#it sounds modern because a lot of our modern culture has roots in 18th century culture

[amphibious-thing]

I hate the whole sodomy is a thing you do homosexuality is a thing you are saying because it not only encourages a simplistic understanding of the medicalisation of homosexuality but it encourages this before and after myth. Everyone before homosexuality is assumed to see sexuality in the exact same way which leads to people citing Ancient Greece when talking about 18th century English culture. People will assume how someone in the 18th century must have understood sexuality because they lived in the before period without ever doing even the most basic research into 18th century queer history. There isn’t a cheat sheet to queer history if you want to understand how sexuality was understood in a particular culture during in a particular period you have to do the research.

[silveroliveleaf]

How the Renaissance's Scholars were (Dark/Light) Academians before it was cool

Pics belong to their rightful owners

What happened in Italy during the Renaissance? After the Fall Of Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine scholars found refugie in Italy, where some of them had already gone due to the increasing italian interest for the classics. These Byzantine scholars brought with them copies of the ancient greek works and taught them to the Italians, who were enthousiasts of the classic culture, as it connected them with their Roman origins. At the same time, rich and learned rulers, such as the Medici in Florence, were more than willing to finance the scholars to produce knowledge and copy books establishing early libraries. In a way, art and letters became fashionable. During the next centuries, Renaissance came into the visual arts resulting in the marvellous masterpieces we see today. The idea of the homo universalis was developed reffering to the inquisitive human being who occupies one self with both the practical and the theoritical side of life.

What's happening now? According to a theory, classism never ceased to inspire; after Italy, it passed to the Netherlands and the North in general. During the 18th-19th century, there's the movement of Neoclassism which also had a great effect on the arts and letters. No matter the counter-movements, like Romanticism, classic ideas shape in a great degree the modern society. It only takes us to think what we consider "humanities" -the studies that put human at the center of their interest, like litterature and history- or "humanist principles" -moral principles with roots to the classical culture.

What Dark/Light Academia has to do with this? Well, according to wikipedia Dark Academia is, among else, a subculture associated with ancient art and classic literature. Sounds a bit familliar? More specifically, it became popular during the quarantine, as young people missed their student life. In a way, classic literature works, ancient languages, paintings and sculptures have returned once more in fashion, as young people take an interest in learning and following an academian lifestyle.

So what are the habits of (italian) Renaissance's scholars that resemble a lot our ways of self expression through Academism?

*Don't hesitate to tap on highlighted words to see pics

As it's already mentioned, Academism became popular during the quarantine because of the pandemic. Similarly, before/at the begginings of Renaissance, in 1348, Italy was struck by an epidemic known as the Black Death (bubonic plague). It's believed that Black Death worked as a catalyst for the Renaissance providing people with the urge to create and live their lives to the fullest. Italian author and scholar Boccaccio survived the plague and wrote the Decameron shortly after. Decameron is a work consisting of 100 tales that ten teenagers tell one another as they're under quarantine in a villa close to Florence in order to protect themselves from the Black Death. Quarantine and ways to use our excessively big free time... Sounds familliar?

Talking about (Late) Middle Ages, it isn't a surprise that the plague emerged again in the begginings of the 16th century in Italy, though in a smaller extend. As sculptor and goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini informs us in his autobiography:

"At that time, while I was still a young man of about twenty-three, there raged a plague of such extraordinary violence that many thousands died of it every day in Rome. Somewhat terrified at this calamity, I began to take certain amusements, as my mind suggested, and for a reason which I will presently relate. I had formed a habit of going on feast-days to the ancient buildings, and copying parts of them in wax or with the pencil". (Archive.org)

Despite the fact that Cellini wasn't only interested in peaceful activities such as drawing the ancient ruins, but he also shot pigeons confirming his fame as a "bad boy", it's truly interesting how the archaeological sites offered protection against the plague (since they're open spaces that reduce the chance of getting the sickness) and how artists visited them to get inspiration and improve their knowledge. Archaeological sites being one of the first facilities to open after the quarantine, did it cross your mind to visit one?

Actually, Renaissance artists often found inspiration in ancient ruins and artifacts, as they used them as standards they had to reach and exceed, if they could. The examples are numerous. Botticeli got inspired by the graeco-roman myths and as a result he created paintings in a truly unique style, such as The Birth Of Venus, while the same happened withTitian who painted the private rooms of Alfonso I D' Este, Duke Of Ferrara, with myths such as Bacchus And Ariadne. Moreover, they re-discovered and read works that describe ancient artworks, like Plinius' Historia Naturalis, and reveal the ancient technical mastery, like Vitruvius' De Architectura, which means they re-discovered a knowledge silenced for centuries. Even in architecture, the ancient monuments helped a lot, if we think how Rome's Pantheon gave Brunelleschi the knowledge to build Santa Maria Del Fiore's Duomo, which remains an architectural achievement even today. Just think how many artists get inspired by the graeco-roman world today and share their artworks through social media or exhibit them in art galleries.

Not only the artists, but the writers too got inspired by the antiquity. Petrarch wrote friendly letters (which were also reviews) to Titus Livius, Cicero and Homer. Furthermore, he wrote Africa, an epic poem about the Second Punic War inspired by the Roman poets. This poem gave him so much fame that he was crowned with laurels in Rome in the style of classical antiquity's winners of poetry competitions! Continuing the imitatio of the classics, a book called Il Paradiso degli Alberti (Albertis' Paradise) describes the philosophical discussions of the different Italian scholars, including Coluccio Salutati, that took place at the Villa Alberti close to San Niccolo; this kind of discussions with real scholars getting concerned about a philosophical problem resemble a lot the platonic dialogues, where Socrates troubles his debaters with questions and eventually leads them to the truth. This book also gives us an idea about what the philosophers discussed, as it's important to remember that the Italian scholars didn't only imitate the classics, but aimed at producing something new, too. Classical literary works continue to inspire modern novels from Madeline Miller's Song Of Achilles to Jame Joyce's Ulysses.

Like the Academians, Renaissance scholars loved books. And in their case, we're talking of manuscripts which had to be copied by hand in order to reach you. This means that a whole "industry" of scribes was developed. Copying wasn't easy, since calligraphy was neccessary and the quality of material played an important role, too. Considering that they thought printed books a shame (at least at the beggining), scribes and copies became vital -for example, during the plague of 1450, Pope Nicolas V took with him in his villa his scribes and translators of fear he'd lose them because of the epidemic! Scholars didn't hesitate to fight over manuscripts; for instance, Niccoló Niccoli, who was always in debt because of his costly search for manuscripts, got seriously insulted when another scholar denied to lend him one of his manuscripts to copy it. Who can disagree? All for the books!

Renaissance scholars are also the ones to thank for their contribution to the development of the libraries. Their love for manuscripts lead to huge collections that turned out as libraries. Cosimo De Medici The Elder, ruler of Florence and arts' patron, formed the core of the Medici collection and founded numerous libraries, including San Marco Library which hosted Niccoló Niccoli's collection; Niccoló Niccoli died in debt and consequently his collection would have been foreclosed, if Cosimo hadn't intervered. Niccoló Niccoli was the first to conceive the idea of a public library and Cosimo fullfilled his wish. Later, under the patronage of Pope Clement VII, the Laurentian Library in Michelangelo's design was founded to host the whole Medici collection. So, next time you're at the library reading your favorite book or making research, spare a thought for these early library founders.

Renaissance scholars were fans of philosophy and they showed it. Like modern students (at least in greek high school where Aristotle and Platon are obligatory classes), they didn't hesitate to fight over who was best: Aristotle or Plato? During the Council Of Ferrara-Florence where Byzantines and Italians had gathered to find a resolution in religious matters that divided them a Plato vs Aristotle fight occured. Some time later, Pletho Gemistus (out of boredom because of a sickness that kept him secluded in his home) wrote an essay about the difference between the two philosophers and valued Plato over Aristotle; this enraged other scholars who answered with counter argument essays. Actually, Pletho was the one who brought Neoplatonism in Italy and inspired Cosimo the Elder to found the Neoplatonic Florentine Academy, where many platonists, such as Marsilio Ficino, took part aiming at reviving the ancient Academy of Plato. The Platonic Academy ran a yearly symposium (on 7th November, if anyone's interested *wink*) where they read platonic texts to honour Plato. Sounds like Dead Poets Society, doesn't it?

Finally, I'll close with a typical example of antiquity enthusiasm. After having arrived in Rome to attend lectures by the humanist Lorenzo Valla, a young man called Giulio Pomponio Leto wrote this letter to his parents who had asked him to return to his hometown: "Pomponius Laetus cognatis et propinquis suis salutem. Quodpetitis fieri non potest. Vale." ("Pomponius Laetus salutes his parents and relatives. What you ask cannot be done. Farewell"). Julious Pomponius Laetus under his new roman-ized name went on to create the Roman Academy, a semisecret society whose participants discussed about the ancient Rome from an early archaeological point of view and even celebrated Romulus' birthday. After raising suspisions for performing pagan rituals, they were hunted by the Pope, but at the end their reputation was restored. There goes Donna Tartt's Secret History.

In conclusion, the interest in antiquity and the classics is continued today in many different forms, one of them being the Academia movement. I'm not saying that we're living a second Renaissance or that we're equals to the great scholars of the era, but that we have a similar mindset and share the same enthusiasm. It's quite exciting to think that classic literary works, ancient philosophy and art are still engaging and have never stopped inspiring humanity.

*Besides wikipedia's aid, my main source for this post is Umanesimo by Nicola Festa, which I read in its brilliant greek translation.

[loretranscripts]

Lore Episode 1: They Made a Tonic (Transcript) - 18th March 2015

tw: horror, bodily mutilation, blood, disease, death, vampires, pseudo-cannibalism

Disclaimer: This transcript is entirely non-profit and fan-made. All credit for this content goes to Aaron Mahnke, creator of Lore podcast. It is by a fan, for fans, and meant to make the content of the podcast more accessible to all. Also, there may be mistakes, despite rigorous re-reading on my part. Feel free to point them out, but please be nice!

Hollywood is… obsessed. Sure, we often think of obsessions like sex, violence, gigantic robots and of course, epic battles between good and evil. But another obsession of Hollywood is vampires. You have to admit though, that there’s a lot to love about vampires. Immortality, wealth, power, and superhuman abilities such as flight and strength. Yes, they come with trade-offs, such as incredibly bad sunburns, but every movie I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot, believe me, tends to show vampires that are fairly happy with their lot in life. My exposure to the world of vampires happened in the late 1990s, when I was in college. A friend of mine recommended the Anne Rice novel, Interview with a Vampire. I devoured that and many of the sequels. They’re fun reads! And they certainly set the tone for a decade or more of vampire-centred entertainment. I won’t touch on the vampires of the Twilight books, mostly because I haven’t read them. But I will say this: those books, however lambasted they have been by critics, have shown that popular culture’s love of all things vampire is as undying as the creatures themselves. I’m Aaron Mahnke, and this is Lore.

When most people think of vampires, they envision something that is a purely European creature: a foreign accent, Victorian Era dress, and dark manor homes and castles. It’s a common visual language for most of the western world, so I don’t blame bad movies and books for portraying that image, but it’s one small facet of a legend that has hundreds of expressions. The single most prominent historical figure attached to the modern notion of vampires is of course Vlad III of Wallachia, otherwise known as Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was the ruler of a small Eastern European kingdom known as Wallachia. He ruled from 1456 to 1462. He was known as Vlad the Impaler, because he preferred to execute his enemies by impaling them on stakes. The Ottomons called him “Lord Impaler” after entering his kingdom to find forests of impaled victims. Vlad was a violent guy, you see, rather bloodthirsty, you might say. Now he, like his father before him, belonged to something known as the Order of the Dragon, a group established to protect Christian Europe from the invading Ottoman army. Vlad’s father, Vlad II, was known as Vlad Dracul, which meant Vlad the Dragon, from the Order of the Dragon. When Vlad III rose to power he took the hereditary title and was known as Vlad Dracula, the son of the dragon. That name might sound very similar to the most famous vampire story in the world, and that’s because Bram Stoker, when creating his famous creature of the night, used Vlad III as his inspiration. Well, part of it, but we’ll get to that more later.

The roots of most vampire stories can be traced back to superstitions rooted in ancient cultures all across the world. Western Europe played host to countless stories of reanimated dead known as “revenants”. These were animated corpses which climbed out of the grave to torment the living. The word “revenant” comes from Latin, which means “to come back”. And come back to do what, you might ask? Well, I’m glad you did. At first it was just to terrorise the living, but as the centuries passed the legend became more specific. Revenants were said to return from the grave to torment their living relatives and neighbours. What was key though, was that revenants were specific people, not anonymous zombies of our modern horror genre. These things had a past, and a purpose. Now, in Norse Mythology, we can find stories of creatures known as draugr, “again-walkers”, who would return from the grave and wreak havoc on the living. These creatures possessed superhuman strength, they smelled of decay, and they were reported to be pretty ugly in appearance. They could enter the dreams of the living and while they were doing that, it was said that they left tangible objects near the sleeping victims, so that when they woke up, they would know that their dreams were more real than they feared.

Let’s go back earlier than the Middles Ages though. The legends of some ancient cultures spoke of creatures that, while not immediately similar to the vampires we know today, nonetheless share many core characteristics. First we have the Greek myth of Empusa, who was the daughter of Hekate. Empusa was said to lure young men, at night, and then feast on their blood, before moving on to the main course, their flesh. Another Greek tale involves Lamia, a mistress of Zeus, who becomes cursed by Zeus’ wife Hera, and is doomed to hunt children, devouring them. Stories of undead creatures, or creatures that feed on the blood of the living, seem nearly as common as written language itself. I mean, even on the small, isolated island of Madagascar, there are legends of a creature known as the Ramanga, which was known to attack nobles, drinking their blood and eating their nail clippings. Yeah, I said nail clippings. Deal with it.

Are vampires real? I’ll let you make the final decision on that, but what is clear, is that most of these stories find their genesis in the human need to explain the unexplainable. For instance, early Europeans used the myth as a way of explaining why a corpse wasn’t decomposing at the normal rate that they expected. You can see evidence of this in Bulgaria, where graves dating back over 800 years, have been opened, to reveal iron rods that have been driven through the chest of the skeletons. And in a time when it was very common to bury someone that was thought to be dead, only to find out that they weren’t really dead, you can imagine that stories would quickly circulate that the dead were coming back to life. As a result, Taphophobia, the fear of being buried alive, swept Europe and the United States. Now, of course, when medical science caught up, people got more practical. They built alert systems into graves, just in case the person woke up and, you know, wanted out. Now, I realise that being buried alive sounds like a rare occurrence, but it happened frequently enough that many people were sufficiently paranoid about it to actually spend time looking for a solution.

One of these people happened to be a medical doctor, a man named Adolf Gutsmuth. Now, in 1822, and driven by the fear of being buried alive, he invented a “safety coffin” for his own interment, and then he tested it out himself. Tested it out? You bet! Doctor Gutsmuth allowed himself to be buried underground in his new “safety coffin” for several hours, during which he had meals delivered to him through a feeding tube. He enjoyed a wonderful meal of soup, sausages, and a lovely local beer. Sounds like a great date night destination, doesn’t it? Now, Doctor Timothy Smith of New Haven, Vermont, was another paranoid inventor. He created a grave that can be visited still to this day, if you happen to be passing by Evergreen Cemetery, in Vermont. It was a crypt, buried in the usual manner, but it had a cement tube positioned over the face of the body, and a glass plate was affixed to the top of the tube at ground level. Doctor Smith died a real, natural death, and was buried in his fancy coffin with a view. He never woke up, but early visitors to his grave reported that they had a clear view of his decomposing head, until condensation obscured the glass decades later. Side note: vampires no longer scare me. Waking up inside of a small box buried six feet under the surface of the earth is what true fright looks like to me.

Now, another culprit in humanity’s use of the vampire label, was porphyria. It was a rare blood disorder, but modern science has pretty much closed the case on that one, saying that it’s too far of a stretch to connect the two topics. Rabies, of all conditions, has also been used as an explanation for the rise of the vampire mythology. Surprisingly there are a lot of commonalities between them, such as a sensitivity to light and garlic, as well as altered sleep patterns. But the most recent medical condition with a strong connection to vampire mythology was actually Tuberculosis. Those who suffer from TB had no vampire-like symptoms though, and that’s what makes this one a harder connection to explain. It’s also, incidentally, where one of my favourite New England legends comes into the picture. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Mercy Brown.

Lena Mercy Brown was a young woman who lived in the latter half of the 19thcentury, in the rural town of Exeter, Rhode Island, and she was a major player in what is now known as the “Great New England Vampire Panic”. Stories like hers can be found repeated all across Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, echoed in the lives of others in similar situations. And the results have surprising connections to both the modern idea of vampires, as well as the ancient stories, as we will see. The first person to die in Exeter was Mercy’s mother, Mary Eliza. That was December of 1882, and she fell victim to what was then called “consumption”. Consumption, because, as the disease of Tuberculosis ravaged the body, the person would appear to waste away; consumed, if you will, by the illness. She, of course, was buried, because, well, that’s what you do with a loved one who passes away. The next year though, Mercy’s sister Mary Olive died, at the young age of 20. Same illness, same symptoms, same process. I’m not sure when exactly the people of Exeter, Rhode Island started to wonder if the deaths were connected , but it might have been then, or it might have been a few years later when Mercy’ brother Edwin took ill. Edwin, though, was smart. He packed up and moved across the country to Colorado Springs, which had a great reputation for the healing properties of its dry climate. When he finally returned from the resorts out west, some years later, he was alive, but not doing so well, and in December of 1891, he took a turn for the worst. That was the month that Mercy herself became ill. Her Tuberculosis moved fast. They called it the galloping kind, and it moved through her body quickly, like wildfire. By January, 1892, she was dead, and the people of Exeter were more worried than ever. You see, they suspected something… supernatural.

Now, this was surprising, considering how close Exeter is to Newport. That’s the seaside city known for the summer cottages of the wealthy, folks like the Vanderbilts, the Asters, the Wideners, the Wetmores. It was the pinnacle of educated society, yet just a handful of miles away, one small town that should have known better, was about to do something very, very creepy.

Edwin was still alive, you see, and someone got it in their mind that one of the women who died before him, either his mother or one of his sisters, was somehow draining him of his life from beyond the grave. They were so convinced of this, you see, that they wanted to dig them all up. Yes, all of them. Once they received the father’s permission to do this horrible thing, a group of men gathered in the cemetery on the morning of March 17th, and began to dig up the bodies. Now, what they were looking for was any evidence at all of an unnatural state. So, blood in the heart, blood around the mouth, or other similar signs. The first body, of Mary Eliza, the mother, was satisfactorily decomposed so they ruled her out. But of course she was, you might say, I mean, she had been dead and buried for a decade. Mary Olive was also in a normal state of decomposition. Again, being dead for ten years usually helps convince people that you’re really dead. But when they examined Mercy’s body, a body that had not been buried because she died in the middle of winter, and so had been put inside of a stone building inside the cemetery that was essentially a walk-in freezer, they discovered a remarkable state of preservation. Shocking, I know. So what did they do? Well, these superstitious folk did what they learnt from their ancestors. They cut out Mercy’s heart and liver, within which they found red, clotted blood, they burned them on a nearby stone, which, by the way, is still there if you ever visit the cemetery, and then, mixed the ashes with a tonic. That tonic was then given to Edwin, to drink. Yeah, Edwin drank his own sister’s liver and heart. Did it work? No, of course it didn’t work. Edwin died less than two months later. What it did do, however, was set up Mercy Brown to be known as the first American vampire.

As unusual as an event like this must sound, you might be surprised to learn that it happened quite frequently. In 1817, almost a century before Mercy Brown’s exhumation, a Dartmouth college student named Frederick Ransom died of Tuberculosis. His father was so worried that the young man would leave the grave and attack the family, that he asked that he be dug up. Ransom’s heart was cut out, and burnt on a blacksmith’s forge. Even Henry David Thoreau heard tales of these types of events, and he mentioned one in his personal journal. In September 26th, 1859, he wrote: “The savage in man is never quite eradicated. I have just read of a family in Vermont who, several of its members having died of consumption, just burnt the lungs, heart and liver of the last deceased, in order to prevent any more from having it.” So of course, word spread about what happened to Mercy Brown, as it usually did when a body was dug up and carved into to pieces like that. Mercy’s case, though, actually made it into a newspaper called The New York World, and it made quite an impression on the people who read it. How do we know? Because a clipping from that article was found in the personal papers of a London stage manager after his death. You see, his theatre company had been touring America in 1892. He evidently read the story, found it inspiring, and saved it. Inspiring so much so, that he sat down a few years later, and wrote a book. Who was this man? His name was Bram Stoker. And the book? Oh, I’m sure you’ve already guessed it by now. It was Dracula, published in 1897.

Lore was produced by me, Aaron Mahnke. You can find a transcript of the show, as well as a bibliography of the source material, at our website, lorepodcast.com. If you enjoy scary stories, I happen to write them. You can find a full list of my supernatural thrillers, available in both paperback and ebook formats, at aaronmahnke.com/novels. Thanks for listening.

Transcriber’s Notes:

(These notes a purely from me, the transcriber, and have nothing to do with the official podcast or Aaron Mahnke).

1)     The word draugr does not in fact mean “after-walker” as the podcast seems to state, and actually derives from a Proto-Indo European word meaning “deceive”. There is, however, a related term aptrgangr, which does mean “again-walker”, and is thought to be pretty much synonymous with draugr.

[prairiechzhead]

Hi read your post, D is diff in s3 but that is because she is struggling with all whats happened. 3.01 she was so sad ,then after Roscoff she was annoyed with him,he says one thing and does another,Dwight was his friend ,yes he had to go but one min he wants to be a country squire and next he in France. She gets snarky with him because he is stubborn

(2/5) She knows what he wants before he does,he is blind to things, she deserves to be snarky after what he put her through ,it took him months to say sorry,now he is saying twice, you have married the wrong man, look else where,not all men are besottted, he cant see what L is really like,says she wouldnt allow G to behave bad, he knows L, (yes thats the prob). Know D knows he kissed L, would that sound good to a 25 yr old girl, she ought to hang the moon for R now and he still didnt change

(3/5) He cant see that she is more vunerable now things that never bothered her before do now, she has lost her faith in him and herself,chink in her armour, she has been second best for most of her marriage . She has never had his unconditional love, he loves her but he just needed to show it more,one dance at the ball,tell her she looks nice, she doubts her self worth ,he is not honest with her,she feels unappreciated.he is s good man but takes her for granted, so yes glad she is modern

(4/5)He would walk all over her otherwise, think she deserved to be snarky with him at times ,didnt like the beach snark after Agatha died,he retaliated bad back as well, she knows that R should do this job not G,he knows it,it annoys her, agree that some dialogue from book D does not suit show D that gets mixed up, book D would not of suited todays audience,she was too forgiving after his vbt, then when with H while she was still happy with R, that was horrible,glad Deb changed that. D was sweet in

(5/5)She was sweet in s1 but she was young and blinded with love,she no longer sees him with rose rimmed spectacles, she had him on a pedestal . Circumstances have changed her. Going with H was wrong because of her beliefs but he is the first man thats loved her because he wants to,R married her out of obligation,Sparks helped me with understanding all this. Thats my take anyway,

Okay, Nonny. Since your ask was long, I’m going to try and tackle this the best I can. This answer will probably be long, too. Here goes: 

This is my take. Modern Demelza does not work in the show because they gave her 21st Century attitudes, but left everyone else in the 18th century. This is a period drama. It is not unreasonable to expect that the characters and the story are accurate to the time period. If modern people can’t accept that this is a period drama and that characters are going to act according to the mores and dictates of that period, then perhaps they shouldn’t watch the show. The other thing is that if DH wants a modern take on this, then, as @mmmuses said in another post, she should do a modern adaptation of Poldark and set it on the 21st century. 

One thing that people miss who love modern Demelza is that she can be as feisty as she wants, but it doesn’t change things like the laws at the time. A modern woman, in the same situation has the freedom to leave. In the 18th century, she did not. A married woman had zero rights under the law. In fact, the law did not recognize her as a person at all. She was part of her husband. In 18th century England, a woman could not obtain a divorce at all. A man could, but only if his wife had committed adultery. So hypothetically, Ross could divorce her after her thing with Hugh and she would be left with nothing. Not even her children. Being modern and feisty isn’t going to help you there. 

The thing about book Demelza is this: she is a more mature character. She is allowed to mature. Time and experience made her grow up. But in spite of everything she has gone through, she was still a sweet and kind person. That is not weakness. To maintain that in the face of some really tough things shows strength of character. She is wiser, but she is not bitter. What you’re describing with Modern Demelza is anger and bitterness. Those are not positive traits in a person.

There is a time gap between Warleggen and Black Moon where R & D’s reconciliation happened. Their reconciliation actually started in Warleggen, but it was very slow. Still, most of it happened between the two books. So no, she did not forgive Ross “too quickly”. Warleggen ended around Christmas time. Black Moon picked up a few months later. It may be your opinion that their reconciliation happened “too quickly”, but you are forgetting that R & D love each other deeply and they are meant to be together, which is their motivation to resolve things. The amount of time someone needs to resolve a problem is also subjective. It depends on the parties involved and how much effort they put into it. 

You’re also forgetting that Ross was sorry for what he did with E, even though he didn’t express it the best way. He showed regret and remorse right away because he damaged the trust between him and his wife. On the show, you see it in Aidan Turner’s acting and facial expressions. Ross is horrible at communicating things verbally, so on the show, you have to pay close attention to all those non-verbal cues, which Aidan does so beautifully. Demelza is also not very good at communicating, for that matter. Modern Demelza is even worse at it than Book Demelza. Modern Demelza has this nasty habit of never giving Ross a chance to explain or clarify things he says that don’t come out sounding as he may have intended. She reacts to the words. It also seems that Ross on the show is the one making the effort to change, where Demelza is not. 

This brings me back to the point about historical accuracy. Because Demelza is stuck in this marriage, the only option she has is to make it work. Being snarky and bitter and angry is not how you work things out like a mature adult. And as young as she is, people in those days grew up very quickly. They had no choice. Modern Demelza also does not work here because if she remains snarky and bitter and angry, then she’s basically stuck in a miserable marriage and contributing to its miserable state. What motivation does Ross have to stay faithful to her if all she does is bitch at him all the time? Plus now you’ve taken away the happy ending. As part of the audience, if she’s going to be bitchy and out of character all the time, then what motivation do I have to root for this couple to fix things and be happy? None. I can’t find anything worth cheering for if all she’s going to do is complain and be snarky at him and criticize him all the time. 

A successful marriage is about balance. Both partners are responsible for maintaining equilibrium. Things will happen that will upset this equilibrium. It is up to both partners to adapt and change to restore equilibrium. You cannot have equilibrium in a relationship when one person decides she’s going to do whatever she wants while the other person has to sit back and let her do it. This is also my problem with Modern Demelza. In the books, Ross and Demelza are perfect foils for each other. They also adapt and change to maintain that equilibrium in their relationship. I’m not seeing anything like that on the show. In fact, it seems like they’re trying to make Demelza more modern at the expense of Ross’s character. I also believe that making D modern also comes at Caroline’s expense as well. 

The other issue with modernizing a period character is that our modern culture defines strength of character backwards. Book Demelza is a stronger character than Modern Demelza. Book Demelza is a stronger character because she takes the time to think through and ponder what she does and how she feels about things before she acts. She doesn’t always do the right thing, but she is human. Modern Demelza is impulsive and doesn’t think things through. She acts on emotion and sometimes that emotion is spite or anger. Our culture mistakenly teaches us that to stop and think about things first is indecisiveness and therefore indecisiveness is weakness. Acting without thinking is weakness. Hugh Armitage doesn’t love her in an adult way. Hugh has basically a crush on her and because of who he is and his station in life, he can act on it and he does. 

The lines that Ross says about “you’ve married the wrong man” are an example of how Modern Demelza misinterprets things and doesn’t ask him to explain what he meant. At times during this past season, it felt like Modern Demelza was looking for reasons to take up with Hugh. This is an example of that. He was not pushing her away nor was he telling her he didn’t want her, as so many people are interpreting that to mean. Book Demelza struggled with her attraction to Hugh right up until the act itself. 

Modern Demelza is trying to make Ross into something he is not, and then she gets snippy when he won’t do what she wants him to do, while Book Demelza understands who her husband is and doesn’t push him or berate him for not taking the MP offer at first. 

If you have not read the books, I recommend that you do because there is so much context in them that is missing from the show. I felt that S3 was rushed and they tried to cram too much into 9 episodes. There was a lot of context missing from what we saw on screen. 

In the end, these two crazy kids, Ross and Demelza, do love each other. Deeply. They do not want to be without the other. And they do stay together because they love each other and they want to be together. That is the end goal, but with the changes that Debbie made, she’s going to have to do a lot of logical gymnastics in order to have the TV versions reach that goal. I can suspend my disbelief, but up to a point. Because if I were in TV Ross’s shoes, I wouldn’t want to stay married to someone who was snarky to me and did things out of spite towards me or never gave me the benefit of the doubt. That’s tantamount to emotional abuse. 

[totesnottabot-blog]

Disclaimer: This cultural perspective is still being developed, thus making it hard to fully capture in one blog post. The following is a musing on what I’ve come to understand is our modern culture and where I believe it to be heading, spurred by David Brooks’ recent OpEd, more specifically, this excerpt:

“…what comes next?

It’s clear that Trump is not just a parenthesis. After he leaves things will not just snap back to “normal.” Instead, he represents the farcical culmination of a lot of dying old orders — demographic, political, even moral — and what comes after will be a reaction against rather than a continuing from.”

I think Brooks is touching on the more broad idea that postmodernism has led us to this point where everything has become morally ambiguous (he even mentions Breaking Bad, the show of the last decade that exemplified moral ambiguity). There’s this new cultural meme that’s been emerging over the last 20yrs or so (with first academic mention in 1975 in Mas'ud Zavarzadeh’s The Apocalyptic Fact and the Eclipse of Fiction in Recent American Prose in The Journal of American Studies) that I’ve been interested in this past year called post-postmodernism or metamodernism (post-postmodernism just sounds silly and the reason this collection of ideas hasn’t quite caught on in the mainstream is because of the name lol, so I’m going to refer to it as metamodernism and I’ll go further into why in a min), because it seems to be a direct response to this ambiguity.

Modernism essentially ripped the mask off of the hypocrisies of traditionalism (avant-garde art like Dadaism is an example of this), which evolved into postmodernism and this broad culture of cynicism (the 60-70s counterculture in response to events like the Vietnam War and Watergate is emblematic of this and over the decades has developed into our modern culture). Trump in many ways is the culmination of this cynicism and Brooks does a fine job of laying this out in his brief description of Trump. What can be thought of as metamodernism then, is a recognition of this dichotomy between what modernism sought to destroy (think: tradition = bullshit) and postmodernism’s response to that destruction of tradition (think: everything = ambiguous).

What this new metamodernist perspective seeks to do is to recognize 1) that traditionalism and cultural ambiguity exist on the same spectrum; 2) that cultural expression can move to different ends of the spectrum in degrees; 3) that the mobility itself along the spectrum is of more value than where a form of expression chooses to land, though where the landing is made also contains contextual cultural value; 4) that the recognition and actualization of this dichotomy holds the most cultural value because it’s what allows us to explore different modes of human thought (from traditionalist optimism/pessimism [think Heaven/Hell] to postmodern ambiguity [read as nihilism)]), and emotion (traditionalism, as defind by modernism, is in many ways synonymous with the aesthetics of Romanticism, while again postmodernism has given us the other end in nihilism).

A broad but important component of metamodernism is this neo-Romanticism, which unlike traditional Romanticism of the 19th century, is firmly rooted in an ideal pragmatism; ‘quixotic youth’ is a description of 19th century Romanticism that I think most people typically think of. What metamodernism has that modernism repudiates and that postmodernism has responded with its morally ambiguous nihilism, is this sense of a more practical Romanticism that’s rooted in humanism and philosophical naturalism. That is to say, an acceptance of a general scientific outlook (modernist naturalism) but with a reverance and awe for the unknown/yet to be discovered and how that unknown informs what it means to be human (traditional romanticism) - all with the full knowledge that ultimately no matter what any individual does with their life, in the grand scheme of The Universe, it does not matter (postmodern nihilism). With the amalgamation of these themes we get neo-Romanticism (ie, a reverance for The Void*), and with neo-Romanticism we get both the forms of expression that modernism and postmodernism repudiated (ie a sense of quixotic optimism and a 'no love lost’ pessimism [think Shakespearean tragedy] for the human condition) and championed (ie naturalistic nihilism).

With this recognition of the dichotomy and our traversing capability, we get to the meaning of metamodernism. The prefix 'meta’ is in reference to Plato’s metaxy which describes a polarity and the ability to move between poles, but also the ability to move *beyond* the poles; the recognition that the dichotomy exists and can be traversed is an example of being beyond polarity, which is a concept we can, in a sense, thank postmodern ambiguity for showing what that looks like.

*in this post I’ve used Western terminology (metaxy, romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, etc), but the concepts of Eastern philosophy (eg The Void) very much play a role in metamodernism and neo-Romanticism because of the type of refutation of traditionalism attributed to postmodernism’s conception of culture (ie ambiguity; think the New Age movement and how it’s developed into an amalgamation of different themes of Eastern philosophy with Western mysticism). Interestingly enough, “Metta” meditation in Buddhism is a meditation on nonattached loving compassion for the whole of existence, and in a way metamodernism implicitly demands expression to come from a place of nonattached loving compassion in order to achieve an effective form of cultural expression.

David Brooks’ OpEd: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/getting-trump-out-of-my-brain.html

Zavarzadeh’s The Apocalyptic Fact and the Eclipse of Fiction in Recent American Prose: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27553153?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Metamodernism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodernism?wprov=sfla1this post

Edit: Romanticism began in the late 18th century, but saw its cultural peak during the first half of the 19th century (1800-1850).

[flyingcarpettours]

Egypt Short Breaks

Let’s take a short break and discover Egypt with Egypt Short Breaks and experience in cairo short breaks & Short Breaks in cairo the three Pyramids of Giza (Cheops, Chephren and Mykerinus), Sphinx a huge half-human half-lion statue, also you can scout the valley temple, Sakkara pyramid which is considered the oldest step pyramids in the world, it was built by the architect Imhotep, contains six layers that is gradually decreasing in size. then explore the wonderful Egyptian Museum which include a big and rare collection of the Ancient Egyptian antiques and monuments, as well as the treasure of Tutankhamun, which is the most mysterious and marvelous monuments, the amazing treasures of King Tut Ankh Amun and citadel of Salah El-Dein which was built to defend Cairo from the armies of the Crusaders by the King Salah El-Dein el Ayoubi . Next move to visit the Hanging Church , Abu Serga Church, Ben Ezra Synagogue, the alabaster mosque and khan elkhalili Bazaar where you can go shopping, buy souvenirs and enjoy walking through the oldest street in the world.

Get excited with our Short breaks to cairo and Alexandria and explore the Alexandria the beautiful second-largest city in Egypt.  Alexandria was established by Alexander the Great, it was described as the pearl of the Mediterranean, because of its location at the Mediterranean Sea in the north coast of Egypt, it is also considered to be one of Egypt's top tourist attractions, as it has a long history, that dates back in 331 BC since, therefore it has a variety of cultural heritage sources and civilization, so, it is known to be an exciting city for those who keen to the historical facts, stories and places. Accordingly, it`s known for its ancient Egyptian roots starting from the Classical Period to the Roman times. You will discover Catacombs of KomEl-Shofqa: one of the most valuable and historical land marks in Alexandria, it was discovered accidentally when a donkey fall down into a hole that belongs to the tombs of the Catacomb, it means in English “Mound of Shards”, it is including a series of statues, antiques and tombs which belong to many cultures such as the Egyptian, Romanian and Greek, therefore it has a lot of several styles such as, the statues seems to be Egyptian in style but the clothes seem to be Romanian. Also, Citadel of Qaitbay which belongs to the 15th century, proceeding to the fabulous library of Alexandria: a striking piece of modern design that stands in contrast to the ancient architecture in Egypt. It was dedicated to the Muses, the inspirational goddesses of literature, science, and arts in Greek mythology and more.continue to the lighthouse of Alexandria which is considered to be one of the most developed technological achievements in the 3rd B.C century, it is the seven wonders of the Ancient World, Ptolemy I Soter decided to construct the Lighthouse of Alexandria to be a clear guide for ships, this construction was designed by Sostratus.Or you can choose between our stunning activities in Alexandria Such as Water sports, swimming, shopping and enjoy the beautiful city.Also we offer you a trip to the glorious ancient city Luxor in our Cairoand Luxor Short Breaks where you can visit the old capital for almost all of the pharaonic period and explore the monuments of Luxor which contains about a third of the most valuable monuments in the whole world such as Karnak and Luxor Temples, the Valley of the Kings, Colossi of Memnon, and Queen Hatshepsut Temple. We offer Tours to Karnak and Luxor Temples so with us you can visit two of the oldest and biggest temples in the entire world, discover Luxor Temple, it was built by Amenhotop III completed by Ramses II, it was also known as the Southern Sanctuary and constructed in 1400 B.C during the New Kingdom for the Open Festival, an ancient Egyptian celebration that was organizing annually. Exploring KarnakTemple which is considered the biggest temple in the world, the temple was dedicated to god Amun. It developed over a period of 1500 years, generations of pharaohs added to the temple, resulting a collection of temples, sanctuaries, pylons, and other decorations that is unparalleled throughout Egypt. Construction at Karnak started by 4,000 years ago and continued up until the time of the Romans, about 2,000 years ago. Moreover, you can enjoy a trip to Luxor West Bank Tour and you will get amazed with our Valley of The Kings Tour which has many buried kings, it was used for burial, and it includes 3 tombs to visit and it is considered one of the most characteristic temples in all of Egypt was dedicated to Queen Hatshepsut who was a rare female Pharaoh as she was the fifth pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Ancient Egypt. or experience our Karnak Sound and Light Show  at night with a multimedia show in front of the beautiful view of the Sacred lake, in this entertainment show you will discover more about the ancient pharaohs history and the largest religious building ever made while listening to the story with calm and nice music.More unforgettable experience with Hot Air Balloon Ride in Luxor, it is the greatest way to explore the world’s largest open air museum over Luxor in the beautiful morning light while flying all over Luxor and enjoying the view of valley of the kings, Hatshepsut Temple, Colossi of Memnon and the most important archaeological sites in the world the west bank of Luxor.Moreover, we give you a great chance to see Sharm El Sheikh in Cairoand Sharm El Sheikh Short Breaks to see thewonderful places at the top of Sinai peninsula surrounding by deserts and mountains which make it one of the wonderful tourist destination in the world. also you will have the chance to enjoy the warm sun, as you can also enjoy taking charming tan and soaking up the sun’s rays, explore the mysteries nature of underwater world, immerse yourself in many amazing excursions such as snorkeling and diving in the white crystal clear water of the Red Sea, you can also enjoy going on safari trips through the spectacular mountains of Sharm El Sheikh and try our gorgeous Bedouin Barbecue, experience the taste of relish Bedouin food.We also have Alf Leila Wa Leila Sharm El SheikhShow to get amazed with the beautiful show that features light, sound, and dance. And have the chance to know more about the Arabian Nights such as belly dance, tanoura, folkloric dance shows and the horse show in front of ancient Egyptian temples and pyramids. Enjoy the show as if you are living in the time of Aladdin and Sindbad.more great trips in Sharm El Sheikh. More info about: Egypt Short Breaks

Tele :01099906242

Email: sales@flyingcarpettours.com

[tingsktm]

No more Books – only, Google, Blogs and Travel sites.

Roads & Kingdoms Kathmandu is one of the most inspirational travel blogs we have seen so far.

When we started our life as travellers Lonely Planet was our bible because it had information about going-to-and-from, places-to-stay, border crossings and similar important advice for independent travelers. Today these information are only a click away – if they are not already there once you open your phone thanks to algorithms.

Lonely Planet was not for inspiration. Here we read colorful books like Insight & Tashen Books, Newspaper’s & Magazine’s travel sections and similar media created by a Human Being who has created and selected stories and images, editing them etc. based on his and hers love, passion, knowledge, intellect and visions.

It may sound strange – but unless you do an effort its difficult for experienced travellers to get inspiration online. Thanks to the same algorithms the search engines only direct stories, images, videos and other content they predict you most like already know.

But don’t panic. There a still a lot of human beings who creates inspirational content about countries, culture and travelling life. And it’s not difficult to get. Thanks to Hash Tags (#) on Twitter, Google alerts, WordPress Tags etc we get hundreds of updates everyday. And several very exiting and interesting ones like Roads & Kingdoms who just started blogging about Kathmandu.

  The pot at the end of the rainbow for 18th century hill kings, flower children, and Maoist rebels alike, the Kathmandu Valley retains a fascination for travelers dreaming of the East as well as Nepalis seeking the West.

The city is a still-untidy mashup of three city-states from the golden age of Newar civilization. But for every chaotic intersection or slick shopping mall, there are a dozen moss-lined courtyards and shrines to explore.

Modern Kathmandu turns out bibimbap and baba ganoush with as much panache as it does momo and curries, but the allure of the valley of temples is unchanged. Let us guide you there.

The intro to Roads & Kingdoms Kathmandu Guide 

  What makes Roads & Kingdoms Kathmandu guide so special?

R&K varies from other travel media in two important ways. The writers are not only knows how to write (they are very good) – they know what they are writing about. They are locals, they know (in details) what they write about in a way only locals do based on personal experiences and knowledge passed on through generations.

Like Deepak Adhikari who starts his 16 things to know before you go to Kathmandu with his good, relevant but odd welcome First-make-it-out-of-the-airport-guide  then following up with lowering their expectations with his Don’t-expect-to-see-the-Himalayas (the reason why most travellers visits Kathmandu LOL) or the 3rd advice: A-mask-is-a-must: Kathmandu is ranked as one of the most polluted cities in the world, which is why it’s sometimes called Maskmandu as i he tries to convince people to stay away… relevant and unwillingly funny.

  Our two R&K Highlights

A Soundtrack to Kathmandu city.

In Kathmandu, the chaos of unregulated traffic and dusty roads sit comfortably with the dreams of the many people who call it their home. It looms large in the Nepali imagination, not just because it’s the capital, but also because the city has been central to Nepali identity.

It’s a city of many cultures, shaped by the indigenous Newars as much as by the hippies, with the sounds of electric-guitar riffs as common as madal beats.

No city’s complexities can be captured in one playlist, but this is an attempt to encapsulate what Kathmandu means for those who live here.

Eleven songs that decode Nepal’s capital city

  Music is my passion

It warmed my heart (and ears) to see Amish Mulmi’s amazing musical guide to our beloved city.

All the old classics are there – and several of our own favorite like AD74, Ranzen (who has played at Tings) and our neighbour Jazz Upstairs’ house band Cadenza Collective – all compiled with stories an anecdotes from the past to present.

We could add several track to Amish’ list. Yama Buddha’s – Saathi (RIP), GnireshT’s – Cheap Noise, Tashi Cultivation’s – Mother Nature and of course Nima Rhumba’s – Block Hill Shoes. 

Nima Rhumba’s Iconic ‘Block Hill Shoes’. Check New Road anno 2012 and do the walk yourself when you visit Kathmandu.

The history of Kathmandu in 11 Dishes

How rich Kathmandu must have appeared to a newly arrived settler looking in from one of the mountain passes! Fish and fowl would have been abundant in the natural ponds in the landscape that was once a giant lake.

Any seed thrown to the ground would have taken root, flowered, and borne fruit. The climate would have been pleasant, never severe, no signs of dust and pollution, and the sights of the snow-capped Himalayas to the north would stop any new settler in their tracks.

Although the cultural prehistory of the valley is lost to us, it is possible to imagine the story through its food.

The History of Kathmandu in 11 Dishes

  Living with our local staff for almost 10 years has taught us a lot about the local food traditions. We don’t serve it in our lounge – but we make it for ourselves for Dashain and Tihar. In 2014 Dorje taught me to make Tibetan blood sausages

  In case you don’t know: We can thank Manjushree for cutting through Kathmandu’s surrounding hills and letting in the water and thus making the valley so rich with so much food and water that it feeds the millions of Nepalese. To start a chapter about Nepal’s cuisine with this fable we only got to know a few years ago was very promising!  So I was really exited to read Prawin Adhikari’s 11 dishes.

Pravin didn’t disappoint me. Not only does he give you an introduction to the various traditions and their history (hence the title 🙂 . His food journey is also a shortcut to a lot of the classic Nepalese dishes you never find in restaurants unless you know what to ask for. We got this knowledge from our fantastic friends who have opened their homes (and kitchens) and treated us with their culinary wonders.

So unless you have local friends Prawin’s historical introduction is must for foodlovers. The Nepalese kitchen its much more tha Momos, fried rice and Chow Mein!!!

If this chapter doesn’t convince you to go Nepal ASAP then I’m sure that Parwin’s Love Letter to Raksi will.

I’m a fan!

  One important thing – R&K is a commercial site

Annette in action in colorful Asam Thole

Like the rest of us – the people behind Roads & Kingdoms have to make a living. So the Blog is commercial – and nothing wrong with that!

Just remember that they the make money is by promoting restaurants and businesses. which means that some of their recommendations and suggested tours are a bit strange. We would never start a Thamel Tour with a visit to Bajeko Sekuva. It’s an OK place – there are just several other more authentic, cheaper and excellent places to eat than this local equivalent to McDonald.

And what happened to the most colorful parts of this tour: Asan Tole & Indra Chowk. After Durbar Square these to colorful commercial parts of town are what excite our guests the most – we recommends these places instead of the souvenir shops and malls.

The last thing on down side is R & K’s Quick Hits. Their recommendations are OK if you are an expat with an international salary. If you are desperate to get non-local food Kathmandu has cheaper and better alternatives.

The recommended restaurants are completely different from Prawin Adhikari’s fantastic food cruise above 🙂

Roads & Kingdoms Kathmandu Guide is Highly recommended

/ Thomas Going to Kathmandu? Roads and Kingdoms' Kathmandu guide is one of the most inspiring guides we have read in a long time. They are excellent writers and know what they write about. Especially food and music. Highly recommended. No more Books - only, Google, Blogs and Travel sites. When we started our life as travellers Lonely Planet was our bible because it had information about…

[topmixtrends]

“SOUNDS GREAT on paper.” That’s a phrase I heard a lot as a kid in the late ’70s, usually when my parents and their friends were talking about communism. Certainly an earthly paradise as depicted in the writings of Trotsky or Lenin, but — shame, isn’t it? — communism did not seem to actually work in real life.

The notion that something could sound smart in theory and not work out in practice applies just as well to another product of early 20th-century Russian thought: the individual-over-the-masses, market-worshipping libertarianism philosophy that comes from Ayn Rand. It’s been carried on, after Rand’s 1982 passing, by American acolytes including Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and, probably, someone you went to high school with.

The fact that the libertarian wonderland of absolute sexual and economic freedom only ever worked in Rand’s melodramatic novels and helium-voiced Rush songs — that her philosophy of “Objectivism” has never been successfully applied to actual governance — does not seem to cross the minds of libertarian true-believers. And to many of them, it seems not to matter: a fealty to Rand, to heroic ideas of intellectual superiority and capitalism’s grandeur, is more important than what puny mortals consider political or intellectual reality. If you try arguing sense with them, you’ll quickly wish you hadn’t.

Why should we care, then, about a discredited goofball ideology from deep within the last century? Because Ayn Rand–style libertarianism has probably never been more assertive in American politics than it is today.

What once seemed like the golden age of Rand turned out only to be a warm-up. In the 1950s, you could go to Objectivist salons in New York, where sycophants like Greenspan and future self-esteem guru Nathaniel Branden would gather round the goddess to luxuriate in every word (in some cases, the connection was more than purely intellectual: Branden was one of the polyamorous Rand’s numerous younger boyfriends). In the ’60s and ’70s, you could attend vaguely countercultural conventions across the nation where men would shout conspiracy theories and women would emulate their heroine by wearing broaches shaped like dollar signs. For a while, the Christianity-and-Cold-War strand of the American right headed by William F. Buckley Jr. marginalized the libertarians for their atheism and noninterventionist stance. From the evidence of 1971’s inside-the-whale memoir, Jerome Tuccille’s It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, this movement was hardly built on solid intellectual ground. The abundance of selfish children driving the ship, part–Veruca Salt, part–Mike Teavee, made this seem like the kind of cult sure to wither of its own ridiculousness.

But with the Reagan Revolution, libertarianism was brought indoors, and the direct-mail New Right that accompanied the movement relied heavily on anti-government dogma. In many parts of the United States — the Sun Belt, the boys’ club of billionaires who fancy themselves self-made heroes, and various enclaves in the capital — Rand’s vision established its second beachhead.

¤

And gradually, the discredited movement that tended to attract nerds and know-it-alls became part of the political mainstream.

“I give out Atlas Shrugged as Christmas presents,” outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan told the Weekly Standard, “and I make all my interns read it.” He only backed away from Rand when her atheism caused him image problems with God-fearing Republicans, who, if they looked closely, would see that Objectivism is almost exactly the opposite of what’s preached by the Biblical Jesus.

In fact, several of the key Republican young guns are Fountainhead-adjacent. Senator Rand Paul is not only the son of longtime libertarian crank and Texas Congressman Ron Paul (he of the racist newsletters). The younger Paul is such an Atlas Shrugged–pounder that a rumor flourished for years that his first name came from the family’s favorite author.

In Silicon Valley, billionaires are working to put the “liberal” back into libertarian — at least, the 18th-century “classical liberalism” cooked up before industrialization, widespread racial tension, and modern finance capitalism. For all their quoting of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, it makes their retro version of Objectivism about as useful for 21st-century life as an 18th-century telescope. The Randed-out Peter Thiel, whose commitment to free speech did not keep him from suing a major media company into oblivion, is perhaps the most prominent Valley libertarian. But he’s hardly alone: if you wondered why Elon Musk was selling flamethrowers, just remember he’s another guy who loves freedom.

Besides the true-believers, reactionary wackjobs often stop over at Galt’s Gulch on their way to even scarier neighborhoods. Mike Enoch — born Mike Peinovich — is a racist and anti-Semite beloved on the alt-right for his The Right Stuff blog and the popular podcast The Daily Shoah. On his journey from leftist extremism to far-right derangement, he was energized by the work of Rand, Murray Rothbard, and economist Ludwig von Mises; his libertarian blog sported posts like “Socialist is Selfish” and “Taxation is Theft.”

Similarly, the polite Midwestern Nazi profiled by The New York Times, Tony Hovater, was a vaguely leftish heavy-metal drummer until he discovered libertarianism. He was, in fact, radicalized by what he considers the Republican Party’s perfidious treatment of libertarian hero Ron Paul; today he reads numerous Rand-y academics for intellectual guidance.

Then there’s Robert Mercer, one of the invisible rich people who has more influence on world affairs than just about everyone you know put together. Mercer, who helped fund Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidential race, and, for years, Breitbart News, is also the father of Rebekah Mercer. A toxic rich girl par excellence, Rebekah is known to Politico as “the most powerful woman in GOP politics” and to others as the first lady of the alt-right. (She recently sowed a rift on the right by cutting off Steve Bannon’s paychecks following his tussle with President Trump.)

Even in this charmless crowd, Robert Mercer’s obnoxiousness stands out. The Citizens United decision has unleashed people like Mercer — secretive gazillionaires whose expenditures are often untraceable despite the way they remake our shared reality. “In my view, Trump wouldn’t be President if not for Bob,” an old colleague of Mercer’s told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer.

Oh, and then there are Charles and David Koch. “Suddenly, a random billionaire can change politics and public policy,” election watchdog and registered Republican Trevor Potter told Mayer, “to sweep everything else off the table — even if they don’t speak publicly, and even if there’s almost no public awareness of his or her views.” And, as of this fall, the Kochs now effectively own Time magazine as well as a bunch of other publications ranging from Sports Illustrated to the retro British rock magazine Uncut.

And Charles Koch’s foundation has given something like $200 million to colleges and universities, in many cases to appoint pro-business, anti-government scholars to institutions like Chapman University.

The Kochs’ defenders talk about libertarians as some kind of oppressed minority. But unlike most other right-of-center subcultures, libertarians are woven into the nation’s intellectual and cultural mainstream. If you went to a liberal arts college, live in a big city and read The New York Times or Washington Post, follow indie-rock bands and watch trendy shows on HBO, you probably don’t know many evangelical Christians. You could very well spend your days with very little contact with war-mongering neoconservatives. The rural/working-class/NRA side of Caucasian conservatism is likely something you experience mostly through Hillbilly Elegy or reruns of the now-cancelled Roseanne. Libertarians, by contrast, are everywhere. Go on Facebook, and some former friend from childhood is lecturing you about the free market.

We are now, many decades after the germination of Rand’s cult of personality, in a world where a Library of Congress survey deems Atlas Shrugged the most influential book next to the Bible. As the GOP, Wall Street, the intellectual plutocracy of think tanks and foundations, and Silicon Valley grow in coming years, expect to see the influence of this group and its ideas grow and stretch.

Despite numerous parallels with Scientology, Objectivism is not just sitting still, getting weirder while remaining confined to a few thousand worshippers. We have not yet reached Peak Libertarian. So where do these goofy ideas come from, and what effect might they have?

¤

A partial answer — both rigorously told and incomplete — comes from a recent book, How Bad Writing Destroyed the World, by Wellesley College comp-lit professor Adam Weiner.

Weiner’s key insight is connecting Rand’s ideas — and the Russian literary intellectual lineage she emerged from — with the 2008 financial collapse. “By programming Alan Greenspan with objectivism and, literally, walking him into the highest circles of government, Rand had effectively chucked a ticking time bomb into the boiler room of the US economy,” he writes in the book’s introduction. “I am choosing my metaphor deliberately: as I will show, infiltration and bomb-throwing were revolutionary methods that shaped the tradition on which Rand was consciously or unconsciously drawing.”

Most historical changes have some kind of intellectual root, for better and worse; kudos to Weiner for tracing how a series of bad ideas and clumsy prose led the nation to the Great Recession. But Weiner, a scholar of Russian literature, appears to be far more interested in one of Rand’s antecedents than Rand herself. Nikolai Chernyshevsky, the revolutionary socialist best known for his 1863 novel What Is To Be Done?, written while its author was imprisoned in a St. Petersburg fortress, is his true subject. The book famously inspired Lenin’s world-shaking pamphlet of the same name.

There’s one small problem with this premise, and one large one. Weiner shrewdly anticipates the first: how could a man of the extreme left — who helped inspire the terrorists who coalesced around the Russian Revolution — simultaneously provide the intellectual foundation for the godmother of the market-worshipping right? He finds the common denominator in Chernyshevsky’s notion of “rational egoism,” which Weiner describes as the idea that “the rational pursuit of selfish gain on the part of each individual must give rise to the ideal form of society.”

Sound familiar? This chimes almost exactly with Rand’s “virtue of selfishness” — the bedrock of her pseudo-philosophy of unchecked capitalism, minimalist government, and rugged individualism pursued by übermensch heroes. “The main heirs of Chernyshevsky’s bumbling, illogical aesthetic,” Weiner writes, “were the Soviet-mandated novels of socialist realism and the ‘capitalist realism’ of Ayn Rand.”

Weiner deftly handled the contradiction here: a bad novel could not only become ideologically potent, but it could also inspire people who would not recognize each other as fellow travelers.

Yet Weiner’s book lives up to neither its title nor its subtitle, “Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis.” Weiner’s final chapter, “In the graveyard of bad ideas,” returns to Rand’s biography — she grew up in St. Petersburg and watched as the Bolsheviks looted her family’s possessions — and intellectual roots. But it feels like an addendum, however skillfully told, to a reasonably lucid and well-researched book about an influential but not very good 19th-century Russian novelist.

In connecting Rand — and contemporary American libertarianism — to an extremist strain of pre-revolutionary Russian thought, Weiner does help clarify this bizarre lineage, its combination of heartland America Firstism with something clearly alien to our Constitution and its mostly British political origins. Ayn Rand is not just Adam Smith in a screenwriter’s bungalow — she’s coming from somewhere different from classical liberalism.

The book Weiner seemed to be delivering — offering the intellectual history of either kook libertarianism, or the 2008 crash, or both — still needs to be written. Until then, the second edition of Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind — released in November, this time under the subtitle “Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump” — does a skillful job connecting philosophers, historians, and economists of the past with our recent rightward turn. His chapter on Ayn Rand and libertarianism, in specific, offers much of what Weiner’s volume promises and fails to provide.

“Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabobov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand,” Robin begins. “The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both.” Robin, a political professor at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, starts with pre-revolutionary Russia, but considers Rand’s real birthplace to be Hollywood, where she landed in 1926 and was quickly recruited by Cecil B. DeMille. “For where else but in the dream factory could Rand have learned how to make dreams — about America, capitalism, and herself?”

And Rand’s us-versus-them formulation of the stalwart genius against the “moochers” and “looters” — revived by Mitt Romney in his “makers” versus “takers” speech — is textbook vulgar Nietzscheanism. It also helps explain the appeal of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead to misunderstood adolescents who dream themselves the übermensch.

Rand’s novels heroize — in the same campy way she learned from Russian operettas and Hollywood movies — defiant, comically masculine builders like architect Howard Roark and engineer/inventor John Galt. It feels somehow inevitable that the recent libertarian, anti-government, pro-business strain on the American right would lead us to a man who seems right out of her pages: the defiant, comically masculine real estate developer Donald Trump.

The real history of Ayn Rand’s bad ideas — their roots, their trajectory, their collateral damage — can’t be contained in any book, however good or bad. It’s all unfolding around us, as her zombie devours the Republican Party and soon, the rest of us, with no sign of abating.

¤

Scott Timberg is the editor of The Misread City: New Literary Los Angeles and author of Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class.

¤

Banner image by Erik Fitzpatrick.

The post The Bad Idea That Keeps on Giving appeared first on Los Angeles Review of Books.

from Los Angeles Review of Books https://ift.tt/2uScwIk

[trendingnewsb]

7 strange but scrumptious facts about the history of the hamburger.

It’s something so simple, yet something so good — two tasty buns around mouthwatering meat.

Yes, it’s true: Hamburgers are wonderful. But what exactly makes them so wonderful? With so many parts and so many variations, it’s hard to know precisely why this dietary delight has become such an iconic part of our culture.

Over the centuries — yes, centuries — the hamburger has evolved from an umami underdog to a ubiquitous food staple all across the globe. And at the center of that strange journey is some surprising insight into humanity itself (and also a tasty meat patty). Here are seven fascinating facts from across the years and continents that will make you appreciate the burger for more than just its taste.

1. The hamburger was invented in New Haven, Connecticut.

It was 1900 when Danish immigrant Louis Lassen first took the trimmings from his trademark steak sandwiches (which he also helped pioneer), packed them into patties, and placed them between two slices of toast from his sandwich wagon. The family still runs Louis’ Lunch Shop on Crown Street today and still serves the sandwiches on toast with no option for ketchup.

As someone who was born and raised in New Haven, I can assure you that this is 100% unequivocal truth. Even the U.S. Library of Congress has it on record!

Photo by Adam Jones/Flickr.

2. Unless it was not invented in New Haven at all.

Perhaps it was Fletcher Davis of Athens, Texas, that actually invented it. He supposedly started cookin’ up those patties in the late 1880s, then brought his treat to the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis, where it gained global attention.

Or it could have been Charles and Frank Menches of Hamburg, New York, who ran out of sausage at a fair in 1885, so they packed together ground beef with coffee, brown sugar, and other brown spices to mask what was otherwise considered “lower class” meat.

Some people even give credit to Charlie Nagreen of Seymour, Wisconsin, who began serving flattened meatballs on bread in 1885, even though that’s pretty clearly a “meatball sandwich” and not a “hamburger.”

Maybe it all began at root beer-maker Oscar Weber Bilby’s Fourth of July party in 1891, right in Oklahoma — the heartland of America.

As you can see, there’s some question as to which of the 50 states can actually claim credit for this distinctly American delicacy. Unfortunately, people didn’t keep very clear records of these things back then, so it’s kind of hard to determine which one was the real pioneer.

“Hamburger Charlie” even has his own statue even though he clearly made a meatball sandwich. Photo by WIMHARTER/Wikimedia Commons.

3. But we do know that the first record of a hamburger-like recipe was from 1758.

“The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy” by Hannah Glasse — the most popular cookbook in England for more than a century — was well-known in the American colonies too.

The cookbook was updated many times after its initial publication in 1747, but it was the 1758 edition that first made mention of a “hamburg sausage” — a combination of ground beef and spices that was cured and then served roasted on a single piece of toast.

Image via W. Wangford/Wikimedia Commons.

4. The hamburg sausage wan’t quite a sandwich. But neither was the “hamburg steak,” another cousin of the burger.

Obviously, the question of “what defines a sandwich” has resulted in much debate. But one thing we can all agree on is that it requires some kind of casing in order to qualify as a “sandwich” … right?

While Glasse’s hamburg sausage could have arguably been an open-faced sandwich, the popular hamburg steak was definitely not a sandwich. The German dish gained popularity in the 18th century and comprised of, um, well, a patty of ground beef packed together — sometimes with spices or onions or egg — and then cooked and served. Which, come to think of it, does sound a lot like a hamburger without the bun.

(Some would argue that a hamburger without a bun is not technically a hamburger, but that’s a philosophical discussion for another time.)

A variation on the Hamburg Steak. Photo by 1971Marcus/Wikimedia Commons.

5. Come to think of it, no one’s really sure who invented the sandwich either.

This may not sound like an important part of hamburger history, but bear with me. You’ll see how it connects.

Credit often goes to John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, who allegedly needed some way to contain his food so that he could continue playing cards with his friends without making a mess or needing utensils.

But he was hardly the first to think of such a thing — Hillel the Elder was known for eating flatbread sandwiches as far back as the first century, and of course, many Middle Eastern and Eurasian cultures made use of the pita to contain all kinds of tasty treats, including — wait for it — minced meats.

Now do you see where this is going?

Gyro sandwich: not a burger but also kind of maybe it is — in its own way? Photo by JeffreyW/Flickr.

6. That’s right: The hamburger goes all the way back to Genghis Khan. (Sort of.)

Look, there’s a lot of world to conquer, OK? And when you were part of Khan’s Golden Horde, you didn’t have a lot of time to stop and eat between invading 2/3 of the planet. Khan’s soldiers would sometimes stay on horseback for days at a time, which wasn’t really conducive to eating soup either.

They found a way around the problem by thinly slicing meat and packing it together into portable patties that could be taken on the road and eaten as needed. Sometimes they were boiled, sometimes cured ahead of time, and more often than not, they were just eaten raw (but, contrary to popular belief, they were not placed under their saddles and cooked by butt-heat friction).

“Genghis Khan demands his burger rare!” Photo by Sebacalka/Wikimedia Commons.

In one part of the world, this minced meat may have evolved into kebabs, which of course were then contained in the aforementioned pitas. Genghis’s grandson Kublai Khan is believed to have passed this raw meaty snack on to the Russians, who called it “steak tartare,” reportedly after their name for the Turco-Mongol peoples.

It would only be a matter of time before Russians shared the recipe with Germans, who gave it a twist of their own and turned it into hamburg steaks.

7. But the absolute oldest reference to a burger-like food comes from fourth-century Rome.

The ancient Roman Empire contributed a great many things to the modern world — including, believe it or not, fast food in the form of the ready-to-go thermopholia markets (literally “a place where something hot is sold”). According to a fourth-century cookbook, some of these thermopholia sold a packed patty known as Isica Omentata, which was made from minced meat, pine nuts, fish sauce, wine, and other spices. You can even find some modernized recipes and make your own Roman patties the next time you’re in the mood for a gladiator match!

The ancient Roman Colosseum: curiously hamburger-shaped. Photo by Alex Proimos/Flickr.

The hamburger’s globe-trotting history shows us exactly why people around the world love those meaty buns.

(Besides the fact they’re delicious, I mean.)

The real power of the burger is much more primal than that. Bread and meat are dietary staples of every culture since pretty much the dawn of civilization as we know it. It only makes sense to bring them together in such a simple way. And as technologies continued to evolve, of course we’d use them to perfect this quintessential combination, which would, in turn, give rise to the modern burger as we know it.

Photo via PX Here.

That’s why the hamburger’s winding journey from Rome to Mongolia to Russia to Germany and, finally, to the United States is such a telling story: It shows how separate cultures have so much in common across time and space. In that regard, it almost doesn’t matter who was first to slap that patty on a bun or what inspired them do it — because the impulse was intrinsically human. Which means, yes, the hamburger has the power to unite us all, no matter where we come from, like one big global barbecue.

But also, they’re delicious.

Read more: http://www.upworthy.com/7-strange-but-scrumptious-facts-about-the-history-of-the-hamburger

from Viral News HQ https://ift.tt/2IVnTo1 via Viral News HQ

[adhd-ahamilton]

Crain notes that [Ralph Waldo] Emerson’s attraction to Gay was a form of the nineteenth-century ideal of “sympathy.” In this context, sympathy - a form of empathy that as Crain writes, “allows us to feel emotions that are not ours” - is an expansive form of romantic friendship. The deeply felt connective emotion of sympathy allows one to not only value a friend for his or her emotional sincerity, but to take imaginative leaps toward understanding and sharing the emotions of another. [...]

Emerson’s vision of American equality, the basis for his strong antislavery and pro-women’s suffrage beliefs, has roots in the Enlightenment and in his radical, nature-based vision of Christianity. But it is especially rooted in his ability to admit and emotionally explore his attraction to - his sympathy with - other men. Same-sex affection was integral to understanding the mutually beneficient dynamics of the individual in society. This egalitarian same-sex affection placed the rugged individualism of the Revolutionary man into a new context, not of conquering an American landscape but of emerging from it and being at one with it. This was the cornerstone of a new way of understanding gender, desire, and personal and social liberty.

- A Queer History of the United States by Michael Bronski, chapter three: Imagining a Queer America.

Okay, so, all of this sounds very lovely, and it’s a beautiful idea, but this whole section is rather frustrating me and I kinda wanted to vent about that a bit.

The whole idea behind this book is that it’s very very broad - it’s a queer history of the entire United States, looking into not so much key figures but the real life experiences of queer people in various times and places, over a four hundred year span. So far, I’ve been able to appreciate the approach by thinking of it as more of a map than a photograph - it’s here to sketch the broad trends, so that when you look at any particular point, you can observe the context on either side and see how this particular culture came to be. But the more the book goes on, the more I am really starting to feel that the book’s lack of depth is hurting it.

I mean, okay. First paragraph. Bronski compares this apparent ninteenth-century ideal of ‘sympathy’ to romantic friendship from the 18th century, but claims that this one is more expansive. But... there’s no explanation for this. In what way did this ideal more emphasise feeling as others feel? Because from what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure that ‘mingling sorrows’ etc. was pretty important in romantic friendship as well. Could we have an example at least? Because the section quoted just before this was just about Emerson talking about how he loved this other man’s eyes, and had caught his eyes many time to stare at one another - I really didn’t seem much demonstration of sympathy. And this all goes back to the book’s explanation of romantic friendship itself, which was basically ‘around this time guys started writing really flowery stuff to one another, here are some examples, it’s possible that some relationships had sexual elements’ and that’s it. In neither section does he quote any person from the time period talking about the concept or what it was meant to mean. So I don’t really understand the comparison at all. (Also, just to nitpick, but I’m pretty sure that empathy is the word for feeling what other people feel, as opposed to sympathy?)

And then we have the second paragraph which is even more unclear. Okay, first off, he ties egalitarian principles to Enlightenment ideals... even though he never brought any of this up during, like, the sections covering the actual enlightenment period, or during the revolution when political Enlightenment ideology was huge huge hugely influential? And that makes the comment about the ‘rugged individualism of the Revolutionary man’ even more confusing. He spent a broad part of the 18th century section talking about romantic friendship, which doesn’t sound very individualistic. And then over the revolution, he talks about the changing standards of masculinity occurring at the time; I suppose it makes sense to consider the newer and more masculine standard ‘ruggedly individualistic’, even if he never really emphasised individualism at the time, but the whole point of that section was that there were two competing ideals and one didn’t really win over until decades after the revolution, and that during the revolution itself most of the top figures really didn’t fit the new masculinity at all. It could be that he’s referring to the political ideology of individualism, which was in fact very popular at the time, but a) that’s... a very Enlightenment concept?  b) I really don’t see much correlation between people believing in equality and not believing in individualism. In fact, at that time period, individualism and equality were very often connected, even if many people (*coughs* Jefferson) were unable to truly commit to egalitarian principles. Actually also come to think of it, I thought he didn’t talk about individualism as a political ideology but he did - to talk about how those of the French revolution took it to its logical conclusion by taking down all victimless crimes, including sodomy, and how we must have some explanation for why the Americans didn’t take the belief that far. And he settles on ‘it was a period of big change in how people viewed themselves, so there was no place for this in the new masculinity’. So...if anything the new masculinity was less individualistic?

What makes it even more confusing is that in between, we got a long section about the old West, and how this ability of people (particularly men) to leave populated society and traditional family groups to venture into the wilderness on their own was very important for creating a place where queer affection could be expressed. So... in this case, individualism, and finding your own way even if it meant leaving behind other people, was good for queer people. And he emphasises that San Francisco was a very diverse place with immigrants from all over the world, while also emphasising that it was a gold town where men came to seek their fortune on their own (demonstrated by the incredibly high men : women ratio), so here, individualism and a certain level of egalitarianism are coupled together.

And, look. I get that this book is a very very ambitious project. It’d be impossible to find any consistent connecting thread of belief throughout this entire history by which to explain how queer people were understood. But this still feels far too muddled to me. Individualism is bad for equality and queer people... except when it isn’t. And rugged masculinity is a true expression of queer lives... except when it isn’t. Without any real attempt made to properly compare these different ideologies to properly elucidate the similarities and differences. And that’s I guess the most frustrating thing to me: this book had such potential to really trace trends over time and portray history not as a set of distinct time periods but as an eternally changing continuum... and yet that’s exactly what it does: each section is pretty much cordoned off on its own, describing a certain place or lifestyle within a certain time period, with little explicit contrasting of what came before or after.

And, admittedly, part of the issue is that the author just doesn’t really seem as interested in these time periods? It’s a very ambitious book already, but I’m already probably about halfway through the chapter on the nineteenth century, and I’m only 17% through the book. So something like 80% of the book is likely to be about just the last hundred years. I expected something like this to happen, because there’s so much more information available in more recent time periods, and there’s especially more data available about queer people the closer you get to the present, and a lot of people are more interested in the recent and more politically relevant stuff... but still, really? 80%? If you’re writing a book charting queer history alongside American history... well, there are a lot of really important and interesting events in American history. I really feel you ought to properly respect those cultural landmarks, and the way they still impact on the way Americans view themselves to this day. It’s not as though this stuff is entirely in the past and serves no relation to the present except insofar as it created the circumstances which eventually lead to the present situation - events like the revolution or periods like the Old West are still incredibly relevant in modern American political and cultural life.

IDK. I’m still enjoying the book, and it does still do a lot of cool things that other books couldn’t - as flawed as the execution might be, it’s still very interesting getting this sort of bird’s eye view on this history, and it’s a good jumping off place for finding interesting trends - but...well, I was warned that it was a gloss, and I gotta say, it really, really is.