Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, what are you reading?
I’m still on The Poacher from Stratford. Thoughts below.
Last week I finished reading Chingiz Aitmatov's novella The White Ship. In spite of the shoddy translation and atrocious typesetting, it was very affecting, and the ending had me tearing up a little bit even though I'd sort of guessed what was going to happen around chapter 2.
About one-third of the way through China Mieville's The City and the City. Loving it, the Kafka comparisons are well-earned.
More options
Context Copy link
I finished up Harassment Architecture the other day.
In summary, it's a book I would only have a paper copy of and only recommend to very few people that I know very intimately - since high school at a minimum.
It's plotless, written by a 20-something, and printed somewhere kind of random in SC. It's satirical, hateful, aggressive, and could be in some ways more subversive than something like The Anarchist's Cookbook. I was recommended it on Amazon I think after reading a linked blog post here (which worries me) and only saw it discussed directly here once by @Etw0.
I was reading it while on a train in Europe during pride month, which was probably the best possible situation for getting value out of it. I may expand on it this Friday, but the main themes of the book were underlined by, to borrow the author's framing, being in a land full of gluten-intolerant LGBTQIA+ cucks surrounded by meaningful architecture created hundreds of years ago.
If you're here, you may like it, though I'll stop short of recommending it as I mentioned to start. A good mix of catharsis and humor. I don't imagine a centrist moderate, much less a leftist would be able to stomach it at all.
The downside of having finished it is realizing I probably won't be able to talk to anyone about it face to face. Anyone who'd agree with parts of it may not process it as deeply, and anyone else maybe capable of doing so would be too disgusted by it to finish. So a general feeling of loneliness and frustration afterwards.
What is it about? Like I get it’s bigoted against LGBT, but so are a lot of people. Is it a series of humorous anecdotes offending the lefties?
It's a first-person screed from the perspective of an "Alpha Male". There's very little plot, it's more poking holes in the lies we tell ourselves as a civilized society. What's meant seriously vs satirically is going to be different for everyone and that's part of what makes it interesting. Essentially bemoaning the state of the world and perhaps suggesting we should burn it all down.
It's unthinkably transgressive in 2024, but not far off from a 2008 LAN Party (Xbox, not PC). I can't imagine a woman really enjoying it, either. It's pure masculinity, toxic and otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Master and Commander was great, it does such a good job capturing experiences that are completely foreign but really happened. When they're being pursued by a frigate for days, and they can see it in the distance, and it's gaining but over the course of days, the dread and tension it brings. It's a masterpiece.
I've started And The Band Played On, got it at the coffee shop on their second hand book shelf. God is it brilliantly written. Not sure what I think of the arguments, but the passion that drips from it, written as he was dying.
On audio I'm halfway through Two Towers, and I'm thinking I might skip to the first half of Return of the King and complete that line of the story, then go back and do the whole Frodo storyline in one go after. Experimentally. It would throw off some aspects of Gondor, I think, but mostly listening on audio I'm just not in the mood to have Gollum in my earbud. Idk.
On Shakespeare, I'm excited for the local Shakespeare festival, doing Cymbelline a couple towns over. I was just thinking of that play.
I can vouch, secondhand, for @pigeonburger 's point here. Most of the folks I know who powered through the jargon really enjoyed the whole series.
Reading Russian lit has taught me that the best way to get used to unusual words and uses is to just motor through it and figure it out later. For a while reading Dostoyevsky was difficult because I was trying to understand every word and reference and every relationship and every name and nickname. When I just let it wash over me and hoped to pick up what was going on later from context, I came to understand more. I'm sure I'm wrong about a few things in the naval jargon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, the whole series is fun, and since you're already past the biggest obstacle (the nautical jargon) you should check it out
I'm thinking of picking up more of them, is it something where you want to go in order or is it pretty episodic?
The adventure in each book tends to be fairly self-contained, especially earlier on in the series, but the books definitely have a single overarching narrative. So I guess it depends on how much you care about Stephen and Jack's personal lives vs just enjoying your time on the ship. I'd say read the second book, and if you like Diana and the dynamic on land, read in order. If Diana annoys you and you find yourself groaning and wondering when they're going to start murdering French privateers again, you're probably safe to skip around.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wadsworth's The Poacher from Stratford, a book on the Shakespeare authorship question, has an unfortunate aspect of subtle but pervasive mockery under a veneer of objectivity, perhaps somewhat deserved, but still frustrating. Very rarely Wadsworth deigns to break the illusion and offer the most inane forms of contempt (“J. Thomas Looney, not to be confused with the Baconian, George M. Battey”). The information itself is appreciated, though by now at least some of it is known to be inaccurate.
For those anti-Stratfordians who seem more likely to have mental issues, there is often an element of a “hidden place” or something similar, some one thing which establishes complete proof of the proposition but is not really intended to be checked. Delia Bacon claimed that she had a historical study which proved her case that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare, one which she never published, and also that manuscripts would be found in Shakespeare’s grave, but (if what I’ve read is true) she lost the courage to unearth it. Similar things are noted in some of the other anti-Stratfordians, and not only Baconians. I wonder if something like this is necessary to underpin the general faith for certain kinds of minds. They may even believe it. Perhaps Delia never did write that historical study, but had a false memory that she did. In her telling, “It seemed better to save to the world the power and beauty of this demonstration, its intellectual stimulus, its demand on the judgement.” I do still wonder about the accuracy of reports of her insanity, given that this was the 19th century.
The book, in my opinion, gets less interesting after the Baconians are dealt with, no doubt because the Oxfordians were recent history at the time this book was written. Greenwood and Looney are given short thrift, and the familiar ciphers and buried documents take center stage again. I’m not finished yet, so there is still space to impress me.
Overall, it was worth reading, with some caveats. There are hints of familiar tropes, such as Shakespeare’s “genius” and allegations of snobbery, but these are surprisingly subdued. Most of it delves into details about the works and methods of anti-Stratfordians, with some terms like “literary sincerity” (the idea that an author’s life necessarily exerts a direct influence on his art) perhaps deserving a second look. The evident sneering (at least, that’s what I saw, it isn't always open) thoroughly undermines any claims to fair play, and it leaves an unpleasant image of a face behind the mask which outwardly says “Our role should be not to suppress debate but to instruct students how to consider the Oxfordians’ (and others’) arguments carefully and thoughtfully.” Nevertheless he did after all bother to write a book about the topic. A somewhat inauspicious but still valuable beginning to academic overviews of the topic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link