#i know it was more common to be illiterate then but you’re a whole lord my dude

[aniallhation]

i’m borros i’m the literal lord of storms end and i never fuckin learned how to read

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I read a past answer that you gave on the greatness of Shakespeare and I admit it was an almost convincing argument - if he had written his own plays. But now we’re supposed to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the death of Moliere? Why? I don’t see why the French are making a big deal about Moliere. I would have kept quiet about it. Like Shakespeare he was an imposter who didn’t write his own plays, and the reason he was so popular was because he was best friends with Louis XIV who backed Moliere financially. He has nothing to say about us today (nothing about gender or race or social justice). I don’t understand why the French venerate him.

I don’t even know where to begin in answering all this. So let me try unpack some of the questions I think you’re asking when you’re not being a tad rude to Molière. Good manners are a prerequisite to civilised conversation. There’s no point winning an argument if you fail to win over the person first.

Let’s get the authorial question out of the way first because it is - frankly speaking - ignorant. Anyone who believes this nonsense even after looking at the whole evidence is just confirming just how intellectually illiterate they really are.

You may be be aware - and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do - that one of the more persistent prejudices has been did Molière write his own Molière repertoire? The criticism has been that Molière did not write his work, which was attributed to others, in particular Pierre Corneille. This is the thesis of the poet Pierre Louÿs in articles in Comœdia published in 1919 - in two articles entitled respectively Corneille est-il l'auteur d'Amphitryon ? and L'imposteur de Corneille et le Tartuffe de Molière. He claimed that Molière was just the pen name for Corneille. In this Louÿes was parroting the ideas of Abel Lefranc, an established scholar on Rabelais,

LeFranc, for some reason also believed William Stanley, 6th earl of Derby was the true author of the Shakespearian plays in his largely forgotten work, Sous le masque de William Shakespeare: William Stanley, Vie comte de Derby (2 vol., 1918). Lefranc in turn was parroting the exact same ideas as James Greenstreet first spouted this outlandish theory in the 1890s.

So let’s get this ‘Shakespeare never wrote his own plays’ trope out of the way first because as a Shakespearian lover I can’t just let it slide as the yanks say. And who knows I may even educate some who reads this to put this tired parlour game to bed. The same for Molière. I hope in doing so I can also kill two birds with one stone.

The case for William Stanley (Derby) as Shakespeare rests primarily on two 1599 documents, one describing him as “busied only in penning comedies for the common players,” and the other, by his wife in a letter to Sir Robert Cecil, as “taking delight in the players.” It is worth pausing to note that Derby’s wife was Elizabeth Vere Stanley, Countess of Derby and Lord of Mann (1575–1627), the eldest daughter of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford - the other candidate to have been the real author behind Shakespeare’s plays - the so-called Oxford School.

This documented evidence, that Oxford’s own son-in-law was one of the closeted aristocratic playwrights of the period, serves, as some critics have suggested, to confirm how secretive much literary activity associated with the theatre remained. Despite the two letters which record his theatrical activities, no public documents of any sort acknowledge that Derby was a closeted playwright.

But no one, not even Shakespearean conspiracists, seriously consider Derby as the real author. there is the inconvenient fact that Derby (like Francis Bacon, anther candidate as the real Shakespeare) lived far too long - until 1642 - to fit with the known chronology of the author’s career. Did Derby just fall unaccountably silent for the last 30 years of his life? That’s almost the last 38 years, more than 80% of his adult life, if one considers the sudden drop-off in new Shakespearean publications after 1604.

The most persistent and popularised theory is of course that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, was the true author and Will was just a front man. This is the so-called Oxford School.

It is established beyond doubt that Edward De Vere did have literary ability. Edward wrote and published a considerable number of poems and a good amount of prose under his own name. Having studied Edward De Vere, I believe that Edward De Vere was genuinely proud of his poems since he defended these quite violently when other aristocrats mocked or criticised them. In all honesty, I think his poems and prose are good and make enjoyable reading. But I would also concede that they do not match the soaring brilliance of Shakespeare. So why would Edward De Vere publish “good” literature under his own name, with great pride, and yet conceal the fact that he was writing plays of unrivalled brilliance?

Here I am not alone, computer experts have performed “stylometric” analysis. They have fed all the known prose and poetic writings of Edward de Vere and all the plays and poems of William Shakespeare into a computer, and looked for similarities, There are absolutely no crossovers whatsoever.

Everything that we know of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, is that he was a real shit. Alan Nelson’s 2003 meticulous biography called him a ‘monstrous adversary’. Edward was a proud, arrogant, self-centred man, convinced of his own greatness, who became angry if criticised in any way. He frequently challenged people to duels, killing some of his opponents: had he not been an Earl, and well-connected, he might have been hanged for murder. He got his own retainers to beat up, even kill servants of those he did not like.

Are we to believe that the proud, arrogant, self-obsessed, self-seeking Edward De Vere would have been likely to conceal the fact that he was writing plays of unrivaled brilliance? And why would he spend twenty years writing plays, expend all that time and energy to produce these great works of literature, then take elaborate measures to conceal the fact that he was writing them?

In the sixteenth century, England was an incredibly class-conscious society. Edward De Vere was an Earl, the heir to the longest line of Earls in England. He would have expected 99% of the population, even many of his fellow aristocrats, to defer to him. If the self-aggrandising, aristocratic Edward De Vere spent twenty years of his life writing plays, wouldn’t you have expected him to show the plays to his fellow aristocrats to prove what a brilliant writer he was, rather than conceal them as the work of a mere plebian glover’s son, a mere commoner, a person, whom Edward De Vere would probably have considered it beneath his dignity to speak to?

Would Edward De Vere, an Earl, give all these plays, his life’s work, to William Shakespeare, a mere commoner, somebody who, by the protocols of the time, could not even have been called an “esquire” or even a “gentleman”, and silently stand by for over ten years, letting William Shakespeare receive all the plaudits, praise, and adulation for writing these plays?

Edward De Vere was a patron of other writers. He was a leading sponsor of John Lyly (c.1553–1606): Lyly dedicated some of his books to Edward. Edward De Vere was related to Arthur Golding (1536–1606), the poet and translator: Edward De Vere did much to advance Golding’s career. One of Golding’s great achievements was his translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, which Shakespeare used as source material. Well, if Edward De Vere was so close to these literary figures, wouldn’t you think he might have discussed his plays with them, or that they might have suspected that he was writing these plays?

Edward De Vere was a patron of the dramatist Robert Greene (1558–1592), who wrote several popular plays: one, entitled Gwydonius, was dedicated to Edward. But, nowadays, Robert Greene is best known to history because he wrote a vitriolic attack on Shakespeare, calling Shakespeare an “Upstart Crow”, complaining that Shakespeare’s plays were not really all that good, and did not deserve the popularity they had attracted, because they were full of “gimmicks” and lacked true literary quality. Robert Greene said that Shakespeare was just an actor, and actors had no business to write plays. Yet if Robert Greene was familiar with Edward De Vere, might Robert Greene have known that it was really Edward De Vere who was writing the plays? And if Edward De Vere wrote these plays, by attacking the author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare, Robert Greene was rather “biting the hand that fed him”!

Yet, for all Edward De Vere’s involvement in the literary world of Elizabethan (and early Jacobean) England, there is no record or mention that Edward De Vere and William Shakespeare were in any way acquainted with each other, or that they ever met. There is a large amount of source material for William Shakespeare's life, all of which has been subjected to the most minute analysis. Yet not one single historical source suggests that William Shakespeare ever met Edward De Vere, or that the two of them even once shared even the remotest connection. I find that this is especially puzzling if Edward De Vere was really writing Shakespeare’s plays.

Shakespeare belonged to a theatrical company called “The Lord Chamberlain’s Men”, and it is established that The Lord Chamberlains Man performed many of Shakespeare’s plays. Yet there is no record that Edward De Vere was even remotely connected with any of the people in “The Lord Chamberlain’s Men”. Instead, Edward De Vere financed a group of players called “Oxford’s Men” or “The Earl of Oxford’s Men”.

If Edward De Vere was writing plays, and he wanted to conceal his identity by pretending that somebody else was writing them, wouldn’t he have been more likely to pass them off as the work of one of the actors from “Oxford’s Men”, his own theatrical company, rather than that of somebody with whom he had no connection whatsoever?

Surely, if Edward De Vere was really writing Shakespeare’s plays, wouldn’t you have expected his own personal troupe of actors to perform some of the Shakespeare plays? But while the activities of Oxford’s Men are well documented, there is no record that they ever performed a Shakespeare play.

This brings me on to another point: Edward De Vere would have been on familiar terms with Queen Elizabeth I, He married Anne Cecil, the daughter of William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, who was Elizabeth’s chief minister. He was related to many of the other leading aristocrats of the day. He officiated at the coronation of Elizabeth’s successor, King James I. Edward De Vere must have been on speaking terms with all “the great and the good” of Elizabethan and early Jacobean England. And none of these people were even remotely aware that Edward De Vere was writing all these incredible plays?

Edward De Vere died in 1604, leaving an 11-year-old son, Henry, who held the title of 18th Earl of Oxford until his death in 1625, aged 32. Well, wouldn’t Edward De Vere’s son have known that his father was writing Shakespeare’s plays? Wouldn’t Henry De Vere, Edward's own son, have mentioned this fact, just once in his lifetime?

Henry De Vere had no children, so the title of Earl Of Oxford passed to a distant cousin, Robert De Vere, who became 19th Earl of Oxford, leaving a son, Aubrey De Vere, the 20th and last Earl of Oxford, who died in 1702. Thus, for 98 years after Edward De Vere’s death, the De Vere family was still playing a role in English (and foreign) affairs. Wouldn’t just one member of the De Vere family have just once mentioned that it was really their kinsman who wrote these plays? Wouldn’t one of them have once made just one faint protest that William Shakespeare had stolen the De Vere family’s rightful claim to fame?

William Shakespeare died in 1616. To ensure that his genius survived, in 1623 some admirers produced what is now known as “The First Folio” giving the full text of 36 of his plays. More importantly, 18 of these plays, practically half of Shakespeare’s known work, were first published in “The First Folio”. The “First Folio” includes a long introduction by some of Shakespeare’s admirers, constantly praising his brilliance. It even features Shakespeare’s woodcut engraving.

The “First Folio” is, more than anything else, THE work that ensured that these incomparable plays would be preserved for posterity and that Shakespeare would come to be regarded as the world’s greatest playwright.

Well, the “First Folio” is dedicated to Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, who was married to Edward De Vere’s daughter, Susan. So are we to believe that Edward De Vere’s own daughter and his son-in-law, members of the very elite of English aristocratic society, would allow themselves to be implicated in a fraudulent attempt to attribute Edward De Vere’s literary genius to William Shakespeare, a mere commoner, and never once quibble or protest about this?

Not only that, but Ben Jonson (1572–1637) the poet and dramatist, (a candidate for England’s second-best playwright) was personally acquainted with William Shakespeare. There are stories that Jonson and Shakespeare conducted a “friendly rivalry” in which they subjected each other to what might be termed “affectionate sarcasm”. Yet for all their supposed differences, after Shakespeare’s death, Ben Jonson collaborated in producing the First Folio, writing a poem praising Shakespeare’s genius at the start of the book. I find it hard to believe that, if Shakespeare was not really writing the plays, but was only acting as a “front” for Edward De Vere, that Ben Jonson, the second-best playwright of the age, never suspected this.

So, not only did Edward De Vere conceal the fact that he was writing these fantastic plays while he was alive. But, after his death, there was a comprehensive effort, backed by the leading writers of the age, and Edward De Vere’s own family, to mislead the whole world, by publishing all the plays in a book that attributed the authorship to a total imposter, while not even alluding to the true creator of the plays? Again, if Edward De Vere had really written the plays, would not one person who was involved in producing the First Folio have even suspected this? Would not just one person have made just the faintest protest that they were giving the glory to the wrong person?

There was a historian, author, and pioneer archaeologist called John Aubrey, who lived between 1626 and 1697. John Aubrey compiled a work, now called “Brief Lives”, which was a collection of biographies of famous contemporary or near-contemporary people. Aubrey’s Brief Lives includes information about both Edward De Vere and William Shakespeare (as well as Ben Jonson). Now, Edward De Vere and William Shakespeare both died before John Aubrey was born. But John Aubrey sought out old people who knew, or whose parents or grandparents had known, Edward De Vere and William Shakespeare. People who have studied Edward De Vere and William Shakespeare think that Aubrey’s Brief Lives is the very last “oral” record, the very last source of “first-hand information” about these two people. Yet not only does John Aubrey never even vaguely suggest that Edward De Vere wrote Shakespeare’s plays; John Aubrey also seems to have been fully convinced that William Shakespeare had written these plays.

If Edward De Vere had really written William Shakespeare’s plays, it seems wholly incredible to me, that, during the whole of the Elizabethan and Jacobean era, not one single member of the De Vere family, or the literary establishment, or the political elite, or the court circles in which the Earls of Oxford moved, or that one of the hundreds and thousands of manuscript sources that have survived from the Elizabethan era, or that one of the hundreds of books that were printed during the Elizabethan era, or any of Edward De Vere’s literary friends, or any of Edward De Vere’s many enemies, or even Edward De Vere himself, never once made even the vaguest murmur that all the glory of writing an entire body of literature that ranks among the highest achievements of humanity had been completely and unjustly attributed to the son of a glover from Stratford Upon Avon.

Our reasons for believing that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays published under his name are the same type as the reasons for believing that any other Elizabethan author wrote the works ascribed to him; indeed, as I've said many times before, the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship is more extensive than the comparable evidence for the great majority of Elizabethan authors, especially playwrights. If you insist on disbelieving in Shakespeare's authorship, fine, but then you'll have to also disbelieve in the authorship of most other Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, if you're going to be consistent.

And why Oxford? Why not other candidates who could have authored Shakespeare plays? Even I could also make a damn good case for the Earl of Essex or Marlowe. And of course, the "evidence" for Bacon has long been presented by Baconians, even though most Oxfordians seem unaware of its extent. In fact, many Oxfordians seem to be under the impression that Oxford stands alone as an alternative to Shakespeare, when actually he's a relatively weak member of a rather large pack of potential "candidates". Oxford's candidacy is so widespread for essentially political reasons: an English schoolteacher just happened to latch on to Oxford rather than somebody else 80 years ago (based on a poem that Oxford probably didn't write), and the Oxfordians found some elements of Oxford's biography that they could construct into a romantic version of the person they thought should have written Shakespeare's plays.

Bah! Humbug! As my grandfather would say.

The whole question of Shakespeare authorship, much like the Molière question is about proper scholarship, or the lack thereof. I am dismissive of Derbyites, Oxfordians, Baconians, or even Marlovians (Marlowe lovers) because in all their respective cases they almost entirely make their argument solely on the internal evidence from the plays, when orthodox scholars have often used evidence from the plays to speculate on such aspects of Shakespeare's life as the Lost Years. The difference - and it is a big fucking deal - is that orthodox scholars do not use such speculation as evidence as to who wrote the plays; rather, they use it to supplement and flesh out the external evidence, all of which indicates that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the author. The contrarians on the other hand,, treat such internal reconstructions as primary "evidence" (despite their inherent subjectivity), simply rationalising away all the considerable external evidence when it does not agree with their impressions of who the author must have been.

In his book, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? James Shapiro, the Larry Miller Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, traced the history of the authorship question. Interestingly, he noted that by the early 1980s the Oxfordian theory was largely moribund. It was revived partly through the ceaseless efforts of Charlton Ogburn (a more capable soldier than he was a scholar).

It also received a great deal of media exposure through two mock trials, one before American Supreme Court Justices William Brennan, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens and one before three British judges, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Templeman and Lord Ackner.  Oxford lost both cases, but the trials gave the theory media attention and legitimacy, especially since both Blackmun and Stevens showed some sympathy for the Oxfordian cause, although, since the burden of proof was on the Oxfordians, they did not feel enough evidence for his authorship had been presented.  Stevens has subsequently  decided that Oxford did indeed write the plays. Certain elements of the Oxford theory are unlikely to be generally compelling except to those who are fond of conspiracy theories, but these elements tend to be missing or downplayed when the theory is mooted in the popular media mainstream.

The idea that Shakespeare was too ill-educated to write the plays is arrogant elitism in my view - intellectual masturbation of so-called higher minds. The idea that Shakespeare’s experience and personality do not match his writings is denying that writers imagine and inhabit characters very different from their own - it’s called fiction. The fact that Oxford died before a significant number of the plays was apparently written is difficult if not laughable to explain. And it is far easier to imagine middle class Shakespeare observing courtly manners than it is imagining Oxford learning about the fauna and flora of the Forest of Arden.

It is also true that Shakespeare probably did not go to Oxford or Cambridge, but then, neither did a number of other playwrights of the time, including some, like Ben Jonson, who were more classically-inclined than Shakespeare.  We have no documentary evidence that Shakespeare attended grammar school, but that is because enrolment records from the King’s New School in Stratford do not survive. Because Shakespeare’s father John was an alderman and later High Bailiff, his son would have been eligible to attend the school for free.

According to Shapiro, “Scholars have exhaustively reconstructed the curriculum in Elizabethan grammar schools and have shown that what Shakespeare…would have learned there…was roughly equivalent to a university degree today, with a better facility in Latin than that of a typical classics major”.

Either way you look at it it’s both a condemnation of our current woeful education system and our hubris of how superior we think modern education is compared to the past. I say let’s give King’s New School its due for the quality of its education in the 16th century and Shakespeare for his creative skills.

I digress. Back to Molière.

In more recent years this literary paternity has had the gloss of ‘scientific’ verification by the academic Dominique Labbé who, on the basis of computer processing of the texts, established it was indeed it was Cornielle was the real author of Molière’s plays in his book ‘Corneille dans l'ombre de Molière’ (2003). The argument he makes in his own book is that 16 of Molière's plays are in fact by Corneille's hand. But, like Shakespeare, the most recent textual analysis work confirms, using methods from stylometry, that Molière's plays and Corneille's were written by two different authors.

Other fanciful studies see Molière as the nominee of Louis XIV himself. This is the thesis of the canon and astronomer Georges Lemaître, which he sets out in Une Paire de Molière(s) (2013), in which he attempts to demonstrate that 'Molière is a double star', around which the Sun King, the author, according to him, of almost half of his plays, particularly the first ones, gravitates.

Again, like Shakespeare, people disregard the historical method of scrutinising the external evidence over the subjective internal evidence from within the plays. I also think people are not using their common sense to think properly about historical context. At a time when the performance of plays generally preceded their publication - which depended on their success on stage - when intellectual property and copyright were not yet guaranteed by law It is understandable that Molière, primarily an actor and troupe leader, took little care in publishing his comedies, which he only signed at a later date without having managed to compile them into complete works.

Nevertheless, the way in which he fought, from the Précieuses ridicules onwards, against pirate editions and counterfeits of his works, as well as against the extent of the profits amassed on some of his plays, do not allow us to doubt the authorship of his repertoire.

Molière's statements, in the preamble to the publication of some of his works, affirming the primacy of performance over printing, are more a matter of posture than of real conviction. Thus, the Avis au lecteur (Notice to the reader) of L'Amour médecin, published one year after its creation in 1666, states: "Everyone knows that comedies are made to be performed, and I advise reading this one only to people who have eyes to discover in reading all the play of the theatre”. And while it is likely that Louis XIV did suggest the addition of the hunter's scene to Les Fâcheux - after its premiere at Fouquet's castle in Vaux-Le-Vicomte in 1661 according to Molière - this does not make him the secret writer of all or even part of his work.

Was Molière privileged writer favoured by King Louis XIV? Yes, of course he was but were they bosom buddies? I think not.

Molière's prominent position at court from the 1660s onwards, as well as his position as the king's upholsterer, inspired the idea of a poet-courtesan, a favourite of the king, with whom he was supposed to maintain a close relationship. The fact that Louis XIV was the godfather of his first son, Louis Poquelin, lends credence to this ill-founded conception. This benevolence, according to legend, earned him both the king's privacies and the enmity of the domestic staff and the court, who were jealous of such familiarity outside of all protocol.

This trope crystallises around a dramatic scene of political fiction, that of the famous 'dinner' between Molière and Louis XIV. This iconic dinner was set up by Louis XIV himself, who ostensibly invited Molière, the in-vogue man of the theatre, to his table in order to make up for the insult he had received from the king’s valets by refusing to eat with him.

According to this account, which inspired several famous paintings, the two men shared a chicken leg, served by the king himself, in front of the astonished eyes of the eminent members of the court, who would then have shown him all the respect required by his rank. This political vision of Molière as a friend of kings was taken up by many subsequent monarchs in office, first and foremost Louis-Philippe I, who was anxious to include the line of the Dukes of Orléans, the youngest branch of the French monarchy, in the prestigious heritage of the legitimate branch of Louis the Great.

However we know this dinner never happened. Royal court protocol formally forbade a comedian, an infamous profession in the Church, to sit at the table of a king. The meal, like all the ritualised moments of court life, was taken in public. It was governed by dozens of articles from various regulations inherited from Henry III.

It’s clear that it was a scene of pure invention which nevertheless has inspired the great historical paintings of famous artists such as Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres with Molière à la table de Louis XIV (1857), Jean-Léon Gérôme with Louis XIV and Molière (1862), Jean Hégésippe Vetter with Molière reçu par Louis XIV, scène de fiction (Salon of 1864) or Jean-François Garneray with Molière honoré par Louis XIV (1824).

At the Grand Couvert, however, only the royal family is invited, and at the Petit Couvert, the king dines alone in his room, served by the officers of the Bouche.

This legend was inspired, during the 19th century, by a confusion over the prerogatives of Poquelin's position as upholsterer and valet, which was certainly part of the chamber service, but it did not make him a valet in the service of the monarch. It is amplified by a fantasy based on the figure of the jester or the king's fool. This rather Shakespearean vision alters the understanding of the relationship between the pensioned artist and the prince who commissioned him, which is part of the very strict framework of royal patronage.

The numerous eulogies of the king that punctuate the prologues, interludes and epilogues of Molière's plays, not to mention the prefaces and dedications of the printed versions, particularly in the comédies-ballets resulting from royal commissions, are less a spontaneous tribute to a friendly and personal relationship than an exercise in style imposed by the rules of patronage, which require artists to show their gratitude to their protector, especially when they benefit from a pension and the privileged status of a royal troupe, as was the case for Molière from 1665 onwards.

The written compliment to the sovereign in the prefaces of Molière’s works was in accordance to the established practice and codes from which the writer could not deviate. This is not to say that Louis XIV and Molière were kindred spirits who shared values and beliefs of gallantry and worldly pleasures within a libertine culture that was in vogue the court. Louis XIV's practical support for Molière, during the controversial  theatre run of of L'École des femmes from 1662, especially Tartuffe, between 1664 and 1669, and Dom Juan, in 1665, was real. It was all the more admirable because the monarch never disowned his artist, even though it did put Louis into hot water with the austere authority of the Catholic Church.

I would also agree with you that Molière was a populist writer, up to a point. But can you hold it against him or even Shakespeare that he became so popular amongst the masses because they could recognise something of themselves in his plays? Molière did something different - he made his plays popular at the royal court.

Such was the universal appeal of Molière across society that many easily believed that its author, Molière, was close to the working classes. Observers tend to latch onto his manservant, Lafôret.  The French poet and critic, Boileau, is credited with creating the striking image of a writer testing the humour of his plays by reciting them to his maid in the first reading, cutting out the passages she disapproved of. Some accounts even suggest that this wise servant was invited to the literary dinners that the playwright organised in his house in Auteuil.

The iconic value of such a scene inspired, in the following centuries, plays such as Le Souper d'Auteuil (1795) by Charles-Louis Cadet-Gassicourt, Le Ménage de Molière (1822) by Jean-Marie Alexandre Justin-Guensoul and Jean-Aimé-Nicolas Naudet, La Servante de Molière (1867) by Maurice Millot or Molière à Auteuil (1876) by Emile Blémont. This vision of servants sharing the creative secrets of the genius, immortalised by Émile-Jean-Horace Vernet in the painting Molière consultant sa servante (1819), was taken up and amplified by Romantic and socialist writers throughout the 19th century, and then by militant leftist artists during the 20th century, who were quick to outline a Marxist reading of Molière's comedies.

The truth is that Molière, coming from a bourgeois background, lived comfortably, and lead a career in direct contact with the social elite, the literary salons, and the aristocratic circles of the court. But he wasn’t remote from every day grind of life either. He was after all born in the Halles district, with the Pont-Neuf next door. It was the liveliest district in Paris. So he met the water carriers, the workers in the printing workshops, and so on. He had his ear to the ground in a manner of speaking.

Molière was not a populist writer in this context. If his work can be considered a true human comedy, by virtue of the social diversity of his characters, there is nothing in his values or in his way of life to suggest a particular sensitivity to the people.

This received idea of the benevolent master, who listens to his servants, is reinforced by another stereotype, that of the "love of humanity" advocated by Dom Juan, who is wrongly presented as the author's spokesman character in the famous scene of the poor man in Peter's Feast or the Atheist struck down (1665). It inspired the painter Édouard-Henri Pingret to paint Molière faisan l'aumône (1834). The blasphemous dimension of the line is interpreted, at the cost of a misinterpretation, as a proof of charity and deference towards the poor on the part of a man of the theatre who is presented as being concerned with the subsistence and respect of the people. It does not stand up to a reading of the work, which remains relatively conventional in terms of the relationships between masters and servants, unlike the theatre of his successors such as Marivaux and Beaumarchais.

I know critics carp, as they do with Shakespeare, that Molière was a modern invention of the 19th Century. Partly true but hardly the point. For his works still stand the test of time. He’s not responsible for how different generations have seen him or shaped him. It was the 19th century that made Molière a romantic hero and especially the second half of the 19th century that made Molière the national hero, the one who would carry the French spirit. France was licking its wounds after the humiliation of defeat at Sedan by Prussia, which was itself in raising the flag of German nationalism with the unification of Germany. France stood politically and militarily defeated and so it sought solace in its cultural domination throughout Europe as a response to national chauvinism being seen in both England and Germany.

It’s no wonder in Molière that France found both its hero and herald. Molière was seen as the heir to the Gallic tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, to this rebellious and uniquely French spirit of populist resistance. Within Molière’s comedies the foibles of society could be laid bare and even addressed. It was the bourgeois elites that got the most stick on stage.

In Molière’s time it was the Church and the aristocracy that he mocked and their codes, customs, and hypocritical behaviour with the middle classes laughing in the stalls. By the 19th Century it was the the caricatures of the ruling haute bourgeois and the professional classes - taking the place of the church and the aristocracy - that was mocked on stage but with now with the masses looking in and laughing at their social masters.

Molière remains one of the most widely performed authors in France. So how does one explain the longevity of his success if there wasn’t an element of greatness to his works?

One obvious answer is that Molière's comedic power was truly exceptional. A comic power that no other French author of comedies has ever had, and with a continuity in the reception - of Molière's comedy - that hasn’t changed. In other words his comedy, despite the changing times and customs, has not lost their power or meaning down the ages to our current generation.

The second reason is that the very subject of his plays, i.e. the fact that Molière stages contemporary characters in order to satirise their behaviour and values, has an echo in all eras. Because satirising the behaviour of pedants, snobs, and especially people who want to convert everyone around them, concerns every period. At the same time, it gives the impression of touching the depth of human nature. So all eras can recognise themselves in Molière's plays.  

Molière is still contemporary and his work still resonates with us through his characters: Tartuffe, Harpagon, le malade imaginaire…all are the creation of timeless and universal archetypes.

In the case of Tartuffe, for example, originally it was a question of making fun of what were called zealous people, i.e. people with a zealous conception of religion, with the will to impose their religious ideas in his time. Religious zealotry was obviously talked about and seen with some concern wether in the salons or in the wider society. So by playing on this, by satirising devotion and devotees, Molière is obviously putting into a humorous perspective a way of making fun of a certain type of character, a certain type of values. And in the same way as in The School for Wives, he mocks certain values that come from the Catholic religion, there too, in particular marriage as the Catholic religion conceives it, that is to say, a conception that comes from Saint Paul, with the man presented as the heart and the centre of the household, and the wife who owes absolute obedience to her husband.

Obviously the place of religion has fallen away in society but doesn’t mean other extremely rigid forms of beliefs demanding our conformity haven’t taken the place of religion. An explosion of ‘isms’ have taken the place of formalised religion - rationalism, scientism, socialism, Communism, feminism, secularism, religious fundamentalism, and more recently, woke-ism. Much of Molière’s comedies and the characters therein can be seen through the prism of his plays.

You might think Molière has nothing to say to us today then you would be sorely wrong as I have shown. I wonder what Molière would have made of our woke culture of weaponising language and compassion (race and social justice) and censoring those who took issue with its core ideas?

"To make someone’s weakness a laughing-stock is to deal them a mighty blow. People easily endure criticism, but they cannot endure mockery. People are happy to be seen as wicked, but not ridiculous." These are the words of Molière, and I think that is worthy to stand alongside anything that Shakespeare or Sophocles may have written. He used these words to defend his controversial play “Le Tartuffe”, a biting satire which attacked the hypocrisy and weaknesses of so many in Molière’s day. Almost immediately after its performance before Louis XIV, it was banned due to the perceived attack on religion. As Molière explained at the time, it was not an attack on the Church, but on hypocrites and impostors who use religion to their own selfish ends. Whatever ‘ism’ is in the ascendency and however idealistic or laudatory (as they see it) human nature doesn’t change.

Thanks for your question.

[e350tb]

The Owl House: A Blight on Gravesfield (Chapter Two)

Two

Luz wakes up.

So, ten Puritans walk into Connecticut. Sounds like the start of a joke, doesn’t it?

To be fair, ‘Puritans’ might not be the right word here. Most of them were, certainly, like Goodfaith Smathers, and the excellently named The-Lord-Shall-Damn-Ye-Sinners Marlowe, who seems to have insisted on his full name being used in all conversation. But then there’s the pair we’ll be talking about today, Philip and John Wittelsbane.

You’ve all seen the statue, I’m sure, but nearly all the ‘common knowledge’ about them is actually false.

See, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the Wittlesbanes were big on the whole ‘family history’ thing, but not so much on the whole ‘truth telling’ thing. The story that John Wittelsbane personally chose the site of Gravesfield, and that he personally converted a local Pequot village to Christianity? There’s no evidence of that, and indeed it seems very unlikely, because John was sixteen at the time, and Smathers was the real leader of the exhibition.

Of course, Smathers died in the Pequot War, and The-Lord-Shall-Blah-Blah-Blah Marlowe went out from smallpox in 1639. The others were illiterate, so most of the records of early Gravesfield come from the Wittelsbanes. So it’s very easy for their family to pretend they were more important than they actually were.

Now, in 1642, something very big happens. It doesn’t happen in America, but it’s effects cross the Atlantic. Can anyone tell me what that is?

The Thirty Years War? Close, that was just about ending at this time. Any other guesses?

That’s right, the English Civil War! Or the War of the Three Kingdoms, as some call it today. To put it simply, you had the Cavaliers supporting the King on one side, and the Roundheads supporting Parliament on the other. It’s a gross oversimplification but it’s all you really need to know for this class.

A sixth of all the men in New England went back to England to fight for Parliament, and most people generally supported the Roundheads. Most people. Do you remember what I said about dissenters? Fascinating people with bizarre names, like Fifth Monarchists and Muggletonians. Some of them were very egalitarian, at least for the time.

It seems the Wittelsbanes got themselves mixed up in a particularly weird form of dissension. In 1645, Philip starts writing a lot about witches - but not in the same way that someone like, for example, Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in England, might have. This wasn’t fear; it was curiosity. He and John began to believe that magic was a gift from Christ.

This was a privately held belief of cause. The war was breeding suspicion in the Puritan populace of Connecticut, and in 1647, something happened in that colony. Something that would set the course for a split between the Wittelsbane brothers that would never be healed.

It was the beginning of the Connecticut Witch Trials.

---------

It was storming in earnest now, the wind shaking the house as the sounds of driving rain pounded on the windows. It was dark enough that Camila had had to turn the lights on, although the artificial light did little to abate the sense of gloom that hung over the house.

They had moved Luz and the other girl into Camila’s bedroom - there was more room to lay them down on the bed. That had been about an hour ago, and Camila was getting more than a little restless. She sat on her chair, facing away from her desk, rapping on the wood with her fingers. Vee paced by the door, looking no less antsy.

“We should call an ambulance,” declared Camila at last.

“What’re we gonna tell them?” asked Vee.

“I… I don’t know,” replied Camila, “But…”

There was a cough.

Camila’s eyes widened as Luz slowly began to sit up, rubbing her head.

“...man, I feel like I got hit by a truck…”

“Luz!”

Camila leapt out of her chair and darted over to her daughter, instinctively pulling her into a hug.

“Cariño, I’m so glad you’re okay,” she said, her voice breaking. “I was so worried! I…”

“M-mom?”

Luz blinked; it seemed like she didn’t know how to process her surroundings. She blinked, and a few tears ran down her cheek.

“Mom!”

She returned the hug, chest heaving. Neither of them moved for some time - there was a sense of unreality, the sudden ability to see each other, to touch each other. For a brief and beautiful moment, nothing else in the world mattered; just them, reunited at last.

Eventually, Camila pulled out of the hug.

“Oh, mija, never scare me like that again,” she sighed.

“Mom, I…”

Luz’s face fell, her eyes widening.

“...wait, where’s Eda?” she asked. “Where’s King? Where’s…”

She looked to her right, her eyes falling on the girl unconscious next to her. She gripped the bedsheets, starting to shake.

“Amity?” she exclaimed. “But… but we’re in the human world! Which means there’s a portal! We’ve gotta get Amity home!”

“Yeah, about that…” said Vee, rubbing the back of her head.

Camila frowned.

“The… portal disappeared,” she said.

Luz swallowed.

“So… we’re stuck?”

“We’re stuck?” The words came out before Camila could stop herself.

Luz’s eyes widened and she shook her head.

“No, no, that’s not… that’s not what I…”

She reached out, seizing Camila’s hands in hers.

“Mami, I don’t want to leave you again, I didn’t - I never wanted to hurt you, I just…”

Camila took a deep breath, closing her eyes.

“Luz,” she said, as evenly as she could, “I think we both need to talk about this.”

Luz bowed her head.

“I know.”

She turned to Amity.

“Is… is Amity okay?” she asked. “I don’t remember her getting hurt.”

“She cast a spell, I think,” replied Camila. “Something about… sharing the pain?”

Luz swallowed, and a few more tears spilled down her cheek.

“Oh Amity,” she said. “You didn’t… you didn’t have to do that for me. You didn’t have to do any of this…”

“Amity?” Vee tilted her head. “Amity Blight?”

Luz turned and nodded.

“Yeah,” she replied. “How do you know… oh yeah, Blight family, duh.”

She turned back to Amity - just in time to see her eyes slowly start to open.

“L… Luz?” she murmured.

“It’s okay, Amity, I’m here,” Luz replied. “We’re gonna figure this out, okay? Just…”

She sighed.

“...it’s just a little complicated.”

 -------

“He really believed in witches from Mars?”

The Gravesfield Historical Society had been closed for the past two weeks; this was the first time somebody who wasn’t a policeman had stepped in since the Jacob Hopkins Incident. But the Society had to keep going, and that meant the museum needed a new curator.

Enter Professor Fabian Stearne.

Stearne was an older man, somewhere between fifty and sixty, and looked every inch the prof. The tweed jacket, the blue shirt (tie roguishly discarded), the purple cardigan and the fire-engine red vans painted the picture of a charming eccentric, not hindered by his half-moon glasses, comb over, and trimmed grey moustache. He was a Gravesfield ‘lifer,’ who had rejected esteemed job offers from Yale and Harvard to head the history department at the small Gravesfield College.

And he’d never wanted to be a curator; if anyone had asked him, he’d tell them he was a researcher, preferring to dig up new theories than present old relics. Yet now there was literally no one else to do the job, so it was up to him.

“I did my PhD with him. Never thought he had that sort of thing in him.”

His assistant, Ben Frakes, was helping him clean the staff room - clearing the mess of weird conspiracy theory paraphernalia to make it a little more professional. Much younger than Stearne, Ben was fairly junior in the history department; he was convening his first course, ‘History and Myth in Gravesfield,’ a small, niche course that he nevertheless enjoyed.

Stearne and Frakes went back many years; Ben’s whole progress from history undergrad to PhD had been done under his watch. The lanky young man, brown haired, clean shaven and with a propensity for leather jackets, owed his career to Stearne, and he was always keen to give back when he could.

If that meant taking doctored photos of ‘owl beasts’ off a wall, then he was happy to do it.

“Yes, it’s a shame what happened to Jacob,” nodded Stearne. “But he’s not the first historian to run afoul of the law. Hopefully, once he’s gotten the help he needs, he can get back on his feet.”

He took the photo from Ben’s hands.

“He’s a clever man,” he said. “Just prone to wild imagination.”

“And animal endangerment?” said Ben, raising an eyebrow.

Stearne chuckled.

“What is a historian without eccentricity?”

“I’m surprised you took this job,” mused Ben, grabbing a box to take out to the trash. “You were always so critical of museums.”

“Well, there are worse ways to spend your twilight years than curating,” shrugged Stearne. “And Mr. Wittelsbane made a very compelling case. The town needs this museum. We can’t lose track of our past.”

Ben chuckled.

“Well, I’m gonna take this out back,” he said. “You need me to carry anything else?”

“No, my boy, not just yet,” replied Stearne.

“Okay, see you when I get back!”

Stearne watched as Ben walked away - as soon as he was gone, he looked down at the photograph, running a hand across it.

“Oh, my dear Jacob, so close and yet so far,” he sighed. “But worry not, worry not.”

He smiled - or perhaps it was more of a smirk.

“Redemption comes for all of us, in the end.”

[zucca101]

Response: The 3rd

Mmm. I'm going to avoid wasting any more of my time and giving you more opportunity to spout your patent nonsense while inviting people to seek me out and harass me from now on, but here goes (hint: if you -actually- didn't want this you wouldn't post it out in public, fucko.)

Sorry but… did you just use the phrase ‘patent nonsense’ in the same sentence as ‘Inviting people to seek me out and harass me’ after not one, but two disclaimers I put BEFORE the thing began, not just urging, but demanding that people NOT seek you out?

I knew the public school system is FUBAR and all, but I didn’t think reading comprehension had suffered *that* much…

Further, you blocked me. What was I supposed to do? I knew you skim this blog so I figured I’d make the rebuttals here while protecting your anonyminity. And considering nobody has guessed so far, I’d say I’m doing a pretty decent job.

Seriously, they think you’re someone else entirely. Someone who I’m on great terms with these days ;P

It's really telling you managed to provide literally no evidence behind your claim that Sargon is somehow left-wing, especially when all his stated views within the past few years fall right into the modern day conservative mainstream.

What do you want me to do? Link you videos you won’t watch or articles you won’t read?

ALL his stated views do not fall on the Conservative side, amigo. Roughly 40% of his political opinion I disagree with. But he’s intellectually honest and someone on the Left who I trust. He defends Liberalism, saying it’s not all SJWs and economic illiterates, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

I also never implied the ACA was perfect, but it's an improvement over the system that was in place beforehand, even if the fact it puts loads of money into insurers' pockets and still leaves tons of people uncovered is a massive problem.

I never said you said that the ACA was perfect. And almost exactly like Net Neutrality, it’s a solution in search of a problem, funded by massive corporations who have managed to fool you and millions others into thinking that monopolizing themselves is in the country’s best interests.

Our Healthcare System is the envy of many.

Out Health Insurance system was pretty meh.

You’ll get you argument from me that it needed improvement. But that was not the way to go about it…

The ACA did not address the problems sufficiently and now it’s fouled things up because it was designed to fail so that things would be pushed towards a Single Payer system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-fail-health-care-insurance-medicine-0911-jm-20160909-story.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/28/obamacare-failure-not-caused-by-trump/

I’m not obfuscating a bloody thing here, friend. It was literally incapable of success.

If you were to actually look up the history of the bill, you could see you can blame the Republicans for that one.

You mean how the Bill was made entirely by the Soros-funded foundations?

Don’t even go there. I was following this thing since it was a twinkle in Obama���s eye.

"I’d love to see citation for that which doesn’t reek of Socialist claptrap." Y'know that part about how you don't want to have your views challenged? Yeah, this is what I was talking about.

I’ve had my views challenged, friend. The challenges always come up short. What I mean to say is that if you can find citation that doesn’t read like it’s appealing to emotion, envy or actively and dangerously disregarding the pitfalls of Socialism’s history, then lay it on me. But I think those criteria effectively nullify the attempt.

"Speaking from second hand experience myself, I’ve had friends and friends of friends who NEVER got real jobs and instead collected food stamps they bartered for room and board." Well, there you go. Second hand experience. You don't know if any of these people actually had any viable career opportunities in the first place, let alone obstacles they weren't open about (at least to you), or if the whole thing just looked too hopeless to bother with in the first place at a given point, as tends to happen once you've been unemployed for a few years - nobody's going to hire you.

Actually I do know. Half of the friends and friends of friends I spoke of had college degrees. The other half were completely able of body and mind. Apart from one being exceptionally lazy. And considering the friends (Save one) confided much in me, I would indeed have known if they had some great hurdles apart from simply not knowing how to adult. That’s not capitalism’s failure. And being fair, that would easily also be socialism’s failure as well. That’s a failure of parenting. And when the Socialist State assumes partial parental responsibilities, they share in the failure.

"And…. And you think COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM will let you art the way you want to?" As a matter of fact yes, because communism or socialism as a concept does not equal what ended up happening in China, the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

What tickles me pink is that you name so many of them. Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela… they all try Socialism tailored to their land, culture and people and every single frakking time, it fails and people die by the literal truckload.

There are some countries that might indeed be Socialist, but their small size permits them to remain so insular. And I could link you plenty of studies that show even those mini Socialist utopias are on downward spirals. Denmark? Heh heh heh… Sure.

The problem with Socialism, and by extension, Nazism and Communism, is that it is anathema to human nature and socio-economic realities.

It ALWAYS sounds great on paper, but when the rubber hits the road, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

PARENTS ARE EATING THEIR CHILDREN IN CHINA.

But that’s not “real socialism/Communism.”

Sure. >_>

You really seem to have a hard time understanding this, so instead riddle me this: how on earth would being guaranteed a living, in and of itself, translate to censorship? (hint: it fucking doesn't.)

Being guaranteed a living so long as you do not create artwork that does not damage the state, lest your artistic license be revoked.

Where have I heard that before….?

Oh right! Those places you named that are TOOOOOOTALLY not Socialist…

"Heh, the one I had in mind at the top of my list when mentioning those hundreds of artists is a very prominent one. He works a daily job, he makes money with his art, and he makes art for its own sake." Cute, but by far most artists can't juggle a schedule like that without it coming at the cost of either of those, or their own mental health.

But… they *do*. That’s what I’m saying. And there are MANY artists who *love* to create for others. Even the great artists of old were paid for their work. Are there unreasonable customers? Absolutely there are! But it’s a huge internet.

"And considering they saved the life of an IRL trans friend of mine, I am STRONGLY disinclined to believe smear stories." One person they got it right with, versus hundreds they left dying on the streets. Hmm.

I’m gonna need some citation on that one, ol’ chum. Not saying you’re full of crap, but…

The official position of TSA is thusly:

Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.

In keeping with these convictions, the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation. The fellowship of Salvation Army worship is open to all sincere seekers of faith in Christ, and membership in The Salvation Army church body is open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline.

Wait, hold it… sorry man, I forgot the reading comprehension thing… I’ll help you out. What it means is that while they strongly disagree with homosexuality (Transsexualism by extension), they don’t turn people away.

The fact that you refer to Islam as "the Death Cult" (lmao) is pretty telling too, tbh. Really shows you don't hate Muslims!

Have you ever cracked open the Quran? Or the Suras? Stop kidding yourself. And I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam. Here’s a religious concept that the majority of Christians are famous for… and I mean REAL Christians, not the strawmen you see in your magical glowbox: ‘Love the Sinner, hate the Sin.’

And considering the fundamental dictates of Islam is to kill or subjugate non-beleivers and… GET THIS… GAY PEOPLE… then my hatred of Islam the ideology is not so difficult to understand.

I mean, I could produce an entire laundry list of examples where Christianity (which you defend as somehow Better™ for LGBT+ folks) has directly lead to death of us, but I may as well talk to a wall.

But you won’t. Because it doesn’t exist. With the exception of Westboro and The Lord’s Army which is in AFRICA (And riddle me this, hypocrite… if #notallmuslims is a thing, then why can the same sentiment not be afforded to Christians? Answer: Because you can reasonably expect to harass and abuse Christians without fear of life-threatening reciprocation. Je suis Charlie Hebdo), outright hostility towards homosexual people is not  common among them. Disagreement? Certainly. Voting in line with that disagreement? Oh yes. State-sanctioned murder?

NO.

Yes. Christianity in general disagrees with homosexuality. There are cases of acceptance and tolerance aplenty and cases of violence as I laid out.

But violence is not the socially acceptable norm.

In Islamic tenants, as reflected by the DAILY MURDER of homosexual people, it is not only socially acceptable, but demanded.

I know this of your dishonest self... Deep down, in your heart of hearts, you would rather live in a Christian neighborhood than an Islamic one if forced to choose.

The thing you keep forgetting is that a religion is characterized by the behavior of its adherents, not what the scripture itself says - scripture of any religion contradicts itself too much to be followed 100% by any person, by definition is subject to interpretation, and that is what counts.

What the Hell do you think I’ve been TALKING about here?!

Alright pal, let’s get down to REALITY…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/the-islamic-states-shocking-war-on-homosexuals/

https://www.advocate.com/world/2016/5/27/12-countries-will-kill-you-being-lgbt

http://www.truthophobes.com/islam-kills-homosexuals

And you and I both know it’s not just ISIS murdering homosexuals.

Does Islam have a problem with homophobia? Sure, but so do so many other religions including Christianity, and in the case of Islam specifically, I simply lack the cultural context to know what I'm doing in order to stop it, so instead resolve to help and listen to people who would know what they're doing in this regard; queer Muslims and queer people of other religions (or none) with cultural ties to Islam.

Yes, but you don’t see Coptic Christians pushing homosexual people off of buildings, beheading or hanging them.

Do you?

And you sure as the sky is blue and black don’t see it here in the states.

A relatively few murders based on sexuality? Yes. But if you’re going to make the argument that the actions of the few do not reflect the whole, then the same MUST also apply to Christians.

Or you are guilty of having double-standards.

And I’d love to hear the perspective of LGBT Muslims who are close enough to these countries to understand the severity and who are bold enough to stick their heads up, but the problem is that Fatwa is declared on them if they do so.

Such as the Muslim man who wished a Happy Easter to his Christian customers and was murdered by other Muslims for it.

And they KNOW it. So they keep their heads down.

THAT is real oppression.

You yourself, and I am as grateful for this as I’m sure in the back of your mind and the depths of your heart, you are as well, have never known true oppression.

Inconvenience? Yes.

Disagreement? Yes.

Your identity being on trial? Yes, that too.

But identifying as LGBT+ in America is not a Death Sentence. And CERTAINLY not from Christianity as a whole.

I don't pay attention to Riley Dennis, but "very prominent" is some pretty big words for someone with 35K subscribers who isn't generally considered worth discussing in the circles I'm in. The fact that you pretty much constantly look for the fringe (and the fact I hadn't heard about her until today implies that you had to be actively looking for this), make a strawman out of that and apply it to everyone who comes off as vaguely leftist to you is, again, pretty telling.

I wasn’t making a strawman. I said that there are Trans people who demand sex from people not interested and the implication, which I apologize for not expanding upon, was that it gives the wrong impression.

You and I both know that such is not the opinion of the majority of Trans people. But regardless, you said literally no one, and I pushed back saying yes, yes there are.

If I had to recommend trans youtubers, try ContraPoints.

I’m more a Blaire White follower, but I’ll check them out.

I'd love to see you explain how anthropogenic global warming isn't real, though.

Didn’t say it wasn’t real. I didn’t even take a stance. I said that anthropological global warming was what’s contested. And frankly, there’s convincing arguments on that side.

The response of BIG names on the other side? Your side? ‘You should go to jail for disagreeing with me.’

Where'd all that extra CO2 over the past two centuries come from, unicorn farts? Magic? Don't bother blaming livestock, you know just as well as I do that those animals wouldn't be here if not for us either.

You’re… You’re bringing up the hockey stick?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/22/how-to-tell-whos-lying-to-you-climate-science-edition

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#5c6f67b153a5

Also dude? People have been appealing to the common need to put a halt to this since the '60s, I don't know what rock you've been living under. If literally your only concern here is money, then honestly this discussion is over, since we clearly operate on completely and utterly irreconcilably different principles, and I may as well be talking to someone from another planet. Sure, the neoliberal take of expecting all the effort to come from civilians is pretty dumb when 78% of our carbon dioxide output comes from commercial and industrial activity, but that doesn't magically make the question itself less urgent.

See above. It’s not just about money.

"“I can’t work because there’s some rich guy out there who has more stuff than I do!!!! HARUMPH!!!!!!!!” Do you hear yourself…?" Again, literally not what I said, but whatever helps you sleep at night. You're really not that great at this whole reading thing, are you? That wasn't even part of the same argument. You proposed that everyone has an equal shot, I counterargue that that is clearly not the case since some people have access to resources that drastically reduce the amount of work needed to attain the same standard of living, sometimes even to zero, and you just get mad and rant about envy politics or whatever. You're not making a lick of sense at this point.

Forgive my harsh phrasing there, but you disregarded the point I made. And in this day and age, a rich person has to work hard to STAY rich, because the money will run out one day. And in so doing, they employ many people who were not otherwise employed.

And let’s define ‘Rich’ for a moment… the business owner whose business makes $1,200,000 net may sound rich, until you take into account employee salary, taxes, business expenses, HOME LIFE on top of that and in many cases, family expenses… suddenly you realize how much of that income no longer remains in-pocket.

And I’ll forgive the economic ignorance, because let’s face it… economics is not sufficiently taught in schools. I legit do not blame you.

"Sorry, sorry… you’re like the fiftieth person whose thrown that at me and it gets cringier every time I hear it… I apologize." Consider the following: maybe those other forty-nine people before me independently made the same observation from the way their own, and the people around them's lives have gone. Get out of your bootstraps dream, by far most people who make minimum wage don't ever climb above making maybe a couple times that at most, and opportunities to achieve even that have gone down in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_Study_of_Income_Dynamics

Now, I contest that just because there are not many policies that promise economic mobility here in the States, that does not mean then that poor economic mobility is absolute. Young adults today still make on average, 60% more than their parents.

Grow up, get rich quick schemes don't work.

Schemes? No.

Entrepreneurs making new things? Yes. Yes they do work.

I also don't know what China you're looking at, but by far most of that rich history, heritage and architecture is still there, and it's not going anywhere - if you actually even marginally kept up with that country, you'd know this.

…

Hahahahha….! Oh God…. Wow… if you only knew…

Ever been there?

No?

Then shut your mouth about things you know nothing about.

Capitalism on the other hand has decimated the cultures of indigenous peoples in three different continents, by far most of their languages today either extinct or barely hanging on; even if that's not enough for you,

Liar. Or mistaken. Either way, WRONG.

Capitalism is not some pernicious bogeyman that sucks the wealth dry from the Noble Natives and delivers it to its masters.

That would be conquest, my friend. And conquest has not needed an excuse, economic or otherwise, to do what it does. Unless you want to talk about the plundering Socialist and Communist countries are guilty of…?

Here’s a little something that may help illuminate how wrong your philosophy is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f6FZGjF8OA

Even elsewhere, it's destroyed so many cultural heirlooms - ancient sites in Mecca, all sorts of old architecture and nature across Europe to make way for homes for the rich, along with the ever ongoing problem of gentrification.

Again, that’s conquest, you poor, brainwashed soul… EVERY time conquest occurs, that shit happens.

You want to talk mountains of corpses? Alright, here's how many people capitalism kills each year: 20 million. Twenty million individual people who die of starvation, poverty, and lack of healthcare access in capitalist nations.

You’ve been full of shit before, but now amigo… gadzooks… this takes the cowpie.

Unless you wanna discuss how the emotion-driven notion to use ethanol corn from impoverished nations to make ethanol which doesn’t actually work as an efficient means of reducing oil dependency (Hybrids are way better) caused millions to starve, sure… let’s open up that can of worms.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419354/corn-ethanol-boondoggle-continues-see-epas-latest-rule-robert-bryce

Al Gore’s corn subsidies have blood on their hands.

Since this is the same way y'all count the death tolls of previous attempts at communism, it's only fair to count these the same way, no? Also, the existence of markets doesn't equal to capitalism.

Perhaps, but they’re called Distribution Centers in Socialist countries. Private ownership is abolished under Socialism.

Both of the peoples you described took care of their sick and less fortunate, people didn't starve unless everyone was. Even the ancient Romans had social welfare in the form of bread being distributed among the entire populace - bakeries at the time were serious business, and there are plenty of historical accounts of harsh punishments following such crimes in the field as fraud.

Is that really what you want? Literal breadli-Ohhhh right, Bernie said it, so it must be golden.

Bernie is a shill and his spouse’s incompetence to run a university ran it into the ground. Birds of a feather and such.

The idea that absolutely everyone has to work for themselves didn't crop up until the Victorian era.

Wrong again, mi amigo.

And I’ve heard that one too.

You know damn well that ending poverty doesn't somehow alleviate humanity of all struggle, people still need to live with each other and that's going to cause friction no matter how utopian society gets.

And Socialism cures this because…..?

Ah, yes, because Socialism on paper says that Socialism will! How silly of me…

Cut the crap with this "virtue of poverty" type nonsense, you also know damn well I meant caring about people's basic welfare as a collective (read: not actively making life worse for others and not acting like people should somehow have to suffer), not thinking about literally every single individual person you don't know.

It's really not hard to just be kind to the world, and it'd save both you and everyone a lot of stress.

And making kindness compulsory under pain of death is the quickest way to ruin it.

I suppose I finally see why you keep accusing me of being filled with righteous indignation, though.

Because you’re addicted to the sensation of moral superiority which makes you feel better than other people as a means of combating some deeply held insecurity that spawned during your developmental years?

Yup.

By the way, consider switching careers; I hear IMAX is hiring these days.

Haha, me? Projecting? I’ve already told you that I leave the judgment of whether or not I’m a decent person to the people that know me. You’re the one that thinks that the line between virtue and evil is as childishly, one-dimensionally, idiotically black and white is a party line.

You’ve said goodbye already, so goodbye!

I hope that your fervor dies down and once you’re done being triggered, we can go back to speaking terms.

‘Till then, consider this the last farewell.

[emthinks]

A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas

Honestly speaking, I feel like I expected too much from this book. I don’t say this to be mean. Far from it: I think it was 100% my fault. I’d just finished Empire of Storms and was desperate to get more of Sarah (especially after having binged all of the currently published ToG in like three weeks) and I’d put all my hopes and dreams onACoTaR. And while this book delivered for the most part, it’s still Book One and I’m not used to a new heroine.

Rating: 9/10

Warning: Throne of Glass spoilers up to (and including) Queen of Shadows

My notes (as condensed from my iPad)

Feyre’s family is shit. They just let her go out to hunt by herself all day and provide for them and chop wood and do all the dirty work and don’t even care about her dirty clothes or worn shoes. You gotta leave girl. They ain’t worth your time

Ooh. Warnings about faeries from mercenary. Not good

Damn Feyre. You skinned this guy’s friend. No wonder he’s pissed

Okay. Live in faerie world. Prythian. You can do that. At least you’ll survive

The Spring Court. Nice. Empty, but nice. Ish.

Hey! Lucien reminds me of Mad Eyed Moody. One eye that swivels around and all.

Okay, Feyre, you need to get one thing into your thick skull: stop trying to plead your case to Tamlin. I hate how she’s so one-track minded and so focused on getting back to her shittyass family. Yes, you made a vow to your mom, but how hard are you going to try to keep it? They’re fine. Stop asking Lucien. Stop.

Oh, are you still not listening? The puca was going to fucking devour you because you wanted to see your father. Jfc. I can’t deal with this right now, Feyre.

And then she goes and catches a Suriel to demand answers. Yay, you’re strong, but seriously, Lucien? You’re just going to let her do this?

And this is why. The gods damned naga are here.

And Tamlin had to save you. Feyre, you’re so useless

Ooh, finally, a lighthearted bit: Tamlin writing limericks to Feyre’s words. Hysterical

And then, in the middle of the night, a faerie comes stumbling in. Torn of his wings. Damn

To counteract that, the next chapter, we go on a picnic with Tamlin and Lucien. And this scene spawns my favorite quote: “He also said you like being brushed, and if I’m a clever girl I might train you with treats.”

And we also go swimming in starlight. Which is always a nice plus

And then it’s Calanmai. Fire Night. Feyre, why don’t you listen for once? There’s a reason Lucien and Tamlin insisted you lock yourself up. Yes, Mr. McHotty saved you (which I totally think is going to come into play later) but seriously. Tamlin was a fucking savage animal

The next party is the Summer Solstice. Which Feyre is apparently allowed to attend

And this just snowballs into a Tamlin/Feyre romance, mushy gooey-eyed shit

Oh wait. No more fluff. Apparently, Mr. McHotty is named Rhysand. And he’s the High Lord of the Night Court. Oh shit

And Tamlin sends her away. What. Feyre, why are you agreeing to this? Feyre, stand up for yourself. Feyre!

Feyre goes back to the mortal world. Where her family is now living in a manor and Elain and her father are happy as happy can be. But Nesta. Nesta remembers. Nesta was the worst, yet Nesta remembers. Nesta is automatically my favorite now

Thankfully, Feyre doesn’t stay long. Clare Beddor. Her family was murdered. Feyre goes back.

And learns the truth: that the blight is not so much a blight as a faerie. The general Amarantha to the King of Hybern. She’s been ruling Prythian for over forty-nine years and has subjected all the High Lords. She wants Tamlin, though, and made a bargain. For all these years, Tamlin has sent his sentries and friends out to get slaughtered by a human girl so she can then fall in love with him. Wow. Sadistic.

So Feyre goes to find this Amarantha. Because it’s all her damn fault that she didn’t say I love you.

Under the Mountain is shit. She’s given three tasks and a riddle. The tasks nearly kill her each time. (Is it just me, or is this very Harry Potter-esque?)

Lucien can’t heal her after the giant worm debacle, so she makes a bargain with Rhysand for her beloved. Thank God, because she can’t read and would’ve been severely fucked for the second task if not for Rhysand’s bond.

The third task broke me. She has to kill three faeries. She gets through one and two – barely – by holding onto the thread of hope that this was for the greater good. And to free Tamlin. And then number three is Tamlin. Because the Tamlin beside Amarantha is the Attor in disguise. Fuck.

Fortunately, Feyre figures out the riddle: Love.

Unfortunately, Feyre is fucked anyways because while Tamlin and the Spring Court are released of their bonds, in the ensuing fight, Feyre – get this – dies

She is then resurrected as Fae by the Seven High Lords. Which. Okay good, because otherwise the story can’t continue

And then they all go home. Happy ever after?

I don’t think so.

“But I gave myself again to that fire, threw myself into it, into him, and let myself burn.” – Feyre

The Characters:

Feyre. Feyre, I must admire. Feyre, unlike most of Sarah’s characters, is not a warrior, but she can hold her own and she will go down swinging. I think Feyre’s strongest skill set is her determination and strength, how she doesn’t back down from a challenge. Unfortunately, this admiration of mine does not stop me from continuously comparing her with Aelin. Which is bad. Because even if they are both the main characters to Sarah’s books, their situations are vastly different. First off, Feyre is a mere peasant and mortal, while Aelin is half-Fae and the rightful Queen of Terrasen. Like, their situations are so far off, and yet, sometimes, I think I forgot that. I forget that Feyre, despite knowing how to hunt, was not trained in the deadly arts of assassination and politics. I forget that Feyre does not know how to charm and scheme her way out of things. And this temporary lapse of confusion, I must admit, is especially common when Feyre was struggling or near death. I was always expecting her to suddenly come up with a plan (especially with the first task and the worm, which actually only served to reinforce that expectation) that during her second task I was wondering how she was going to do this. That’s another thing: Feyre is (basically) illiterate. And Aelin is, obviously, not. And while I love Feyre’s paintings, I kept on waiting for her to learn to read. I nearly wanted to hit her upside the head when she refused Tamlin’s offer to teach her.

Speaking of Tamlin, what do we think of him? All the members of the Spring Court wore masks for the most of the book, so we couldn’t get a good gauge on his appearances. Still, he was pretty enough and he seemed seriously nice. Like, awkwardly nice. It was adorable how Tamlin is like “you look…better than before” and Feyre is wondering if that was a compliment. Lol.

If you could read all my notes/commentary throughout the book about Rhysand, it would literally just be (in chronological order): “ooooh hottie”, “oh wait what he’s a High Lord? Damn. Like Tamlin”, “oh hell no he ain’t like Tamilin at all what a bastard”, “wait he’s fucking Aedion, whore and all. Maybe he’s actually good?”; “wait he actually is! He’s just hiding it really well. Like Aedion”; “and he has a tragic backstory too”; “he’s doing all of this for his people”; “and he actually helped Feyre”; “Rhysand is our friend!”

Alis is another character who reminds me of someone in ToG: Celaena’s servant. Philippa, I think was her name. One of my favorite quotes is for her: “Dead chickens, my sagging ass. All you needed to do was offer it a nice robe.”

Lucien was an asshole. Until he wasn’t. I don’t remember the particular moment he became my favorite character, but it definitely happened at some point. Perhaps around the same time Feyre and Tamlin kept on making gooey eyes at each other and Lucien just couldn’t stand it anymore. Granted, neither could I so I totally feel you bro. He’s like muttering to the Cauldron to spare him and saying he’s trying to eat and just being a great annoying best friend who’s cockblocking you.

Is it just me or does Amarantha remind you a hell lot of the King of Adarlan? Now here is s parallel I can draw to ToG with no regrets. Okay, a lot, but at least she’s dead in book one instead of book four. It could’ve been a lot worse. But seriously. The whole attempting to take over the continent but in reality is just doing it because of some twisted reasoning that actually kinda makes sense is so last year. Also, picking a “champion” to complete tasks is just not cool anymore.

Lucien’s fam is shit. Especially his brothers. Omg. I hate them with a passion, even before I actually met them. Lucien’s life was shit. I’m so sorry bro. And then I met them. And my opinion didn’t waver in the least. His father didn’t even really bother to make an appearance. His mother though. His mother at least tried.

“Don’t feel bad for one moment about doing what brings you joy.” – Tamlin

Questions:

So Feyre is now a Fae. A High Fae? Does that mean she has powers? Like fire like Aelin?

Because that would be super cool. Like, really badass. And while I love Feyre (and trust me: I do) I can’t really stand her being basically powerless, especially when she’s surrounded by such über-powerful people. Feyre, imo, doesn’t need others to save her ass. She shouldn’t need others. But she does because the power discrepancy is too great. So now that she isn’t a mortal, I hope to gods she can actually defend and fight for herself now.

So, um, are we ever gonna acknowledge the actual looming problem in the not-so-far distance?

The High King of the other gods damned continent wants to invade Prythian and kill all the mortals. I feel like we should get on that. Chop chop?

What was that shit that Rhysand realized just before he flew off?

Like, Sarah described it as his eyes had widened and he had looked so stunned and flew away as soon as Feyre tried to question him. Like, what? Wait. WAIT A SECOND. HOLD UP A GODDAMN SECOND. Are they…is it possible…could it really be…..they’re MATES???!!! Cuz we’ve learned from ToG that the first (few) love interests are not necessarily endgame. And. And. Oh poor Tamlin! Oh I hope this isn’t what happened but now I can’t get the idea out of my head. JFC. Tamlin better still be friends. Like Dorian and Chaol. Amicable exes and all.

“I felt as unburdened as a price of dandelion fluff, and he was that wind that stirred me about the world.” – Feyre

Hopes/Predictions for the future

Um, I don’t have much, really. We weren’t given much to work with

The King of Hybern is invading. I think? We should probably fix that.

I actually do want to see Feyre visit the Night Court to fulfill her bargain. Because we haven’t been outside the Spring Court and Tamlin is hella nice and peaceful. We need something to stop making us think all Fae (besides bitch queen Amarantha) are semi-decent

Rhysand being (more) nicer. Continuously. Rhysand being a friend! Feyre should start accumulating friends. Friends are good. Aelin has many. Then again, Aelin needs a court. Maybe Feyre will need one, too?

��Be glad of your human heart, Feyre. Pity those who don’t feel anything at all.” – Rhysand