#shakespeare summarized

[littlesproutling]

We took notes in class, not just because that would make the material easier to read through later (class discussions and all), but because taking notes is a skill and also helps you remember whatever you are learning better.

"what did students do before chatgpt?" well one time i forgot i had a history essay due at my 10am class the morning of so over the course of my 30 minute bus ride to school i awkwardly used by backpack as a desk, sped wrote the essay, and got an A on it.

six months later i re-read the essay prior to the final exam, went 'ohhhh yeah i remember this', got a question on that topic, and aced it.

point being that actually doing the work is how you learn the material and internalize it. ChatGPT can give you a short cut but you won't build you the the muscles.

[annabelle--cane]

straight people are so fascinating even when they aren't actively trying to be homophobic. I had a class a few years ago where one assignment was to summarize some eighth century arabic poetry about going out for drinks with the lads before indulging in some gay sex and like half the class came in and said "I'm sorry idk what was happening in this one, they mention having sex with a servant but they also say the servant's a man? where'd the woman come from? I'm so confused." and a few days ago in a shakespeare class I made a comment about how cleopatra and octavius caesar are kind of parallel characters in possessively bartering for mark antony's attention and one of my classmates responded as though I'd been talking about octavia and not caesar, despite the fact that I said "caesar" and "him" multiple times while describing the actions he specifically took. fully incapable of comprehending of anything that's even a little bit gay.

[eccentricechoes]

The Tempest

"Hell is empty and all the devils are here."

Act 1

Congrats daughter, you're finally old enough to hear the family drama. I need to go enact my revenge now; but here's a boyfriend I'll pretend to disapprove of as a consolation gift.

Act 2

Your friendly neighborhood island spirit does a lot of putting people to sleep, then waking them up again, but this time, to stop a murder. Caliban tastes liquor for the first time and is convinced butler buddy is God.

Act 3

Not knowing her father's watching, Miranda and Ferdinand promise to marry each other. Ariel conjures a banquet to lure the old royals and confront them, then makes it vanish before they can eat.

Act 4

“We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and or little lives are rounded with a sleep.”

Prospero: Jk, Jk, daughter. I do, in fact, approve of boyfriend.

Act 5

Everyone reunites, all is forgiven, and Ariel and Caliban are freed. Prospero quits magic and travels with everyone for Miranda and Ferdinand's upcoming wedding; in addition to him becoming Duke again.

[luna-azzurra]

How to Write Long-Distance Friendships

⊹ Most of the friendship lives on screens now. And no, that doesn’t make it less real. It’s TikToks at Midnight, blurry selfies captioned “alive I guess,” a random “thinking of you” that hits harder than a Shakespeare monologue. These tiny, chaotic digital crumbs? That’s modern affection, guys.

⊹ Time zones are the actual villain. Like, congrats, your best friend is awake when you’re half-dead. You get really good at leaving messages in little bottles ( I mean, texts) that’ll wash up on their shore eight hours later. It's strangely poetic, if you ignore how annoying it is.

⊹ Calls turn into special events... You plan them like dinner reservations. Reschedule them like flaky exes and when they do happen, it’s either three hours of emotional unpacking or fifteen minutes of “I love you but my soul is leaking out my ears.” Either way, it counts.

⊹ They don’t know you're right now. Not really, they weren’t there for the coworker who ruined your day or the little bakery you fell in love with. So you have to explain everything, but sometimes you don’t. And that weird little space between what they know and what they don’t? That’s amazing, for Storytelling.

⊹ You start summarizing your life like a newsletter. “Still alive. Work sucks. Ate something questionable.” Not because you don’t want to share (you do) but because it’s hard to cram the full play-by-play into a 30-second voice note between meetings. Distance edits you down, that’s just how it works.

⊹ Big stuff hits differently. The good, the bad, the absolutely unhinged... it all feels heavier when you can’t scream-laugh or ugly-cry in the same room. No amount of phone calls makes up for sitting on the floor together eating cereal out of the box and feeling like maybe the world isn’t ending.

⊹ And yet, the love finds ways. It shows up in birthday texts sent in the wrong time zone, in Venmo notes like “for coffee and emotional damage,” And in playlists with suspiciously specific vibes.

⊹ Some don’t survive the distance. That’s just the truth, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t real or important. And the ones that do? the ones that hang on through all the missed calls and delayed replies and half-finished conversations? Those are steel-reinforced, weirdly telepathic, practically immortal friendships. The kind worth writing about.

[gladiatorofturtles]

Learning to interpret texts is a skill that requires exercising and practicing to get better at; so I *highly* recommend toughing things out and using Sparksnotes as an assist, rather than a replacement. I get that it's not fun for everyone getting stymied by older language or really opaque (to us) language structures, but this is a skill that can help you in a *lot* of areas. Everything from greater ease reading and writing e-mails, to having an easier time interpreting literature and poetry (which also has knock ons, like making it easier to follow and understand stories even in other mediums, or just follow threads in conversations). I know that at least North America has greatly devalued the humanities, particularly the study of literature and art, as something worthless. The truth is that the skills you learn can be applied to most jobs. Even if you end up working construction, being able to understand what's being communicated to you is an important skill, and that's what reading hard to understand texts teaches you. It gives you flexibility and depth with language, and teaches you to pick up on nuance (which I'm autistic, so I *know* nuance can be hard to get, but you can learn to catch it and interpret more and better than you currently do). Also, there are whole worlds out there in books and other texts; amazing, far flung places, familiar and comforting places, wild fantastical places, and so many inner worlds of emotion. The selection is incredible and so varied, you will never run out of things out there to read and experience. Having assistance when you're out of your depth is good, but if you're not doing any of the work in interpreting it's ultimately short changing you, and what's it's costing you is access to all those stories, more stories than you could ever dream of.

what is HAPPENING

[thatdeadaquarius]

About your language brainrot. I see your "Reader's writing can't match tyvat's long and flowery writing" and bring you "Tyvat isn't used to books over 50 pages long so a short story to the Reader is a whole dictionary to tyvat readers".

Seriously, have you seen how thin the books are? They don't wrote novels, they write short chapters formatted in the way really old stories are. As in, summarizing all the events down into one smooth story then adding a few quotes. Fanfiction writers are insane. They will willingly sit down and write hundreds of words at a time. To them, a proper modern day story of maybe, oh 10k words or so, would probably be like the Oddessy itself.

If we were to combine the two headcanons. It would end up as many historians being intimidated by this insanely long written scripture in the language of the forgotten.

I'm going to take this a step further and say that if the creator asked some people to proofread their things, it would establish a hiarchy of who is able to actually finish the book the creator read and who isn't.

NOW THIS, THIS IS MY FUCKING JAMMMM

I'm so sorry this is so old!! u probably all know this by this point that I've really slowed down as the year has gone on, but I graduated university and then got my first job so its been pretty crazy!

Sun: Reader (you/they/them)

Orbit: Headcanons-ish

Stars: dash of all the book/nerds of Genshin, heavy on Sumeru?

Comets & Meteors: Content Warnings: Cussing, 16+ Mature Audiences, Spoliers for Sumeru Archon Quests/Scaramouche, & Trigger Warnings: mention of shipping/characters shipping themselves with you.

Comment if any missed, please.

☆

FULL STOP.

THE AKADEMIYA, FONTAINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, HAVE BEEN WAITTTINNGGGG ON YOUR ASS LMAO

You fall from the fucking sky like a 5 star, or pop out of the Irminsul or whatever

and immediately are mobbed by scholars. LMAO jkjk (not really, bc that's what it’d feel like)

can you even imagine the dread older stories(”the classics” to them), that was instilled in the poor students around Teyvat??

id like to think ur works are the most preserved over the thousands of years of Teyvat archeologists excavating them, in comparison to other authors (teyvat just likes you more, suck it William Shakespeare)

also, bc I cant resist language differences/world building I'm sorryyyy 😭 😭

the vocab of Genshin lang vs. ours, has significantly less vocabulary like their actual dictionary is 1/3 the size of ours type of energy

(Omfg all ur fanfics being considered like insanely long realistic romantic classics or tragedies like Jane Austen-level, and only the richest and biggest play companies put on plays about ur stories bc the script goes on for hours)

(ur plays only get put on for rlly big events bc of this, like Lantern Rite or like a Summer/Winter festival/your birthday, which is, yes, an international holiday)

dude the sheer power move of anything you’ve written being essentially “Journey of the West” to them, like Damnnn.

endless like adaptations, plays, Teyvat-short stories condensing it, (THEIR OWN FANFICTION ABOUT UR STORIES)

the power is, in fact, going to your head every time another scholar both deflates at how long ur stuff is, but also lights up bc they get to read it

speaking of scholars… you know who snatched you up first. you know. you don’t even need to read the next line.

Alhaitham.

sneaky bastard he is, absolutely manipulated, mansplained (and manwhored bc he knows he’s handsome, cheeky little shit) his way into getting you to sit down with him and interview you about both translating other classics, your own, giving your own analysis of others works and ur own, and picking ur brain apart of how/why you wrote urs, etc. its fucking endless,

Kaveh had to come rescue you bc u were starving to death after getting stuck with the Haravatat scholar in his office for nearly 7 hours of interrogation discussion about literature

and Alhaitham wasn't even nearly done, he’d informed you as you left that he already had another appointment for later conversation scheduled (how?? you don't even know ur own schedule??? you have a schedule???) and was looking forward to more of your “creative and enlightening input” :)))

(you’re never going to escape him, not even Nahida herself can save you from his stubborn ass)

On another note, Xingqiu is quaking when you agree to autograph his copy of your stories (of which he has all hard covers of the first edition translations)

Zhongli/Rex Lapis is known for having a near-lifelong passion for searching for your works specifically, and learning how to translate them better into Teyvatian vernacular

like the same way he can absolutely speak on Rex Lapis facts/rocks/adepti info, is the same confidence he speaks about knowing ur work lol

(yes he did also ask for several autographs and another sit-down talk about the works, tho a lot more sneaky then Alhaitham bc he just casually gets u guys into it during dinner)

Barbatos/Venti has written some of the most famous songs based on your stuff, he has his favorites too,

but he always claims the best songs are any that have been written in the story, like either when a character sings something, or there are like quotes from songs ur fanfics are based on lol

(he also demanded to hear what they actually sound like from you, yes, you have to sing them for him lol)

Venti also can surprisingly drunkenly ramble the entirety of at least one of ur stories, like, word for word lmao

(Diluc gave in and did give him a drink on the house for that one, just once, Venti doesn’t remember it lol)

(I forgot to mention, u guys still speak the same language, just like, different versions of it)

ur works being one of the few things all the Archons can freely talk about with each other, like it’s neutral ground bc they’re all fangirling about it lmao

Furina and Neuvillette have had like,, fierce debates over the decades about character dynamics and the general drama of ur stories, they’ve gotten into it enough they’ve stopped talking to each other for a couple days a few times lol

Albedo, Sucrose, Kokomi, Yae Miko, Ei, Raiden, have read every single work they’re gotten their hands on in Teyvat (it took them like a literal year or longer)

Albedo drew you fanart for every single story, bc he’s hyperfixated on everything related to you ngl,

Kokomi had commissioned smaller pocket versions of ur works (which later got popular thanks to Yae Miko) both the OG and the Teyvat shortened versions

THE HARBINGERS ARE THE MOST DOWN BAD LMAO

Childe has literally tried to recreate battle scenes from ur works lmao

and gets especially riled up about fighting someone who resembles any characters from them (esp villains, what a cutie)

You cannot fathom the amount of research throughout Teyvat that has been secretly or indirectly funded by Pantalone/Tsaritsa

from the experts to analyze them, to funding play companies to act them out, to actually excavating places to get more of ur stuff unearthed

(the Harbingers absolutely are the first group of people that got to read several of ur stories first bc of this, like the world’s most exclusive secret book club lol)

Scaramouche used to clown on Childe all the time about how he was too impatient to even “sit down and read the King’s classics”, and he was downright insufferable when he found out about Tartaglia’s habit of recreating battle scenes/that being what motivated him to fight sometimes lol

that being said, Wanderer surprisingly never forgot ur stories.

Even when his memories were wiped for a bit, he found comfort in these fantastical epics still sticking around, even when his old names did not

(he mayyyy or mayyy nottt have secretly namedhimselfafteroneofthetragicprotagonistsherelatesto- )

oh btw, Nahida also found joy and comfort in ur stories when she was trapped, they also helped her literally grow as a person bc she had ur stories to help her sort of process the world/what life was like outside of her dreaming prison 🥺💔❤️‍🩹

◇

OMFG

ANYWAY FULL TONE SHIFT LMFAO-

the ABSOLUTE SPIRAL-RED-STRING-CONSPIRACY-THEORY-BOARD ENERGY IF THIS WAS A BLUNT LANGUAGE AU LMAOOOO

like specifically how Teyvatians like to give all the context ever thru their words, but older deities/beings like you just do simple phrases that can have deeper meanings (whereas teyvat just explains all the meanings behind their words)

STOP there’s like an official display at the Akademiya and Fontaine Institute of red string theory boards 😭😭 (look what you’ve done to themmm LMAO)

for like every story of urs, INCLUDING THE FANFICS STOP

IMAGINE THE SHIPPING WARS IF U EVER WROTE ONE THAT WASNT EXPLICIT OR LIKE ONE OF THE MAIN ROMANTIC INTERESTS HAD CHEMISTRY WITH OTHER CHARACTERS HAHAHAHAA

that's actually what Akademiya scholars argue about the most viciously, it’s like politics you can’t just bring up ships from ur stories casually in regular convos 💀

(poor Cyno has to deal with a shipping war once a year bc someone always makes the mistake of reading ur work for the first time (without being told to not talk to others abt ships lol) and it starts an all out brawl in the cafeteria every time LMAO)

Also yes.

Cyno is a fanboy.

(he has read Creator x Reader-insert fanfiction.)

(As have most of the characters mentioned, and those not lol)

…

(I'm gonna make a whole Creator x reader fanfic post one day i stg lmao)

☆

an iced coffee? for me?? :0

ok but real talk…

wtf do you guys wanna see for new years!!

i didn't do a inktober/october days thingy bc i felt too unprepared (and bc id wanted to post that 1000+ followers eldritch au for Halloween)

but now i kinda wanna, at least for a few days :o

ill post a poll in a minute, so check it out!! but still, please feel free to comment some ideas here! :)

Safe Travels Deafening Dreamer,

💀♒

If you wanna join a taglist, DM me what for! "Pspspsss, please tag me for [All SAGAU posts, Only SAGAU Language AUs, diff fandom, etc.]!"

(If you ever wanna drop, just DM me! "No more taglists/[specifically this AU/fandom] please!")

♡the beloveds♡

@karmawonders / @0rah-s / @randomnatics / @glxssynarvi / @nexylaza / @genshin-impacts-me / @wholesomey-artist / @thedevioussmirk / @the-dumber-scaramouche / @chocogi / @fallen-starr / @areaderofbooks / @devilangel657 / @esthelily

[ismaeldrawsthings]

I am the friend that's too woke bc my concept of gender dynamics and expressions make it difficult for me to understand What The Fuck are People On when they come to this god forsaken website and say "Madeline Miller imposed straight relationship dynamics onto Patrochilles' relationship" or "Madeline Miller made Patroclus feminine".

Is healing an inherently feminine trait for you? Is him not being fond of violence in the book inherently feminine to you? I don't understand.

It may not go with the context of The Iliad, but it goes perfectly with the context of TSOA. Of course Patroclus, the boy who accidentally took a life when he was still a child, wouldn't like violence. It goes hand in hand within the context of the novel. As well as him being a healer, having learned with Chiron. All of this make sense in the context of TSOA.

Now... And hear me out on this, you're allowed to disagree: I don't believe this is really mischaracterization.

I personally don't believe such thing as "mischaracterizing" a mythological character exist. Since mythological characters are moldable depending on: The culture in which they are written, who wrote them, the historical context, among others. They are multifacetic and their characterizations depend on the aforementioned factors. For example, in The Iliad, Helen fucking hated Paris and wanted to go back to Sparta with her husband. Meanwhile, in The Odyssey, Helen immitates the voice of the wives of the men inside the wooden horse in order to torture them, wanting to sabotage their victory in order to stay in Troy. These are two completely different and opposite characterizations of her character. Helen is one of the biggest examples of how characterization works in mythology. Some people believe she loved Paris and went to Troy willingly with him, others believe she hated him and he took her forcefully and raped her. All of these interpretations are true bc myths are ambiguous and adapt to the people's beliefs and practices.

And they adapt to their time, for which I say that Patroclus' character in TSOA was not a mischaracterization of him as a whole. Patroclus represents kindness, and the traits of a kind man were different in ancient Greece than they are today. It doesn't matter. What matter is that his kindness is a key part of his character, so Miller's writing isn't wrong. It isn't a misunderstanding of his character. She based this "anti-violence" version of him on Shakespeare's interpretation of his character, but Shakespeare was not wrong either. Shakespeare wrote what a kind man was in his time, and Miller wrote what a kind man is in her time based on the representation of kindness from previous time. And both of them are true. Both of them can be true, as well as all the prior.

People say Miller's characterization is wrong and could've not existed within the context of The Iliad or the Trojan war as a whole, for which I say: this is symbolic. The Trojan war is symbolic, is mythological, it does not exist. Is a lesson on moral ambiguity within the context of war and how a man's life is not worth more than other's (and a bunch of other things). It's relevant, it transcends time. It can be adapted and reinterpreted to give that same lesson in different historical contexts.

Why do we keep learning about The Iliad? Why does it matter? Why should it matter, if people are so insisten on the fact that it happened in ancient times to ancient people within ancient contexts? Because it is still relevant. War is still relevant. We cannot just say "oh, those old Greeks!" And rub our hands off because it doesn't apply to us. A modern reinterpretation of these old myths and characters are important for you to still understand the lessons these myths were meant to give in your modern context. And is not wrong to do so. Is not a "mischaracterization" or "misinterpretation". Is just another interpretation.

But that's just what I believe lmfao you're free to disagree with me

Summarizing: I don't believe you can really mischaracterize a mythological character as long as your characterization of said mythological character doesn't interfere with the purpose of their existence in the myth they are from. Patroclus is Achilles humanity and compassion, he stands out for his empathy, diplomacy and kindness. Madeline Miller does a great job of representing this, regardless of whether her representation of these traits differ from what they were like in an ancient context.

[shitpostingkats]

okay I just had to back up a bit to verify it was you. How we feeling about Roche

My thoughts on Roche can be found summarized here

To not summarize them:

I love how stupidly consistent with the original he feels. I love Reno's comment in remake that all SOLDIERS are in fact, massive weirdos. I love how gay they let him be. I love that he quotes Romeo & Juliet. Except, in this universe, Loveless is the stand in for shakespeare and there's actually several shakespeare lines in the performance at the saucer. So there's like a 90% chance Roche was just quoting Loveless when he said that. I love that he put in the effort to hire a full brass band for his showdown in Junon. I love his stupid little keychain (yes I had it equipped for like half my playthrough)

Most of all I love that Cloud???? Weirdly respects him???? After their first duel, whenever Roche shows up, Cloud plays by the rules and tells all his allies to stand down so they can 1v1. He genuinely likes Roche and has this begrudging fondness for their random shonen rivalry. You don't see him giving Sephiroth any of that. Cloud has so many random people obsessed with him, and you know the only one he tolerates??? Roche. What the hell.

If we're talking about his final fight, let me just say: Ow.

[ghost-bison]

a christopher eccleston appreciation post

i will never say this enough because i don't know enough words, nor do i think such words exist, that could even begin to summarize how much i love christopher eccleston, but... i love christopher eccleston. and, more importantly, i have a deep-rooted respect for that man.

i started doctor who as, let's be honest, a sci-fi hater, forcing myself because i was obsessed with david tennant, and i was kind of dreading the first series because of this. but i was dead wrong.

he broadened my mind, gave me so many laughs, and so many cries, and i'm not the first to say that whenever eccleston is on the screen you just can't take your eyes off him, even when he's not supposed to be the main focus of the scene.

the way he can switch from silly goose to traumatized soldier in a matter of seconds will never cease to amaze me. or how he can play with both like he's on a swing by balancing it out with sarcasm?

i think whoever doesn't give him the title role in their shows/films is either an idiot, or they know the main character just isn't always the best.

i think it's downright idiotic and shameful that he gets rejected from ever playing some shakespeare just because of his northern accent (they're just posh elitist pos). now that he's older, and that times are evolving (i mean, i hope the world of theater is vibing with this evolution, but i'm not delusional), i hope we get to see him portray a character like leontes in winter's tale cause i know he'd be absolutely perfect for the role, and who better than shakespeare (this character especially, with his nuances and highs and lows and breakdowns and breakthroughs) to match acting like his?

saw an article where eccleston talked about how the moment he really knew he wanted to be an actor was when he had to wear mascara for a play, and had enjoyed it. i think he talks about it in his autobiography too (you should read it, btw, it's frankly affordable, and he happens to be a marvelous writer as well).

eccleston knows he is mistakenly type-cast, because of his background, as macho men and tough blokes in general. he's aware that it's kind of a big part of his culture. again, he talks about it i think in the very first chapter, how for instance he used to dress up as james bond, the pinnacle of "masculinity", which i think was a disguise in the metaphorical sense of the term, to mask his delicacy and femininity (or at least, that's my interpretation of it).

in his biography, eccleston talks about the differences between him and his dad, ronnie: he was surprised, as a child, whenever his father's affection manifested as a kiss or a hug, cause that usually wasn't his father's way of doing things. he compares it to how he, in contrast, has the habit of kissing his own son, albert, and telling him he loves him.

you can find it as well in how he talks about his anorexia, his body dysmorphia and, i think we can call it that, gender dysphoria. he's from a time when those concepts didn't even exist, they weren't a thing to the public eye. my father and my step-father, both feminine men in their own way, and both around eccleston's age, both told me about the struggle that it represented, not being the stereotype of the macho tough guy, and being surrounded by boys who didn't struggle with that issue. it made my dad a junkie, my stepdad a depressive artist, and, apparently, it made eccleston an anorexic actor.

i think it takes a lot of courage for people that age (the boomer generation as we call them), especially men, from whom we expect toxic masculinity, masculinity pushed to an extreme, to be able to openly call it out and dissect it into what it is: a ridiculous standard. but to be a PUBLIC FIGURE, in his 60s, and still find the strength to express it? damn. takes guts, i think.

most of us on this website, we're babies. most of us are at most in their thirties. the millenials and the gen z, and now the gen alpha, we take that for granted. or get offended and scandalized that being able to express oneself isn't yet a basic standard.

but then, i talk to my mum, and i realize that she had to stray from her catholic, sexist education, she had to make up her own mind about things in order for me to be born a free spirit. and that's just considering my mum's a cishet.

christopher eccleston expressed in other words that he doesn't fully consider himself to be cisgendered. i have mad respect for the way he talks about it, and for even talking about it at all.

then, there's his honesty. the more interviews i watch, the more it impresses me. he knows honesty goes hand in hand with dignity. i'm sorry but i'm tired of people who are nice all the time. you never know when they're being honest, and maybe some of them are, who knows. but i'm not stupid enough to think that so many people are just pure sunshine all the time (respect for tennant for lashing out publically about transphobia, i think he passed the test).

eccleston? he knows how to be both brutally honest and yet respectful at the same time. no ukulele apology from this man and holy fuck, it feels good!

i've seen him call russel t davies out for his lack of professionalism on the set of doctor who, and then list him amongst the great writers he's worked with. which makes me want to believe eccleston's side, because, if you're always either too polite, or too full of spite about eveything, who's to say you're not the problem? i've got way less trouble believing you if you can stay unbiased about a person you're having beef with than if suddenly everything said person does turns into shit just cause you don't like them. that's just maturity and wisdom.

one last thing i love about eccleston is that he is interested in other people's lives. there's a critic by marcus berkmann in his book that perfectly expresses my point: "you know what to expect from the autobiographies of most actors, i think: anecdotes, charm, more than mild self-satisfaction and faux-modesty by the bucketload. but christopher eccleston is not most actors".

and that's it. watch him in interviews and at convention panels, where he lets his younger co-stars speak before himself, and seizes the occasion when journalists ask him questions that are meant to make him talk about himself to praise his writers and other actors instead.

read his autobiography, which is both a love letter to his dad and a big let's-be-honest about the struggles of growing up poor and his personal struggles, because he thinks raising awareness is just as important as protecting himself.

look at his instagram posts where he unabashedly disses the monarchy and stays true and loyal to his background even after getting a taste of money. and his other posts where he shares his love for acorns and spending time with his kids.

i've seen him nearly break down in shame and regret on television for having stolen a kid's crisps in primary school. and not trying to find lame excuses for his behaviour. no ukulele apology, just facts, just christopher eccleston showing us what masculinity in its purest, most beautiful form should be about

[deusvervewrites]

Have any advice on how to write something that may be compelling?

That's a tricky one to vocalize. I'll try my best, but remember that I am not an officially published author, nor is any one author the sole authority on this subject. This is something you will have to eventually decide for yourself.

First, READ. READ READ READ.

Everyone says this and it is true. Never trust an author who has written more words than they've read.

In fact, don't just read. Watch some movies. Read some poetry. Watch some TV shows. Play some games. Read an adventure module. Watch a comedy routine.

Humans have been telling stories for over 12,000 years and we've learned some neat tricks in that time. Not only will you learn a lot about narrative structure, character dynamics and arcs, setting up scenes, setup and payoff, etc. but this will inspire you. Storytellers cannot conjure something from nothing. It is the stories we have heard before us that give us life, woven together with countless other tales into something new.

Next, ask a question or two.

"How will they get out of this one?"

"Who killed John Murdervictim?"

"How will Asshole Protagonist fuck this up for themselves?"

"Which of these two characters will betray the other first?"

All stories are built on questions, but not the questions you may assume. Generally speaking, the hero wins. We know this. Especially depending on the genre of the story or the target audience. At no point did anyone actually seriously think All For One was going to win in My Hero Academia, in the same way we know the Lex Luthor will never get one over on Superman, in the same way we know that Mario will save Princess Peach. Most audiences will have a pretty good idea of the story's ending from the main plot synopsis. They pick up the story to see how the protagonist gets there, and what they lose along the way.

The opening scene of Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet (Two households, both alike in dignity in fair Verona, where we lay our scene, etc.) explicitly summarizes the entire play, including the fact that the title characters die and how. This raises the question "how does everything go to shit?"

Columbo episodes open with the killer doing a murder and covering it up with the perfect alibi before bumbling lieutenant Columbo shows up. Now we're wondering what he's noticed, and how he's going to fit it all together to catch the killer.

Questions are your Set-Up. Now you actually have to pay it off.

Your set-up is a promise you make to your audience. Anton Chekhov once famously said that, "If in the first act you have hung a rifle on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there." You are not in an arms race with your readers. If they can predict what's coming next, congratulations, your story makes sense.

The question is not what is interesting. You will find drama in the act of asking the question.

Pay off is when you fulfill that promise you made. You answer the question--sometimes partially, sometimes completely, sometimes by reframing the question entirely.

Set-up and payoff, the creation/escalation and resolution of tension, is where compelling narrative is built.

[hamletthedane]

Hamlet’s Age

Not to bring up an age-old debate that doesn’t even matter, but I have been thinking recently how interesting Hamlet’s age is both in-text and as meta-text.

To summarize a whole lot of discussion, we basically only have the following clues as to Hamlet’s age:

Hamlet and Horatio are both college students at Wittenberg. In Early Modern/Late Renaissance Europe, noble boys typically began their university education at 14 and usually completed at their Bachelor’s degree by 18 or 19. However, they may have been studying for their Master’s degrees, which was typically awarded by age 25 at the latest. For reference, contemporary Kit Marlowe was a pretty late bloomer who received a bachelor’s degree at 20 and a master’s degree at 23.

Hamlet is AGGRESSIVELY described as a “youth” by many different characters - I believe more than any other male shakespeare character (other than 16yo Romeo). While usage could vary, Shakespeare tended to use “youth” to mean a man in his late teens/very early 20s (actually, he mostly uses it to describe beardless ‘men’ who are actually crossdressing women - likely literally played by young men in their late teens)

King Hamlet is old enough to be grey-haired, but Queen Gertrude is young enough to have additional children (or so Hamlet strongly implies)

Hamlet talks about plucking out the hairs of his beard, so he is old enough to at least theoretically have a beard

In the folio version, the gravedigger says he became a gravedigger the day of Hamlet’s birth, and that he’s be “sixteene here, man and boy, thirty years.” However, it’s unclear if “sixteene” means “sixteen” or “sexton” (ie has he worked here for 16 years but is 30 years old, or has he been sexton there for thirty years?)

Hamlet knew Yorick as a young child, and the gravedigger says Yorick was buried 23 years ago. However, the first quarto version version of Hamlet says “dozen years” instead of “three and twenty.” This suggests the line changed over time. (Or that the bad quarto sucks - I really need to make that post about it, huh…)

Yorick is a skull, and according to the gravedigger’s expertise, he has thus been dead for at least 7-8 years - implying Hamlet is at least ~15yo if he remembers Yorick from his childhood

One important thing sometimes overlooked - Claudius takes the throne at King Hamlet’s death, not Prince Hamlet. That is mostly a commentary on English and French monarchist politics at the time, but it is strange within the internal text. A thirty year old Hamlet presumably would have become the new monarch, not the married-in uncle (unless Gertrude is the vehicle through which the crown passes a la Mary I/Phillip II - certainly food for thought)

Honestly, Hamlet is SO aggressively described as being very young that I’m fairly confident the in-text intention is to have him be around 18-23yo. Placing his age at 30yo simply does not make much sense in the context of his descriptors, his narrative role, and his status as a university student.

However, it doesn’t really matter what the “right” answer is, because the confusion itself is what makes the gravedigger scene so interesting and metatextual. We can basically assume one of the following, given the folio text:

Hamlet really is meant to be 30yo, and that was supposed to surprise or imply something to the contemporary audience that is now lost to us

Older actors were playing Hamlet by the time the folio was written down, and the gravedigger’s description was an in-text justification of the seeming disconnect between age of actor and description of “youth”

Older actors were playing Hamlet by the time the folio was set down, and the gravedigger’s description was an in-text JOKE making fun of the fact that a 30-something year old is playing a high-school aged boy. This makes sense, as the gravedigger is a clown and Hamlet is a play that constantly pokes fun at its own tropes and breaks the fourth wall for its audience

The gravedigger cannot count or remember how old he is, and that’s the joke (this is the most common modern interpretation whenever the line isn’t otherwise played straight). If the clown was, for example, particularly old, those lines would be very funny

Any way you look at it, I believe something is echoing there. It seems like this is one of the many moments in Hamlet where you catch a glimpse of some contemporary in-joke about theater and theater culture* that we can only try to parse out from limited context 430 years later. And honestly, that’s so interesting and cool.

*(My other favorite example of this is when Hamlet asks Polonius about what it was like to play Julius Caesar in an exchange that pokes fun of Polonius’ actor a little. This is clearly an inside-joke directed at Globe regulars - the actor who played Polonius must have also played Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play, and been very well reviewed. Hamlet’s joke about Brutus also implies the actor who played Brutus is one of the main cast in Hamlet - possibly even the prince himself, depending on how the line is read).

[saint-starflicker]

King Lear is my favorite tragedy and Twelfth Night is my favorite comedy 🥺 what is top 3? favorite history? i only watched King Henry the Tom Hiddleston son of Jeremy Irons.

My toxic trait is that I judge people by their top three Shakespeare plays - just like folks who are into the horoscope judge you based on your sun, moon and rising signs.

Btw mine are Macbeth, Richard II and The Tempest

[minmin-vs-physics]

HUP, EPR, and Bell’s Theorem

Abstract

An educational document discussing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the EPR (Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen) Paradox, and Bell’s Theorem, written for an audience without a background in physics, but with their head still screwed on right.

1 Introduction

Ah, quantum mechanics. A bizarre theory which unfortunately describes our physical world exceed- ingly well. Einstein didn’t get it. Bohr didn’t get it. I don’t get it. And soon, you won’t get it either. As the saying goes, the more you know about quantum mechanics, the less you understand it.

I will be skipping around in terms of topics covered in undergraduate quantum mechanics courses to prepare you for the actual beast, Entanglement.

Entanglement, the property of quantum systems to remain correlated even when separated, is a concept which has transformed from a worrisome byproduct of a thought experiment [1] into a cornerstone of quantum mechanics itself. What is a quantum mechanics? Google is your friend, my dear reader. My time with you is limited„ and I cannot teach you the alphabet to make you read Shakespeare. I can only explain what you directly need to understand this article. Anything else shall be your homework, and if I am feeling kind at the end, I will provide a list of accessible resources on learning quantum mechanics the RIGHT way.

As we dive into the frankly confusing world of entanglement, it is vital that you remember one thing– A quantum particle is described by a wave function, Ψ. This wave function is a solution to the Schrodinger equation.

This is what they mean when they say something is both a particle and a wave; It’s behavior can be described by a special kind of wave equation, which we all know and love as the Schrodinger Wave Equation. But that’s not important right now. I’ll explain more if I need to. We need to get to HUP.

2 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

Formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the Uncertainty Principle is an indomitable tenet in the field of quantum mechanics. Its premise is simple. The more precisely a particle’s momentum is determined, the less precisely is its position. In one dimension, this can be summarized with the following mathematical statement: ∆x∆p ≤ 2

Here, ∆x is the standard deviation or “spread” of the position x, while ∆p is the standard deviation of the momentum p. As the spread of one quantity decreases, the other must increase in order to maintain the inequality. I will not bother proving the Principle in full, but I have Heisenberg’s original proof in the references.

Is that it?

Ummmmm, no. An important thing to remember about HUP is that it is not exclusive to x and p. HUP applies to any two quantum mechanical operators, A, B, which do not commute with each other i.e. [A, B] = AB − BA = 0. But that’s all mathematical nonsense, Min! What does it really mean?

Fine! I’m only doing this because it will be useful when we get to measurements in the EPR paradox and Bell theorems. In order to understand what “not commuting” means in the physical sense, let’s use our favorites, position and momentum, as an example. In quantum mechanics, xˆ andpˆ are referred to as the position and momentum operators respectively. (Why the little hats? Firstly, they’re cute, and secondly, well, you’ll see.) The whole point of calling them operators is that they act on wave functions. And in the crudest sense possible (please don’t try this at home, folks), hitting an operator on a wave function and taking the expectation value, gives a measurement of the quantum mechanical system.

There is about three semesters of quantum mechanical education I’m waving off right now, but bear with me. When we act the momentum operator on the system, in some sense we extract the momentum. Same thing for position. However, the whole deal about x and p is that they do not commute. So, the order in which you conduct the measurements absolutely does matter. First measuring x and then p would give you a different answer than first measuring p and then x. This is because the very act of measuring a quantum state changes it. That’s right! It changes. This makes all the difference when you consider the standard deviation of a bunch of measurements. If my memory of introductory quantum mechanics serves me right, after about three pages of algebra you arrive at the familiar position-momentum uncertainty principle.

The moral of the story is that the non-commutativity of these operators manifests as a sort of granularity in the accuracy of measurements you can make on a physical system. This granularity is retained between any other kinds of non-commuting measurements you can make!

On second thought, do you really need this? Probably not. But, the algebra of uncertainty principles is a pet project to me. Especially the strangest of them all, the energy-time uncertainty principle. Enough on that! Here’s the main takeaway (other than the actual HUP statement) that you need from this section:

Making a measurement on a state changes its wave function. No exceptions. None. The detached observer is not a reality in the quantum mechanical world.

3 Spin

I realized that the following sections will not make any sense if you don’t at least know what spin is. So, let’s make a short pit-stop at Spin City to learn about this nonsensical physical quantity.

We’re all aware of angular momentum– its the rotational analog of linear momentum (which we talked about the previous section). We all agree that it is a property related to the motion of an object, right? WRONG! Sometime in the 1900s (Seriously, 20th Century Physicists should chill out), it was discovered this angular momentum from motion i.e. “orbital” angular momentum, as it was called in the atomic physics context it was first described, does not account for all the angular momentum of a particle. Long story short, the remaining angular momentum, which is intrinsic to a particle, is now called Spin. Every fundamental particle has a particular value of spin, which, in quantum mechanical jargon, is the eigenvalue of the spin operator.

For understanding the following sections, we really only need to care about spin-1/2 particles, which are lovingly called fermions, and are the building blocks of all ordinary matter. The shining feature of spin-1/2 particles is that their spin can either be +1 or −1 , which is often referred to as spin-up (↑) and spin-down (↓) respectively.

Physically, the up or down comes from whether the measured spin is along the axis it is measured, or opposite to it. Yes, spin is a vector, so it does have three independent components in the three spatial directions, but it is convention to consider the z-component of the spin for calculations and experiments. Any references to up and down in the next sections are along the z-direction.

Oh, and one more thing, spin-0 particles have no intrinsic spin. This will be important when we encounter the EPR Paradox.

4 EPR Paradox

After skipping a whole bunch of most-likely important concepts in the study of quantum mechanics we arrive at the EPR paradox.

The EPR paradox is a thought experiment first described in the groundbreaking paper [1] by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935. Einstein was quite vocally a hater, and the EPR paradox was proposed as evidence that the description of reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete. Reality doesn’t care, of course, and the EPR Paradox isn’t really a paradox. In fact, it is the foundation of entanglement– a magnificent, very real feature of reality which spans black holes, quantum computers and even my field of research: Entanglement in elementary particle physics.

In fact, I’m so self-centered that the example we will use to illustrate the EPR paradox is from particle physics. Just kidding, my explanation follows Chapter 12 in Griffiths’ Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, and is a simplified version credited to David Bohm

EPRB Paradox

Suppose a pion (funky particle with spin-0) at rest, decays to an electron and positron which fly off into opposite directions. Since the pion has spin-0, conservation of angular momentum dictates that the electron and positron occupy the following spin configuration.

√(1/2) (|↑↓⟩−|↓↑⟩)

BE NOT AFRAID of the mathematical jumpscare. The fancy bracket |·⟩ is what’s called a “ket”, and is used to denote the state of a quantum system. All the expression says is that either the electron is

spin-up (+1) and the positron is spin-down (−1) or vice-versa, because the total spin of the system 22

must add up to 0. (Since the initial state is spin zero, the system must stay spin-zero even after the decay occurs. That’s what angular momentum conservation is all about.) We don’t know which combination we will get, but it must be one of the above. Measuring the spin of one of the particles will automatically tell us what the spin of the other particle is. This means that the spins of the electron and positron are correlated. In modern terms, such a state is called entangled.

Now, let’s pretend that these particles fly off in opposite directions, until say, they are several light years apart. What would happen if we found the electron and measured its spin to be +1 ? We instantly know that the positron’s spin is −1 . This is obvious. Why are we mad about this?

Naturally, we may think that the electron really was spin-up from the moment it was created and it was only that quantum mechanics did not know until we made a measurement. But by the principles of quantum mechanics, neither particle had a definite spin, until we made a measurement, causing the wave function to “collapse” and instanteously produce the spin of the positron which is lights years away!

The EPR bros were NOT having it. Einstein famously called this phenomenon “spooky action at a distance”. They stated that the quantum mechanical standpoint must be wrong! The electron and positron must have had well-defined spins from their creation, even if quantum mechanics does not know it. Quantum mechanics is not a complete description of reality and there must be some hidden variables which describe a physical system that we do not yet know.

The fundamental assumption guiding the EPR argument is that no information can propagate faster than light. This the principle of locality. In order to appease this, we can say that the wave function collapsed at some finite velocity and is not instantaneous. However, this violates conservation– If we measured the positron spin as well before the information of collapse reached it, there is a 50–50 chance that both particles are spin-up, which means the system has total spin-1. Preposterous! You can mess with anything you want in this universe, but you don’t mess with conservation laws. What do we do now?

Okay, let’s calm down. The theorists may say whatever they want, but experiment doesn’t lie. Experiment tells us that in these cases, spin is perfectly correlated. The wave function collapse is instantaneous. That’s crazy. Call your mom and tell her you want to go home. The EPR Bros are frightening you— Quantum Mechanics is NOT local so it is NOT complete.

...Except. It is. Enter, Bell’s Theorem.

5 Bell’s Theorem

Now, what’s the situation? The EPR gang is not happy. I’m not happy. You’re not happy. Is quantum mechanics wrong? No, silly! EPR said it themselves: they think it’s merely incomplete. So, in order to completely describe a quantum mechanical state, you not only need the wave function Ψ, you also need some unknown, hidden variable λ. Lots of hidden variable theories were proposed after the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper, but none of them ever gained traction. It was still a respectable area of study until 1964, when J.S. Bell proved that any local (Remember locality from the last section?) hidden variable theory is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

I’ll spare you the details of Bell’s work, dear reader. One thought experiment in an essay is gruesome enough. (It is also getting quite late and I still didn’t code my calculations. I have spent far too much time on this already.)

Bell’s proof involves the wonderful use of probability, and the barest assumptions that can be made about local hidden variable theories. Basically, in any local hidden variable theory, the probabilities of various outcomes are related by what’s known as a Bell inequality. If EPR’s conjecture is right, and there really are hidden variables we don’t know about, then any physical system must obey its Bell inequality.

Except, there have been various experiments since the 1960s confirming that Bell’s inequality is indeed violated. This came as a rude shock to scientists as it is not fun to learn that reality is very much nonlocal. It was all fun and games when this was all merely a mathematical artifact, but nonlocality felt like a gateway drug to a much grimmer violation.

Causality

Bell inequality violations, no matter how surprising, are merely wonderful correlations between two sets of otherwise random data. Sure, the measurement of the spin of the electron affects the positron, but it does not cause it in any meaningful way. The person measuring the electron spin cannot use this collapse of the wave function to send a message to the person with the positron, since they don’t control the outcome of the experiment. They can decide whether to measure the electron at all, but the other person only has access to the positron’s spin and cannot tell whether the electron has been measured or not.

Phew! This sort of nonlocal influence does not transmit any energy or information, so it is exempt from the speed of light. Meanwhile, causal influences, those which do transmit information or energy, cannot travel faster than light. According to special relativity, if this was possible then, there are reference frames in which information can propagate backwards through time. And that, my dear reader, is what we call a big nono. Since the EPR paradox does not imply that causality is violated, we can lie uncomfortably on our bed of nonlocal but causal theory of quantum mechanics.

So rest easy, quantum mechanics is weird, but safe. Entanglement is not a fairytale, but also not the boogeyman. It’s probably more scared of you than you of it. Just give it some time. More answers will follow.

What Do I Do Now?

So, you want to know more? Or curl up in a ball and never think about this again? Either is fine. I won’t judge. If your answer is the former, here are some resources to guide you through the thickets of quantum mechanics.

PopSci Sources

1. IDTIMWYTIM: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 2. Why did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics? 3. Bell’s Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox

Surely, you’ll get more out of these wonderful science Youtubers than you did from me yapping for four pages. There are a bunch more probably, but you’ll have to find them yourself.

Academic Sources

1. An Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, D.J. Griffiths.

Of course, there are other quantum mechanics textbooks that I like much more than this one. But, this is the least daunting, so I’ll leave it here.

Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more silly academic style papers.

References

[1]  A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete”? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

[2]  Heisenberg, W. “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik”. Z. Physik 43, 172–-198 (1927). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280

[3]  D.J. Griffiths, D.F. Schroeter, “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Third Edition” Cambridge University Press (2018) 978–1–107–18963–8,

[iamdangerace]

Luc Besson’s latest almost defies description

I went to see Luc Besson’s new thriller DogMan knowing nearly nothing about it, simply because I enjoy seeing Caleb Landry Jones play a fucked-up little freak. I had no idea what I was in for. Here’s the best way I can summarize this movie: he stars as Douglas, a hyper-religious, Shakespeare-obsessed guy in a wheelchair who can communicate with dogs and also does drag and fights gangs.

You’re either already sold, or you’re out. Eric Langberg, The Medium - April 5, 2024.

[elbiotipo]

Oh that thing with good and bad culture sounds interesting, and I can see how that would influence things. In my experience, the way people explained to me distinction- many unrelated people, in many branches of art- was like...

''True'' art has to have certain existentialist and abstract element, to ask Big Questions (tm) about humanity, universe, morality and so on; this is not just elitism or genre snobbery in my experience. I had met people who were acclaimed artists and created ''important'' and ''serious'' works, who were of opinion that certain of their critically acclaimed works do not count as ''real'' art because they ''merely'' commented on specific sociopolitical issues, lacking in metaphysical depth; while for example, considering Isaac Asimov as ''real'' art and literature, not ''merely'' sci-fi writer

That ''real'' art has to be cerebral, complex and erudite. This is most often in my experience discussed in literature circles, but I have seen it within TV and movie community- the difference is, I have been told, between laying back and passively enjoying TV, versus that TV forcing you to ask questions and working your brain to puzzle out what is being talked about, what is context

Finally, that ''real'' art has to somehow engage with history and tradition of both medium and genre, but also your society, that it has to be both referential but also deconstruct and offer new approaches and thus create certain impact on local arts scene. So for example, somebody creating very realistic portraits that emulate Renaissance art, or is obviously inspired by Hieronymus Bosch, or somebody putting on production of Shakespeare or Ancient Greek tragedies, doesn't count because they are only imitating what already exists

Most of all, that if something is mass-produced or intended to be commercial, instead of being done for sake of it's own passion, it does not anymore count as ''pure'' art

And while I have often encountered this in form of people, even successful ones, dissatisfied with their output ( ie, writers and actors and musicians dissatisfied that they are swamped with more commercial projects that don't allow them to focus on their auteur dream projects), I have also encountered reverse- writers and pop singers and like who are adamant that what they are creating isn't intended to be ''art'', that they do not want to make some ''statement'' or be innovative, that they do not want to provoke discussion or have ideological ( not in sense of politics, but in sense of, analyzing or dissecting certain theme or motif at all) layer, that they just want to be catchy.

Again , not my own opinion, but I think it is interesting framework to consider, that I see repeated across many fields, across people both in media and outside of them, on both sides of divide.

I love this ask because it really summarizes a lot of what I've seen and thinking.

I would also add that similar to what we see in anthropology where "culture" or someone "culture" means what the West understands by culture (for example, classical music, classical philosophy, etc.) excludes other cultures and the idea of culture as a human universal, these narrow definitions of art could also (and have been) used to exclude artistic expressions on art in other cultures. It's not art, it's something else, custom, or "artesanías" como diría Galeano

I think that a better question to ask than "what is art" is "what WE as a society think is art" and also "what is CREATIVITY" which in my opinion is the source of all art.

[ballet-symphonie]

I think the new Mariinsky of Coppelia is one of the most beautiful productions to come out recently! I'm really curious what you mean by stolen Pharaoh's Daughter! Please give me all the drama and tea. Also, what are they using of Ratmansky? I thought they went back to that grigorovich production of Sleeping Beauty? I'm so confused can you explain what is happening? Also, don't they still do Jewels? Isn't that Balanchine? are they even allowed? Sorry if i sound like I'm rambling but I'm so confused

Pharoah's Daughter

Here is an from NYT interviewing Ratmansky where he discusses the situation in depth but I will summarize it. NYT Article

The Phraroah's Daughter is a whole big drama. Alexei Ratmansky was creating a new reconstruction at Mariinsky before the war broke out.When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Ratmansky canceled the premiere in May 2022. Fateev (then director of MT) hired Toni Candeloro to finish the reconstruction.

Fateev said the whole ballet was re-choreographed by Candeloro but this is blatantly not the case. Ratmansky and his wife had spent 2 years going through the old notations and documents to create this restoration, the idea that Candeloro could create a brand new 3.5-hour ballet (yes it is that long) in a fraction of the time is frankly a tragic comedy on the level of Shakespeare. And of course, Ratmansky's name is nowhere in the credits.

Russians have also claimed that no prior knowledge or access to any of Ratmanksy's work was available, but I find that hard to believe considering there are clips of Ratmanksy rehearsing the ballet at MT still chilling on Mariinksy's Youtube.

Here you can read Ratmansky’s statement on Instagram on the matter, accompanied by Antonio Casalinho performing the famous act 2 pas d’action variation from Pharoah’s Daughter.

Here is a video of Kimin Kim in the same variation from the actual MT production. The two videos are nearly identical, this is clearly theft of Ratmansky’s work.

Copywright/ Theft

Ratmansky's name has been removed from all credits of the Bolshoi and Mariinsky. Yet his work, such as Flames of Paris, and The Bright Stream, and others, have been performed since he withdrew his work from Russia without Ratmanksy's name attached - which means he's not receiving royalties for these.

Licenses of Productions

Generally, to perform works by other companies, you need a license from either the company, the choreographer, or the choreographic trust (think the Balanchine Trust or John Cranko Trust). You negotiate fees for a stager/repetiteur to come and oversee the teaching of the repertory, and check-ins to make sure that rehearsals are going well, the style is being adhered to, and that the intentions of the choreography is correct, as the original choreographer intended. The license also covers costume details (are you making your own according to the style? Buying or renting from someone else?), staging requirements (tech, music, sets, lighting etc), how many performances, and with what types of credits.

Many of the Bolshoi/Mariinsky licenses to perform ballets by foreign choreographers have expired/are expiring. Western arts organizations are mostly not renewing them given the circumstances. Therefore BT/MT no longer have the rights to program those ballets and cannot do so without a high probability of facing legal ramifications.

For example, The Bolshoi no longer can perform their semi-recent premiere, Orlando by Christopher Spuck, these rights expired in March 2024. Similarly, their contract for Jewels is up as well as Nureyev created by Possokhov-Serebrennikov. Mariinsky's Jewels is said to expire in 2025. You can read more details here.