#jonno rambles

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

lord peter wimsey is ICONIC. uses his virtually unlimited money to go solve murders. plays piano; likes Bach and modern atonal stuff. he is SO NEURODIVERGENT ITS NOT FUNNY. he's such a nerd he was into CAMPANOLOGY. gets a job writing advertising copy (as cover); enjoys it so much he kinda has to be forced to leave (word Nerd). apparently everyone second person has a crush on him (cos he's athletic, autistic, and kind) aaand he keeps pining for the detective novelist who doesn't want him (until later cos Sayers caved to the pressure). the family, the relationship with Charles (best friend, policeman, later brother in law), everything ... damn it he's such an amazing character. did I mention DEATH IS HIS MIDDLE NAME. but not even in a cheesy way??!? he even memes it himself by using "Death Bredon" (both of his middle names) as his default disguise?? cos like TECHNICALLY that Is his name (bitch (affectionate)).

like. Dorothy L Sayers you wrote an AMAZING character. you clearly have amazing taste. slay and respect

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

Smoothie: a very silly treatise

In my opinion, the perfect smoothie has 3 ingredients; these being bananas, milk, and spices. (Perhaps I should have said categories of ingredient!) I have several thoughts to share on this:

1. The equipment. There are many ways to process foods into a mush, and some are marketed specifically for use in smoothification! My personal choice, however, is a stick mixer. It does the job and it's handy for sauces and soups also. In terms of container; I use a tall, cylindrical plastic container (jug? vase? I'm not sure. It's food safe, anyway) with a diameter of about 8cm. If you use a different one, you might end up with more or less milk than I use - but my measuring methods are vague and not particularly repeatable and frankly, who cares.

2. The bananas. Bananas used for smoothie should be bordering on over-ripe. Ideally, they should be past the point where you don't want to take them for lunch (because you know they have insufficient structural integrity to survive your bag); but before the point where you put them in the freezer, thinking (optimistically) that one day they will be used for banana bread. Their role is to provide sweetness and texture. You can use 2, or 3, or however many your heart desires! Peel them, break them in half (they may do this themselves), and put them in the jug/container/whatever.

3. The milk. You can use whatever sort you like! When there's milk in our house, it's usually "light" cow's milk, so I use that. Personally I haven't found a non-dairy milk with a taste I like - because I don't like change, and I assume it would be very hard to get a plant milk to taste EXACTLY like cow's milk. Lactose free would be fine - you're not likely to notice the extra sweetness in something like a smoothie. In terms of amount, I like to mostly cover the bananas and leave about a dollar coin's height of banana sticking out. What's that, 3cm? Probably.

4. The spices. Which ones you use is up to you, but make your ancient ancestors proud. You want to use ground spices - the stick mixer won't grind things for you, and it looks pretty when they go into the milk! I always use chilli; often I also add cinnamon and ginger, paprika can also be good. Don't be afraid of using too much (though don't be excessive) - if your smoothie isn't brown at the end, you could Definitely have added more spices. Without the spices, a banana smoothie is OK - but rather bland. Then again, some people are wierd and don't like flavour in their food. They're wrong, but they're allowed to be wrong. You don't need spices! (But I think they're pretty good).

Now, some things ARE wrong - especially, adding more ingredients. Things you may be tempted to add, and shouldn't:

1. Mango. Why? The texture is viscous enough, the smoothie is sweet enough, and I don't think you're adding much to the flavour. You want a mango smoothie? Make one, don't hijack a banana smoothie.

2. Berries, or any other sort of fruit. See above - if you want those in your smoothie, you're making a different sort of smoothie and should leave the bananas out. As a side note, I'm not a fan of a mango smoothie, and I'd prefer to just eat the component fruits of almost any other smoothie.

3. Chocolate or coffee. They might complement the banana flavour, but again - if you want those in your drink, make a drink where they're the focus.

4. Honey. Why? It's sweet (and thick) enough already from the banana. Use the honey in tea or biscuits or something instead.

5. Oats. Again, why? The texture is perfectly fine already.

6. Any form of extra protein. There are other, yummier ways to get protein if you need it. If you're the sort of person who needs the extra protein in their smoothie, do Not be fooled - a liquid breakfast/post workout will Not sustain you for long enough! Take the time to EAT something, and you'll feel better overall, and food is delicious.

7. Vegetables or vitamins. See above - enjoy your smoothie, enjoy food, and get them somewhere else.

8. Ice. Your drink is a frappé now. By definition, it is no longer a smoothie.

9. Anything else. You surprise and confuse me; but if by some miracle I can eat whatever you're mixing in, I may yet be convinced.

Finally, if your bananas HAVE got to the "freeze them before they smell and make the other fruit go off" stage, or you're adding in frozen banana for whatever reason; remember that frozen banana is stickier than fresh banana! You may want to add more milk to balance this.

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me about some of this. That's fine! You're wrong, but you're allowed to be wrong (as long as you don't try to make your Smoothie Abominations near me, or feed them to me). I hope that someone at least finds this half as entertaining as it was to write!

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

I've been having some thoughts about knowledge, understanding, processing, and recall. Why is it that the teachers I got on with best - and most enjoyed the classes of - were my Physics and Maths teachers, yet my worst subjects academically were extension 2 maths and physics? (This one got rather long - 10.5 more paragraphs under the cut).

I think it's to do with what's being tested - knowledge vs understanding. As @dorianbrightmusic recently pointed out to me, I tend to have better understanding than I do knowledge - that's just how I learn. This means (at least for me) that, for example, I am alarmingly good at pretending to be prepared at uni: I can sit there in my tute, having barely skimmed one of the 3 set readings and not watched the lecture; and yet I'm still engaged in the tutorial discussion - and at the end, it's my one-sentence summary that goes on the whiteboard for our group.

The secret to an excellent participation grade (at least, in my experience) seems to be one's ability to PROCESS information: to absorb, synthesize, and have ideas about the topic of discussion - and while some prior knowledge is useful and highly recommended, it's not always necessary. Unfortunately for my marks, however; participation requires attendance (how inconvenient!); and EXAMS are more a measure of one's knowledge.

In an exam, you're typically expected to apply your acquired knowledge to a series of questions or problems. Rather than your ability to process information, an exam tests your ability to RECALL information - especially under time pressure. Sure, this is partly a comment on my lack of exam preparation; but my high-achieving colleagues went into their maths and physics exams armed with a catalogue of practice problems and a list of formulae used to solve them - whereas I walked into the hall with only the small reference sheet provided, and then mashed formulae and problems together willy-nilly until an answer appeared.

As a brief side note, I find essays to require a combination of both processing AND recall, as they're both persuasive and informative in nature. "Here's the cool idea I had" (processing), "here's my evidence" (recall), "and therefore I'm right" (processing again). Hence the subjects where my enjoyment tended to better match my marks: English and History.

Returning to my topic; unfortunately for me, it tends to be faster to recall stored knowledge than apply acquired understanding - and so my marks were less good than I'd have liked. Sure, I had no issues tackling the hardest problems in the exam; but if the "easy" questions take you just as long, you run out of time before you can get to them. It's much easier to apply a formula than invent one - so if you can just learn them all beforehand, you'll work faster. (Stay tuned for my next lecture: the many problems with how assessment is done, and why it still probably shouldn't change!)

Anyways, that's why I tend to prefer the theoretical to the applied (although other reasons also apply there), and that's why I got on so well with my y12 maths and physics teachers. Some of my earlier teachers were experts in navigating the education system, with a passion for their subject; but these two were experts in their subject, with a passion for teaching. (And also kind, intelligent, and neurodivergent; which helps.)

It's been apparent to me for a while that I'm never going to be a talented student of either maths or physics. The conclusion I've come to recently, though; is that I AM an excellent physicist and mathematician (well, at least I am when that's what I put my effort into). I'd be a perfectly good post-graduate academic - it's a tad unfortunate that "graduate in relevant field" is a prerequisite.

There's a saying that "those who can't do, teach; and those who can't teach, teach PE". That's bullshit. I've met teachers FAR more competent than many professionals in their fields; and one of the best teachers I've had's subject was PDHPE. (And a good thing too - it's Remarkably hard and ENORMOUSLY important to teach kids about consent, especially when your classes consist of a bunch of feral teenagers with VASTLY different experiences, prior knowledge, and sometimes trauma!)

However, I do think we need more people who can't RECALL so easily; who are intelligent but not always conventionally "academically gifted", in teaching. My Gran is admittedly biased (teacher who retired but refuses to stop teaching) but she thinks my vocation is in teaching - and for all the above reasons.

The world could use a few less paediatric bureaucrats with a passion for physics; exceptional though they are at the craft of marks-improvement. Instead, in my opinion, the world needs a few more physicists with a passion for teaching - their students end up with more brilliance than efficiency; and if they choose to stay in their field, they'll end up with more satisfaction for the same productivity.

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

So I know that the plural of attorney-general should probably attorneys-general. But attorney-generals FEELS more right? However, solicitors-general feels more right than solicitor-generals. Personally, surgeons-general and surgeon-generals both seem wrong.

Ranks are definitely pluralised as noun-noun-s. It's definitely major-generals. HOWEVER. it is HILARIOUS fun to pluralise them the other way. majors-general. lieutenants-colonel. and even more fun with ranks that aren't hyphenated: wings commander. detectives inspector. chiefs superintendent. idk. it amuses me

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

somewhere between 94 and 95 kph on the speedo (91ish irl), the air going around the spokes of my car's wheels makes a pleasant drone at F3. it can interact amusingly with whatever music is on; and sometimes i have a nice little jam sesh to it.

it has a very friendly timbre - it sounds quite pleasant! but like if you wanted to record it for a piece of music. how the HECK would you do that? cos even without the sound of other cars, you've still got the engine sound and the noises between the tyre and the ground to deal with. not to mention highway-speed winds - I'd assume that the kinda Ambient Airspeed right next to the wheel isn't quite 90kph cos Fluid Dynamics Bullshit but I'd assume that it's still important and having some effect on the shape of the soundwaves??

this isn't a question i need answered or that you should spend a bunch of time figuring out - it isn't BOTHERING me per se. it's just a thought that bounces around my head every so often and i wanted to share.

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

i have FUN MUSIC in my head i am HAPPY i LOVE MY FRIENDS i have had VENTOLIN my pants are COOL AND COMFORTABLE i have found mustard pickles that I can eat and they're DELICIOUS i am VIBRATING

i could be vibrating for like several of those reasons

aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAA

i am overwhelmed with emotions but like they're ALL GOOD ONES it's not a familiar experience. im used to "so many emotions my thoughts aren't coherent" being a bad thing and overwhelming but like somehow it feels good??!? my brain is screaming and bouncing around my head at a million miles per hour but somehow that's a good thing and i don't want it to stop, i feel like i could powerwalk all the way home from town but that's probably a bad idea and is yet home rather late but there's NO way im going to be able to sleep for a while. I'm not sure even telemann wind concerti would work.

aaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. !!

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

What's your opinions on soup?

As a general rule, I like soup! It's usually warm, often flavourful, and usually decently nutritious. I am someone who, as a rule, likes food and will eat pretty much anything I'm not allergic to!

However, I do have some texture issues with some soups where the liquid is thicker. Not all, mind you: there's a lovely eggplant and capsicum one we make that ROCKS! But some pumpkin soups, as well as our chickpea soup recipe where the chickpeas get blended up - I tend to not like as much. (Soups which are Mostly Solid, but haven't been blended and have a thin liquid still; are fine.)

I'll still eat a Texture Issue Thick Soup though - I can cope; and sometimes it's a handy way to Get Food Into Me in a hurry! However there's SOME soups with a ... watery taste ig? that for me has a mental association with a bout of food poisoning in early primary school courtesy of some cucumber that had gone off. It's a bit of a taste-texture combo i think - all (which might be "both", come to think of it) the souls i've hit it in had corn in them; but that's not the only contributing factor, cos potato/corn/bacon is one of my FAVOURITE soups ever! Anyways; the ones with that watery taste I usually won't eat.

I guess my thoughts on soup are that it's often delicious; but sometimes it needs additional carbs to make a meal, or it can be messy to eat. If either or both are the case it can be very inconvenient; because soup ALWAYS makes plenty of leftovers here, and if they're not portable enough they take up quite a bit of fridge space for quite a while. i am generally soup-positive but with a few specific gripes against specific soups.

(Oh and noodle soups go OFF and I'm yet to meet one I don't love!!! but in my head i don't categorise them with soup. cos they're a Wok Food not a Saucepan Food; and i know that distinction is not necessarily logical or accurate; but it's how my brain works. soup goes with casserole and pot. noodle soup goes with stir fry and pasta and wok. yes i know it's probably ten different flavours of Food Heresy to make fusilli arabbiata in a wok; but given I'm using canned tomatoes and gluten free pasta and adding bacon and it's convenient Who Cares!)

[a-suspicious-lack-of-bagel]

Followup/reply post to my discussion with @lurks-no-more on the detective fiction of Dorothy Sayers. OP was @earlgraytay ; previous discourse can be found in the original post here.

I can't say I've read either Footsteps that Ran or Man with No Face recently - they're some of the ones I tend to skip when I go through all of the short stories. So I read through them both again! They've both got a side character making racist assumptions about Italians. However, I don't think either of them are using slurs - in Man with No Face he's saying "all Italians are murderous members of secret societies" and using the Fascisti and Camorra as examples; rather than using "Camorrist" as an offensive term in place of "Italian".

As a side note, I wonder how long Sayers had been waiting to make that Sodom and Camorra joke? They don't exactly feature in her writing - presumably, like Whimsey, she considers secret societies a lazy plot device.

Anyways; I was going to say that from my memory Sayers doesn't tend to use slurs? Sure, you get some period-usual ones (think "gypsy", "Negro", "Eskimo" sorta thing); but they're kinda the words your average English speaker from that era had for referring to those people groups - there doesn't seem to be racist intent there. You get plenty of racist "all X are Y" assumptions (Italians are knife murderers, Germans follow orders mindlessly, etc) but they don't tend to be relevant/accurate to the plot. I think that's partly because subversion of stereotypes makes for a more interesting plot; but partly cos Wimsey is Her Ideal Man (and calling out stereotypes is what he'd do cos he's got a brain and morals).

Bear in mind I'm a priveliged white dude, so I'm not the best at noticing this shit. But the only one I can remember that feels a little racist to me is The Incredible Elopement of Lord Peter - it kinda goes "the Basques are dumb and religiously superstitious" and doesn't do anything to challenge that. The one I'd expect might have random slurs no longer in common use is Bellona Club - it'd kinda fit with their characters for George to be talking about wogs and coolies; or for the doctor to be vaguely social darwinist. Sadly I don't have the time to reread a novel this morning, or I'd check!

I think you mentioned that you've more recently read the short stories in translation? I wouldnt be toooo surprised if the translator had added in some slurs. Some of those characters are definitely being racist - if the translator didn't think that came across well enough with a more direct translation; maybe they'd have added in a slur or two to make it clearer. Between all the idioms and classical references Wimsey uses, the regional accents, and the Salesman's Handbook stuff; I kinda assume Sayers would be a difficult/interesting writer to translate - much love and appreciation to the translators!!!

Anyways, sorry to have rambled. if anyone's got any thoughts or examples let me know - i LOVE having a reason to read cool books, and it's making my brain go!