 18, the Netherfield Ball – because I was reminded of the fact that within those chapters, Elizabeth gets advice about Wickham and Darcy by three other young women. First Jane, who is reluctant to believe the worst of Darcy; then Charlotte, who encourages Elizabeth to dance with Darcy and urges her not to be led away from him by her preference for Wickham; and finally Caroline Bingley, who plainly tells her that Wickham is a scoundrel who did Darcy wrong, not vice-versa.
All three of their viewpoints turn out to be right, but all three are "right for the wrong reasons." Jane wants to think well of Darcy because she wants to think well of everyone, and she doesn't suspect that Wickham is lying, but thinks he must be mistaken about Darcy's actions, because she wants to think well of Wickham too. Charlotte is only being pragmatic and thinking of Darcy's status and wealth, not his character. And Caroline ends her speech about Wickham's villainy with blatant classism, by adding that of course it's to be expected from a man of such low birth.
In the post I recently reblogged defending Elizabeth from Austen fans who accuse her of so many wrongdoings, one of the arguments was against the idea that she should have listened to Jane and Caroline, because between Jane's naïve idealism and Caroline's snobbery, their opinions at that point really do ring hollow.
Except now, having reread those chapters, I'm not sure if I fully agree. Amid Jane's simple idealism, she does make one sound argument: that Bingley, a man whom they know is genuinely kind and decent, is Darcy's close friend. Maybe Elizabeth should have more strongly considered that fact instead of deciding so easily that Bingley must be deceived by Darcy. Indeed, after Darcy's letter, she does realize that his friendship with Bingley would make no sense if he were really the monster Wickham painted him as. And everything Caroline says about Wickham and Darcy's history turns out to be true: she just puts her own classist spin on the story at the very end.
I suppose this shows the cleverness of Austen's writing. If Jane, Charlotte, and Caroline were to give Elizabeth unquestionably good advice, but Elizabeth still ignored them, Elizabeth would seem less smart and be harder to sympathize with. But because their advice has obvious flaws, both Elizabeth and first-time readers have good reason to disregard it. Yet they still turn out to have been right about Darcy while Elizabeth was deceived.
I think this is where Jane Austen is very masterful, Elizabeth learns the truth, but from very questionable sources. It's not something she can really bring up with Darcy in casual conversation (so hey, did you disown your father's godson?) The misunderstanding is so well done and it doesn't feel contrived. Elizabeth not really believing was very normal and human.
Meanwhile, via Bluesky...
Re: my observation that the average undergraduate now seems to have much greater familiarity with Homeric epic and at least some Greek literature (esp. tragedy) than with the Aeneid or any Roman material, I think there’s a myriad of things at work here but at least one is that we’ve reverted to this weird cultural construct where ancient Greek myth and literature is viewed as universal while Roman literature is viewed as particular and this affects what books are taught e.g. in high school and college English classes but also what gets mined for retellings. and I also think Roman material is often imagined as being more deeply implicated in the ideological framework of patriarchal western imperial society and like, in some cases perhaps that’s fair, but I would argue as a literary historian that Roman poetry is precisely where we see the cracks forming in Roman gendered imperialism just like Greek tragedy is where we see the cracks forming in Athenian gendered imperialism. whether we want to commit to any idea of authorial intent is a different question but imo it’s impossible to read e.g. Roman elegy or pastoral or even Lucan and come away with the pop-culture idea of the iconic masculine Roman subject (hell, I think even the Aeneid questions the conventional notion of masculine Roman virtus that Lucan absolutely shatters, but that’s another discussion)
anyways this also gets combined with a dynamic that’s really maddening to me as a classicist where anything Roman is almost exclusively gendered as masculine in popular culture (see the Roman Empire meme, but also the subculture of Jordan Peterson bros roleplaying as stoics and reading or pretending to read Marcus Aurelius) whereas on the Greek side we have Anne Carson’s Sappho translations and a total saturation of feminist rewritings of Greek myth, Homeric epic, and tragedy. this is actually really weird from the perspective of a Roman social historian, given that women are far more visible in Roman material (esp. from the 1st century CE onward) than they are anywhere in classical Greek society, and it has the consequence that Roman poetry (except, like, Lucretius I guess) gets sidelined because the types of dudes that are going to maybe read Marcus Aurelius or Tacitus are definitely not going to read Catullus or Vergil’s Eclogues or even the Aeneid given that poetry itself is often gendered as feminine in the 21st century popular imagination, and the types of non-classicists who like Anne Carson’s Sappho and feminist approaches to Greek myth are also probably not going to read Roman poetry
i just don’t think i could ever meaningfully quit this place
Which of the following moments in British politics was funniest?
David Cameron allegedly fucking a pig (2015)
Theresa May Brexit deal sees worst parliamentary defeat of any British PM (2019)
Dominic Cummings' social distancing scandal is named #Cumgate (2021)
Matt "Eat Out to Help Out" Hancock caught having affair with his aide (2021)
MP resignations reach critical mass under Boris Johnson (2022)
The Queen dies 2 days after meeting Liz Truss (2022)
Liz Truss who doesn't outlast head of lettuce (2022)
Nigel Farage has to run in by-election against Count Binhead (2026)
I'm American and I never read news from outside of my country
Something else entirely (I'll tell you in the tags)
Note: don't let your recency bias decide this, actually think back to what was the objectively funniest time on the internet.
I hate when king arthur has all these fussy little steps in the instructions and you're like "no way do these fussy little steps matter" but you try it and they do. they matter so much.
I thought you meant Camelot quests and I was like "that's fair, 'never pick a four leaf clover on the last Wednesday of the month' IS a fussy little step that shouldn't matter" but then I was like "wait isn't that also a flour company"
nooo I am not a beleaguered knight of the round table I am making elaborate focaccia 😭
"I hate when King Arthur has all these fussy little steps" -- Camelot cleaning staff, probably
it’s always “I understand why you have an autism diagnosis now” and not “thank you for explaining the entirety of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster to me, I really enjoyed hearing about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster”
I am tired of seeing historical "yeah we know it's not accurate but wouldn't that be fucking cool" movies that are always only about like. Three places. Fourth one maybe if you're really lucky. I am tired of that. I am tired of the greeks.
I want to see an over the top Rule Of Cool historical action movie about some wild shit that alledgedly happened 3000 years ago in idk Sudan.
I just saw someone make the assertion that “everyone on booktok has low literacy, and romantasy books are bad because they’re catering to those people”
And this was meant to be a BAD thing. A problem. But if you actually believed that a massive population of low-literacy adults were buying books, becoming obsessed with them, and discussing them at length… wouldn’t that be a great thing? That’s how one moves from low literacy to high literacy: by practicing reading
Unless you think low literacy is an immutable quality reflective of poor character, in which case YOU are actually the problem
“lol Arthur Conan Doyle clearly didn’t know anything about drugs. Sherlock Holmes did cocaine but it calmed him down. That’s not how cocaine works!”
There are two options: Arthur Conan Doyle had never met someone addicted to cocaine or he met some with ADHD who was addicted to cocaine
#you cannot convince me sherlock 'i don't see a use for this common knowledge i shall forget it immediately' holmes wasn't adhd as hell #sherlock 'if i have nothing to do for a day i will literally start shooting the walls out of boredom' holmes #sherlock 'i have built a perfect wax replica of myself - why? iunno' holmes
He specifically took drugs when he didn't have a case to occupy himself, that man was ADHD as fuck
ACD was a practicing doctor and ship's surgeon during the period where cocaine was routinely used as medicine and described by medical journals as "the blessed instrument of Christ," so not only is there exactly zero chance that he'd never met anyone addicted to cocaine, he also almost certainly administered cocaine to people.
It's also definitely not a stretch at all to say he'd probably met people who self-medicated with cocaine to deal with what we'd now call ADHD. Like, the second ever Sherlock Holmes story begins with Watson protesting Holmes' overuse of cocaine, and Holmes replying that he needs it to deal with his overactive brain -- it's entirely plausible that ACD had had that exact conversation with someone or multiple someones.
Like, the man had been a ship's surgeon. On a whaling ship. The number one place in Victorian times to find men who either couldn't get or couldn't hold down work elsewhere. He was almost certainly extremely familiar with a pretty broad spectrum of neurodivergence and self-medication thereof, even if medical science didn't yet have the terminology to apply to it.
Not only did ACD probably have this conversation with someone in real life, he clearly knew and understood how dangerous cocaine was.
At a time when cocaine was regularly administered by other doctors, Doyle wrote Watson to have a clear aversion and dislike of the drug and understood that it was bad for you. It’s written as a clear indication that Sherlock, despite all his brilliance and genius, is still a human being who can make very bad decisions for himself.
Not only that, but Watson does ultimately win and gets Sherlock off of his addition to cocaine in the end. It takes him a while, but Sherlock is weened off the drug and this is seen as a good thing for everyone involved. In fact in a later story Watson comes home and sees a needle and fears that Sherlock might’ve had a relapse (he didn’t, the needle was just being used for something else involving a case).
Doyle knew what he was doing. He wasn’t writing it as an endorsement or as an indication that Sherlock knew better than Watson. It’s made very clear in the books that Sherlock is highly limited in a lot of ways that Watson is not. Watson was a skilled physician and both he and ACD knew cocaine was not good for someone like Holmes.
Conan Doyle was hyperfixated on history and very mad his excited infodumping historical fiction didn't get the attention the Holmes stories did. He wrote bestselling serialized novels and short stories (that all tend to follow a specific structure) while full time practicing medicine, and by all accounts had a Holmes-like way of Noticing Fucking Everything.
He had a clear disdain for social convention while understanding deeply how to conform to it in order to survive; a lot of Holmes' deductions actually depend on assumptions about typical human behavior in a given situation rather than physical evidence alone. It's the kind of encyclopedic conscious knowledge of unwritten social rules you might develop in order to mask successfully.
He was almost certainly neurodivergent himself. There's a reason classic Holmes fans tend to be Like That. Game recognize game.