I'm a doctor not a...

[theoppositeofprofound]

Scientific Fields Sorted By How Easy It Is To Directly Apply Them To Tolkien Fanfic

Math: Math is apparently the purest science which sounds like elitist nonsense but I will give them credit for the fact that old Johnny never dropped any lore disproving calculus. Math is presumably exactly the same in their universe as it is in ours!

Pure Physics: Just math wearing a silly hat, works mostly the same way with the caveat that the god of evil did invent thermodynamics. Seriously, just ramble about photons for a few paragraphs and throw in a line about how this proves that Varda is a most powerful of the Valar at the end. You’ve just written an elven term paper. 

Linguistics: You are not only encouraged but required to do linguistics in your Tolkien, with the caveat that some of these losers exhibit linguistic drift at a glacial pace thanks to the whole “immortality” thing. 

Applied Physics: It starts to get shaky here! Manwe’s eagles must fly on the power of prayer because they’re not airborne on their own two wings, not in this atmosphere. Also Frodo and Sam were pretty convection proof on Mt. Doom

Structructural Engineering: Pretty safe, mostly because it doesn’t get a lot of attention. Moria and Barad-Dur might be stretching things but they do have magic. 

Chemistry: Solid, apart from mithril which defies the periodic table and also god. 

Zoology: Ponies are real but giant wolves and dragons are not. However they’re handled impressively realistically. Bonus points for the first attempts at dragons not even having wings, that’s the sort of real representation of the scientific process we like to see

Astronomy: To apply astronomy to the Silm you must accept that the world functions in a dual reality where the sun is both a gaseous celestial object and an immortal woman carrying some fruit, where the earth is both round and flat and some people can still sail off the edge it does not have. Once you get that though it’s jolly good fun.

Applied Engineering and Chemistry/”Tech”: I do not know how the Silmarils work, I don’t think I’ll ever know how the Silmarils work. Whenever I try to design a model for how the Silmarils work it looks like I’m making a magic potion out of stardust and diamonds. But all the magic is underpinned by a respect for craftsmanship that allows your to throw in lots of nerdy forging facts so points for that.

Geology: Again, the Mithril Issue, closely related to the Arkenstone Issue and the Silmaril Issue. Lots of potential for fun times at the jewelers bench with elves and dwarves alike though, so it gets a pass. 

Biology: I hate some of the concepts raised by this old British man! How do trolls work? What is Gandalf made of? Hobbits and dwarves, okay, manageable. I can even tolerate elves and Western men, mystical and immortal-ish as they are. But what the HELL is an orc?

Botany: You get a magical flower that cures everything! And you get a magical flower that cures everything!

Geography: Mountain ranges don’t work like that.

Neuroscience: JRR said “the soul influences the body not the other way around” and I said “okay, that’s a worldbuilding choice but this does mean that I have no chance of using anything I’m actually studying while writing for your work, you understand this right, John? John, look at me.”

[radiantanor]

have to reblog again with your tags @exercise-of-trust you are right

#you’re giving physics and astro too much credit! light canonically behaves like a liquid what am i supposed to do with THAT#gravity? how is gravity supposed to work?#how do tides work when the moon is a man in a boat! we know earendil is venus but mars jupiter and saturn are all visible from earth too#how do they work! what are they! how does all of this change once numenor sinks and the entire world just becomes round!#seasons canonically existed before arda turned into a ball with axial tilt - what caused them and how did they change?#menelmacar with his shining belt strode up the sky in ch3 so presumably orion still exhibited all the same behaviors as now but HOW. WHY.#in conclusion we are ALL fucked here except maybe the mathematicians 

[winterinhimring]

#I have a whole bullshit math theory for explaining what eru did to separate Valinor from endor#think of a mobius strip#he just like cut and reattached it together and now what used to be a continuous plane is on either side of a loop#and cirdan just has boats that punch holes clean through the mobius strip#like you can’t tell me that’s NOT what happened#is it not a straight path if you just go Through (via @greymantleish) Sure, I’ll accept that headcanon.

I would also like to observe that the mountain ranges actually are SUPPOSED to not look like natural ones because there was an EVIL GEOLOGIST ANGEL in the middle of that country making Incorrect Tectonic Formations.

[inheroes--wetrust]

obsessed with the fact that howl movingcastle is, like, the ideal portal fantasy protagonist. he's a welsh rugby-playing grad student who enters a magical world where he discovers he's a wildly powerful wizard. there's an evil witch out to get him and the king needs his help and there's a curse catching up with him. he has a magical creature sidekick and an orphan apprentice and a mentor who gets killed by the evil witch halfway through and a love interest under a terrible curse. the story is BEGGING for him to be the main character. and he's just like. no <3.

[clawedandcute]

Howl read Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit--he's not stupid, he's DEFINITELY not going on any quests, please and thank you.

[browniefox]

We don’t talk enough about how fanfiction writers love to give character large amounts of non-specific paperwork they hate doing

[streamofsalmon]

say more pls

[browniefox]

Yeah sure why not.

So most stories take place when Events are Happening, and this means that no matter what kind of job the characters have, they’re probably not too focused on them. Fanfics, on the other hand, often show the down time. Which means that the writer has to figure out what the hell these characters do in their jobs. Unless the characters have a job the author understands or knows well, the author is often at a loss for what to have the character doing.

So they sit them at a desk and give them paperwork. What is the paperwork for? Rarely specified. It is Paper Work for the characters Important Adult Job they have and they need to read or sign it or something. And there’s always a line about how Character Hates Paperwork. Doesn’t matter if Character is a Mafia Boss or a General or a Diplomat, here they are in an office trying to get out of Doing Paperwork.

There’s also a sense of, like, humor and mundanity that comes with it. Like the examples above, it always particularly stands out to me when a dangerous individual is griping about some paper they need to sign or something. The less you can picture Character doing paperwork, all the better to force it upon them. If Character is saddled with Paperwork, they’re usually now concerned about the physical damages their motley crew causes, because damage = More Paperwork.

Anyway I just think it’s fun or funny, Sephiroth doing paper work and Sawada Tsunayoshi doing paper work and this just in, Tony Stark is doing paperwork. Sorry, Phoenix Wright can’t play right now. Yeah, it’s paperwork.

[elumish]

A very non-exhaustive list of actual paperwork they could be completing/reviewing/approving, in no particular order:

Timesheets

Expense reports

Requisition requests

Budget justifications

Payroll

Performance evaluations

Incident reports

After action reviews / post-mortem analyses

Incident Action Plans

Contracts

Contract proposals / grant applications

Reports / briefings

[redwingedwhump]

Your Royalty or Nobles in your feudal society should be doing this constantly unless you want to show how they're losing the kingdom and about to be usurped or overthrown.

petitions, speech-writing, complaints, requests, assignations, disputes, judiciary forms, declarations that need signing off on, matters requiring the Royal seal, matters requiring a royal endorsement, pardons, judgments, invitations, rebuttals, census data, crop yields projected or actual, livestock records, water rights, Sumptuary laws, taxes taxes taxes...

[val-ritz]

solid point there!

even when the royalty look like they're just fucking off to have fun, they're doing Socially Mandated Fuck-Off and Have Fun Time

Tournaments? Gotta show you're manly and virile through sport, or the nobles will supplant you. Feasts? Gotta show you're wealthy through conspicuous consumption, or the nobles will supplant you. Patronizing the arts? Gotta show you're cultured and erudite, or the nobles will laugh at you behind your back and probably supplant you.

[delicatefury]

Lawyer here. Here’s some more mundane/modern ones for you:

Invoices.

Intake sheets (information about new clients. The one for my firm is 13 pages and requires an hour long meeting. Then you have to do something with the info gathered)

Data entry for invoices and intake sheets.

Billing. (More involved than timesheets because you’re justifying to clients why you’re getting paid so much).

Form letters.

Taxes. Including 1099s for any contracted work.

Bank statements/accounting spreadsheets. Gotta track how expenses are trending.

Insurance documents.

General messages. Lots of office still use a paper system for missed calls and “important” stuff because it just works better than emails and chats for some people.

Memos. Big enough office to have at least one attorney on payroll? You’re getting memos about every legal question and concern and contract. It’s how we’re trained to communicate in formal settings.

[letslipthehounds]

And if you want to get into modern military, the forms are numbered, and people will refer to them by either their actual name, or the number. (Have you filled out the 4187 for this? Yes, I filled out the personnel action form.)

The military has so many forms.

[leebrontide]

If you want to add a rage level, there’s the Regular Paperwork and then the special hell of Fuckup Paperwork.

Cause there’s the invoice, and the follow up invoice and the we are about to have a problem follow-up invoice.

There’s the incident report and then the I swear I yelled at that worker about this don’t be mad at me if they do it again second warning documentation

The requisition form and the it has been six months now get me the fucking thing or you’re gonna hear from Cindy escalations form.

Paperwork has layers and protocols and backups.

[dancing-thru-clouds]

For law firms, there's also the 'I am asking nicely for you to send me this legally mandated document' and then the follow-up 'My please was a social nicety, I am no longer asking, I am telling you to send me this document or explain to a court why you refuse to do so' which, depending on the type of law, can fill a significant amount of the day

[erynalasse]

Fingon and Finrod are both terrifyingly competent war bards, but at equal and opposite things. And Maglor, for all his musical genius, is barely competent at this one skill.

Everyone expects Maglor to be the most talented battle singer when they’re figuring this out—including himself. In Aman, in peacetime, he’s widely accepted as the finest singer, harpist, and composer of the Noldor. Even Finrod and Fingon, accomplished musicians by any other standard, don’t question this. Maglor can wring tears from the most stoic master bard with his achingly beautiful voice. But after the first few Orc raids in Beleriand, never mind the Dagor-nuin-Giliath, it’s clear this does not extend to battle. Maglor is best at inspiring sorrow. This is excellent when you need to write the tragic downfall of your people to let them weep for their many losses. It’s less useful for helping allies or slaying Orcs.

Fingon, though, is the best at inspiring hope in his own forces. He never tells anyone so, but he discovers this in the mountains of Thangorodrim by coaxing his lost cousin to sing back to him. Fingon can hum the exhaustion from your limbs and sing the pain from your bruises, and he can give you the strength to push forward for a final charge. What annoys everyone else is how spontaneous and genuine it all is; if Fingon’s sudden battle compositions were contrived, they wouldn’t be half as effective. Maglor was known to grouse about Fingon showing him up when his nonsense refrain for the Dagor Aglareb—Our lances keen with deadly sheen / with ardor fierce, our foes to pierce!—caught on better than Maglor’s own elegant anthem.

Finrod is an unholy terror to enemies on the battlefield, and the Orcs flee before his song. He is a son of Eärwen of Alqualondë, twice as much Lindar as he is Noldor. Finrod’s mother was the finest loremaster of their clan’s ancient chants against the Dark, first crafted at Cuiviénen and perfected on the Great Journey. He learned them from her, and then he did them better. Finrod has lessons from Melian on how an elf can channel the Song’s chords for best effect, and he takes to it with deadly competence. Finrod could sing dread into the enemy’s heart and a tremor into their hands on their weapons. Golden, laughing, kind Finrod never raised his voice in song against another elf—but when he cast away his crown for Beren, they say you could catch the edges of terror from seeing his sharp-toothed smile.

(There are not many who knew Maglor, Fingon, and Finrod all well enough to compare them. But those who can whisper how tragically misplaced these talents were. Perhaps Fingon could have woven a more compelling song of hope against Sauron. Perhaps Finrod’s chants of terror could have driven away even a Balrog better than Fingon’s hope for a false dawn. And it was cruel of Eru to give Maglor a gift for sorrow, when he had eternity to sing of it to the waves, with naught but the wind’s wail for a duet.)

[melestasflight]

Fingon and Finrod are also sons of the Vanyar, those people most beloved by Súlimo, and of him they received song and poetry; for poetry is the delight of Manwë, and the song of words is his music. While Fëanáro's family traveled far and wide to the borders of Aman, Fingon and Finrod would spend their youth in the Blessed Lands learning from their grandmother, composing and singing to Manwë and Varda under the light of the Trees.

[hhimring]

‘You are much better at this,’ said Maglor in disgust. ‘I just make all the orcs burst into floods of tears...’

He looks up to find Fingon and Finrod staring at  him.

‘What?!’

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

[winterinhimring]

Okay, this is hilarious.

But. Please consider how effective it could actually be to make your enemy burst into tears on the battlefield:

What good is grief against the Enemy's servants? Maglor asks Maedhros, in disgust, one morning. I can help our folk to mourn better than any, but I cannot so much as make one orc quail in its tracks!

It is a rhetorical question, but Maedhros turns thoughtful. If you truly wish to know, I will show you, he says. The knowledge is cruel, but it may serve you well.

Show me, please, Maglor says. He is not without fear, for he knows that what he is about to see will, most likely, be a memory of Angband, but he is a lord of warriors, and he would be able to do more for them than comfort them when they grieve.

So Maedhros does. Maglor throws up when he has seen it. It would be the height of cruelty to use that against them, he says, when he is finished retching.

No, Maedhros says. It was the height of cruelty for the Morgoth to do it. To stop them would be a mercy, by whatever means it must be done.

So the next day Maglor rides out at the head of the cavalry of the Gap. There is a large orc-band riding through the country, and Maglor begins to sing.

He sings of the stars over Cuivienen, reflecting in the waters of Lake Helcar. He sings of Yavanna's forests and Irmo's gentle dreams and Aule's lessons in craft that are for beauty and not for pain. All this was your birthright, by your fathers' fathers. Have you forgotten? the music asks.

And the orcs burst into tears. Some fall dead at once, spirits that retain more memory of the Elven-kind they might have been revolting against the foul forms in which Morgoth has clothed them, fleeing to the doors of Mandos. Others fall upon their blades. The cavalry see to the rest, while Maglor sings on.

The skirmish is over in five minutes.

What was that, lord? asks the captain of Maglor, when the song is over.

Mercy, says Maglor, and his eyes are dry.

[winterinhimring]

I have now ported this to AO3 and also made it worse. :)

[beardedmrbean]

Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.

Kids books is probably not the best way to word it, you can enjoy them at every age, including your childhood, as you get older you may find new truths in them, but they're still good for any age.

[cookingwithroxy]

I want you to understand this. I NEED you to understand this. My mother read me the hobbit as bedtime story, and I started pushing myself to read before pre-school so I could in fact read the hobbit for myself instead of having to wait for bedtime.

I didn't do so right away but jesus wept I PUSHED myself to learn to read SPECIFICALLY so I could read The Hobbit! It is, in fact, a children's story! And children only see page count as 'there is a lot of this fun story to read!'

[delicatefury]

My six year old nephew is attempting to read the hobbit. He’s temporarily quit so he can read Harry Potter (since we’re going to Universal) and is on book 2.

Again, he’s six. But he wants to read about Bilbo’s adventures.

As an adult who was reading chapter books at the same age, length is not intimidating. Boring is the joy killer. If the story is good, if the characters are fun, if the writing is engaging, the book will be finished.

Don’t try to limit kids’ reading for them.

[jewish-joy]

Last year, I befriended a Catholic seminarian. We've gotten to be pretty decent friends. Seeing as he was staying in town for the summer and I wasn't, I entrusted him with caring for my plant.

He did a wonderful job, but as he was returning my plant to my custody, he explained "I watered her every other day, I gave her new dirt, moved her into the sunshine, prayed the rosary-"

"What?"

He looked at me, confused. "Isn't she a plant you pray with?"

"No," I said slowly. "She's a prayer plant. That's the... colloquial name of the plant."

Upon seeing his stricken face, I realized something went wrong. Turns out, this entire time, he's been including my plant in on his prayers and leaving her near icons.

Listen, totally cool. My plant becoming Catholic is a great deal for her not dying over the summer. But now I must navigate this interfaith household. Keep me in your thoughts.

[deepwaterfiction]

Text: Sometimes in the dead of night on the way to the kitchen for a glass of water, I see an extra door in the hallway, black and imposing. 

[dycefic]

It’s not a bad boarding house, as these things go.

We’re not allowed up to the fourth floor, for any reason – but I don’t blame the landlady for wanting her privacy.

Nobody but the landlady answers the strange willow-patterned telephone on the third floor landing.

We all lock our windows on full moon nights.

No couples are allowed, ever. Only single women and girls.

And sometimes, if you go down the hall to the kitchen late at night, there’s a strange black door that’s never there by daylight.

For some reason, it’s hard to get new lodgers to stay. I don’t know why. It’s a little strange, maybe, but the meals are good, Mrs Hallow the landlady is kind, and the rent is ridiculously cheap. I’ll take the strange black door and the phone that rings even when there’s no wire going to it over rats in the walls and cigarette ash in the food any day. My last boarding house was like that. I like it here.

I’d been living here for nearly two years when I lost my job working at the telephone exchange. It wasn’t my fault – they cut the night shift back, and one of the girls cut was me. Mrs Hallow told me not to worry – as I was an old lodger, she’d let me work for room and board while I looked for another job. She’s so nice, I don’t know why people say she’s creepy. It’s not her fault she’s so tall and thin, and her bones show through her fragile old skin.

I worked hard, wanting her to be glad she’d kept me. One of the jobs she gave me, since I was used to working nights, was packing lunches after supper. For the Night Gentlemen, she told me, but didn’t say more. Every night, I packed twenty lunches in twenty tin pails and filled twenty thermoses with strong coffee. I made sandwiches, and boiled eggs, sliced pickles and cheese, and packed a paper napkin into each pail. I was to have everything done by eleven, Mrs Hallow told me, for the Night Gentlemen came at midnight to collect their meals, and I should be in bed by then. By morning, the pails were all gone. By evening, they were all stacked neatly in the kitchen again, clean and ready to be filled. I never saw them come, but I supposed it must be while I was sleeping.

Then I started to worry that my lunches were dull. I baked cookies for the lunch pails, and pies and pasties. I put in different kinds of fruit and vegetables each day. The Night Gentlemen worked late hours, if they came for their lunches in the middle of the night. They needed to eat good food. I looked through Mrs Hallow’s old recipe books and tried new dishes, like german apple pancake and potato dumplings. Mrs Hallow was pleased, and said she would pay me a little wage in addition to my room and board, if I didn’t mind continuing. She was getting too old, she said, to make all those meals every night.

I had been working at the boarding house for nearly six months when I really messed up. I’d burned a whole batch of cookies to a crisp, so I had to start all over, and I didn’t have time to decorate them before evening. It was Valentine’s Day, and I felt so bad that I decided to stay up late to finish them. The Night Gentlemen didn’t come until midnight, so I had time… I thought.

Keep reading

[avoid-avoidance]

I just had a random stupid idea.

If Rocky thinks human culture is too food-centered???

Send that rock spider alien to Middle-Earth and drop him straight into the Shire.

Everyone around you is eating SEVEN meals a day now. Plus optional snacks. And their idea of being hospitable & kind & welcoming to you, as a guest, is to directly offer you some of their food.

Woe. Hobbits Be Upon Ye.

[letslipthehounds]

Just... Just don't let anyone who saw the spiders of Mirkwood or Shelob see him.

Poor guy. Nothing else to say but poor guy. Though if Grace was with him, at least that might help a little.

[whetstonefires]

my first thought was that his language is musical enough that certain elves who have a lot of points in music-as-magic might be able to unlock communication with him. like, at the very least to intuit from the tonal subtext of his whistle-yelling that he's Not Evil, and work from there.

my second thought was that since in order to not instantly combust in an oxygenated atmosphere (while simultaneously depressurizing and freezing to death) Rocky would need a life support containment unit of some kind, his odds are decent of getting shot at and having the arrows bounce off his ball.

which would help with having enough time to yell until Not Evil was concluded.

my third thought was getting food that would give him everything he needed might ultimately require looping in some dwarves, because the elves have some great smiths but even the Noldor don't care about minerals the way the dwarves do.

fourth: Eventual middle-earth conclusion would probably be that he's simply a being Not From Ea, which is why he's Like That. and Ungoliant is the only other thing Not From Ea that anyone in Ea knows about that isn't an Ainu, who are shapeshifting spirits primarily.

ungoliant super evil, rocky quite benevolent, no seeming connection, so potential takeaway is that possibly, in the greater universe outside Eru's creation, the most normal bauplan is 'spiderish.' that's just what aliens are like.

....longterm consequence include a spike in hypothetical depictions of What The Souls Of Dead Mean Are Doing Right Now featuring giant spiders in some capacity.

[quietpinetrees]

[drachenmagier]

I couldn’t resist this. The idea of space sirens and starmaids just make me want to grab pen and paper instantly. So, this is how I enjoyed my free Sunday. <3 My thanks for @quietpinetrees for the wonderful inspiration.

Scanned and coloured version, traditional media, A4-ish

[quietpinetrees]

As a writer, very little brings me as much joy as being the inspiration for someone else’s creativity. I want to thank @drachenmagier for sharing this magnificent art with the world.

I hope everyone inspired by my writing to create something of their own is kind enough to share it.

[edgar-allan-possum]

They fly up next to the spaceship and try to get you to roll the windows down

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Instructions unclear, which direction is ‘down’?

[thatdisasterauthor]

It's done! I am so freaking thrilled with how this came out. It was immensely fun taking the old poster and trying to figure out a balance between the old art and a modern take on fire management, as well as how to make it my own while retaining as much of the original style and color as possible. And I'm not normally one to stick my whole logo on my illustrations, but I wanted to match the original poster which as the USFS logo there, so!

Shout out to @vaspider for helping me puzzle out better wording for the bottom chunk of the poster.

You can get prints and shirts with this design in my Printful shop! If there's another product you'd like to see it on, let me know!

Some more thoughts and ramblings about this piece below the cut, including a side-by-side with the original poster.

The Death Rides poster was produced in 1933 by the US Forest Service, but I've sadly never seen the specific artist named anywhere. It reflects the pretty typical attitude of the time that fire=bad, that it leads to death as a negative thing. It's also one of the most popular pre-Smokey Bear fire prevention posters. This thing is EVERYWHERE, especially in wildland fire circles. It's on posters, shirts, even a few logos.

I have never seen a GOOD reproduction of the thing. I feel like there's got to be a good quality one sitting around somewhere, but it sure doesn't seem to have made its way onto the internet. They're all grainy with strange color splotches, but that's never seemed to effect its popularity.

I do really love the concept of the original poster, and the simple phrasing that drives home the clear message. For my redo, I wanted to keep the overall look and feel, and the simple, clear message, but changing it to match modern understandings of fire and its place in the cycle of life in forests. I set out with the following goals:

Show fire as a part of the natural cycle that helps keep landscapes healthy.

Make the horse less distressed looking.

Remove the gendered language from the messaging.

Keep as much of the original posing, composition, and colors as possible.

Showing the renewal cycle was the trickiest part, because the composition really didn't leave a lot of room to show the regrowth portion. I think I came up with a good balance, though, by having the forest very overgrown, dark, and unhealthy, then having the strong dividing diagonal/arrow of fire bringing light into that dark overgrowth, and the open, regrowing portion behind the smoke and flames. I also had the regrowth coming from the horse's hooves so that the horse is more of an active piece of the story, rather than being forced through the whole affair.

The regrowing plants in the background are fire poppies and fireweed, as well as a few distant aspen saplings, all of which are some of the first plants to come back after wildfires move through. Death also got a fire poppy as the clasp of their cloak.

For the phrasing, I came up with "Death Renews the Forest" almost immediately, but I had more trouble with the bottom portion. I wanted the phrase to not be gendered anymore, so switched it to "we." Initially I thought about something like "When we are educated in its use." But I wasn't a big fan of "use." While the poster does feature Death doing an intentional prescribed burn, I also wanted the phrasing to apply to letting naturally lightning caused fires burn. So less "use" and more embracing fire overall. This is especially true given that in the US we have, unfortunately, gone back to a full suppression strategy as of 2026 thanks to an executive order from the orange menace. So, despite decades of research showing how much harm that causes, we've been ordered to start doing it again. Which, to me, just makes this redo of the poster even more relevant right now.

Spider helped me puzzle out some other phrasing ideas, and I really liked this final one. I think it is balanced really well with the top portion of the text, and the overall message of the poster.

So yes! Had a lot of fun with this. I probably will do some more redos of other famous prevention posters at some point, but I'm not sure when or which ones.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

DNI if you've ever:

Been to Greenland

Been to Denver

Buried treasure in St. Louis (or St. Paul for that matter)

Been to Moscow

Been to Tampa

Been to Boston (only if you went during the fall, though)

Hoisted a mainstay

Swabbed a poop deck

Veered to starboard

You know what just DNI if you've ever sailed at all

Walked a gangplank

Owned a parrot (I shouldn't have to explain this one)

Been to Boston in the fall (cannot overstate this)

[edgar-allan-possum]

Okay, but what if I've never plucked a rooster and I'm not too good at ping-pong, and I've never thrown my mashed potatoes up against the wall, and I've never kissed a chipmunk and I've never gotten head lice, and I've never been to Boston in the fall?

[supreme-leader-stoat]

You're safe

[supreme-leader-stoat]

[husborth-deactivated20241109]

as someone who got 2 concussions this year and inhaled toxic substances at the workplace i can confidently inform you all that all characters in the star wars prequels are absolved of stupidity. they're all dumb as a box of rocks but its not their fault that no one made them wear helmets in wartime. the introduction of SPOSHA (space OSHA) would reduce incidences of darth vader creation by at least one i just know it

[husborth-deactivated20241109]

"anakin shouldn't have done that" he was huffing space gasoline at age 7 literally what did you expect. "obi-wan shouldn't have done that" he literally goes through a window face first in episode 2. "padme shouldn't have done that" she's had a career since she was 10

[husborth-deactivated20241109]

OVER 20? i thought that shit was at 14 god's honest truth. which is bad enough but WORSE? holy shit. you could fucking fly a jet plane through the holes in his brain, legend has it if you get a brain scan on that man the scarring on his frontal lobe spells out 'HELP.' fucking 20+? that live fast die young ass motherfucker. born with a job, broke both legs by 6, death NASCAR career by 9, logged his first kill at 11, married at 19, 20+ workplace electrocutions by 22. installs his first authoritarian government by 22. overachieving but in all the wrong fields only. i mean 20+? that man hasn't walked in a straight line in years. holy fuck man. 20+? yeeeeeeeeeeesh. holy shit. fuck

[husborth-deactivated20241109]

i've crunched the numbers and analyzed the situations man and i tell you i ran this in the most favorable of conditions. assuming this boy turned 19 literally 5 minutes before AOTC picks up and Space Years can be substituted by our years, and by '20+' we mean 21, this dude gets electrocuted every 7.4 weeks. dude...... like bro. like man.

[husborth-deactivated20241109]

HEY SO IT WASN'T FAVORABLE CONDITIONS APPARENTLY IT WAS FUCKING 30 TIMES FOR A RATE OF 1 ELECTROCUTION EVERY 5 WEEKS HAHAHAHAHAHA

[obiwong]

[most-sane-classicist]

emily wilson odyssey criticisms masterpost

this is what i am going to start referring people to

Before i begin, people unfamiliar with a) homer or b) ancient greek as a language should not be trying to criticise or defend this translation besides the whole 'wow what an achievement' thing. I'm sorry, it just proves you dont really know what you're talking about.

There seems to be misconceptions about this- i hear people saying Emily is the first woman to translate homer. This is incorrect. She is the first PUBLISHED female translator for the ODYSSEY into ENGLISH. Other female translators like Caroline Alexander do exist and deserve much more praise. Heck, Anne Dacier was translating the odyssey into french 300 years before wilson. Unfortunately this misconception has lead to ANY criticism of Wilson being flagged as purely misogyny, and while I do not deny there being some misogynistic criticism of wilson, this statement usually boils down to blind anti-intellectualism.

The one credit I will give wilson for her translation is the corrected translation for what Telemachus calls the slave girls, rather than sluts, whores or creatures as some did, she refers to them as 'female ones'.

The main paper I will take a look at in this post is that below, because I believe it accurately sums up a lot of the issues about wilson's Odyssey. I will then go on to link a variety of other useful resources.

Without further ado:

HOMER’S ODYSSEY THREE WAYS, Whitaker, R

Wilson regards odysseus as 'not heroic' and her translation thus mischaracterises him to make us feel that way as well. (many examples in the paper and links below)

Wilson attempts to play down the wrongdoings of the suitors and polyphemus (ditto)

Wilson's thoughts on slavery:

"[t]he need to acknowledge the fact and the horror of slavery, and to mark the fact that the idealized society depicted in the [Odyssey] is one where slavery is shockingly taken for granted, seems to me to outweigh the need to specify, in every instance, the type of slave"

This causes her to lose great deals of accuracy by translating many varied words as slave

Wilson's tone is far too colloquial, while also retaining archaic elements leading to inconsistency in her style.

Whitaker's examples of colloquialisms include:

‘You must be joking’ (1.64); ‘babysit’ (7.12); ‘She looked astonishing’ (8.367); ‘whooshed’ (10.55); ‘snuggling’ (10.218); ‘cutest’ (10.278); ‘Teenagers’ (11.38); ‘pointless to talk of hypotheticals’ (11.465); ‘she glugs it down’ (12.106); ‘tote bag’ (13.438); ‘cushy’ (14.47); ‘make nice’ (14.387); ‘standoffishness’ (15.72); ‘games of darts’ (17.168); ‘cottoned on’ (18.95); ‘pace themselves’ (21.295, of drinking wine); and ‘fluffy pillows’ (24.257).

And archaisms include: 'seven days and ten', 'fleet-foot deer', 'vernal dawn'

Her use of pentameter is natural for the english language and so stops her from using poetic style and imagery. Most of her translation is prose divided into lines.

Wilson removes homeric repetition and adds her own variatio (so to speak) to stock phrases and blatantly mistranslates epithets.

There are also a lot of translation errors as Whitaker sums up:

"Straightforward blunders include attributing a speech to the wrong speaker, producing a character formerly unknown to the Odyssey, and misidentifying another. 33 Among Wilson’s other infelicities are numerous mistranslations,34 lines skipped by the translator,35 and mistakes of fact.36"

Other stuff

HERE is a WONDERFUL website you can use to compare classical translations, including Wilson's.

THIS is one specifically for the odyssey, and has Wilson's too.

Wilson mistranslates various ecological terms (which i am sure @ulises-aithon could speak about if asked), but one example would be mistranslating the word 'kedron' or 'juniper' (i believe) into Citron, which is native to south-east Asia and would not be on Calypso's island...

Addionally available are the posts of the absoloutely brilliant @katerinaaqu who has talked a lot about this. Here are a few:

On the mischaracterisation of Odysseus

On ecological inaccuracy, this is what I mentioned earlier.

On accuracy, with @paralleltranslation

Also there is this by @bubbles-burster

This by many different people

More mischaracterisation chat

This is as much as I will dig up right here and now. There is plenty more like it if you go looking.

TLDR in my opinion you should steer clear but you should be free to form your own.

any other resources, tell me and they will be added

[katerinaaqu]

Okay...we have a lot to unrap here!

For once...man being called "brilliant" or any other cosmetic epithet of that sort is totally undeserving! Honestly!

no I am not brilliant by any means. I am just another person who tries in this modern world to raise some awareness of her own culture that is unsurprisingly misunderstood which is obviously a thing for any culture at any given time. Trying to give some insight from my own perspective as a person who was lucky enough to have parents to wish to teach me things about our past and present since as long as I can speak and walk and also I was lucky enough that we had such great teachers and professors in university to receive a spherical education

This education even if I never got to use to my actual professional career I am hoping to use to raise awareness of certain things that are obviously getting lost in translation (pun intended) which is absolutely normal so I do try to use my knowledge in combination to my perspective to bring some awareness here. Whether I succeed or not is up for history to decide I suppose hehe

Enough with the dramatics let's get down to it (sorry it gets long and you can disagree with me if you want but honestly I do believe these wholeheartedly)

Now of course I am critical against many things Wilson did or said during her time as a translator. As I said I was informed by some old friends more familiar with her work than I and her past at translating more classical greek than homeric which can be shown later but that is a minor detail here. The fact that her translations has several DELIBERATE inaccuracies is just a fact which I am surprised that we still need to talk about (you can like or love something without recognizing it as the epitome of truth. Like I love Disney Hercules because it was an entertaining film and a smart satire of Hollywood, but the day I admit that despite some interestingly hinting choices, that it is accurate, is the day that I wish to be burnt like the hero of that name was because it simply ain't true!)

Now the fact that she has several inaccuracies is self-proven by the ancient text. The fact that they are deliberate comes from the translator herself. In many of her interviews she shows that she is at least aware of how the words translate in homeric greek as well as in classical greek and she has several translations to access to from the past so obviously she knows what she introduces is not accuracy always but the seeking of metric system and all which on its own is a very interesting and borderline admirable attempt which of course is not without its issues at all (translating in pentamenter a greek text of dactylic hexameter is inevitably going to affect your story big time) but at least she tries to bring poetic sides to this

Also yes absolutely it is not like she is the first woman to touch Homer. Like in Greece alone we have at least two that I remember and in many other languages too., Besides it is the 21st century. People do what they wish to do in the west. As for the usual mentions of misogyny and all like ok we also must start talking equal parts of misandry comments that male translators got especially ever since several people started to think that literally all other translations are biased exactly because they are men and how their translations are "rooted to miosogyny" and all. If we can say that to their translations then we can also address the elephant in the room which is also the misandry. Of course there are stupid people who have problems with Wilson because of her gender just like there are stupid people who have problems with other translators because they are men! Wilson herself in her interview when asked on Barry Powell's translation she said; I critiqued his unexamined gender bias. Somehow though saying the same about Wilson on many of her passages is somehow problematic. As if women cannot have gender biases that go "unexamined" as per Wilson's words. As if even two wrongs make a right.

My problem starts with her introductions and her commentary which shows to me a sight that was not even remotely close to the homeric poem studies before and that is not a compliment. It might sound like renovating or revolutionary but at cases is simply inaccurate or only partially true. From my commentary at my posts as you see some of them are

The denial of ethics playing little to any part at a hero's career or elevation

This is spoken from a perspective of someone of these days that simply cannot understand how a warrior that takes a city can possibly be elevated as hero or that uses piracy to feed his army and gain glory. This logic is like the same person claiming that the Mayans have no sense of ethics and that they are a bunch of murderers who commit human sacrifice and ethics play no part in the society If that sounds bigoted is because it is. Denying any ethical compass to the characters of greek mythos just because they do not agree to yours is a borderline narrow perspective. Odysseus is not judged as a heroic figure because he is a pacifist who never hurt a fly. He is a warrior in a society that values warriors. So of course his wins are going to be seen as heroic or positive for his people (ironically try talking with some people that deny this about the wins or successes in war of their favored culture and see what happens because that is literally the same perspective. If you are at war and the side you sympathize with more wins or gains ground then you praise it, when the opposite side does, you condemn it The mentality hasn't changed)

The twist or potential misunderstanding of the text itself

No seriously many of the things that I see in her interviews or her intro make me wonder if we even read the same book. We hear stuff like;

"The Greek allows us to see the contradictions between Odysseus’ claim that the Cyclopes are “lawless” or “lacking norms,” and his acknowledgment that Polyphemus does everything in a regular order."

Like...Odysseus never claimed that the Cyclopes do not have a schedule! He said that their world does not live by the laws of the gods which is exactly what Polyphemus does! Odysseus tells us HIMSELF what things they do and that they DO have a society or a structure or habits that mirror their own (which was the reason why he gave the cyclopes the benefit of doubt at first) BUT at his later knowledge he knows now that despite his first impressions; that they build stuff, that they herd animals, that they live in rich lands, they STILL do not live by the wills of the gods such as hospitality or even building proper civilization

He also tells us that they lack basic emotional intelligence. Odysseus in contrast to the cyclopes goes to face Circe to save his men even if he speaks of them as fools for being tricked on multiple occasions, he tries to save them from themselves. The Cyclopes barely show any interest to the pain of Polyphemus and when he tells them that "nobody" hurt him they tell him to shut up and endure himself Like imagine that being your neighbor. He comes because you wail in pain and they ask "what happened? Did someone attack you?" and they hear you scream "oh no I fell on a piece of furniture! I broke my arm!" and your neighbor replies with "well if that you did yourself then shut the fuck up and call an abulance! We are trying to sleep!"

Like...not exactly the neighbor of the year now would it be? So I am not sure why she tries to present us the Cyclopes as some innocent creatures that are exactly the same as humans and that Odysseus just calls them names and then trips on his own narrative by saying that they are actually the same as them...honestly I sometimes wonder what is the logic behind this reasoning!

"I felt that many translators had indulged the impulse to simplify the ethics of this poem, by presenting Odysseus as if he were not only a warrior and a protagonist, but a “hero” in the modern sense—someone to admire—and reducing or removing the possibility of narrative sympathy for other characters—"

Er...sorry again I have no idea where that comes from. The other translators literally translated the text! Odysseus is depicted much more positively than negatively in the text but when he was depicted negatively literally every appropriate character was depicted as sympathetic instead and honestly I felt nothing like it from the translators I worked with If anything I felt as if WILSON was the one that wanted us to believe that Odysseus is NOT a hero exactly because he doesn't fit to the marvel superhero category! Also I am sorry but Odysseus WAS to be admired in the text at least for his virtues while his flaws were depicted exactly as that; flaws. To say that the translators "present" Odysseus as positive figure when previous translators just did their job to translate the epithets of Odysseus, which as you see from my small list were more positive than negative;

Post by @katerinaaqu · 1 image

💬 14  🔁 36  ❤️ 101 · Can you list some epithets of Odysseus? ^_^ Oh my gosh! I love this questioooooooon! And I was thinking of making some

then I am sorry are we criticizing people for...translating accurately? Just because the epithets of the text do not convey on her personal belief as to what Odysseus is? And yes you see her opinion pretty clearly in her intro! I mean I am sure many have made many mistakes and certainly in their attempt to make the poem accessible (what Wilson did too) they made the words not exactly corresponding to the text of the original all the time But to accuse the other translators of saying Odysseus is heroic while he isn't when the text itself has these epithets...I am not sure what the issue is here...

"simplify the ethics of the poem" when she spends several paragraphs into speaking about how ethics of Odysseus do not seem to matter for his favor to Zeus or that morality is not really a requirement while she forgets to mention that ALL Greek heroes have their moments of losing glory and NO they are NOT praised for these actions but instead they are being punished. Like Odysseus was punished for hubris and arrogance against the gods which is literally the essence of his story! Heracles was punished for the murder of his children and many more murders after it by serving time or doing labors etc. So ethics obviously DO play a part in the conversation. I think her intro is the one that oversimplified that when she more or less said;

"the heroes are not ethical all the time in their stories and they are being praised for things that are shady today, so obviously ethics do not matter to heroes but must look for somethib else"

while missing the part that when heroes are not ethical they are being punished. That heroes serve as much as good examples as they serve as bad examples as to what happens to you when you do not follow the rules of the gods

The indoctrination of her beliefs on the hero to the public through her intro and then through her text

Like I think that is one of my most serious issues. In her intro she tells us very much what her opinion is on many things and then she makes it her mission to add that to the main body of her translation to make sure that her personal opinion will pass as a de-facto fact to people who have seen her translation as absolutely and unquestionably accurate.

When she spends several paragraphs in her intro to tell us how Odysseus is an unreliable narrator and more or less a scumbag that is no different than any pirate and then you go on and add the title "lord of lies" right before he begins his story not only does she give the impression to her readers that this is an actual homeric title (which it isn't in general and certainly not in that spot) she inevitably tells to her readers that whatever Odysseus says is definitely going to be doubted and that was not the spirit of the homeric poems imo

Odysseys lies when Homer tells us he lies and when he does he has a good reason for example his survival, his weakness and because he is unprotected and/or testing people on their loyalty or on their wellbeing (which seems to be approved both by the narrator as well as by Athena on occasion)

One small thing (not personal) I am not sure why people keep saying that Wilson "corrects" that passage with the slave women (we keep saying "girls" and I think even Wilson does unless I am mistaken but in reality we do not have a word in the text that mentions their ages as being "girls". Probably if they belonged to the palace for a long time they are grown women but the word "girls" seems to be more impactful for sympathy) But I am not sure why we keep saying "she corrected" it as if the majority of sources speak of them in an inaccurate way. Murray says "women" (which is the most accurate at that passage). So does Butler in that passage. Huddleston even goes more "text accurate" and simply says "these" (because the text technically does not have the word "woman" in it but is written in female gender so the translators who add the word is simply to clarify that fact) I am not sure why we act as if the translation of Wilson brought a correction of a multi-year abuse of the women in the text She doesn't. She just adds more to these that we said above (and no both Murray and Butler is mentioning slaves in their texts many times for instance and so do many others. Just because sometimes people choose the word "maid" is NOT referring to them as free women as Wilson claims in her interview. It simply means "woman" or "woman of servitude". In translations Telemachus does refer to "slaves that his father won for him" so the thing that Wilson claims is not done by everyone nor in every part of the text Good for her that she decided to focus more on the women of it (like again no one cries for Melanthius by the way) but is not like no other translator ever did something similar one way or another So yes I am glad that she kept it simple 100%. I am actually happy for it but let's not pretend that she is the only one that kept it so. And yes I wish that people actually kept the words as accurate as possible I absolutely agree, including translating "slave" when the word calls for it. But on the other hand not force the mindset that no one ever did NOTHING to show the proper translation not even once.

Now of course I am also against the translators who did not allow the text to be as it is and added the extra words. The only excuse we find is that Telemachus uses derogatory language, is furious and doesn't wish to speak nice to these women that willingly betrayed them and threatened the peace of the house and consequently his life. But still I also think it is too harsh word to use even if thematically fits, it should be sticking to the actual words by the way. Just because it fits thematically doesn't get a free pass and no it is not accurate text-wise. (and when I say "derogatory words" I mean that Telemachus uses the verb ἰαύω which means "pass the night with" which denies the existence of emotions so basically Telemachus implies the women had their time with the suitors and that was all. The portion WAS supposed to be derogatory. Yes though more accurately are the translations of "slept with", "passed their nights" etc. More derogatory terms could be "they had sex with" or "they copulated with" in one way if we wanna portray Telemachus's rage through the text but the absolutely accurate would simply be "pass the night" or "sleep with")

What I do not understand is how Wilson wants to blame other translators and I quote from a site that has her interview

"The Greek text is much better, as literature and as ethics, for not limiting its narrative focus to Odysseus, and for not presenting him as a model for unquestioning adulation, and I hated the fact that so many English versions seemed to want to dumb it down in these ways. I love the Odyssey for its multiplicity, and I wanted a translation that was truthful to that; I could see that that translation didn’t exist, so I needed to create it."

She literally claims that SHE is the one to bring complicated essences to the translations. No it is not her to dumb it down! It is all these other writers that deliberately or unknowingly DIDN'T give the Odyssey the complication it deserves so SHE is the one to do it! While being reportedly one of the most dumbed down texts for accessibility. Her intro is also something we did in middle school and I am not even kidding. I had to stop reading for one second because the opening reminded me a lot of the texts we learnt like when we were 12 years old minus the Greek cultural continuity So her goal was obviously accessibility! She also accused writers of getting long and not offering poetic prose. Like her texts is one of the shortest which shows how little was given. She claims that she never saw a translation that gives off the complicated nature and all I see is a text that simply denied the complications of some heroes to give them to some other figures and not always the right way

Look not all her texts are bad in translation. Several of the passages are objectively correct. But again to claim that ZERO translator gave you the complication you want (while learning from them from crying out loud) and claim that only YOU have the key to it because you never saw it? Honestly if this is real part of her interview then I am sorry I see the core of the problem here. Change for the sakes of change doesn't work always and if your translation looks nothing like any of your predecessors that existed for hundreds of years then maybe just maybe it wasn't supposed to be THAT different and something went wrong here. To claim that only you give complication to the text is something that honestly I am not sure why we even agree with this!

Okay I will stop now. It is absolutely fine to like Wilson because of how simple language she uses which makes the text enjoyable to someone to read or enjoy her opinions because they align with yours but the fact remains that not only is she inaccurate on many parts (which is not just her by the way. The most accurate thing is the original! Not even modern greek translations are absolutely accurate and they are the same language!) but also that much is including her opinions.

To treat it as the epitome of truth or that she invented the wheel somehow is totally something that I will never accept as a mentality both as a Greek who is familiar with the original but also as someone that knows translations are tricky. You can find a favorite without denying its weaknesses

I am sure other translations have MANY mistakes. I mean I was also discussing some of the mistakes of Feagles translations of his early years too among others or what we preferred that it was said instead. We are also discussing the need of always having another translation closeby. Yes other translators ARE flawed But so is Wilson And this becoming taboo to be even discussed a times feels weird as well as the claim that the translation is accurate at every paragraph while it isn't. And yes as you brilliantly said, criticism is not because she is a woman. Is because of the text itself and what people see in it vs the original vs previous attempts of translation Both for the better and the worse

[whetstonefires]

You know what I realize that people underestimate with Pride & Prejudice is the strategic importance of Jane.

Because like, I recently saw Charlotte and Elizabeth contrasted as the former being pragmatic and the latter holding out for a love match, because she's younger and prettier and thinks she can afford it, and that is very much not what's happening.

The Charlotte take is correct, but the Elizabeth is all wrong. Lizzie doesn't insist on a love match. That's serendipitous and rather unexpected. She wants, exactly as Mr. Bennet says, someone she can respect. Contempt won't do. Mr. Bennet puts it in weirdly sexist terms like he's trying to avoid acknowledging what he did to himself by marrying a self-absorbed idiot, but it's still true. That's what Elizabeth is shooting for: a marriage that won't make her unhappy.

She's grown up watching how miserable her parents make one another; she's not willing to sign up for a lifetime of being bitter and lonely in her own home.

I think she is very aware, in refusing Mr. Collins, that it's reasonably unlikely that anyone she actually respects is going to want her, with her few accomplishments and her lack of property. That she is turning down security and the chance keep the house she grew up in, and all she gets in return may be spinsterhood.

But, crucially, she has absolute faith in Jane.

The bit about teaching Jane's daughters to embroider badly? That's a joke, but it's also a serious potential life plan. Jane is the best creature in the world, and a beauty; there's no chance at all she won't get married to someone worthwhile.

(Bingley mucks this up by breaking Jane's heart, but her prospects remain reasonable if their mother would lay off!)

And if Elizabeth can't replicate that feat, then there's also no doubt in her mind that Jane will let her live in her house as a dependent as long as she likes, and never let it be made shameful or awful to be that impoverished spinster aunt. It will be okay never to be married at all, because she has her sister, whom she trusts absolutely to succeed and to protect her.

And if something eventually happens to Jane's family and they can't keep her anymore, she can throw herself upon the mercy of the Gardeners, who have money and like her very much, and are likewise good people. She has a support network--not a perfect or impregnable one, but it exists. It gives her realistic options.

Spinsterhood was a very dangerous choice; there are reasons you would go to considerable lengths not to risk it.

But Elizabeth has Jane, and her pride, and an understanding of what marrying someone who will make you miserable costs.

That's part of the thesis of the book, I would say! Recurring Austen thought. How important it is not to marry someone who will make you, specifically, unhappy.

She would rather be a dependent of people she likes and trusts than of someone she doesn't, even if the latter is formally considered more secure; she would rather live in a happy, reasonable household as an extra than be the mistress of her own home, but that home is full of Mr. Collins and her mother.

This is a calculation she's making consciously! She's not counting on a better marriage coming along. She just feels the most likely bad outcome from refusing Mr. Collins is still much better than the certain outcome of accepting him. Which is being stuck with Mr. Collins forever.

Elizabeth is also being pragmatic. Austen also endorses her choice, for the person she is and the concerns she has. She's just picking different trade-offs than Charlotte.

Elizabeth's flaw is not in her own priorities; she doesn't make a reckless choice and get lucky. But in being unable to accept that Charlotte's are different, and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Charlotte.

Because realistically, when your marriage is your whole family and career forever, and you only get to pick the ones that offer themselves to you, when you are legally bound to the status of dependent, you're always going to be making some trade-offs.

😂 Even the unrealistically ideal dream scenario of wealthy handsome clever ethical Mr. Darcy still asks you to undergo personal growth, accommodate someone else's communication style, and eat a little crow.

[kiralamouse]

I love the additional points in the tags: #charlotte is a much less sociable person than lizzie#so avoiding her husband most of the time and not seeking out his company is more viable for her!#she also has more patience for people being wrong#partly i think because she kinds checks out and lets them get on with it which lizzie isn't too great at even with her mother#people have different needs like that's a thing okay#marriage#spinsterhood#pragmatism#like if elizabeth had to listen to collins talk for a few months straight she would be nearly insane with rage#he's not just a low-quality man he's a man designed to be the worst for her specifically#also note that because jane's marriage is elizabeth's fallback plan#darcy screwed her over personally by interfering between her and bingley#she ofc does not bring this up how could she#but it's intensifying the anger during the hunsford rejection i think

I hadn’t even thought about Jane being Lizzie’s fallback as an amplification to the anger at Darcy, but yes! I’m sure that “the happiness of a most beloved sister” is indeed foremost in her concerns on that - easily the most important thing - but I bet some subconscious anxiety is aggravating Lizzie’s anger here.

[abigailnussbaum]

I feel like Austen fandom overcorrected with Charlotte some 15-20 years ago, and we're long overdue to pull back from it. Yes, Charlotte isn't being foolish or heedless in marrying Mr. Collins. She's making a calculated decision that she'd rather be the mistress of her own home (and eventually, of the estate of Longbourn) than a spinster daughter (and bear in mind, Charlotte's father's estate is substantial, and not entailed away; spinsterhood for her would be quite comfortable; the 2005 movie's "I'm a burden to my family" is pure invention).

But the book doesn't admire her for this decision. It accepts her calculation, but it - and Elizabeth - ultimately conclude that to have made that calculation says some less than complimentary things about Charlotte. As the poster above writes, Charlotte is more able to put up with being the wife of Mrs. Collins, and constantly at the beck and call of Lady Catherine and her daughter, whereas Elizabeth wouldn't last five minutes in that life. But the book is also clear on the point that this doesn't speak well of Charlotte. That this combination of self-effacement (because she's willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people) and arrogance (because she fundamentally doesn't care about them, and thus doesn't mind that they impose on her) is a pretty shitty way to be. If I'm not mistaken Elizabeth even observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were, now that she's gained a greater understanding of who her friend is and what she's willing to put up with for money.

[whetstonefires]

Oh see, I would have said that while it definitely shows the limitations of Charlotte's character and isn't something the narrative celebrates, this isn't one of the places the reader is meant to be in perfect accord with the protagonist.

I had a sense that Elizabeth's inability to empathize with Charlotte's decision, and sense of consequently downgrading her whole understanding of her as a person, is quite as much meant to reflect a bit poorly on her--not that it's an awful reaction, but it points up her sense of pride and tendency to pass judgment on others, that are the key weaknesses her character arc tends toward tempering over the course of the novel.

Overall good addition to post tho, ty.

[beatrice-otter]

bear in mind, Charlotte's father's estate is substantial, and not entailed away; spinsterhood for her would be quite comfortable

This is factually incorrect.

Sir William Lucas was a tradesman who made a good living and "a tolerable fortune" (not a good fortune, a tolerable fortune) and then sold everything to buy an estate and live a life of leisure when he got made a knight because he made a speech the king liked (chapter 5). Being made a knight gave him all sorts of ideas about what was suitable because (although an amiable man) he is also a huge snob. He would not have sold his business and bought an estate if he hadn't been made a knight, because he would have been much better off to continue in trade. The Lucases are not the Bingleys, they didn't quit trade because they had enough wealth to last for generations.

The Lucas family income from their estate + the money left from Sir William's business dealings is less than the Bennet family income. Exact figures are never stated, but it's implied in a lot of places throughout the story. For example, in chapter 9, Mrs. Bennet tells Mr. Bingley that Charlotte has to help with some of the cooking/food preparation in ways that the Bennet girls don't, because the Bennets have better (and probably more) servants. The Bennet girls don't have to work like the Lucas girls do, because the Bennets can afford not to. Remember what a snob Sir William is, and that he is willing to sacrifice income so that they will be "gentry" and not work. If there was any way he could afford enough servants so the girls didn't have to help in the kitchen, he would do it as a point of pride. (Note: the Bennet girls would still be doing a lot of work within the house; sewing clothes, mending things, making a lot of the nicer decorative things in the Bennet household, etc., etc. But they do NOT do any of the heavier work of cleaning, and they do NO cooking whatsoever. But the Collins girls help out in the kitchen sometimes....)

The other thing to remember, when comparing Elizabeth's situation to Charlotte's, is the Gardiners. Mr. Gardiner is in trade, which is a slight social step down from the Bennets' status as landed gentry. BUT. Mr. Gardiner makes a shit-ton of money. He has enough money to take lengthy, expensive vacations and invite Elizabeth along; and he has enough money that Mr. Bennet thinks it's believable that he paid at least five times the Bennet annual income to get Wickham to marry Lydia. Mr. Gardiner is LOADED. And we know he really loves his nieces, especially Jane and Elizabeth. He's got enough money that supporting them would be no sacrifice, and he loves them enough to do it without begrudging it. No such wealthy and compassionate relation is ever hinted at for the Lucases. For all that Mrs. Bennet wails about their fate after Mr. Bennet dies, the worst possible outcome for Elizabeth is much better than Charlotte's most likely outcome if she didn't marry Mr. Collins.

Chapter 22 gives the Lucas family reaction to Charlotte's engagement: "The whole family in short were properly overjoyed on the occasion. The younger girls formed hopes of coming out a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done; and the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid. Charlotte herself was tolerably composed. She had gained her point, and had time to consider of it. Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable: his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband. Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object: it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and, however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want."

Small fortune, that's how the text describes her. Which, in this case, means "still in the gentry class but without the money to back it up." She's not a revolutionary, she doesn't want to overthrow society, she doesn't want to be rich, she just wants an "honorable"/respectable place in society, and she wants to be "preserved from want." Getting married is the only way she can have a decent life, and even marrying a man she doesn't like is better than the life she will have if she doesn't marry. And look at her family reaction! They all know who Mr. Collins is, how fatuous and self-centered and boring and condescending! They know as well as Charlotte does what kind of a man he is! Not one of them gives a shit what her life with him is going to be like. Elizabeth is the only person in the entire book who is shown to care what Charlotte's feelings are, and what her life with him will be like.

And sure, Sir William's estate is not entailed! That doesn't mean he's going to divide it among his children. It barely supports one family in the appropriate style. If it's divided, it's not going to support any of them. English tradition is primogeniture (and Sir William is a very traditional man): if there are sons, the ENTIRE estate goes to the eldest son. If there's enough money, the younger sons get an education for a middle-class profession so they can support themselves and the girls get dowries. The younger siblings have to fend for themselves (with hopefully enough to launch them); only the oldest son gets the inheritance, which means that the inheritance gets preserved through the generations. But the younger siblings only get educations/dowries IF there's enough money after the eldest son is provided for ... and the Lucases barely enough for the eldest son and the family he will one day have. If Charlotte even has a dowry, it's smaller than Elizabeth's, and that's a big if.

Charlotte has no money of her own, nor any prospect of ever inheriting it. While her parents are alive, they will support her. After that, her brothers will (and possibly her sisters, if they marry well). But that doesn't mean they'll be nice about it. "Unpaid servant/nurse and the subject of scorn" was pretty typical for how spinster sisters got treated. Think Anne Elliot from Persuasion, except that Anne actually had it pretty good as spinsters went: her father and sisters despised her, but there was enough money for them all to live comfortably on (even with Sir Walter's debts), and Lady Russell and the Musgroves like and respect her. Reread that bit up there from chapter 22 about the Lucas family reaction to her engagement, and ask yourself if Charlotte's treatment as a spinster sister would be as good as Anne's was ... and Charlotte has no Lady Russell to help her.

Later, when Charlotte talks to Elizabeth about it, she says: "I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home."

Charlotte's goal, her grand ambition, is not wealth, it's not the Longbourn estate, it's a comfortable home. And she thinks that being shackled to Mr. Collins for the rest of her life is more likely to bring her that comfortable home than being a spinster living with her family.

I also think you're wrong about the book--and Elizabeth's!--ultimate conclusion on Charlotte. Elizabeth's initial reaction is very negative, yes ... but one of the book's major themes is Elizabeth learning that her initial reactions aren't always right, and that other people have different thoughts and needs and personalities than she does. The book doesn't admire Charlotte for her decisions, but it does have compassion for her situation.

That this combination of self-effacement (because she's willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people) and arrogance (because she fundamentally doesn't care about them, and thus doesn't mind that they impose on her) is a pretty shitty way to be.

Where are you getting the arrogance from? There's never an indication that she's arrogant or uncaring! Willing to kowtow to fundamentally worthless people, yes, but that's the social reality of her life. That was how society worked! You were supposed to dance attendance on your "betters" even if they're stupid, awful people. If you didn't suck up to them enough, there could be very real negative consequences. The book is not criticizing Charlotte, it's criticizing that aspect of society. (Which is a constant theme in Jane Austen's books, consider Sir Walter and Elizabeth's fawning over Lady Dalrymple in Persuasion.) Charlotte is in a lot more vulnerable position than Elizabeth is, financially and familialy.

If either of them are arrogant, it's Elizabeth. Elizabeth is the one who fundamentally doesn't care about Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine and thinks herself above them. Elizabeth is the one who's always mentally rolling her eyes at them and thinking about how awful they are. Charlotte shrugs and accepts them, and doesn't judge them, and urges Elizabeth to be less arrogant about them, and accepts the reality that they have power over her and her family.* She bows to the dictates she can't get out of, and arranges the household so that both she and Mr. Collins are happy. He's very happy, and she encourages him to do things he likes; the fact that those things take him away from home a lot benefits her as well, but it's not like she's hurting him or making him unhappy, she's literally encouraging him to do things he likes to do.

*Clergy, in those days, were basically appointed by the local richest person in the area. Mr. Collins is the parish priest at Hunsford because Lady Catherine personally hired him. She can't fire him! He's secure in that job for as long as he lives! She can make his life uncomfortable, but she can't get rid of him--that's why a particular parish is called "a living" for the priest in question. Clergy was also one of the most common professions for younger sons of gentry, because there were only a few respectable ones. BUT just being a clergyman didn't guarantee you an income; you needed a rich person to say "yeah, I like that guy, I want him as my priest" and give him the living. And the only people rich enough to do that that anyone in her family knows (so far as we know) is Lady Catherine. So by dancing attendance on Lady Catherine, she is also angling towards securing a decent future for one of her brothers. Clergymen didn't make a huge income, but they were comfortable if they had a parish of their own and weren't just a curate somewhere. Lady Catherine's patronage could easily be the difference between "comfort" and "poverty" for one of her brothers in the future.

If I'm not mistaken Elizabeth even observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were, now that she's gained a greater understanding of who her friend is and what she's willing to put up with for money.

It is true that Elizabeth observes that she and Charlotte can never be as close as they once were. But it's not that Elizabeth thinks Charlotte is greedy or arrogant or a bad person! It's that Elizabeth has realized they're actually a lot more different than she thought they were.

At the beginning of the book, Elizabeth's basic understanding of the world is that her perceptions of people are always right, and her understandings of situations are always correct, and that of course she knows better than everyone else. She's a sheltered 20 year old who is very intelligent, and like many smart 20 year olds hasn't really figured out that other people can see things differently, and have different needs and wants, without being bad or stupid. A lot of the book is about Elizabeth learning that. Charlotte is a good person and very intelligent, and Elizabeth likes her. Therefore, at the beginning of the book Elizabeth assumes that Charlotte must agree with Elizabeth on all fundamental matters because Elizabeth's perception of all people and situations is Right.

Prior to Charlotte's engagement, they have conversations where Charlotte quite plainly says that she disagrees with Elizabeth very fundamentally about marriage and courtship, and Elizabeth brushes it off and assumes she doesn't really mean it. After Charlotte's marriage, Elizabeth has to grapple with the fact that Charlotte was being honest with her the whole time, Elizabeth just wasn't listening because she didn't want to hear it. This doesn't mean that Charlotte is bad or greedy! It just means that she and Elizabeth are different. And Elizabeth has, up until this point, refused to see it.

One of the interesting things about the book, structurally, is that her reassessment of Charlotte--the realization that she misunderstood her friend in a lot of ways--happens at roughly the same time as her reassessment of Darcy. She has thought worse of Darcy than he deserved; she has thought she and Charlotte were more alike than they actually are. While she first realizes that she and Charlotte are different when the engagement is announced, she doesn't really get to see and understand the difference until she's staying with her for a couple of months in Hunsford. Seeing her with Mr. Collins and Lady Catherine and her own household, Elizabeth learns how Charlotte can be content with her life (even if it's not one Elizabeth could stand), and thus why she thinks the way she does. And realizes it's not wrong, just different. And then, towards the end of her stay, Darcy proposes and writes the letter and she learns she was wrong about him, too.

But while her realizing she was wrong about Charlotte leads to their relationship weakening, realizing she was wrong about Darcy leads to their relationship starting and growing to the point where they can marry. In some ways, learning to see Charlotte more accurately helps her learn to see Darcy more accurately.

[elljayvee]

I'm doing a little thinking about Mr. Collins. (Book Mr. Collins, who is a very serious young man. He's also stupid and silly, but he's not silly in a "being the class clown" kind of way, he's silly in the "being not too sharp and fussing over ridiculous nonsense" kind of way.)

Does he end up with the wife he probably dreamed of? Well, no. He'd hoped for someone prettier. But he does end up with a sensible, amiable woman who encourages him to enjoy life in ways that are suitable to his station (outdoor walks! tending his garden!) and who probably makes an excellent parson's wife, specifically. She's likely to be thrifty and careful; she knows how to manage a small household well; part of her duties are to circulate among the poor and ill of the parish bringing small comforts such as food or herbal remedies she makes herself, or books. Charlotte is a calm and steady person not given to excess at all; she has excellent manners and can comport herself as well with Lady Catherine as with anyone in the parish. She's likely to make him appear, to his parishioners, as if he himself is more steady and sensible than he is, because he'll be associated with her and her personality.

Then, after he inherits the Bennet estate, she has her own deep social connections. Her father or brother will be one of the foremost people in the area (despite his small fortune); he will have built-in acquaintances and familial connections all over the area through his wife. (For her, being able to eventually move home was probably a big bonus of marrying him; for him it's also a bonus, though. As good as if he'd married Elizabeth? Probably not. But better than any other realistic option.)

Charlotte probably would have preferred a man who was himself more sensible than Mr Collins, but she didn't do too badly for herself overall, and from the point of view of her husband, is almost everything that he could want and almost exactly the kind of person who would make a good wife for him, specifically.

[anotherlesbiandied]

hey you're a shakespeare nerd right?

what does the friends roman countrymen speech in julius caesar actually MEAN?

hey guys. listen up. now i'm not here to say that caesar was a good guy or anything, cause yknow, brutus says he was ambitious, and all, and brutus is a cool dude. they're all cool dudes. and it's thanks to them that i get to talk to you all at caesar's funeral. i mean, he was my friend, and all. and he was a really good friend. but brutus says he was ambitious, and i would NEVER say anything bad about brutus. he's a cool dude.

it is interesting though how many cool things caeser did, since he's so "ambitious." weird, how a guy that's so ambitious would like, help out immigrants, and get sad when the poor are sad, and refuse to be king THREE TIMES. you guys saw that, right? THREE TIMES. but know, brutus says he was ambitious, and brutus is a cool dude. obviously i'm not SAYING he was wrong......... but let me just remind you really quick that you guys used to LOVE caesar. and you didn't love him for no reason, yknow? so then why are y'all so mad at the guy?? you're being assholes.

wait- shit. i shouldn't have said that. sorry guys. i'm just... i miss him. yknow?

[most-sane-classicist]

CAESAR THE MUSICAL INITIAL THOUGHTS AND ANALYSIS

1. So Political

intro is so good oh my good

the song feels very dynamic and has a good climax

voice mixing in ensemble is amazing and very high quality

one or two slant rhymes but nothing horrendous

2. Brutus' Song

oh my god brutus' va is amazing!

for the first part the melody repeats but the piano still makes it feel dynamic

when the beat comes in properly with the sax is so good

3. Caesar Speaks

ceasar va is amazing too! so much talent

the key change is so smooth

the constant backing vocals in the key change are layered great

bringing back the melody from 'so political' at 1:10 sounded great

the spoken part from 1:15-1:40 has a very good atmosphere to it

bringing in antony felt smooth

MARK ANTONY'S VA IS INCREDIBLE

the drop when mark joins in after the initial fanfare is absoloutely outstanding

ensemble starting at "lets go dancing" is a blessing to my ears

after antony speaks, the switching-out-vocals bit is a good transiiton to a darker version of antony's initial melody. I like it.

"I know it because you are young" - antony's casting reinforces this theme due to being a higher pitched voice and it works great. This whole 'justification' bit is very nice

vocal's at 3:20 are absolutely GLORIOUS. they really emphasise the command caesar has over the situation.

the 'rest' 'best' rhyme and the rhythm in the speaking bit with calpurnia makes it feel very complete

THE CLIMAX AT THE END talking about the lupercalia feels like it's building to something and then stalls, so hopefully a big outburst at the start of the next song?

4. Shall Rome

there wasnt, but it was even better. The intro is blues at it's finest. Lovely raspy sax with very dynamic drums.

This song is SOOOO GOOD and the va works great with it. So many inline rhymes!!! I love it!!! The rhythm is so dynamiccc

In the listing hate on caesar (lovely section btw) the rhyme is so good.

Second half is haunting with the minor second intervals and the focal shift between the high vocals and the low vocals. the mix is very skillfully done here.

'Rome will become an empire, is that what you desire?' 'I'd rather have more civil war than have this caesar claiming he's a king' Lyrics felt very strong here. "Wake up brutus, the die has been cast! Caesar cant be king for life Sharpen up and bring your knife (and) Make. This. Day. His. Last"

This ending felt great. The reference to the famous quote "Alia Iacta Est" (The die has been cast) was fun to see.

5. Storm Song

a great tonal shift to a quieter song after that crazy complex one.

The hihats and the little mini glissandos on the piano are sweet

pathetic fallacy shown through some instrument choice to make it sound more 'stormy'

lyrics are great and so is va as usual

lyrics have this great lexical field of storms etc.

LYRIC AND MELODY CALLBACK to 'Brutus' song' at the end feel very fitting

6. Brutus' Prayer

ough the tonal shift partway through is good.

very emotional song.

grace is such a good singer and I love it

2:18 oh my god she is so talented for the vibrato on that note its so good

the switchup at 2:45 is amazing and makes the climax after feel more impactful

quicker singing in the buildup is good

OH MY GOOD GRACE 'CAESAR WILL DIE' that last note gets hit for SO LONG and FOLLOWS THE MELODY PERFECTLY

AND THE LAST IN THE SONG TOO

ITS SO CLIMACTIC

Final Thoughts

This was only my first listen, 100% I have missed a lot of stuff. First off this is amazing oh my god it's everything I ever wanted. All the voices are incredibly talented and I would say my favourite is either Mark Antony or Brutus. Caesar and Cassius are great too. The instrumentation has me drooling it's so good. The live band is amazing. Compositionally very interesting and dynamic, mix is great, yeah.

more indepth thoughts will be written up in a few days when i've listened to it more.

[not-this-crude-matter]

Just up on a Friday night thinking about how I'd stage Julius Caesar, specifically the death scene. Once the stabbing starts, Caesar starts fighting back like the 55yo veteran strategic campaigner that he is, methodically and mercilessly--equal parts John Wick and alley cat, both with bad knees. There's at least a solid two minutes of him beating the shit out of the senators who get within arm's reach, who nonetheless keep getting in lucky hits with their knives. The conspirators with military experience circle warily, only risking his reach to keep him disarmed when he's about to get his hands on a knife of his own. The audience can hear the crack of bones breaking and grown men howling in surprised agony. Conspirators push benches and their own bodies up against the entrances to keep anyone from interfering in the public murder of this very popular man. There is so much blood, almost all of it Caesar's, and the more of it that spills across the hands and arms of the conspirators, the more he slows. Long, loud, dragging, wet breaths, wordless warning growls that land like perfectly articulate curses. A moment of calm, conspirators orbiting, afraid of this dead man walking whose sandals are slipping in his own blood and will still hurt you if you get close. Maybe he's finally got a knife of his own, for all the good it will do him. And then, finally, Brutus.

Caesar wheels at the approach and we see in his whole body the visible relief at seeing the face of a friend, then he sees the knife in Brutus' hand, and we watch him speedrun the stages of betrayal and grief. And he closes the distance (possibly slipping in his own blood and then catching himself) and (if he's got his own knife at this point, he lets it clatter--or, given the blood, thunk) he takes Brutus' face in both bloody hands and kisses him full on the mouth, like a brother or a son, and asks, "Et tu, Bruté?" and wraps one bloody hand up in Brutus' hair to hold his gaze and wraps his other bloody hand around Brutus' forearm and after a beat to make sure Brutus is paying attention he pulls on the arm to force the dagger into his chest with enough sudden force that the audience hears the pop of the thoracic threshold yielding. And then Caesar rattles, somehow still loud enough for the whole chamber, but directed into Brutus' face, "Then fall, Caesar."

And he dies in Brutus' arms, Brutus' face a bloody peony, his mien hardening into the shocked rigor mortis of his honor, not to be stirred until Cassius speaks, perhaps a call-and-response of this moment as they rehearsed it, finally performed. It never really plays how you rehearsed.

When someone asks how often I think about the Roman empire, the answer is often, but it's mostly about this. Which I'm sure is normal.