#critical questions from Erika

[thelaundrypool]

u know, i briefly thought about changing my url bcuz idk how many ppl know what it references. do U guys know??

[ms-demeanor]

i really liked OJST in the mid-2010s but i didn’t stop reading cause of the cuck comic - wasn’t there also a comic erika moen wrote about (functionally) harassing lesbians with her now-husband?

In the mid 2010s closet-keys criticized one of Erika Moen's early diary comics and described Erika Moen as "Reassuring a cishet partner that it’s totally okay to use hate speech towards wlw at Pride" and condoning the harassment and fetishization of lesbians because of a 2007 comic that she had made as part of a webcomic she had written about gender and her interactions with her queerness.

The hate speech in question is the partner asking "are you sure you want to hold my hand with all these dykes around?" while they are pretty clearly at a Dyke Day event during pride, and the reassurance that 'it's totally okay to use hate speech toward wlw' is Erika responding "sweetie, I'm proud to be with you."

The comic is still up with a disclaimer that it was written at a different time, and I know that's probably not going to fly with a lot of people but if you were a bi woman in the early to mid 2000s it was pretty common to use statements like "lol yeah i'm into women my boyfriend is fine with it as long as I take pictures" to diffuse the biphobia from straight people AND to say shit like "I'm not a party bi, I actually love pussy, thanks" to diffuse the biphobia from queer people. (if you were a bi guy in the early to mid 2000s i'm sorry and I'm sorry now because we got LUG but that mostly went away and you *still* have to deal with the "gay in waiting" bullshit).

That comic ends with Erika and her partner looking at a woman and saying "I'd totally do her" while the woman thinks "pigs" and if you think that means that they literally sat on the street and vocally commented about lesbians passing by them or that they condone harassing lesbians (in, I cannot stress this enough, a diary comic written by someone in their early twenties who is realizing they are occasionally interested in some men some of the time after identifying as a lesbian their whole life), then I'm gonna go ahead and recommend signing up for some variety or other of literary analysis class. Do we think that Erika is seriously implying that she is going to make her boyfriend gay if she fucks him in this comic from a year later?

If this comic bothers you and you see it as a straight-passing couple giving the go-ahead to harass lesbians, you do you, I'm not saying you have to read the comic or enjoy Erika Moen.

I am saying it's a bit of a stretch, though, and certainly the least charitable explanation possible, and that we should probably give people some space to say awkward things about their sexuality and to make missteps when discussing it in their early twenties and not call them lesbophobic fifteen years after the fact for a college comic.

Moen also gets called transphobic because she has described trans men as adorable/cute in a way that could be read as patronizing in one comic and because she made a comic about wearing a packer for fun and for sexual gratification with her cis male partner as a cis woman.

Appropriately, all of these things feel very "late twenty teens tumblr callout post."

If it bugs you, you don't have to read the comics but I've talked about Moen before and I've gotten the anons in my inbox calling me lesbophobic for recommending her comic when in 2007 she made a comic about catcalling lesbians and condoning street harassment.

Which is frustrating because Erika Moen writes a comic about sex toys that has incredible body and gender diversity and is interested in making sure that people of all sexualities are having safe, enjoyable sex and talking openly about it. This is Rebecca Sugar condones war crimes level discourse over a creator who makes a genuinely good comic and gets dismissed as cringe by people who hate open discussions of sex and gets dismissed as a bigot (in ways that I think are incredibly unfair given the vast majority of her work) among people who *claim* to love open discussions of sex but who *actually* love witch hunts.

[dropoutconfessions]

K's journey with their identity in season 1 is such a great representation of dealing with gender presentation vs identity! It was very clear that K was struggling with liking pink, sparkly things bc of their association with femininity. As someone dealing with gender questioning and figuring out what's comfortable to present in, it makes me feel really seen!

One of the anti-mismag asks had criticized season 1 K, and while I understand it might not be their cup of tea, I just wanted to shed light on why K didn't just stop acting girly, and that it was a good exploration of gender presentation from Erika, who is genderfluid!

-

[utilitycaster]

to elaborate on Indri and cross over a bit into Critical Role's current plot (spoilers for both WBN and CR):

Indri, Witch of the Wind and Stars, embodies a domain of the self, independence, and self-sufficiency. She lives at the north pole in a beautiful castle surrounded by an immensely hostile environment.

In the current arc, and specifically in the current episode, she has engineered a plot to dismiss the domain of the World's Heart, the seat on the Coven of Elders pertaining to community, humanity, and connection, held by Ame (Erika's PC). Such a dissolution of the domain would mean the death of Ame, its recently ascended witch.

Ame is able to save herself and her seat thanks to the help of her friends, particularly Suvi's (Aabria's PC) knowledge and intelligence gathering and Eursulon's (Lou's PC) fluency in the language of spirits. Through this group effort, as well as other adventures that put the coven's founder, Hakea, Witch of the Wandering Green, on their side, they learn that the coven cannot end their gathering with only four remaining witches lest the covenant that created it be dissolved.

It comes out in the final meeting that one of the other witches, Mirara, didn't know that destroying Ame would destroy the coven, and Hakea realizes that the plan was actually to also get rid of Mirara, leaving a coven of 3. Ame smooths this all over before it turns into actual violence by pointing out that perhaps Indri's intention was to inaugurate new witches (which they can do); but a crucial nat 20 insight reveals to her that Indri, in pursuing the power of unanimity within the coven (and perhaps leaning in too hard to her role) had intended to whittle the coven down to one: herself. She was possibly behind the more recent dissolving of two other seats. But Ame keeps that insight to herself, and Indri does recover as best she can and at least outwardly behave with all the generosity and kindness of a host and equal towards Ame from there on out, acknowledging the kindness Ame showed her and the debt she owes.

Brennan outright says it on the fireside: this confrontation ends because Ame has a bunch of friends and companions and is good with people and gains the support they provide. It also ends with the ancient, powerful, experienced witch of self-sufficiency needing to be rescued by the nascent, level 3 witch of community.

I think this is really helpful too in understanding why Ludinus Da'leth is such an unsympathetic figure. Matt said he found connection "beneath him". King Imathan Talviel of Uthodurn said he seemed stuck in the past and would not share his gifts nor engage in the community of Molaesmyr other than to heckle the priests. Ludinus himself doesn't say he was abused or pressured by those around him in his youth to follow the gods, only "told"; while this could be understatement, at least as told it seems as though he took other people's choice to find meaning in something he despised as a personal attack. The Cerberus Assembly is famously a nest of backstabbing strivers and its members don't care for him. The Vanguard is similar; Otohan thought little of him (and he of her), as does Zathuda, and while Liliana says he trusts her, she has her own doubts and Ludinus has said little of her other than to dangle her before Imogen. Essek, 7 years ago, told him to try making friends and he does not appear to have listened, and then, when he approaches Bells Hells (already a group hostile to him, due to him trying to feeblemind, attack, kill, and otherwise thwart them repeatedly) he acts as if he's doing them a favor and refuses to answer their questions, take responsibility for any of his actions, or give credit where due.

I suspect Indri will continue to be an antagonist and that some of her behavior is a front, but she is, at least, able to admit that she faltered and Ame did her an undeserved kindness, and in doing so she appears at least a little sympathetic. Ludinus's refusal to make any sort of connection to others seems to have left him utterly miserable within inches of a near-millennium-long goal. He's asking Bells Hells, people he's wronged in horrible and life-changing ways, to grant him a gift he seems to have scorned and rejected for his entire life; at least Indri recognized a freely offered one she did not particularly deserve for what it was. At some point, you do run out of chances.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jack Rivington

Published: Sep 29, 2023

Ahead of International Blasphemy Rights Day, Jack Rivington says freedom of religion or belief must include the freedom to criticise or dissent from religious orthodoxy.

The freedom to question and criticise religious ideas in the same manner as any other kind is foundational to a democratic society. Where it exists at all, this freedom is constantly threatened, both by its traditional enemies of theocracy and religious fundamentalism, but also increasingly from a misguided interpretation of liberal values.

A recent report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom identified 95 countries which criminalise blasphemy in some way. That number is at least one too few, as it fails to include the United Kingdom, where the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel remain on the books in Northern Ireland.

Punishments in countries which outlaw blasphemy vary, from fines to imprisonment and execution. Unjust though such legal processes are, the extra-judicial violence licenced and encouraged by such laws is of equal importance. The Center for Inquiry, which established September 30th as International Blasphemy Rights Day, has said to "charge someone with blasphemy is to value a person's life less than an idea". Though this is particularly true in countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan, where those accused of blasphemy are often murdered, it is also the case worldwide. Last year, Sir Salman Rushdie was attacked in Chautauqua, New York, 34 years after the Ayatollah Khomenei called for his murder for the supposed offence of blasphemy.

Those who would impose and enforce blasphemy codes on others do not respect or recognise national borders or sovereignty. A commitment to free speech must therefore be equally international in its scope. In failing to fully abolish its blasphemy laws, the UK validates the notion that perceived offence to religion or God should be prohibited, thereby undermining its ability to promote the right to freedom of expression elsewhere.

Attempts to shield religion from criticism are also underway via systematic efforts to characterise such criticism as a form of racial or ethnic bigotry. The concept of 'Islamophobia', vigorously promoted by Islamists both in the UK and abroad, is the most pressing example. Integral to the concept is the claim that criticism of ideas is equivalent to attacking individuals. Under the term's definition formulated by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG), to question Islamic ideology is to effectively express hate for Muslims.

This is a blasphemy law in another form – a point demonstrated by the case of Erika López Prater, who was fired last year by Hamline University after discussing artistic representations of Muhammad in an art history class. A Muslim student complained that as images of Muhammad are banned in Islam, the content of the lesson – and by extension Prater – was thus blasphemous and Islamophobic.

By agreeing that images of Muhammad are Islamophobic and should therefore not be shown, Hamline generalised the personal feelings and religious interpretation of one individual as the definitive position of Islam. But this view is not shared by all Muslims. As Anna Khalid - an associate professor of history at Carleton College and herself a Muslim - pointed out, in endorsing the supposed Islamic ban on images of Muhammad, Hamline "privileged a most extreme and conservative" point of view.

A policy which empowers the most fundamentalist elements within a religious community is neither liberal nor inclusive. Yet that is precisely what the current arguments around 'hate speech' have achieved. What we have, in effect, is a code which polices a particular theological interpretation of Islam against other interpretations. It is a gross perversion of laws intended to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief to enlist them in sectarian theological disputes in this way.

If the right to freedom of religion or belief means anything, it must include the right of those within religious groups considered blasphemous by more doctrinaire views to practice their faith as they see fit. The current understanding of 'Islamophobia' threatens those who perceived not to conform to traditional theology – Muslim women who reject the hijab, openly LGBT Muslims, and minorities within the religion such as Ahmadis, for example. It is absurd to think that a gay Muslim could be labelled 'Islamophobic' for criticising elements of their own faith which are homophobic. Yet under the current conceptual framework, such criticism could be labelled as such. The ability to criticise religion must therefore be seen as an essential component of the right to freedom of religion or belief, not in conflict with it.

However well-intentioned, politicians who endorse the concept of 'Islamophobia' are effectively reintroducing blasphemy laws by the backdoor and empowering fundamentalists within religious communities in the process. Concerningly, a significant part of the UK's political establishment appears unaware of the problem – the APPG definition has been accepted by all major parties except the Conservatives, along with one in seven UK local authorities.

The UK must not sacrifice the right to free speech in a misguided attempt to promote social cohesion. Secularism, and a robust defence of the ability to criticise all ideas and ideology, is the only genuine way to achieve an properly inclusive society which respects everyone's right to freedom of religion or belief. In defending that right, we must remain vigilant.

[maryrouille]

La Pianiste as a timeless movie. About The Piano Teacher (2001) by Michael Haneke

If it were not for the gift I received in the form of books about Haneke's work, I wouldn't have watched this film so quickly. Although I've wanted to see that iconic bathroom scene for a long time. Anyway, have I, as I intertwined with film experts - which I am definitely not one of with my subjective selection of films - begun to enter the era of writing about film based on professional literature? Perhaps!

More than twenty years ago, the film adaptation of the novel Die Klavierspielerin written by Elfriede Jelinek was released. Michael Haneke not only changed it to the French La Pianiste, but also showed the story in a different way. I will not make a book-film comparison here, but I will only mention that the novel is more explicit and much less subtle, which is visible in its vulgar language of the narrator-critic of the broken world.

Sublimity and dirt. Sacred and profane

Knowing the plot of the film, it is easy to notice Erika's touching relationship with her disturbed mother, which results in the perverse development of her sexuality. The dramatic love relationship, as if from an ancient tragedy, of a piano teacher and her student Klemmer is also clearly exposed. But there is something else hidden beneath it. In the literature about La Pianiste, you can find a description of Erika's conflict. Classical music belongs to the world of culture, but the heroine's sexuality reduces her to the level of an unrestrained animal world, manifested in cheap pornography [R. Koschany, Open Composition. The Piano Teacher by Elfriede Jelinek and Michael Hanake, 2019].

Georges Bataille in Erotism: death and sensuality (1986, p. 144) wrote:

Beauty is desired in order that it may be befouled; not for its own sake, but for the joy brought by the certainty of profaning it.

The activities Erika engages in to satisfy her sexual desires seem deviant from the norm, even disgusting, to a stereotypical viewer. This, in combination with the beauty of the main character and her grace, the beauty of the music and the sterility of the rooms, and the perfection of the piano playing skills, creates a striking contrast. Erika seems to profane the beauty around her, and the destruction of the ideal becomes what excites her. Recalling Bataille, it is not the act itself that brings satisfaction, but making a scratch on the transparent glass. While remaining reserved towards psychoanalysis, it can be said that she rebels against her mother in a much more extreme form than teenagers do.

Nudity without a body

Haneke's film is shocking. However, he does not do this through direct images denuding the characters. Even in erotic scenes, the camera is directed not at the characters' body parts, but only at their facial expressions, from which we read the emotions they experience. Regardless, the viewer in this situation is still a voyeur and feels embarrassed to see something that makes him step out of his comfort zone [T. Heimerl, Michael Haneke und seine Filme. Eine Pathologie der Konsumgesellschaft, 2008]. I would say that La Pianiste shows the nudity of the characters, leaving their bodies almost completely covered. In this film, the part focused on eroticism is narrated by eyes staring at each other and hands circling the piano keyboard.

Reception in the 2020s

What would an analysis be, here in a telegraphic version, without reference to today. It must be admitted that the Internet is amazing, that such a film can be turned into memes that accurately comment on the reality presented in it. Were both Erika and Klemmer red flags? On the one hand, a woman with masochistic tendencies, and on the other, a boy who tries at all costs to win and become his teacher's lover. It seemed like the red lights were blinding their eyes from a mile away! However, I would question whether Erika was asexual. Her sexuality was somehow disturbed, unawakened or malformed, but I still think she had it to some extent. This may be a point of discussion.

Coming to the end, I think this is one of Haneke's best works and will be remembered for a long time. It also seems timeless because of the perspective of a female narrator, unusual for the cinema of the 2000s, and the presentation of an attractive woman as an object far from sex appeal, which is cold, strange and caricatured.

[nonsenuser]

the piano teacher (2001)

this movie has been on my list for a while, 1. because i too am a piano teacher so duh and 2. 'perversion at its wicked best' is too interesting of a hook to ignore. i did keep removing and re-adding this from my letterboxd watchlist because i was worried it would be either way too freaky for me or just too uncomfortable (recently i've realized my threshold for things in movies has gotten pretty high and i tend to overestimate how disturbing something might be, not that this wasn't disturbing).

from the way people were talking about this movie i was expecting something like 'yeah its called the piano teacher but theres barely any piano in it' or 'classical music culture is used as a metaphor and you could replace it with anything' and while the first is just not true and the 2nd *might* be true it is a really smart choice to have erika be in this profession and for most of the characters to be classical musicians because of the kind of personalities and attitudes that are portrayed are somewhat normalized and encouraged within the field.

i can only speak from direct experience, I took piano classes for several years (4-16 years old), had a pretty strict russian teacher and have met people who took it extremely seriously, to the point where they experienced great metal distress from piano. i never took piano as seriously so it never was like that for me (for a while), i was good enough to basically never practice, my parents never forced me to do it and i started pretty young so i was able to finish all my levels before high school ended. i think being around that positive environment and always knowing i would never take piano that seriously is what made me love it for a very long time.

I think after i finished all my levels and did more music in high school strings and started learning stuff on my own, I was really challenged and while I did understand that yes I had talent, it was a punch to the gut to get unfiltered criticism about my skills. I questioned for a while if i would ever pursue music seriously (like as a teacher AND performer) but it became evident to me that i just didnt want to become the stereotypical pianist (like erika).

back to the movie.... erikas character is obviously taken to an extreme because of her suffocating relationship with her mother and her intense sexual desires, but having the classical music setting as a background is kind of perfect to bring all of this attributes into focus (and even enhance them)

it has been explained in great detail why the abuse, sexuality and psychological effects of it intertwine so well but i think its worth mentioning how the music that is discussed plays a huge role in all of it. erikas expertise is schubert and he is a romantic composer, meaning his pieces are very expressive and full of dynamics, ornaments and accents. its kind of ironic that erika says his music is not just 'loud and soft' but moves between 'a scream and a whisper' because we rarely if ever see erika display this range of emotions for most of the movie. and with my minimal time around professional classical musicians... ironically this is the type of personality that is encouraged. the seeming husk of a person able to perform beautifully with huge range of emotion.

completely unrelated, but the scene where the hockey boys come onto the ice and essentially force the figure skaters to leave? yeah you could say thats how erika and walters relationship ended up playing out.

theres so much more to talk about but i have to think about it more and then i'll add to this post here but wowow. new fave movie for sure.

[thoughtfullyrainynightmare]

Hello there, Laura~! Do you think all of Fue and Lara's little lion cubs could answer 13 and 23 from the oc interview questions? I'd love to hear what they have to say~!

Well hello hello Erika~! I think they'll certainly give their best ^^

13. You’re given an unlimited budget to build anything you want!  What do you build and where do you build it?

Leonidas: Unlimited budget hm? For me to build something, let's see... So this is something that money can buy, hm... If I was very idealistic, I would build a bridge between the Capitol of every nation, one that directly connects them together, one that can't be destroyed, or moved from whatever place is the capitol of each nation. If there is a direct path to the headquarters, then each of those nations would be required to play nice with each other. Of course this is impossible, since there are so many nations in the world, and keeping up relations with all of them would be very difficult. And while the idea would be to keep them playing nice to each other, I'm sure they'd find away around it. Even if the bridge would move, should they try to move the main place of operations in their particular nation to somewhere else... So... Hmm... You know what? I would build an immense library that would contain all the information in the world. But it would be on a remote island with portals from many places leading into it. Similar concept as Thea, but... not in Thea

Cyraleona: I think... I think that budget would do much more while being evenly distributed among the general population. But... since the spirit of the game is to build something I... think I would... build... I think I would build an amphitheatre where people could go an play o matter the level, no criticism allowed, and people could go an listen, if they so wished. There'd be comfortable seats, and a bakery or a restaurant nearby so people could get something to eat... A place where people could connect. And I think I would build it... in the fields near the Strong Magic Region, which would require a little bit extra to create a protective barrier against any beasts or other creatures but... I would create such a place

Eleonora: ...My first thought would be "a moat", but that would be pointless. The same as the canyon where Mereo obanue took me and my siblings, but... Hm... I guess I would build a... Can I just use the money to rebuild whatever needs to be rebuilt?

23. Wave you ever had a crush on someone?  Do you have a crush now?

Leonidas: I'm uh *clears throat* courting a certain Lady, yes.

Cyraleona: Oh... I ... uhh... *blush* Yes, there is someone I... fancy. He's a bit shy, but very kind and smart, and ... pleasant to be around with

Eleonora: ... sigh Not this again... I'm not interested in anyone. Can't a girl just be independently governed?

[tam--lin]

New(ish) Space Books On My TBR

A list of new(ish) books about space that are on my short list. Links go to Bookshop.org, content in italics is publisher’s promo material I’m quoting.

For The Love of Mars by National Air and Space Museum curator Matthew Shindell

A tour of Mars in the human imagination, from ancient astrologers to modern explorers.

Why it’s on the list: Well, first off, I just love Mars. Additionally, I love books that combine science, media, and history. This is a brand new book (published May 18, 2023!), so it should also be about as up-to-date as they get.

Back to the Moon: The Next Giant Leap for Humankind by Joseph Silk.

A scientist's inspiring vision of our return to the Moon as humanity's next thrilling step in space exploration.

Why it’s on the list: scientists are currently divided on whether the future of space exploration lies in “boots on the moon” or robots. This lays out the case for human space exploration as important and valuable scientifically. Released November 2022.

The Possibility of Life: Science, Imagination, and Our Quest for Kinship in the Cosmos by Jamie Green

A spellbinding exploration of alien life and the cosmos, examining how the possibility of life on other planets shapes our understanding of humanity.

Why it’s on the list: Again, fascinated by how science and science fiction interact. This book is also brand spanking new (April 2023), this book has been getting rave reviews, and Jamie Green has a fantastic reputation as a science writer.

Under Alien Skies: A Sightseer's Guide to the Universe by Phillip Plait, PhD

On this lively, immersive adventure through the cosmos, Plait draws ingeniously on both the latest scientific research and his prodigious imagination to transport you to ten of the most spectacular sights outer space has to offer

Why it’s on the list: Phil Plait (the ”Bad Astronomer”) is a fantastic science communicator - I just like the guy a lot based on his other books, Crash Course series, newsletter, and Twitter presence. This seems like a great overview of a lot of wonders of our solar system and the rest of the universe. Astronomy isn’t my strong suit, so I’m hoping that getting this on audio will help me get more star facts into my brain. Also a 2023 release!

Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space by Erika Nesvold

A timely reminder that it's not just rocket science, this thought-provoking book explores the all-too-human issues raised by the prospect of settling in outer space. It's worth remembering, Erika Nesvold suggests, that in making new worlds, we don't necessarily leave our earthly problems behind. Accordingly, her work highlights the complex ethical challenges that accompany any other-worldly venture--questions about the environment, labor rights, and medical ethics, among others.

Why it’s on the list: Erika Nesvold is a critical voice of liberalism, caution, sensitivity, and anti-capitalism in the space industry. I’m curious to hear her thoughts about space settlement, as I appreciate her views. March 2023 release.

The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration by Donald Goldsmith and Martin Rees

In The End of Astronauts, Goldsmith and Rees weigh the benefits and risks of human exploration across the solar system.

Why it’s on the list: balancing out Next Step is this 2022 book which argues that, outside of low-Earth orbit, exploring space should be left to robots for both financial and ethical reasons. Also, I love the cover.

[berry-hwa]

Im procrastinating big time

So here yall go. Part 3. Its less short again but! It will do! Enjoy :3

"So this is the uniform..."

"Mhm!"

It was bright and early in the morning when she got woken up by knocking at her door. Eisuke had been kind enough (for now) to let her stay in one of the penthouse guest rooms, telling her she could move into the employee dormitory later if she so wished. And now, she sat in her new bed, half asleep in her pajamas as she stared down at the hotel uniform splayed out across her sheets, which had been generously given to her by Baba.

"I'll escort you down to the meeting room with the manager of this hotel, Mr. Kenzaki! He'll give you instructions and introduce you to the other workers." He flashed a smile, one she wished she could return. The sun was very bright on her tired eyes.

"Okay...thanks." She finally muttered.

"Anything else you might need is all in this room, buut if you still have any questions, you can always come find me~ I'd be happy to help out." He really was quite nice. Nicer than the others, at least. She couldn't say his charisma incited anything within her, though.

"...Okay, I'll get ready." Gosh she wanted to sleep.

"Alright! I'll wait downstairs for you." He flashed another dazzling smile with a courteous little bow and put his fedora over his heart, exiting the room. What...an interesting man.

She continued staring at the uniform before promptly falling backwards onto her pillows, looking up at the ceiling now. She's never been a fan of this much light and color...maybe she could arrange some changes with Eisuke later.

But for now, she had to get up and meet Baba downstairs. So she sat back up and picked up the pieces of the uniform with a yawn, climbing out of bed and dragging herself to the bathroom to freshen up.

Thank goodness there was a bath in the guest room.

************

After a very eventful 20 minutes, she finally made her way down to the penthouse where the thief was waiting for her. He smiled at her sight alone.

"There you are!...that was pretty quick, did you not grab a bite of anything?" His smile fell a tad as he questioned her. Right. She hadn't eaten anything in about 12 hours.

"Actually...I can last fairly long without any food. Mermaids are conditioned as such." She stood face to face with him as he offered her a hand down the last few steps, getting down with his help. "Our diets are pretty vegetarian under the sea."

"Ah, right. Eating fish would be pretty awkward, huh?" He chuckled at his own words.

"...Perhaps. I generally dislike seafood altogether." A lot of her people actually had great appetites for fish and creatures alike, but even when she lived on land all it took was a taste of some seafood for her to vow never to eat any again.

"No shame in that!" Baba smiled at her again, "Is there anything you would like to eat? I'm not sure if the cafeteria here would satisfy your needs..."

Hm. What would she like to eat.

...

...Was he trying to ask her out to lunch?

"I'm not sure. Maybe...salad? That's as close as one can get to a mermaid's diet."

"Hmm...alright, I'll ask around for it. For now though," He made his way over to the door and opened it, "After you, m'lady!" Sort of old fashioned, isn't he?

"Thank you."

************

About an hour later, she was finally put to work. She was introduced as Eisuke's close relative to cover up the fact that she'd also be working up in the penthouse. Probably arranged by none other than Eisuke himself. She also had been given instructions on how to clean the rooms, but Mr. Kenzaki advised to watch her coworkers and learn from them bit by bit instead of charging in headfirst. So, that is what she was currently up to.

She'd been placed in a group with two other girls, presumably around her age, who seemed pretty nice. Unlike the girl who seemed to criticize her even while she was standing, with a very judgemental gaze. She soon found out her name was Erika and that she was infamous for terrorizing every maid in the hotel, newbie or not.

"Collecting these sheets and changing them may be hard for a first timer, but I'm sure you'll get it down sooner or later. How about you try it in the next room?" Her thoughts were interrupted by her group-mate, Chisato. She was quite lovely and very nice...and also very pretty, Mira noted.

Right. The job.

"Oh, alright...I can give it a try."

"I'm done over here, Chisato!" Her second group-mate emerged from the bathroom, chipper as ever. She was much more youthful and energized than Chisato seemed, reminding Mira of someone...someone close.

"You can move onto the next room then, Sakiko. Thanks." Chisato smiled as she fluffed up the pillows of the bed they were currently standing at.

Alright. As pretty as Chisato was, she couldn't keep her attention on her.

Instead, her mind kept wandering to Ota.

His behavior the previous night was just so...odd, even before she knocked that wine glass over onto Eisuke's leg. How she kept noticing his gaze at her pearl necklace during the I.V.C. How he was usually always in unison with Baba's antics and was known to be a little devil under his angelic persona, yet didn't exhibit any of that behavior the whole time she was in his presence...

Very weird.

She'd have to investigate that some time.

"Mira? Are you coming?" Chisato's smooth voice broke her out of her thoughts. Still on the job, Mira. Focus.

"Yep, I'm coming."

************

What an exhausting day.

Baba had come around for lunch, asking if she'd like to have a meal together — confirming her earlier suspicions. She politely declined though, opting to sit with Chisato and Sakiko in the cafeteria, to get to know them better and make some friends. She couldn't deny that his crestfallen face made her a little regretful, but oh well. She didn't exactly plan to get close to any of the men in the penthouse...and she had an inkling Baba would get over his heartbreak sooner or later anyway.

She found herself enjoying Chisato's and Sakiko's presence, especially when Erika had bumped into them and started tearing away at the three of them with her two sidekicks. She was quite the interesting character too.

Surprisingly, she didn't mess up at work as bad as she thought she would. She knew firsthand she didn't want to get involved in any water work like cleaning the washrooms and windows, so she took over the beds and generally tidying up the rooms, just as Chisato instructed her. She got the hang of it soon even if she wasn't as swift as Chisato, but she was still pretty happy with herself.

Now, in result of all her manual labor, she was pretty exhausted as she made her way up to the penthouse. She could already hear the voices behind the door she stood in front of.

"How about this item? I think I can get a hold of it if you give me a week or two, boss."

"Do what you want, just bring it back in perfect condition."

"Good evening, everyone." She quietly walked in, closing the doors behind her. What where they talking about?

"Hello pretty lady! Anything we can help you with?" Baba smiled at her for the nth time that day. It was getting to the point where he looked a bit uncanny if he wasn't smiling.

"No, not at all. Continue on with your work or...whatever?" She tilted her head at the group that was collected. Everyone was there, except for Ota. Once again, very odd. They looked like they were discussing something important though, with the way even Mamoru made the effort to be present and pay attention(?) So maybe he just had no business with the rest of them. Still though, odd.

"Are you cleaning the rooms upstairs too?" The thief picked up some documents (what an odd sight) whilst keeping his eyes on her.

"I am, I hope none of you mind...?" She looked to Eisuke, who raised an eyebrow at her question.

"I wouldn't have hired you to work up here for nothing." So he's a stick in the mud. And acts like a spoiled brat. This is the man who's supposed to save her and her people.

"Alright then, page me if you need anything." She didn't know what the "pager" device was when she found it amongst the pieces of her uniform, but Sakiko had explained to her that it must've been Ichinomiya's way of contacting her and calling her up to the penthouse. You learn something new everyday.

Making her way up the stairs, who did she bump into? None other than the angelic artist, who had just left his own room.

"Oh."

"Oh. Hello, Ota." She bowed her head and looked up at his surprised face. Was he...always like this? Or was she the reason he was acting so strangely?

"Good evening uhh...Mira, was it?" He laughed a little to ease the air. There was definitely something strange about him.

"Yes, it's Mira. I can clean your room, right?"

"O-Oh. Yeah, sure, no problem...go ahead." Fidgety. Strangely fidgety. It's not like he was nervous or shy around her, was it?...She was very curious. She wasn't sure if asking him would be the right call though, lest she scared him off or something of the sorts.

"Is everything alright? You seem flustered...you're not ill, are you?" She placed her palm against his forehead and quickly pulled it back when Ota visibly jumped. Looks like she still scared him off.

"I uhh...I'm fine! I'm just going out for some fresh air and...creative inspiration, yeah. Off I go!" He gave her a half-assed smile and dashed past her, right down the stairs.

Goodness...such weird people circling her all day.

************

It was later at night when she decided to stop sitting in her room and head downstairs, purely out of boredom. Nothing to do, nowhere to go. What was she supposed to do???

She was very surprised to see the CEO in one of the chairs, staring off into the distance as he drank some coffee.

"Hello again, mister siren." Everyone else had left so she felt like she could talk to him more freely.

"...Don't call me that." He scowled at her. For some reason she enjoyed riling him up and getting him to react to such simple jabs. He's oh so sensitive.

"What are you thinking about?" She took a seat in the red couch a little ways from Eisuke and crossed her legs.

"Stuff. I don't think you'd care much." He took another sip of his coffee, scowl almost deepening as he swallowed. "What are you doing down here?"

"I got bored. So I thought I'd find something interesting down here." She eyed his coffee with interest and pointed to it. "Are you not a fan of that?"

"What, this?" He lifted the mug for her to see, "It's coffee. Ever heard of that?"

She mirrored his scowl.

"Of course I have. I wasn't born yesterday." Still being an ass, huh?

"Nobody can get the taste right." He huffed like a child. Really, what difference was there between one and him?

"Have you considered giving them the needed instructions?" She questioned and if she blinked, she almost would've missed the way Eisuke's eye had twitched.

"Jeez. Don't give me that look. I know you're a siren and all but..."

"How are you so sure of that? Have you even seen my form?"

...

Huh.

"...Actually. You're smart." She got up, locking eyes with Eisuke who stared at her in confusion.

"How about...we go for a swim?"

[loosesodamarble]

Hiya Erika! i love this ask game so much, and these will all be for Kai’ichi since…Kaizio is rotating in my head like a frozen burito in a microwave 🤣! Also I apologize that its a lot so just take your time with it 🥰!

Eros 1, Philia 2, Storge 3, Ludus 5, and Pragma 2

I wanted to ask a couple of more but I didn’t want to overwhelm you so I’ll ask next time 👀😌!

The answers to your many questions are finally here, Lyra! Thanks for waiting for them~!

..........

Eros 1: Is your OC romantic in the traditional sense? Do they enjoy giving or receiving gifts of flowers or confectionary? Or are there other courtship traditions from their culture of origin that are important to them?

Unfortunately for Kai'ichi, he isn't much for traditionally romantic gestures. They're boring because they're the standard. If his partner wants flowers or chocolates, he would do his best to give them. And he'd go above and beyond giving the "best" versions of those gifts. But Kai'ichi would find little satisfaction in such things.

He'd much rather give his romantic partner experiences to treasure. There could be physical mementos of the activities and adventures they've gone on, but rarely does Kai'ichi think to actively give some kind of souvenir. It's being with the one he loves that he finds more romantic.

Philia 2: Does your OC find it easy to make friends? Or are there barriers to them doing so? If so then are these due to issues of inclination, communication, or something else entirely?

Kai'ichi can actually make friends pretty well, despite being a bit on the socially inept side. His enthusiasm is what draws people in. He can be a little pushy but most will agree that he's pretty encouraging. And having a friend who always encourages and supports you is what Kai'ichi is there for.

His more aggressive tendencies - fight first, ask questions later attitude - will scare away the faint of heart though. Not that Kai'ichi minds. He'd rather not befriend people that he'd have to hold back around.

Storge 3: How far does parental approval (imagined or expressed) impact upon their current sense of self-worth? What might they sacrifice or attempt to achieve in order to ensure the approval of their parents?

Ichika is a hard to please person in general, but I think she'd be a little lenient on her future children. Saying that, Ichika still holds some standards as she wants her sons to be upstanding individuals.

In general, Kai has high self-esteem. He's a natural talent, which not only gives him a good dose of confidence but compels him to work hard to keep up the reputation he has. However, Kai would take it pretty hard if he disappointed Ichika. Because he believes her to be the most amazing person in the world, he does his best to adhere to her example and advice. Being unable to do that would hit him hard and make him pause to question himself as her son.

If Kai'ichi was really truly desperate to gain Ichika's approval if he felt like he needed to, he'd actually try to restrain himself. He's over the top and less in control of his impulses than his mother and that would be one of the things she criticizes him for. Thus, Kai'ichi's fire would be smothered as he tries to be more reserved like Ichika. It would be sad to see since he's the liveliest person in the Yami household and their lives become duller without his chaos.

Ludus 5: What seduction techniques are most likely to be effective when it comes to your OC? Are there some things guaranteed to get them going? Or are they immune to such things?

Assertiveness. That shit will always make Kai weak at the knees when it comes to romance. When he's in the right headspace, he's very forward himself so it's a matter of matching energy.

Approach him from across a ballroom with a smile. Be the one to ask him for a dance. Just straight up compliment him while he's trying to decide what to say. As long as a prospective partner can essentially get a head start on putting the moves on Kai'ichi, then he's going to be giving them his attention.

Oh, also the lamest, cringiest pick up lines. He's sick and tired of the roundabout and flowery romance language he hears from Shigehiro's literature so "lowbrow" romantic flirtations will make him smile.

Pragma 2: What is the biggest challenge that your OC has had to overcome in a long-term relationship or friendship? What helped them get through this?

When it comes to all of his relationships (platonic or romantic), the biggest hurdle Kai'ichi faces is his inability to slow down. He's always trying to challenge himself and find interesting things to do. So friendships have ended due to the other parties being unable to take Kai's constant energy or talk him into relaxing. Because I think Kai'ichi could learn to appreciate quieter moments, but it's going to take someone strong mentally (and maybe physically) to get Kai to sit his butt down.

For his relationships specific to characters in Clover Kingdom, the distance between Clover and Hino is a huge challenge. I believe the two countries would be able to establish contact after the final arc, but it's not like Kai'ichi can drop by whenever he feels like it. It'd either take a long journey or powerful magic to get him there in a shorter time span. Kai'ichi would do his best to believe that his connections in Clover wouldn't forget him but he would have a little anxiety about missing out on things in their lives. I'm not sure what sort of solution there'd be for this issue except finding really loyal people to call his friends in Clover.

And when Kai'ichi develops feelings for Ezio, oh man will he be conflicted. Because it was always Kai's dream to become a member of the Ryuzen Seven like his mother. But he wants to live in Clover with Ezio. His childhood dream or his new dream? Which is he going to choose?

[kammartinez]

By Lesley Chamberlain

The horror of a functioning democracy turning into a brutal dictatorship in a single month is etched into the German psyche. While Nazism claimed millions of victims at home and abroad, it also disfigured the national literary fabric. No biographer, critic or historian of the outstandingly creative 1920s and 1930s can ignore the moment when Hitler’s party, the NSDAP, tore apart the culture of the permissive Weimar Republic by targeting Jews, homosexuals, communists and “degenerate” expressionists. Writers and artists confronted a nightmare, with beatings in the street and storm troops at the door. For the 500 or so who eventually fled, the question was how long to hang on; where to go; how to survive. The panic strained families and ripped lovers apart. Personal loyalties were not always steadfast.

Uwe Wittstock, a prizewinning journalist whose late mother was two years old in 1933, suggests that while we struggle to grasp the catastrophe now, it was all the more unimaginable to its contemporary victims. February 1933: The Winter of Literature revisits moments in those well-documented lives by way of diaries, letters and public events. The personal routines, giddy socializing and creative obsessions belong to some of the best-known names in German culture of the last century, from the monumental novelist Thomas Mann and his brilliant, provocative adult children Erika and Klaus to the communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, the fabulous jazz-age composer Kurt Weill, who was Brecht’s collaborator, and the unforgettable satirical painters Otto Dix and George Grosz.

That transformative February Mann loftily decried his intellectual enemies as “hideous, violent little creatures”. His “Avowal of Socialism” (1922) had made him an enemy of the new regime. Yet he waged a curious battle in his last days in Germany, with his attachment to the high cultural past prompting persistent equivocations. Brecht, meanwhile, had recently written an “instructional play” – one of several such Lehrstücke for revolutionaries – which also made him radically unacceptable. In Erfurt the premiere of Die Maßnahme (The Measures Taken) was prevented by the police. Brecht demanded a bodyguard as he considered ways of escape.

The Nazis targeted not only individuals, but also the democratic institutions they served. Heinrich Mann, Thomas’s brother, fellow novelist and a staunch supporter of the Republic, was eased out of the Prussian Academy of Arts in what struck everyone as a scandal. Fellow academicians, ashamed, found themselves powerless to object. He was a huge name on the literary scene, thanks to Der Untertan and, Professor Unrat, soon to be filmed with Marlene Dietrich as The Blue Angel. Yet so vulnerable was his position that the French ambassador offered him his embassy should he need refuge.

But it is on figures less familiar outside Germany, such as the writer Else Lasker-Schüler, the left-wing editor Carl von Ossietzky and the anarchist poet and playwright Erich Mühsam, that the perverted age extracted particularly brutal revenge. Lasker-Schüler, born in 1869, aged sixty-three in January 1933, was occupying a tiny room in a Berlin hotel when Hitler was elected chancellor. “For a couple of years she [had been] the undisputed queen of Berlin’s bohemian society, boyishly slight, her black hair cut noticeably short, garbed mostly in baggy clothes and velvet jackets with glass-bead necklaces, clattering bangles and rings on every finger.” As Hitler began targeting every aspect of German life, her play Arthur Aronymus was blocked. It had won a coveted award, as the Nazi rag the Völkischer Beobachter fumed: “The daughter of a Bedouin sheikh receives the Kleist Prize!”. As if her clothes were not enough, her latest play featured conflicts between Jews and Christians. The avant-garde director Gustav Hartung was already in trouble with the NSDAP in Darmstadt over plans to produce Brecht’s Saint Joan. To put on the Lasker-Schüler play in Berlin seemed just too provocative. The author, knocked to the ground in her hotel foyer, bit her tongue so hard that she needed stitches.

Ossietzky, meanwhile, as editor of Die Weltbühne (“The World Stage”), the sharpest political and social weekly of the Weimar Republic, had already served two years in prison for decrying German military violations of the Versailles treaty. As the “winter of literature” closed in his friends begged him to flee, but this brave man insisted he would stay “to watch history unfold”.

On February 17 Mühsam rushed to the pub where Ossietzky was speaking that evening and spread the newspaper out on the table. Henceforth Reichsminister Hermann Goering was permitting the police to shoot to kill. “We will probably never see one another again”, Ossietzky responded, but “let us promise … to remain true to ourselves and to stand up with our body and our lives for what we have believed in and fought for”. Meanwhile, on February 18 the disruptive Brownshirts of the SA, Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, broke up the premiere of Kurt Weill’s musical The Silver Lake. Weill, the genius who had set Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera to music, was Jewish. The playwright Georg Kaiser was not – indeed, he was only vaguely leftist – but the Nazis went after him nonetheless. Wittstock doesn’t make the point, but it was a reflection of how politically powerful theatre had been in Germany since the time of the French Revolution that it represented such a threat. Overall, the Nazis feared “Bolshevization” – and their fear of socialist radicalism and artistic modernism stirring up Germany in the Soviet wake was in many ways well founded. The German Communist Party (KPD) would win eighty-one seats in the March 5 election (though its mandates would be annulled three days later). The Nazis especially hated the Jewish Mühsam for his involvement in the briefly established Soviet Bavarian Republic of 1918.

Ossietzky and Mühsam were both arrested in Berlin on February 28, the night after the Reichstag fire, together with the Czechoslovak Communist journalist Egon Erwin Kisch. Kisch, eventually released after ten days because of his foreign passport, witnessed abominable tortures administered to homosexual men at police headquarters. Mühsam held out, but died in a concentration camp in 1934. Ossietzky survived a while longer. The Nobel peace prize for 1935, organized by the future West German president Willy Brandt and awarded to Ossietzky the following year, recognized the courage of his spirit, but his body gave out shortly after the publicity that brought his release.

Throughout that February of 1933, blacklists of every kind grew longer. At her provocative Pfeffermühle (“Pepper Mill”) show in Munich, Erika Mann spotted three sombre figures in the audience taking notes on myriad sexual transgressions and political innuendo. Sex was always an issue for the Nazis (despite the culture minister Joseph Goebbels’s own secret adventures) and cabaret, particularly in Berlin, was an easy target.

Wittstock’s present-tense chronicle is packed with detail, from the crowd that formed a human pyramid so that someone could hand Hitler a rose at his window to the first book-burning in Dresden on March 8. As orgies of destruction spread across the country, university students lined up to pronounce “fire verdicts” on chosen works. “I consign to the flames…”, they chanted, naming Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, essays by the country’s foremost drama critic, Alfred Kerr, and anything by Ossietzky and his outstanding predecessor, the journalist and poet Kurt Tucholsky. Wittstock was mindful of the Capitol riots of January 2021 as he researched his book. He knows that history can repeat itself.

Each of Wittstock’s thirty-five days ends with brief newspaper reports of violent incidents around the country – including news of two brave souls who cut the cable during the broadcast of a Hitler speech – and there is a glossary of what happened to the main characters subsequently. My only criticism is that all this detail doesn’t actually build tension on the page. This reader had to work hard to bring the drama together.

Florian Illies has a more engaging – indeed, at times sensational – style. In Love in a Time of Hate the time span is ten years rather than one month, but many of the characters are the same, shown here in intensely private moments of their suddenly besieged lives. Like Wittstock, Illies immerses us in a stream of gossip (exchanged not least at the Romanisches Café in Berlin), and political rumour, in love affairs past and present, somehow carried on amid great personal achievements and terrible folly. There is a Freudian element and no little writerly brilliance in the way Illies implicitly asks: what did these people mean by love? The question lies at the heart of this racy catalogue raisonée of private passions.

Illies’s entries range beyond Germany to include the outrageous Black dancer Josephine Baker, the cold-hearted young Jean-Paul Sartre and his tortured new partner, Simone de Beauvoir, the Berlin-based fugitives from the Bolshevik Revolution Vladimir Nabokov and his wife, Véra, Picasso and his serial mistresses, and the surrealist painter Salvador Dalí and his devoted Gala (once the wife of the poet Paul Éluard, and still occasionally to be found in his bed). The catalogue of love affairs includes the extravagant bisexual adventures of Marlene Dietrich in America and even the infidelities of Charlie Chaplin, while Christopher Isherwood and Henry Miller look for extreme sex in Berlin and Paris respectively. All these characters and their antics belong to the same era as Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science, established in Berlin to clear up, on a wave of post-Freudian enthusiasm, any problems with inhibition and malfunction. This, then, was Europe in love.

Key figures in Illies’s German story are once again Klaus and Erika Mann, their choices homosexual and occasionally incestuous. The serial heterosexual loves of their uncle Heinrich also feature, though it’s his poor taste in women that upsets the family when they reunite in exile. (The erratic behaviour of his alcoholic wife, Nelly Kröger, he tries to blame on a fall.) Well known but worth repeating is the record-breaking callousness of Brecht as anti-lover of the decade. Unlike the novelist Hermann Hesse, who only left his bride to honeymoon alone, Brecht left his actual wedding to the actress Helene Weigel to spend the evening with his mistress. “Here you have someone on whom you can’t rely”, he told each new conquest, perhaps believing that exculpated him. Illies has some astonishing vignettes, all related, like Wittstock, in the present tense. One was the moment when Baker was bowled over by the modernist architect Le Corbusier. Soon they were dressing up as each other, an erotic encounter culminating in the shower, with Josephine washing the black make-up off Corb’s white skin. Another was the plight of Thea Sternheim, whose ex-husband, the playwright Carl, was raving with tertiary syphilis while Klaus Mann introduced their untameable daughter Mopsa to cocaine. Thea rented adjacent flats to house her loved ones. But then Pamela Wedekind, daughter of the playwright Frank, former lover of Erika Mann and now fiancée of the dying Carl, moved in too. Thea, distraught, begged for opiate injections from her ex’s carer.

If this was the age of “the New Objectivity” in Germany, it was also, in Erich Kästner’s variation on the theme, the age of Reasonable Romance. It seems to have been a value-free erotic zone stretching from Munich to Berlin, Vienna to Paris. Its actors had little concern for politics, except when it spoilt the fun. Nightclubs and foreign travel, great villas built on some of Europe’s most beautiful coasts: such were the backdrops to their realized dreams. When numerous leading intellectuals were forced to bed down for a short idyllic summer beside the Mediterranean, it didn’t seem like the Hitler emergency at all. When the Mann family held court at Sanary-sur-Mer from June to September 1933, Aldous Huxley and Sybille Bedford, as well as the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in his mansion on the cliffs, were their near neighbours.

Only the expressionist poet Gottfried Benn complained, in a letter to Klaus Mann: “Do you think history is particularly active in French seaside resorts?”. This is an odd question, because it sounds as if Benn had really had too much of Marxist-inclined German writers occupying the moral high ground. But it does have some critical force, helping to pinpoint two European ways of being culturally modern – a New Man, a New Woman – in the early twentieth century. You could be a ruthless communist theoretician. Or you could be a sun-worshipping, god-building, car-driving, sex-crazed, drug-addled individualist.

Or, indeed, you could be Benn, a practising doctor and brilliant poet who, back in a Berlin he would never leave, was setting a new standard for the merciless “objective” coldness of the age. “Life is the building of bridges over rivers that seep away” seems like decent enough German pessimism; “Love is a crisis of the organs of touch” is simply cruel. Benn still attracted a steady stream of women, one of whom, invited for a drink to his flat for the first time, felt that, dressed in his medical white coat, he was going to dissect her with surgical instruments. Was it Benn’s coldness that led him to invest emotionally in the Nazi vision of a new civilization? His fellow writers tried to dissuade him from advancing his uncongenial views, as if they didn’t really take him seriously. The Nazis left him alone because they didn’t want the support of an expressionist degenerate. When his muse returned he wrote some of the greatest poems of the century.

In his novel Mephisto Klaus Mann had based the main character on Gustaf Gründgens, the former husband of his lesbian sister. The three made a foursome, on occasion, with Pamela Wedekind. Illies’s book is full of such permutations, as if all the sexual taboos dictated by culture had vanished in a new age. Many of the heterosexual Weimar-era men believed that their creativity depended on pain, violence and new conquest, at whatever cost to their discarded partners. Neither of these books analyses the extremes it chronicles, but one remembers the strange and ambivalent role played by sexuality in Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (originally drafted in 1944), where the culture of Reason, now apparently reaching its apotheosis in Hitler, was somehow the product of rechannelled sexual aggression. A kind of sexuality hitherto underground had become a new extreme cultural and political force.

So what of love, in the end? Some of the most moving stories here concern children and pets. When sex was out of the way everyone behaved better. Ex-spouses helped each other in extremis. Wittstock has the marvellous story of how Brecht and Helene Weigel had their daughter, Barbara, smuggled out of Augsburg with the help of a German nanny and an Englishwoman living in Vienna. Irene Grant, with her four-year-old son on her passport, crossed the border and brought Barbara, two and a half, dressed as a boy, to her parents. (My own husband had a similar escape six years later.) The singer Lotte Lenya had divorced Kurt Weill, but then he helped her to escape Germany and eventually they got back together. Other friends made sure that Weill was reunited in exile with his dog. Back in Berlin, much worry went into not abandoning Gründgens’s sheepdog, Haari.

They were all enemies of Nazism, certainly. But what kind of politics, what kind of society, would have best suited this licentious, aesthetic-minded generation, with its gigantic artistic talents and potential for deep moral waywardness? Presumably, our ultra-liberal own. Perhaps that’s why Illies remains so reserved in his moral judgements, finding the antisemitic vamp Alma Mahler pretty nasty, but only the Hitler-loving film-maker Leni Riefenstahl (“there was a strong streak of elitism to her nymphomania”) “diabolical”. He’s rather lenient, to this reviewer’s mind, and rather hard on Thomas Mann’s “noun-heavy moralizing”. I would have liked to hear him call Brecht not only a great artist, but also a pernicious moral fraud. Illies engages with some relish in his tale, where Wittstock, two generations older, is outraged and sad. In m

aking these observations, though, I may be the product of a staider generation. So let me conclude by saying that, for all the compelling studies on the Weimar Republic, no one will want to miss either of these well-translated books on Weimar writers and Weimar in love.

[seiwas]

SEL SEL!! I am here to ask come cute emoji writer ask of course!! Also brought you some snackies ☺️🍿🍩✨

But for the writer questions I offer these!

🌿🎀💌

But omg don’t worry if you’ve answered this or don’t feel comfortable!!!

HOPE YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL REST OF YOUR DAY LOVELY!!! 💖

ERIKA ERIKA!!! ohmgeawdh a salty and sweet combo 😳 how did you knowww!!! i love snacking on salty sweet things!!! 🫣 thank u so much, i am patting the space beside me so u can sit 😌

🌿 how does creating make you feel?

omg sometimes i get rlly nervous ngl! am i able to give justice to certain characterisations? am i writing this uniquely enough? is it boring? did i do enough research? things like that! sometimes i think i’m a bit critical of myself! so i try to remember that i create bc i enjoy it!! (which i do!!) and that it’s ok to just have fun w it however i want 🥹 (which is why i started writing blurbs too!)

🎀 give yourself a compliment about your own writing

i already answered this here but hmm… i guess i can say my writing focuses a lot on internal thoughts and feelings? more on the unspoken than anything!! (dialogue is not my forte tho 😭)

💌 share something with us about an up-and-coming work (WIP) that has you excited!

already answered here for a bakugo and choso thing, and here for an iwa thing! (idt i have anything on gojo rn 🥹 am taking a break writing him for the rest of the year!)

send me an emoji from this fic writer ask game!

[richardcassidy]

Between Earth & Sky from Andrew Nadkarni on Vimeo.

Renowned ecologist Nalini Nadkarni studies "what grows back” after a disturbance in the rainforest canopy. After surviving a life-threatening fall from a tree, she must turn her research question onto herself to explore the effects of disturbance and recovery throughout her own life.

betweenearthandsky.com _____

a film by ANDREW NADKARNI   featuring NALINI NADKARNI   produced by SWETHA REGUNATHAN KATIE SCHILLER   executive producers CAITLIN MAE BURKE SU KIM   edited by PETER ZACHWIEJA   directors of photography JOE VAN EECKHOUT DEREK KNOWLES   original score SARI MELLAFE   associate producers MEGAN MASSEY DEVIN TUSA PETER ZACHWIEJA _____

additional cinematography KATELYN REBELO ANDREW HINTON   assistant editors JORDAN TULLIS REBECCA SCHWARTZ   additional footage provided by MERETE MUELLER   additionally featured KEYLOR MUÑOZ ELIZONDO INDIRA KULKARNI AMY McDERMOTT   business affairs DEVIN TUSA   clearance consultant ADAM LAWRENCE   graphic design MEGAN ROJEK _____   produced in association with AMERICAN DOCUMENTARY | POV Shorts   executive producers for American Documentary | POV Shorts OPAL H. BENNETT ERIKA DILDAY CHRIS WHITE   produced in association with IF/THEN SHORTS | FIELD OF VISION   consulting producer | IF/Then Shorts MERRILL STERRITT   coordinator | IF/Then Shorts CHRISTINE CHUNG _____   post production services CUTTERS STUDIOS   president & managing director | cutters studios CRAIG DUNCAN   managing director & executive producer | cutters CAITLIN GRADY   additional editing | cutters REBECCA SCHWARTZ   senior producer | cutters JAYSON RAMOS   executive producer | post-production ELIZABETH KRAJEWSKI _____   managing director | another country TIM KONN   executive producer | another country LOUISE RIDER   sound designer & mixer | another country JORDAN STALLING   associate sound designer & mixer | another country LOGAN VINES

producer | another country JOSH HUNICUTT _____   managing director | flavor NEAL COHEN   executive producer | flavor KATE SMITH   flame artist | flavor MOISES TAVERA   resource manager | flavor JULIE KLOS _____   color ASSEMBLY   supervising colorist MARÍA CARRETERO   colorist JOSÉ FONT   producer | assembly VERONICA WEBB _____   co-produced by IT DOESN'T SUCK PRODUCTIONS   impact support provided by THE REDFORD CENTER JILL TIDMAN HEATHER FIPPS ARATHI GOVIND CAIT FITZWATER NICO CADENA   production support provided by BRIC TV KUYE H. YOUNGBLOOD CHARLIE HOXIE SRIYANKA RAY   additional production funding provided by MOUNTAINFILM _____   special thanks to the family JACK LONGINO AUGUST LONGINO NATALIE VANDEVEN RIKKI NADKARNI LONGINO   special thanks to the family BOB DEUTSCH ELLEN DEUTSCH PAULA DEUTSCH THELMA DEUTSCH AMAL FALLAH SUSHA FALLAH SAROJ GHOTING MOHAN NADKARNI VINAY NADKARNI   special thanks EMILY BEST ELLA CHRISTIANSEN MARK DUPLASS DOUG FABRIZIO JESSICA FITZMORRIS DAISY FRIEDMAN PAUL GABRIELSEN JO GENNETT LORENA LOURENÇO RANDY MacLOWRY KHAULA MALIK CRISTY MEINERS KELSIE MOORE SKYLAR NIELSEN MALIKKAH ROLLINS ZEV ROSE BROOKE ROSS SUSAN SCHILLER KIRA SIMON-KENNEDY REENA SHAH KATRIN SPIRIDONOVA TRACY HEATHER STRAIN _____   location & access support MONTEVERDE CLOUD FOREST BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE MONTEVERDE INSTITUTE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY - COLLEGE OF FORESTRY STARKER CAPSTONE WORKSHOP THE MOBILE MOON CO-OP UNIVERSITY OF UTAH _____   archival materials   "Climbing a Tree" produced by Elaine Clark & Doug Fabrizio cinematography by Nathan C. Balli provided by RadioWest   "Nalini Nadkarni | Tapestry Thinking: Weaving Together the Unexpected" provided by TEDxSaltLakeCity   "Not My Job: We Quiz Tree Canopy Expert Nalini Nadkarni On Canapés" Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! provided by NPR   "Fallen: A Transdisciplinary Tale of Disturbance and Recovery" provided by Society of Critical Care Medicine   "Rain Forest: Heroes of the High Frontier" provided by National Geographic   "The Second Voyage of the Mimi" provided by Bank Street College of Education   "Between Earth and Sky: Our Intimate Connections to Trees" provided by University of California Press _____   The filmmaking team would like to acknowledge that this documentary was filmed on the unceded territory of the Quinault, Rama, Eastern Shoshone, Chepenefa Peoples, who have stewarded this land throughout the generations.

We thank them for their strength and resilience in protecting this land, and aspire to uphold our responsibilities according to their example. _____

If you were affected by sexual violence, you are not alone.

NATIONAL SEXUAL ASSAULT HOTLINE 800.656.HOPE online.rainn.org 

The National Sexual Assault Hotline is operated by RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization. _____   "Between Earth & Sky" won the 2021 IF/Then x The Redford Center Nature Access Pitch at DOC NYC 2021.

This film was produced by By the Creek Productions, which is solely responsible for its content.   © 2023 By the Creek Productions LLC All Rights Reserved ___

betweenearthandsky.com/resources

[ayeon0307]

DES302 Blog#1 Reflection

12nd September (Tue)

Now that the grades for my Blog #1 submission for Design 302 are in, I'll do some self-reflection.

Firstly, the overall comments were about tagging and navigation, and I was judged to need more creativity. However, after discussing this with Nick, we decided that more advanced tagging and navigation were unlikely to be possible due to the technical limitations of Tumblr. Therefore, I was able to get extra points from them.

-> New comments from Nick, Thank you :D

So, I looked for ways to improve on the 'Creativity' section, where I lost points.

-> Lost point from Creativity criteria

Firstly, I had the opportunity to read and analyse the blog of Wayne, a student on the same course who had an interesting blog in which he was critical and pessimistic of himself and questioned himself. I found it most interesting how he reflected on himself by quoting his partner or various people's comments and reflections.

-> Wayne's Blog (1)

The second blog I analysed was my partner Erika's blog, which is also a blog where she asks herself questions and comes up with her own answers. What I found most interesting about her blog was the overall design and the colour of the fonts. She chose to use yellow for the title font to set it apart from other body writing and make it more accessible.

-> Erika's Blog (2)

Finally, I analysed the blog posts of Brit, a designer who writes a blog called Brit dot Design(2023). One of her most interesting posts, 'Nouveau finds for autumn', felt like she was speaking to her audience on a friendly level - it felt like a natural tea-time conversation, and I felt like I am there with her.

-> Brit's Blog (3)

By analysing the blogs of three designers, I set the creative direction for my own blog.

Firstly, I will ask myself questions and have a conversation with my audience. My blog is more report-like than other bloggers, so I want to make the process of asking myself questions and answering them conversational with my readers.

Second is the emotional and entertainment factor. Similar to the first point, to develop the boring part of my blog like a report, I will talk about my momentary feelings and include stories or personal stories that I found interesting while working on the project so that I don't get bored when reading long posts.

And last, use different colours. Currently, the writing on my blog is all black, but I would like to use the colours of my project theme to make my blog more enjoyable for my readers.

This reflection and development of my blog will make my posts more enjoyable for myself and my readers.

Reference

(1) Wayne Poon. (2023). Week 6: Pen at Work. Akvan's Workshop. https://sites.google.com/view/waynepoon/projects/uoa_work/year_3/des_302_blog?authuser=0#h.hmk2hfmmb735

(2) Erika Mortera. (2023). Reflection on Myself and my Project. EM Design. https://emor928-design.tumblr.com/post/726762037511962624/180823-week-5

(3) Brit Arnesen. (2022). NOUVEAU FINDS FOR FALL. Brit dot Design. https://www.britdotdesign.com/post/nouveau-finds-for-fall

[kamreadsandrecs]

By Lesley Chamberlain

The horror of a functioning democracy turning into a brutal dictatorship in a single month is etched into the German psyche. While Nazism claimed millions of victims at home and abroad, it also disfigured the national literary fabric. No biographer, critic or historian of the outstandingly creative 1920s and 1930s can ignore the moment when Hitler’s party, the NSDAP, tore apart the culture of the permissive Weimar Republic by targeting Jews, homosexuals, communists and “degenerate” expressionists. Writers and artists confronted a nightmare, with beatings in the street and storm troops at the door. For the 500 or so who eventually fled, the question was how long to hang on; where to go; how to survive. The panic strained families and ripped lovers apart. Personal loyalties were not always steadfast.

Uwe Wittstock, a prizewinning journalist whose late mother was two years old in 1933, suggests that while we struggle to grasp the catastrophe now, it was all the more unimaginable to its contemporary victims. February 1933: The Winter of Literature revisits moments in those well-documented lives by way of diaries, letters and public events. The personal routines, giddy socializing and creative obsessions belong to some of the best-known names in German culture of the last century, from the monumental novelist Thomas Mann and his brilliant, provocative adult children Erika and Klaus to the communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, the fabulous jazz-age composer Kurt Weill, who was Brecht’s collaborator, and the unforgettable satirical painters Otto Dix and George Grosz.

That transformative February Mann loftily decried his intellectual enemies as “hideous, violent little creatures”. His “Avowal of Socialism” (1922) had made him an enemy of the new regime. Yet he waged a curious battle in his last days in Germany, with his attachment to the high cultural past prompting persistent equivocations. Brecht, meanwhile, had recently written an “instructional play” – one of several such Lehrstücke for revolutionaries – which also made him radically unacceptable. In Erfurt the premiere of Die Maßnahme (The Measures Taken) was prevented by the police. Brecht demanded a bodyguard as he considered ways of escape.

The Nazis targeted not only individuals, but also the democratic institutions they served. Heinrich Mann, Thomas’s brother, fellow novelist and a staunch supporter of the Republic, was eased out of the Prussian Academy of Arts in what struck everyone as a scandal. Fellow academicians, ashamed, found themselves powerless to object. He was a huge name on the literary scene, thanks to Der Untertan and, Professor Unrat, soon to be filmed with Marlene Dietrich as The Blue Angel. Yet so vulnerable was his position that the French ambassador offered him his embassy should he need refuge.

But it is on figures less familiar outside Germany, such as the writer Else Lasker-Schüler, the left-wing editor Carl von Ossietzky and the anarchist poet and playwright Erich Mühsam, that the perverted age extracted particularly brutal revenge. Lasker-Schüler, born in 1869, aged sixty-three in January 1933, was occupying a tiny room in a Berlin hotel when Hitler was elected chancellor. “For a couple of years she [had been] the undisputed queen of Berlin’s bohemian society, boyishly slight, her black hair cut noticeably short, garbed mostly in baggy clothes and velvet jackets with glass-bead necklaces, clattering bangles and rings on every finger.” As Hitler began targeting every aspect of German life, her play Arthur Aronymus was blocked. It had won a coveted award, as the Nazi rag the Völkischer Beobachter fumed: “The daughter of a Bedouin sheikh receives the Kleist Prize!”. As if her clothes were not enough, her latest play featured conflicts between Jews and Christians. The avant-garde director Gustav Hartung was already in trouble with the NSDAP in Darmstadt over plans to produce Brecht’s Saint Joan. To put on the Lasker-Schüler play in Berlin seemed just too provocative. The author, knocked to the ground in her hotel foyer, bit her tongue so hard that she needed stitches.

Ossietzky, meanwhile, as editor of Die Weltbühne (“The World Stage”), the sharpest political and social weekly of the Weimar Republic, had already served two years in prison for decrying German military violations of the Versailles treaty. As the “winter of literature” closed in his friends begged him to flee, but this brave man insisted he would stay “to watch history unfold”.

On February 17 Mühsam rushed to the pub where Ossietzky was speaking that evening and spread the newspaper out on the table. Henceforth Reichsminister Hermann Goering was permitting the police to shoot to kill. “We will probably never see one another again”, Ossietzky responded, but “let us promise … to remain true to ourselves and to stand up with our body and our lives for what we have believed in and fought for”. Meanwhile, on February 18 the disruptive Brownshirts of the SA, Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, broke up the premiere of Kurt Weill’s musical The Silver Lake. Weill, the genius who had set Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera to music, was Jewish. The playwright Georg Kaiser was not – indeed, he was only vaguely leftist – but the Nazis went after him nonetheless. Wittstock doesn’t make the point, but it was a reflection of how politically powerful theatre had been in Germany since the time of the French Revolution that it represented such a threat. Overall, the Nazis feared “Bolshevization” – and their fear of socialist radicalism and artistic modernism stirring up Germany in the Soviet wake was in many ways well founded. The German Communist Party (KPD) would win eighty-one seats in the March 5 election (though its mandates would be annulled three days later). The Nazis especially hated the Jewish Mühsam for his involvement in the briefly established Soviet Bavarian Republic of 1918.

Ossietzky and Mühsam were both arrested in Berlin on February 28, the night after the Reichstag fire, together with the Czechoslovak Communist journalist Egon Erwin Kisch. Kisch, eventually released after ten days because of his foreign passport, witnessed abominable tortures administered to homosexual men at police headquarters. Mühsam held out, but died in a concentration camp in 1934. Ossietzky survived a while longer. The Nobel peace prize for 1935, organized by the future West German president Willy Brandt and awarded to Ossietzky the following year, recognized the courage of his spirit, but his body gave out shortly after the publicity that brought his release.

Throughout that February of 1933, blacklists of every kind grew longer. At her provocative Pfeffermühle (“Pepper Mill”) show in Munich, Erika Mann spotted three sombre figures in the audience taking notes on myriad sexual transgressions and political innuendo. Sex was always an issue for the Nazis (despite the culture minister Joseph Goebbels’s own secret adventures) and cabaret, particularly in Berlin, was an easy target.

Wittstock’s present-tense chronicle is packed with detail, from the crowd that formed a human pyramid so that someone could hand Hitler a rose at his window to the first book-burning in Dresden on March 8. As orgies of destruction spread across the country, university students lined up to pronounce “fire verdicts” on chosen works. “I consign to the flames…”, they chanted, naming Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, essays by the country’s foremost drama critic, Alfred Kerr, and anything by Ossietzky and his outstanding predecessor, the journalist and poet Kurt Tucholsky. Wittstock was mindful of the Capitol riots of January 2021 as he researched his book. He knows that history can repeat itself.

Each of Wittstock’s thirty-five days ends with brief newspaper reports of violent incidents around the country – including news of two brave souls who cut the cable during the broadcast of a Hitler speech – and there is a glossary of what happened to the main characters subsequently. My only criticism is that all this detail doesn’t actually build tension on the page. This reader had to work hard to bring the drama together.

Florian Illies has a more engaging – indeed, at times sensational – style. In Love in a Time of Hate the time span is ten years rather than one month, but many of the characters are the same, shown here in intensely private moments of their suddenly besieged lives. Like Wittstock, Illies immerses us in a stream of gossip (exchanged not least at the Romanisches Café in Berlin), and political rumour, in love affairs past and present, somehow carried on amid great personal achievements and terrible folly. There is a Freudian element and no little writerly brilliance in the way Illies implicitly asks: what did these people mean by love? The question lies at the heart of this racy catalogue raisonée of private passions.

Illies’s entries range beyond Germany to include the outrageous Black dancer Josephine Baker, the cold-hearted young Jean-Paul Sartre and his tortured new partner, Simone de Beauvoir, the Berlin-based fugitives from the Bolshevik Revolution Vladimir Nabokov and his wife, Véra, Picasso and his serial mistresses, and the surrealist painter Salvador Dalí and his devoted Gala (once the wife of the poet Paul Éluard, and still occasionally to be found in his bed). The catalogue of love affairs includes the extravagant bisexual adventures of Marlene Dietrich in America and even the infidelities of Charlie Chaplin, while Christopher Isherwood and Henry Miller look for extreme sex in Berlin and Paris respectively. All these characters and their antics belong to the same era as Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science, established in Berlin to clear up, on a wave of post-Freudian enthusiasm, any problems with inhibition and malfunction. This, then, was Europe in love.

Key figures in Illies’s German story are once again Klaus and Erika Mann, their choices homosexual and occasionally incestuous. The serial heterosexual loves of their uncle Heinrich also feature, though it’s his poor taste in women that upsets the family when they reunite in exile. (The erratic behaviour of his alcoholic wife, Nelly Kröger, he tries to blame on a fall.) Well known but worth repeating is the record-breaking callousness of Brecht as anti-lover of the decade. Unlike the novelist Hermann Hesse, who only left his bride to honeymoon alone, Brecht left his actual wedding to the actress Helene Weigel to spend the evening with his mistress. “Here you have someone on whom you can’t rely”, he told each new conquest, perhaps believing that exculpated him. Illies has some astonishing vignettes, all related, like Wittstock, in the present tense. One was the moment when Baker was bowled over by the modernist architect Le Corbusier. Soon they were dressing up as each other, an erotic encounter culminating in the shower, with Josephine washing the black make-up off Corb’s white skin. Another was the plight of Thea Sternheim, whose ex-husband, the playwright Carl, was raving with tertiary syphilis while Klaus Mann introduced their untameable daughter Mopsa to cocaine. Thea rented adjacent flats to house her loved ones. But then Pamela Wedekind, daughter of the playwright Frank, former lover of Erika Mann and now fiancée of the dying Carl, moved in too. Thea, distraught, begged for opiate injections from her ex’s carer.

If this was the age of “the New Objectivity” in Germany, it was also, in Erich Kästner’s variation on the theme, the age of Reasonable Romance. It seems to have been a value-free erotic zone stretching from Munich to Berlin, Vienna to Paris. Its actors had little concern for politics, except when it spoilt the fun. Nightclubs and foreign travel, great villas built on some of Europe’s most beautiful coasts: such were the backdrops to their realized dreams. When numerous leading intellectuals were forced to bed down for a short idyllic summer beside the Mediterranean, it didn’t seem like the Hitler emergency at all. When the Mann family held court at Sanary-sur-Mer from June to September 1933, Aldous Huxley and Sybille Bedford, as well as the German writer Lion Feuchtwanger in his mansion on the cliffs, were their near neighbours.

Only the expressionist poet Gottfried Benn complained, in a letter to Klaus Mann: “Do you think history is particularly active in French seaside resorts?”. This is an odd question, because it sounds as if Benn had really had too much of Marxist-inclined German writers occupying the moral high ground. But it does have some critical force, helping to pinpoint two European ways of being culturally modern – a New Man, a New Woman – in the early twentieth century. You could be a ruthless communist theoretician. Or you could be a sun-worshipping, god-building, car-driving, sex-crazed, drug-addled individualist.

Or, indeed, you could be Benn, a practising doctor and brilliant poet who, back in a Berlin he would never leave, was setting a new standard for the merciless “objective” coldness of the age. “Life is the building of bridges over rivers that seep away” seems like decent enough German pessimism; “Love is a crisis of the organs of touch” is simply cruel. Benn still attracted a steady stream of women, one of whom, invited for a drink to his flat for the first time, felt that, dressed in his medical white coat, he was going to dissect her with surgical instruments. Was it Benn’s coldness that led him to invest emotionally in the Nazi vision of a new civilization? His fellow writers tried to dissuade him from advancing his uncongenial views, as if they didn’t really take him seriously. The Nazis left him alone because they didn’t want the support of an expressionist degenerate. When his muse returned he wrote some of the greatest poems of the century.

In his novel Mephisto Klaus Mann had based the main character on Gustaf Gründgens, the former husband of his lesbian sister. The three made a foursome, on occasion, with Pamela Wedekind. Illies’s book is full of such permutations, as if all the sexual taboos dictated by culture had vanished in a new age. Many of the heterosexual Weimar-era men believed that their creativity depended on pain, violence and new conquest, at whatever cost to their discarded partners. Neither of these books analyses the extremes it chronicles, but one remembers the strange and ambivalent role played by sexuality in Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (originally drafted in 1944), where the culture of Reason, now apparently reaching its apotheosis in Hitler, was somehow the product of rechannelled sexual aggression. A kind of sexuality hitherto underground had become a new extreme cultural and political force.

So what of love, in the end? Some of the most moving stories here concern children and pets. When sex was out of the way everyone behaved better. Ex-spouses helped each other in extremis. Wittstock has the marvellous story of how Brecht and Helene Weigel had their daughter, Barbara, smuggled out of Augsburg with the help of a German nanny and an Englishwoman living in Vienna. Irene Grant, with her four-year-old son on her passport, crossed the border and brought Barbara, two and a half, dressed as a boy, to her parents. (My own husband had a similar escape six years later.) The singer Lotte Lenya had divorced Kurt Weill, but then he helped her to escape Germany and eventually they got back together. Other friends made sure that Weill was reunited in exile with his dog. Back in Berlin, much worry went into not abandoning Gründgens’s sheepdog, Haari.

They were all enemies of Nazism, certainly. But what kind of politics, what kind of society, would have best suited this licentious, aesthetic-minded generation, with its gigantic artistic talents and potential for deep moral waywardness? Presumably, our ultra-liberal own. Perhaps that’s why Illies remains so reserved in his moral judgements, finding the antisemitic vamp Alma Mahler pretty nasty, but only the Hitler-loving film-maker Leni Riefenstahl (“there was a strong streak of elitism to her nymphomania”) “diabolical”. He’s rather lenient, to this reviewer’s mind, and rather hard on Thomas Mann’s “noun-heavy moralizing”. I would have liked to hear him call Brecht not only a great artist, but also a pernicious moral fraud. Illies engages with some relish in his tale, where Wittstock, two generations older, is outraged and sad. In m

aking these observations, though, I may be the product of a staider generation. So let me conclude by saying that, for all the compelling studies on the Weimar Republic, no one will want to miss either of these well-translated books on Weimar writers and Weimar in love.