#well it is according to wikipedia my one true source of knowledge | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

continuations · 3 years

Text

The World After Capital in 64 Theses

Over the weekend I tweeted out a summary of my book The World After Capital in 64 theses. Here they are in one place:

The Industrial Age is 20+ years past its expiration date, following a long decline that started in the 1970s.

Mainstream politicians have propped up the Industrial Age through incremental reforms that are simply pushing out the inevitable collapse.

The lack of a positive vision for what comes after the Industrial Age has created a narrative vacuum exploited by nihilist forces such as Trump and ISIS.

The failure to enact radical changes is based on vastly underestimating the importance of digital technology, which is not simply another set of Industrial Age machines.

Digital technology has two unique characteristics not found in any prior human technology: zero marginal cost and universality of computation.

Our existing approaches to regulation of markets, dissemination of information, education and more are based on the no longer valid assumption of positive marginal cost.

Our beliefs about the role of labor in production and work as a source of purpose are incompatible with the ability of computers to carry out ever more sophisticated computations (and to do so ultimately at zero marginal cost).

Digital technology represents as profound a shift in human capabilities as the invention of agriculture and the discovery of science, each of which resulted in a new age for humanity.

The two prior transitions, from the Forager Age to the Agrarian Age and from the Agrarian Age to the Industrial Age resulted in humanity changing almost everything about how individuals live and societies function, including changes in religion.

Inventing the next age, will require nothing short of changing everything yet again.

We can, if we make the right choices now, set ourselves on a path to the Knowledge Age which will allow humanity to overcome the climate crisis and to broadly enjoy the benefits of automation.

Choosing a path into the future requires understanding the nature of the transition we are facing and coming to terms with what it means to be human.

New technology enlarges the “space of the possible,” which then contains both good and bad outcomes. This has been true starting from the earliest human technology: fire can be used to cook and heat, but also to wage war.

Technological breakthroughs shift the binding constraint. For foraging tribes it was food. For agrarian societies it was arable land. Industrial countries were constrained by how much physical capital (machines, factories, railroads, etc.) they could produce.

Today humanity is no longer constrained by capital, but by attention.

We are facing a crisis of attention. We are not paying enough attention to profound challenges, such as “what is our purpose?” and “how do we overcome the climate crisis?”

Attention is to time as velocity is to speed: attention is what we direct our minds to during a time period. We cannot go back and change what we paid attention to. If we are poorly prepared for a crisis it is because of how we have allocated our attention in the past.

We have enough capital to meet our individual and collective needs, as long as we are clear about the difference between needs and wants.

Our needs can be met despite the population explosion because of the amazing technological progress we have made and because population growth is slowing down everywhere with peak population in sight.

Industrial Age society, however, has intentionally led us down a path of confusing our unlimited wants with our modest needs, as well as specific solutions (e.g. individually owned cars) with needs (e.g. transportation).

The confusion of wants with needs keeps much of our attention trapped in the “job loop”: we work so that we can buy goods and services, which are produced by other people also working.

The job loop was once beneficial, when combined with markets and entrepreneurship, it resulted in much of the innovation that we now take for granted.

Now, however, we can and should apply as much automation as we can muster to free human attention from the “job loop” so that it can participate in the “knowledge loop” instead: learn, create, and share.

Digital technology can be used to vastly accelerate the knowledge loop, as can be seen from early successes, such as Wikipedia and open access scientific publications.

Much of digital technology is being used to hog human attention into systems such as Facebook, Twitter and others that engage in the business of reselling attention, commonly known as advertising. Most of what is advertised is furthering wants and reinforces the job loop.

The success of market-based capitalism is that capital is no longer our binding constraint. But markets cannot be used for allocating attention due to missing prices.

Prices do not and cannot exist for what we most need to pay attention to. Price formation requires supply and demand, which don't exist for finding purpose in life, overcoming the climate crisis, conducting fundamental research, or engineering an asteroid defense.

We must use the capabilities of digital technology so that we can freely allocate human attention.

We can do so by enhancing economic, information, and psychological freedom.

Economic freedom means allowing people to opt out of the job loop by providing them with a universal basic income (UBI).

Informational freedom means empowering people to control computation and thus information access, creation and sharing.

Psychological freedom means developing mindfulness practices that allow people to direct their attention in the face of a myriad distractions.

UBI is affordable today exactly because we have digital technology that allows us to drive down the cost of producing goods and services through automation.

UBI is the cornerstone of a new social contract for the Knowledge Age, much as pensions and health insurance were for the Industrial Age.

Paid jobs are not a source of purpose for humans in and of themselves. Doing something meaningful is. We will never run out of meaningful things to do.

We need one global internet without artificial geographic boundaries or fast and slow lanes for different types of content.

Large systems such as Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. must be mandated to be fully programmable to diminish their power and permit innovation to take place on top of the capabilities they have created.

In the longrun privacy is incompatible with technological progress. Providing strong privacy assurances can only be accomplished via controlled computation. Innovation will always grow our ability to destroy faster than our ability to build due to entropy.

We must put more effort into protecting individuals from what can happen to them if their data winds up leaked, rather than trying to protect the data at the expense of innovation and transparency.

Our brains evolved in an environment where seeing a cat meant there was a cat. Now the internet can show us an infinity of cats. We can thus be forever distracted.

It is easier for us to form snap judgments and have quick emotional reactions than to engage our critical thinking facilities.

Our attention is readily hijacked by systems designed to exploit these evolutionarily engrained features of our brains.

We can use mindfulness practices, such as conscious breathing or meditation to take back and maintain control of our attention.

As we increase economic, informational and psychological freedom, we also require values that guide our actions and the allocation of our attention.

We should embrace a renewed humanism as the source of our values.

There is an objective basis for humanism. Only humans have developed knowledge in the form of books and works of art that transcend both time and space.

Knowledge is the source of humanity’s great power. And with great power comes great responsibility.

Humans need to support each other in solidarity, irrespective of such differences as gender, race or nationality.

We are all unique, and we should celebrate these differences. They are beautiful and an integral part of our humanity.

Because only humans have the power of knowledge, we are responsible for other species. For example, we are responsible for whales, rather than the other way round.

When we see something that could be improved, we need to have the ability to express that. Individuals, companies and societies that do not allow criticism become stagnant and will ultimately fail.

Beyond criticism, the major mode for improvement is to create new ideas, products and art. Without ongoing innovation, systems become stagnant and start to decay.

We need to believe that problems can be solved, that progress can be achieved. Without optimism we will stop trying, and problems like the climate crisis will go unsolved threatening human extinction.

If we succeed with the transition to the Knowledge Age, we can tackle extraordinary opportunities ahead for humanity, such as restoring wildlife habitats here on earth and exploring space.

We can and should each contribute to leaving the Industrial Age behind and bringing about the Knowledge Age.

We start by developing our own mindfulness practice and helping others do so.

We tackle the climate crisis through activism demanding government regulation, through research into new solutions, and through entrepreneurship deploying working technologies.

We defend democracy from attempts to push towards authoritarian forms of government.

We foster decentralization through supporting localism, building up mutual aid, participating in decentralized systems (crypto and otherwise).

We promote humanism and live in accordance with humanist values.

We recognize that we are on the threshold of both transhumans (augmented humans) and neohumans (robots and artificial intelligences).

We continue on our epic human journey while marveling at (and worrying about) our aloneness in the universe.

We act boldly and with urgency, because humanity’s future depends on a successful transition to the Knowledge Age.

#the world after capital

1K notes · View notes

audreydoeskaren · 3 years

Note

Hello, I sorry for asking so many questions. I have just found your site and really enjoyed all the new information you gave. With your knowledge on qipao, It would be very interesting to hear your review and thoughts on the historical accuracy in costumes in movies like "In the Mood for Love", "Lust Caution", "Flowers of Shanghai", " Raise the Red Lantern".

No need to apologize! I love answering asks and I'm more than happy to review period dramas. The writing got rather long so I’ll review In the Mood for Love and Lust, Caution first, the other two will be in a separate post. Quick disclaimer, I’m not a professional costume designer so everything is my two cents, if you found something you disagree with feel free to comment :))

In the Mood for Love (2000) 花样年华

In the Mood for Love is a 2000 Hong Kong romantic drama film written, produced, and directed by Wong Kar-wai. Its original Chinese title means "Flowery Years". It tells the story of a man (played by Tony Leung) and a woman (Maggie Cheung) whose spouses have an affair together and who slowly develop feelings for each other. (copy and pasted from Wikipedia) It's set in 1962 Hong Kong, so we're looking at 1960s Hong Kong cheongsam for the costumes. This movie is widely considered the pinnacle of 1960s cheongsam costuming and I agree. The costume designer is 张叔平 Zhang Shuping, who in my opinion makes fabulous 20th century costumes but questionable historical ones.

Source here

Maggie Cheung's character in an abstract print, cap sleeved cheongsam.

The 1960s cheongsam had the extreme hourglass, Christian Dior New Look bombshell silhouette. The figure was accentuated by pointy bullet bras and girdles/corsets that cinched the waist. Because of the rigid shapewear, 60s cheongsam commonly had very sharp angles at the torso and wasn't streamlined at all. 60s cheongsam were usually knee length, with slits that went up to the middle of the thighs (could be shorter or longer according to personal preference). They had a high, stiffened collar that tapers dramatically at the front, closing with one or no buttons. They were either sleeveless or cap sleeved. Zippers would be used at the side and snap buttons at the front closures, replacing the fabric pankous that dominated cheongsam prior to the 1950s. 1950s and 60s cheongsam often had no visible buttons. Common fabrics used were printed or embroidered silks (e.g. the stereotypically Chinese looking fabrics with dragon or roundel motifs), cotton, rayon or any other household dress weight fabrics. Common print patterns were abstract, geometric or floral prints. Unlike 1930s and 40s cheongsam, 50s and 60s cheongsam weren’t heavy on trimmings, binding or other raw edge decoration. All of these features are perfectly recreated by Zhang's costuming for Maggie Cheung's character. My only minor qualm is that sometimes the collar looks too big? On old photographs they usually look very fitted to the wearer's neck.

Source here

Sleeveless floral print cheongsam.

Source here

Photograph of 1950s/60s Hong Kong.

Besides the cheongsam itself, the accessories, hair and makeup for Maggie Cheung's character are also on point. The 60s beehive and curled hairstyles, high arched eyebrows and plump lips are present. She wears high stiletto heels true to the period.

Source here

Her hair and makeup is immaculate.

Source here

Stiletto heels. Not sure if you could see them but the seam lines on the stockings are a nice touch.

Source here

These pointy sunglasses are also very accurate.

Overall I’d say that In the Mood for Love has very accurate costumes. As to whether they’re appropriate for the plot, I don’t really know cause I haven’t watched the full movie (I probably should). I like that beside the accuracy, all the cheongsam worn by Maggie Cheung are also very beautiful and well made, making it an aesthetic viewing experience. I’d rate the costuming in this movie 9/10.

Lust, Caution (2007) 色，戒

Lust, Caution is a 2007 erotic espionage period film directed by Ang Lee, based on the 1979 novella by Eileen Chang. The story is set in Hong Kong in 1938 and in Shanghai in 1942, when it was occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army and ruled by the puppet government led by Wang Jingwei. It depicts a group of Chinese university students from The University of Hong Kong who plot to assassinate a high-ranking special agent and recruiter working for the puppet government, by using one of their group, an attractive young woman, to lure him into a honey trap. (copy and pasted from Wikipedia) So for this movie we’re looking at the late 30s and early 40s cheongsam styles. The costume designer here is Lai Pan.

Source here

Protagonist played by Tang Wei in an early 40s cheongsam.

In the late 30s, the cheongsam was still floor length and flowy, but the design has become less extravagant than early 30s styles. In the 40s, the length shortened to knee length. The collar dropped in height and was closed by one or two buttons (pankou in this era). Cheongsam were either short or cap sleeved, and the slits became lower. Unlike cheongsam of the 1950s and 60s portrayed in The World of Suzie Wong and In the Mood for Love, 30s and 40s cheongsam did not use Western tailoring techniques i.e. darts, so they were only loosely form fitting. Common fabrics used were cotton, rayon, silk or polyester. Print patterns were geometric, plaid or floral. Unicolor cheongsam were common too. The front and side closure was still closed by pankou, one or two at the collar, one or two at the placket and many more at the side depending on slit height. Piping was very popular in the late 30s and early 40s as both decoration and practical feature. All trimmings prior to the 1950s, piping included, went around the neck as well and that’s portrayed in this movie. Overall the cheongsam in this movie are pretty good but I found some questionable things with accessories. The plot also spans many years and the costumes represent a lot of character development, so I’ll go through the costumes by chronological order.

Source here

Collage of scenes from when the protagonist was younger and a student. The blue color is perhaps a reference to Indanthrene fabrics, which were very popular among students and usually came in a shade of dark blue. The low collar, longer sleeves and loose fitting silhouette are all pretty accurate to late 1930s student clothing. Straight hair was acceptable on younger women, commonly in the length portrayed here and with a side part.

Source here

Early 1930s Indanthrene fabric ad. I though Tang’s character looked a lot like the woman in this picture.

Later on as Tang’s character takes on a socialite persona to seduce the guy, she starts wearing more glamorous versions of the late 30s cheongsam. I like that compared to In the Mood for Love where Maggie Cheung just wears a bunch of different cheongsam because she can, the costumes in Lust, Caution serve characterization. At first Tang’s character stuck to the blue color as a remnant of her true personality, and every time she reunites with her fellow resistance people, she also wears simpler, more toned down cheongsam. She also changed to curled hairstyles to look more mature, most of which were accurate for the early 40s. However, the hairstyles in this movie sometimes look a bit disheveled and not perfectly smooth and shiny like you usually see in old Hollywood movies, but that’s just a minor aesthetic issue I guess.

Source here

A cheongsam look from the movie. The short cap sleeve/borderline sleeveless look, the short collar, piping and simple pankou are all accurate to the period. The print looks legit, the pulled back curled hair is also pretty ok. There seems to be a seam at the shoulder, which shouldn’t be there, but not all 30s and 40s cheongsam followed the historical dressmaking method so it’s fine I guess.

Source here

Early 40s pinup poster showing women in similar cheongsam and hairstyles.

Source here

Scene showing some support characters who also look quite convincingly late 30s/early 40s. I like the variety in hairstyles and the insertion sleeves worn by two of the women. Also poodles hairstyle representation is great.

Source here

Late 30s/early 40s pinup poster.

Source here

40s pinup poster showing poodles hairstyle.

There is one scene toward the end where Tang’s character wears a Western style suit with a jabot scarf, I couldn’t find a good quality photo of it but I love that look and think it’s super fierce.

Source here

She wears something like this but with a different hat.

However, this movie is not without problems. The jackets/coats worn by Tang’s character also don’t have the deciding late 30s/early 40s characteristics, such as a flared hem, fitted waist and wide shoulders. Maybe the outerwear was made based on vintage originals but the final result isn’t quite there, it’s especially unfortunate considering how a lot of passers by in the background have convincing 30s/40s outerwear but the main character doesn’t.

What I really do not understand is their insistence on bucket hats?? Maybe they were trying to do the 30s tilted derby hat impression but their hats are way too deep with too narrow brims and also don’t have the same structure. It’s also way past the time for cloche hats. Tang’s character is not the only one to wear it, a lot of extras also don bucket hats. I’m like ???? Maybe it was a conscious decision to show that Chinese women didn’t regularly wear hats and only did so in rainy weather, but I mean, when it was raining you would use umbrellas, not bucket hats. In my opinion, there are a lot of other 30s and 40s hat styles that give way better espionage realness than bucket hats could ever dream of. Also, the lack of women’s gloves of any kind in this movie pains my heart. 30s and 40s gloves and hats were very cool so I lament the missed opportunities.

Source here

Scene where Tang’s character is outside. This summarizes most of my qualms with the costuming in this movie. The jacket and hat look too modern. The shoes also look like they don’t have heels that curve inward enough?

Source here

The bucket hat strikes again in this scene...

Source here

1939 coats.

Source here

Hats from 1938.

Source here

Butterick magazine from 1938. In my headcanon Tang wore hats and gloves like these.

Another minor problem I have is the makeup. Judging by the pointed eyebrows they were probably going for the 40s look more (although in China the plucked eyebrow trend lasted well into the 40s). The lipstick is not overdrawn and just stuck to Tang’s natural lip shape, but it would probably be better if the cupid’s bow area were overdrawn a little toward the outside to make the upper lip more rounded and heart shaped. Tang’s cupid bow is kind of pointed and not exactly true to that era.

Source here

Closeup of Tang’s makeup.

Source here

1940s makeup look.

Overall I’d say that the clothing in this movie is solid, it’s just the accessories that sometimes broke the suspension of disbelief (especially the fucking bucket hats). I’d rate the costuming in this movie a 7/10.

That’s it for this post, I’ll review Flowers of Shanghai and Raise the Red Lantern next time.

#vintage fashion #chinese fashion #1940s #1930s #1960s #republican era #in the mood for love #lust caution #costume analysis

314 notes · View notes

percysmarguerite · 3 years

Text

ANASTASIA THE MUSICAL DRAMATURGICAL INFORMATION

I had to research all of this information as part of an assignment for one of my classes this past year at university. Enjoy!

disclaimer: I am not Russian, and do not have a super big in-depth background in Russian history, culture, or geography. The following information is accurate to the best of my knowledge, but parts of this post involve heavy amounts of conjecture about travel times, and it’s also possible that there may be some errors, of which if you spot any, of course, please correct me.

content warnings: This post discusses at length the historical/canonical death of the Romanov family, along with brief implication/discussion of animal death

Anya and her Fitbit

when Anya says she walked Russia, girl ain’t kidding

If she walked from city to city without ever hitching a ride, girl got her steps in

from the jobs that she mentions she has worked in the show, she has chronologically worked in the following places

Perm - hospital worker

Odessa (located in modern-day Ukraine) - dishwasher

St. Petersburg/Leningrad - street sweeper

prior to Perm, she was living with her family in the Ipatiev House (also known as the House of Special Purpose) in Yekaterinberg, but following the death of the Romanovs, the bodies were transported first approximately half an hour north to the Koptyaki forest, then once again south to Ganina Yama, which is about half an hour west of Yekaterinberg (these distances considered for vehicles not for walking)

Anya mentions being found on the side of the road, with fresh vehicular tracks in the snow (it was July when this happened, and I attempted to figure out how likely snow would have been to occur, but didn’t really come up with anything conclusive, but it leads more towards being unlikely but not entirely outside the realm of possibility), and recounts the events that happened in the basement, which means that she likely escaped from the truck afterwards somewhere between Yekaterinburg and the Koptyaki forest

So the following distances are according to Google Maps with the walking option turned on, so obviously take this with a grain of salt, but here is the approximate time it would take to walk between those areas without stopping:

Yekaterinberg to Perm/Koptyaki Forest to Perm (see note below) ~ 3.04/3.2 days (73/77 hours)

Perm to Odessa ~ 21.125 days (507 hours)

Odessa to St. Petersburg ~ 14.0833 days (338 hours)

as mentioned before, Anya said that she was found on the side of the road by fresh tracks, so it’s likely that she didn’t make it all the way to Perm, or even that she walked very far from where she escaped the truck transporting the bodies

Patronymics, diminutives, and historical inaccuracy, oh my!

the musical has a surprising lack of Russian patronymics, as the only named character to really have one is Anastasia, given that she actually has a historical patronymic, but the fact that no one else has one is just like...kinda weird

common fanon is that Dmitry’s full name is Dmitri Sudayev, as that was the name of a real servant of the Romanov family. Sources very on what his full name is, Dimitri Floydorovich Sudayev or Dimitry Nikolayevich Antonov, but the historical record lists his father’s name as Nikolai Aleksevich Sudayev, which means that in all likelihood his name would be Dmitry Nikolayevich Sudayev

however, given that Dmitry’s backstory was changed for the musical and is no longer a former servant of the Romanovs but instead the son of an anarchist that died in a labor camp, his patronymic and family name are technically kind of a free-for-all

as mentioned in the musical, his diminuative is Dima

One of the men involved in the killing of the Romanovs was named Stephan Vaganov, which is presumably where Gleb’s surname comes from, which makes Gleb’s patronymic Stephanovich

ergo, his full name is Gleb Stephanovich Vaganov

the diminutive for Anastasia is NOT Anya, it is Nastya

Anya is a diminutive of Anna, which itself derives from the name Hannah

this itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because Anya had amnesia, and wouldn’t know her name and the correct diminutive

Lily’s surname (Malevsky-Malevitch) is an example of a double surname, which is an indication her priviledge and higher social class, as they were adopted to distinguish from different branches of the same family, and to differentiate between different members of the same family as well

now onto my favorite controversial name from the show: Toby. Anya mentions having a dog that she holds to her during the moment where the Romanovs are killed, which is true to historical record, except her dog wasn’t named Toby. His name was Jimmy. I have literally no idea why they felt that it was necessary to change the dog’s name. It’s not even hard to find this information out, it’s in practically every account on the Romanovs, and even can easily be found on the Wikipedia page.

Jumping off a moving train (not clickbait!) and the return of the fitbit

Anya mentions that they will take the train at midnight from the Finland station, which is obstensibly the St. Petersburg-Finlyandsky Station, which handles westward travel towards Helsinki and Vyborg

if they had remained on the train, they probably would have taken the route that Anya, Dmitry, and Vlad take in the movie, which is the train to Finland, then a ship across the Baltic Sea to Denmark, then traveled across Germany/Brussels/etc. until they reached Paris

However, the musical trio are forced to leave the train once Cheka officers arrive looking for them

so they just, you know. no big deal. jump off of a moving train.

they then turn around and head south and west back towards Poland, likely to avoid being caught at the Russian/Finland border, which is mentioned by Gleb in the musical

and then they walked across a third of Europe

in total, to walk from St. Petersburg-Finlyandsky Station (in St. Petersburg) to Paris, France it would have taken ~ 21.3 days (512 hours) without stopping (not counting the time it would have taken for them to walk back to the train station)

from the train station to ~10km northeast of the Polish border (mentioned by Dmitry), it would taken ~ 7.625 days (183 hours) without stopping

it’s also good to note that at some point, they managed to pick up a driver who took them through France to just outside of Paris, and we can assume that they possibly were able to hitch rides for other stretches of the journey, but that the stretch from the train station to Poland is implied to have been walked in entirety by the musical

which means that for the journey from north of St. Petersburg to Paris took anywhere from one to four weeks or so

I hope all of this information was interesting to any fans of the show out there! I had lots of fun researching it, and glad that I can share all of it with you all. <3

#anastasia #anastasia meta #claire.txt #it's not quite meta but that's the closest tag that i'll get to what this is #this got long but i'm gonna leave it like this

41 notes · View notes

entity-of-the-opera · 4 years

Text

Hamilton Musical Essay

First off, I want to say that if you like the musical, that’s fine. I’m not trying to tell you not to like it. I’m simply expressing my thoughts about it.

Secondly, this is mostly about things the musical got wrong, but there is definitely going to be some bias and opinions in here. So don’t take anything I say (unless I have provided a source) as fact.

Now, let's go through this show one song at a time.

(quick warning, this post is long. very long. and will take a while to read. i apologize in advance)

ACT I

Alexander Hamilton

I don't have much of a problem with this song, and it is pretty good. However, I do wish that they hadn’t glossed over his early years. I get that they were not that interesting, but they played such a big part in his life, especially in his later years when he was in politics.

“Me? I loved him” haha no. that line should have been said by Eliza and Laurens. Not Eliza, Angelica and Maria/Peggy.

Aaron Burr, Sir

Oh boy, oh boy, I have quite a bit to say about this one.

I strongly dislike the portrayal of Burr throughout the whole show. I get what LMM was going for with the whole “it’s how history sees him” but, you could’ve given him a bit more character.

Burr singing “Fools that run their mouths off wind up dead” and then Laurens walking out immediately after is clever, because Laurens really was a fool who ran his mouth off quite a lot. Like the time he yelled at the king of France, King Louis XVI.

There's the obvious mistake that Hamilton met John Laurens, Hercules Mulligan and the Marquis de Lafayette at completely different times. He didn’t even meet burr in 1776 as we see here. He met burr in 1772-1773 when Hamilton briefly went to Princeton.

Laurens, Mulligan and Lafayette have very little character (which is something a lot of the people in this show struggle with.) for people who were pretty close to Hamilton, (especially Laurens) they don't seem like they were written to be very important characters. Their personality in this show can be summed up in a sentence.

And there's the other obvious mistake that Lafayette (and probably Laurens as well) never met Mulligan.

My Shot

The foreshadowing is good, I'll give it that.

For some reason, the chemistry between Lafayette and Mulligan-- who, again, never actually met-- is better than the chemistry between Hamilton and Laurens. What's up with that, huh?

“Wait ‘til I sally in on a stallion with the first black battalion” Laurens never got his black battalion. Congress approved the plan, but the South Carolina Legislative Assembly did not.

“Laurens, I like you a lot” get outta here with that crap. Either make their relationship a bigger part in the musical or keep it out completely. I hate how subtle and glossed over their relationship is in this show.

I do like Laurens’ little part in this song, it’s a rare part of the show where we see his actual personality instead of just “grr slavery bad alcohol good.” Anthony Ramos is a very good singer.

This song is pretty good story-wise. It is very well written. Hamilton’s monologue is surprisingly accurate to the real Alexander Hamilton and his beliefs.

The Story of Tonight

It has a good vibe, and I think it’s the closest we see Laurens and Hamilton throughout the entire show, which is kinda nice.

Again with the Lafayette-Mulligan thing LMM why???

The Schuyler Sisters

LMM unintentionally created a monster when he wrote that “and Peggy” line. That joke is one of the most overused and unfunny jokes in this show and its fandom.

Having Angelica be the “strong woman” in the show was a good idea on paper, but it’s not all that accurate to the real Angelica Schuyler, and it’s like her only personality trait (aside from the whole Hamilton and Angelica thing but I’ll talk more on that later)

I'm gonna say this a lot but oh my god these people have no character to them. Not even Eliza Schuyler-- Hamilton’s frickin wife.

Listen ok I am strictly attracted to men but Phillipa Soo is an absolutely beautiful and amazing and talented person. She has full permission to step on me.

Farmer Refuted

The farmer refuted was a pamphlet published by Hamilton in 1775 in response to something Samuel Seabury wrote about how the congress in Philadelphia was bad. Not an actual public debate like you see in the show. But I’ll let this one slide because having the actors read pamphlets onstage would be a lot less entertaining.

That’s pretty much it the song isn’t that interesting.

You’ll Be Back

This is probably just me but I don’t like how King George III steaks the show and is the main source of comedy. When I asked family members after their first viewing of the show who their favourite character was, almost all of them said the King.

Mr. Groff, please keep your spit to yourself.

As far as my knowledge of King George III goes-- and I do not know a lot about him so don’t take this too seriously-- this song is a pretty accurate depiction of ‘The Mad King.’

Redcoat Interlude

Just gonna put this here to say The Bullet is a really cool character.

Right Hand Man

Chris Jackson has the voice of an angel.

I don’t like the way Washington is characterized. At some points, he’s over-glorified, but at other parts of the show, he’s downplayed a lot, and it doesn’t at all seem like the real George Washington.

Washington and Hamilton’s relationship in this show is so off from what it would’ve been historically. You don’t see it much in this song so I won’t say much here for the sake of keeping things organized, but I’ll discuss it later when it’s more obvious

Mulligan is shown in a continental uniform, yet he was not in the army. He was a spy. He wouldn’t have worn a uniform.

As with a lot of songs in this show, the music and choreography are amazing. The ensemble is so so talented.

This scene where Burr is meeting with Washington isn’t entirely wrong, but it’s not exactly how it happened. According to Wikipedia, “In the spring of 1776, Burr's stepbrother Matthias Ogden helped him to secure a position with George Washington's staff in Manhattan, but he quit on June 26 to be on the battlefield.”

Hamilton did not meet Washington at the same time as Burr. He joined Washington’s staff in the spring of 1777.

I’m not exactly sure what he’s referring to when he says “I have some friends, Laurens, Mulligan, Marquis de Lafayette” but I do know that Laurens and Lafayette were not his friends at this point. They weren’t even in America at the time. Mulligan was, and he was good friends with Hamilton.

A Winter’s Ball

The formatting here is wild. This happened in 1780, I don’t know why LMM skipped ahead to this.

“We’re reliable with the ladies” ok that is true I’ll admit.

What is Laurens doing here? He was a prisoner of war in Phillidelphia when Hamilton met Eliza.

Helpless

Eliza was not “helpless.” If anything, Hamilton was the one head-over-heels for her.

Hamilton. Was. Not. Into. Angelica. Angelica. Was. Not. Into. Hamilton.

Hamilton’s little speech to Eliza after he gains her father’s blessing is kinda cute and pretty accurate.

A lot of the people shown in this scene were not at Hamilton’s wedding.

Laurens is shown as Hamilton’s best man, but at the time of Hamilton’s wedding, he was travelling north to meet with Washington after finding out he is to be sent on a diplomatic mission to France. James McHenry, a fellow Aide-De-Camp to Washington, was Hamilton’s best man.

Satisfied

I hate how this is such a good song because what it’s about is probably my least favourite part of this show.

There is no evidence of Angelica being romantically attracted to Hamilton. They likely had a brother-sister kind of bond.

Now, having Angelica as the side love interest wouldn’t have been that bad if it was a real thing, but it wasn’t. LMM intentionally re-wrote a part of history to have her in it, when he could’ve kept the same storyline, and have Laurens be the side love interest. If he had given Laurens that role, he could’ve made the show more historically accurate, and it would bring to light a part of history many people try to erase. But in giving Angelica that role, he has not only completely changed a part in history but has also erased the fact that Alexander Hamilton-- nor John Laurens, for that matter-- was straight. LMM had so much power. He was writing a musical about a founding father. He could have brought so many things we didn’t know to light. And yet, we’re stuck with this.

Angelica was not the person who introduced Hamilton to Angelica. It was most likely Cathrine “Kitty” Livingston, a friend and possible love interest to Hamilton that he met before he joined the army.

Angelica had brothers.

The Story of Tonight (Reprise)

“I’ve seen wonders great and small” *gestures down* I’m sorry sir what?

They were all married before Hamilton.

Wait For It

This is a beautiful song and it doesn’t have much wrong with it.

Stay Alive

Sweet lord the timeline is terrible. The battle of Monmouth happened in 1778 before Hamilton got married.

Here is a better example of the strange portrayal of Washington and Hamilton. The real Washington wouldn’t have called Hamilton “son.” He wouldn’t be as friendly with him. Their relationship was professional.

Mulligan was already in new york, so he wouldn’t have to “go back to new york and [his] apprenticeship.”

“Instead of me, he promotes Charles Lee” Hamilton did not ask for a command at Monmouth. What happened was Lee was given a command, declined, and then it was given instead to Lafayette. Later, Lee requested the command be given back to him because Lafayette was very young and didn’t have much experience. Washinton blindly trusted Lee and agreed to give it back to him.

After Lee was court-martialed, he kept running his mouth and slandering Washington. Hamilton originally wanted to duel lee, but Laurens told him not to, and to just let him say what he wants. Later, after Lee kept running his mouth and the insults got worse, Laurens decided to duel him.

Washington didn’t know of the duel. He didn’t even know it happened until the day after.

Ten Duel Commandments

Hamilton was not the one who was super giddy and impatient for the duel to start, he was kinda the opposite. Laurens was the one who challenged Lee and was the trigger happy one.

Burr was not Lee’s second, Evan Edwards was.

Again, Hamilton was not as enthusiastic as shown here. He was the one who tried to call off the duel and actually prevented Laurens and Lee from firing a second time.

Meet Me Inside

Laurens was not satisfied after he shot Lee, and demanded them to shoot again.

Washington saying “these young men don’t speak for me” isn’t that far off from how he reacted, but we can’t be 100% sure because there’s not a lot that was documented about his reaction to the duel.

Washinton was more upset with Laurens for holding a duel in his honour. So he wouldn’t have lectured Hamilton as he does in this scene.

As I said before, Washington would not be calling Hamilton “son”.

I really wish LMM wrote this scene differently because it’s entirely wrong. Hamilton didn’t leave the army until March of 1781, after being so fed up with Washington continuously denying him a command.

“Charles Lee, Thomas Conway, these men take your name and they rake it through the mud” that is true, and he’s referring to the Conway Cabal. More info on the Conway Cabal can be found here if you’re interested.

The timeline is so confusing here. “Your wife needs you alive” technically, at the time of the duel he didn’t have a wife, but by the time he left Washington’s staff he did. But in the show, I'm assuming this scene takes place in 1778, so, historically, no wife yet. But in the show, he also gets married before this scene. So I don’t know what’s going on here.

That Would Be Enough

For the sake of simplicity and not driving myself to insanity, I’m just gonna assume this takes place in 1781. Because I don’t want to try and figure out the timeline.

Eliza was not a month pregnant yet, in fact, she wasn’t pregnant at all at the time. Hamilton went home in march 1781, and their first son Philip was born in January of the next year. Doing the math, Eliza wasn’t pregnant until May 1781.

This song is actually really sweet aww.

Guns and Ships

Ah, the timeline finally smooths out.

Lafayette wasn’t really a “secret weapon,” he was just a General

Nevermind the timeline is messed up again. “I go to France for more funds” he did that in 1779, and he went back to France on leave, apparently missing home. He ended up working with Benjamin Franklin to send more troops and ships to America.

I wish Laurens was mentioned here. He went on a diplomatic mission to France in February and convinced the french congress to gift America 6 million livres.

Lafayette was not the one to tell Washington he needed Hamilton to come back. What happened was in July after he left, Hamilton sent a letter to Washington threatening to resign his commission. Washinton panicked and sent Tench Tilghman-- a fellow Aide-de-Camp beside Hamilton-- to go to the house Hamilton rented with Eliza to tell him to come back to the army and that Washington will give him a command.

You can see in this scene Lafayette running with a letter, but he was not the person who did that. It was Tilghman.

History Has Its Eyes On You

I can’t think of anything wrong with this song, it’s pretty spot-on and sounds beautiful.

Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)

“We’ll be with you when you do,” ehehe no they were not. The Americans did almost nothing to help France during the French Revolution.

“Take the bullets out your gun” was actually something Hamilton did with his battalion when they were sneaking through the trenches on their way to attack Redoubt 10.

Laurens was not in South Carolina, he was at Yorktown-- fighting under Hamilton’s command-- after just returning from his diplomatic mission to France.

Lafayette was not “there waiting in Chesapeake bay,” he was with the other french troops attacking Redoubt 9.

Again, Mulligan would not have been in uniform.

Mulligan might have “taken their measurements, information” but he sure didn’t “smuggle it.” That was done by his slave, Cato. He and Mulligan were working with the Sons of Liberty and with Hamilton’s spy ring-- of which we do not know the name of-- and smuggled intelligence to General Washington.

The instrumentals and the choreography make me very happy. I really enjoy the short little instrumental break.

The siege of Yorktown lasted three weeks, not just one.

They act like this was the end of the war. It most certainly was not. The war didn’t officially end until 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Yorktown was the last major battle of the war, but not just the last.

What comes Next

I’m very picky about this but I don’t like the king purely because I feel like he steals the show and is the automatic favourite.

Dear Theodosia

Philip Hamilton was born a year before Theodosia Burr.

I don’t know much about Burr, but I can say that Hamilton really did love his kids and his family, and I'm upset that we don’t see that in the show. At least we see a bit of it in this song.

Laurens Interlude (Tomorrow There’ll Be More of Us)

“It’s from John Laurens. I’ll read it later.” This makes me sad because the last letter sent between these two was sent from Hamilton on August 15th (and most likely never reached Laurens before his death,) so Hamilton was probably expecting the letter Eliza brings him to be a reply.

We don’t know exactly how Hamilton learned of Laurens’ death, but we do know it was not from a letter from Henry Laurens (John Laurens’ Father.) He most likely learned of Laurens’ death from either Washington or General Greene.

I find it a bit odd that Laurens sings the line “and when our children tell our story” because he never met his daughter, he left his pregnant wife in England (she moved to France a few years later) to sail to America to join the revolution, and never visited them (not even when he was in France for his diplomatic mission.) But I get it, it’s a reprise of “The Story of Tonight.”

The war was not over, but it was close.

“His dream of freedom for these men dies with him.” Yep. Unfortunately, he never got the black battalion he worked so hard for.

I hate how fast it moves from this emotional scene, where Hamilton learns of the death of his closest friend-- the man he loved-- to “after the war I went back to new york” like geez, LMM. give the man some time to grieve.

Non-Stop

The trial of Levi Weeks didn’t happen until 1800.

There is no record of this midnight meeting of Burr and Hamilton.

Burr didn’t actually support the constitution.

Angelica was married long before this, so I don’t know why it’s just being brought up now-- oh wait. LMM is back on his hamgelica bullcrap.

John Jay got sick after writing four, came back to write the fifth, then got sick again and ditched Hamilton and James Madison.

Hamilton did not write all 51 essays on his own, he collaborated on a few with Madison.

Hamilton was not immediately offered the position of Treasury Secretary. It was first offered to Madison, who declined, and then it was offered to Hamilton.

Most of the time, Hamilton was upset that he had to leave his family for work and wrote them often when he was away. From this point onward in the show, Hamilton’s character and personality are getting more and more inaccurate. He was not the selfish, self-centred man we see in the show. In reality, he was a kind man who loved his family but oftentimes made bad decisions due to his bad habit of acting without thought or planning.

ACT II

What’d I Miss

Daveed Diggs is cool, but I don’t understand why so many straight girls are so obsessed with him.

“Pissed him off until we had a two-party system” that’s pretty much true and it’s stupid.

He was in Paris for 5 years. It's not that long.

The “Sally be a lamb” line makes me so upset because it is so disrespectful to Sally Hemmings. I wish LMM left her out completely.

“I am to be the secretary of state, great!” Jefferson was not very happy about being appointed to the secretary of state because he wanted to stay at Monticello and do his own thing.

“I can’t believe that we are free” it’s ironic that Jefferson of all people says that line.

Mr. Madison, that’s not very COVID friendly of you.

Jefferson knew Hamilton for a bit before he went to France, and they did get along outside of politics.

Cabinet Battle #1

I hate how cocky and self-centred Jefferson is here because 1) it’s annoying as hell, and 2) the real Thomas Jefferson was not. He was quiet and shy.

“Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whiskey.” funny you should say that, Mr. Jefferson. Neither Jefferson nor Madison were not involved with the whiskey rebellion. They were silent on the issue because they made a deal with Hamilton (which I will talk more about in a few songs.) However, Hamilton-- the guy Jefferson is talking to in this scene-- was involved in the whiskey rebellion. He doesn’t have to “Imagine what gon’ happen,” he was there. More info on the whiskey tax and rebellion can be found here.

“We almost died in a trench, while you were off getting high with the french” Jefferson wasn’t in France during the war.

I’m glad the topic of slavery is being brought up, but it could’ve done in a different way instead of just a clap back in a rap battle.

“Madison, you mad as a hatter, son take your medicine” Hamilton is such a hypocrite here. Did he forget the time he almost died of a fever when he was 10? Or when he almost died of a fever in Albany in 1778? Or the fact that on multiple occasions he overworked himself so hard that he got sick? Or his kidney problems? Or--

“You’re gonna need congressional approval and you don’t have the votes!” Jefferson and Madison literally helped him get the votes. (again, I’ll explain later.)

“Well, James Madison won’t talk to me.” He used to. A lot. Hamilton and Madison used to be really good friends until Jefferson returned from France and Madison drifted to his side.

Take a Break

I don’t know how long her trip lasted, but I doubt that Angelica was with Eliza and the kids on their trip upstate. She came to visit in 1789, and the Reynolds affair started in 1791. However, I have no concrete evidence that she left before the affair started, so maybe she was there. I don’t know.

Ah yes, Alexander “I Don’t Care About My Family” Hamilton.

“I have a sister but I want a little brother” by 1791 (when this scene takes place using Philip’s age as a reference) Phillip had 2 brothers already.

While the Schuyler Mansion is near a park, there’s no lake. Today, at least. There’s a swimming pool though.

“I noticed a comma in the middle of a phrase,” shut up shut up shut up.

“With a comma after “dearest,” you’ve written: “My dearest, Angelica”” I hate how obsessed LMM is with this stupid comma, yet doesn’t say anything about the multiple suggestive and romantic letter between Laurens and Hamilton.

Speaking of the comma situation, it was meant as a joke. What had happened was Angelica sent a letter to Hamilton with “my dearest, Alexander '' and put the comma by mistake. She just slipped up with her grammar. And in response, Hamilton wrote “my dearest, Angelica” as a joke to tease her about it. It’s not romantic. It was meant. As. A. Joke.

John Adams was vice president. I'd say that’s a real job.

Angelica, stop being all “I came all this way :((“ he doesn’t want to miss out on the trip, but he has to. If he had a choice he would definitely go with his family.

Say No To This

I hate how this song demonizes Mary Lewis (more commonly known as Maria Reynolds) like she was trying to get out of an abusive marriage??? And Hamilton was like “oof that sux wanna bang?”

The heterosexual energy in this scene overwhelms me (/j)

The first letter (that I have found) from James Reynolds to Hamilton was sent on December 15, 1791, so not “a month into this endeavour.”

I will note here that in the letter mentioned above, it sounds nothing like what we hear in the song. Which makes me question if the above letter is even the one Hamilton the musical is talking about.

Because of limited information, I cannot say whether this scene is accurate or not.

“I don’t know about any letter!” she most certainly did. Mary and Reynolds both sent letters to Hamilton concerning the affair.

The Room Where It Happens

This is the song I was talking about when I said I’d talk more about the deal between Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton.

Washington was the one who proposed that this dinner happen.

Clermont street was renamed Mercer street in 1799, the dinner table bargain (what this song is about) was in 1790. Before the Hamilton-Reynolds affair. Yet another wrinkle in the timeline.

“Now how you gonna get your debt plan through?” “I guess I’m gonna finally have to listen to you” well, Hamilton didn’t really “talk less, smile more” his way through the issue. He did-- as he usually does-- quite a lot of talking

“Well, hate the sin, love the sinner” doesn’t sit right with me because it is sometimes used as a homophobic remark.

Jefferson’s account of the bargain on the assumption and residence bills is what this scene is about.

Madison did not hate Hamilton until Jefferson returned from France.

Leslie Odom Jr. is so, so talented.

There is nothing to suggest that Burr wanted to be there. I don’t even think he knew it happened.

Schuyler Defeated

Not much to say here, it's a short and forgettable song.

Cabinet Battle #2

I don’t like how much Jefferson says “we.” He wasn’t there. He wasn’t a soldier.

“Smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty” Hamilton was known for his colourful clothes, while Jefferson was known for dressing sloppily.

“Lafayette’s a smart man, he’ll be fine.” yeah, uh, he was imprisoned in Austria at the time…

“You’re nothing without Washington behind you.” Hamilton was a very powerful man. One of the most powerful, next to Washington. Even with Washington gone, he still held a lot of power and was pretty well-known.

Washington On Your Side

“Thanks to Hamilton, our cabinet’s fractured into factions.” Hamilton is probably one of the biggest reasons the two-party system exists, but Jefferson did play a role as well. To put it simply, Hamilton and the federalists disagreed so much with Jefferson and the democratic-republicans that everything just got split in two.

“And dresses like the pits of fashion” look at the point from the above song.

“Somebody gives me some dirt on this vacuous mass” it really wasn’t that hard to find dirt on Hamilton. He had a controversial past, and could sometimes be a really shady guy. However, it was all for-- at least in his own head-- good reason.

Because of how close Hamilton and Washington were, Hamilton had a lot of power, and Washington backed him up quite a lot.

James Madison gets so little lines in this show, and it makes me kind of upset. Hamilton and Madison were pretty close friends for a few years, so I don’t know why LMM didn’t talk at all about that.

“This immigrant isn’t somebody we chose” yes, but Washington chose him. Don’t like him? take it up with Washington.

One Last Time

Jefferson did not step “down so he can run for president,” he stepped down to go home. To relax at his mansion, to get away from politics. He stepped down in 1793 and didn’t run for president until 1796.

This song is actually really good, and pretty accurate. And good lord Chris Jackson can sing. Gives me chills every time.

I Know Him

Adams did know King George III. and from what I have read, he was very nervous to meet him.

“That’s that little guy who spoke to me” of course he’s little to the king, the king was like 6’6”.

The Adams Administration

The Adams Pamphlet was published in 1800.

The new york post wasn’t founded until 1801, so I find it odd that they’re bringing it up in this song, in 1797.

Adams did not fire Hamilton, he stepped down on his own in 1795.

Hamilton’s response to Adams’ taunts hurt Hamilton’s reputation a lot more than it hurt Adams’.

We Know

This takes place in 1792 before Adams was president.

Jefferson, Madison and Burr were not the people to confront Hamilton. It was James Monroe, Frederick Muhlenberg, and Abraham Venable.

The whole situation with the speculation of embezzled funds is pretty off from what we see here. What happened was James Reynolds embezzled $500 and tried to get his way out of imprisonment by saying he had dirt on Hamilton. Monroe, Muhlenberg, and Venable went to Hamilton and Hamilton explained “no, I didn’t embezzle government money, I just got my dick sucked.”

“Yes, I have reasons for shame,” yeah you think?

Hurricane

The workshop version is better, and it has Laurens in it.

The Reynolds Pamphlet

Gotta give Hamilton credit for not publishing this until after William S. Hamilton was born and then waiting for the stress of a new baby to be gone. Y’know at least he’s considerate.

Eliza was only gone for the summer of ‘91, so I don’t know why everyone’s acting like she was gone the whole time.

Hamilton didn’t even want to be a president, and never showed any interest in the position.

Angelica was already in America at the time, she didn’t just travel because of the affair.

The king has no reason to be here. I get that he’s the comedic relief, but this isn’t a scene where comedic relief is needed. It’s a serious situation.

“His poor wife” yeah, but have you ever stopped to think about what Mary Lewis is going through?

Burn

“You have ruined our lives.” The ‘our’ is referring to Eliza and Mary Lewis.

Blow Us All Away

George Eaker said many bad things about Hamilton in a fourth of July public speech, but Philip Hamilton didn’t meet him and challenge him to the duel until late November of 1801.

Speaking of 1801, this happens way after the Reynolds affair and the election of 1800.

Hamilton didn’t know that the duel happened. Philip lied and told his father that it had been resolved. Hamilton later found out that it happened when John B. Church and a few others told him after it happened that Philip was shot and dying.

“Everything is legal in New Jersey.” duelling was illegal in some form or another in every state, but the punishment was less severe in New Jersey.

The guns Philip (and his father 3 years later) used in the duel belonged to John B. Church. They were not Hamilton’s guns.

Eaker didn’t shoot on 7. They both counted to 10 and stood still for an awkward minute before Philip raised his gun to fire into the air, and Eacker got scared that Philip would shoot him and shot Philip.

Stay Alive (Reprise)

When Hamilton arrived at the home of dr. David Hosack (the doctor treating Philip) he reportedly fainted from anxiety.

Eliza’s scream should have been Angelica Hamilton, as she had a mental breakdown after the death of her brother, and was arguably (out of the rest of her siblings) the most hurt by his death.

It’s Quiet Uptown

Hamilton was really hurt by the death of his son. It was probably what broke him the most out of every death he’s seen in his life-- and he’s seen a lot.

“I take the children to church on Sunday,” after Philip’s death, Hamilton and his family became a lot more religious.

“His hair has gone grey,” there is a portrait of Hamilton shortly after his son’s death, and he looks like he’s aged 10 years. He looks old and sad and in grief. It barely looks like him.

Eliza would have forgiven Hamilton at this point. She forgave him not too long after the Reynolds pamphlet was published.

The Election of 1800

This happened before Philip’s duel, but you already knew that.

“I’m going door-to-door.” “You’re openly campaigning?” “Sure!” Burr was the first presidential candidate to openly campaign and set the standard for modern American politics.

They were tied for a stupidly long time. And when they finally got untied (by Hamilton and the federalists’ promotions and persuasion) it was by just a few votes. Not “in a landslide.”

Burr did end up being Jefferson’s vice-president. Jefferson didn’t change that.

Your Obedient Servant

This is a situation, much like the Reynolds affair, where no one is in the “right” or the “wrong.” Was it wrong for Burr to shoot Hamilton? Yes, absolutely. Was it wrong for Hamilton to say bad things about Burr and constantly keep him away from what he wanted? Yes, absolutely. But on the other side, was it wrong for Burr to be mad about what Hamilton did? No, he had every right to be angry. Was it wrong for Hamilton to speak his mind? No, freedom of speech and all that. It’s a very fuzzy situation and that’s partly why it’s unclear what exactly happened on the duelling ground.

While Burr’s loss of the elections was a reason for his duel with Hamilton, it was not the main reason. There were a bunch of little things that led up to this. A question I’ve been asked before (quite a few times, honestly) is “if Burr won the election/if Hamilton promoted Burr, would the duel still have happened?” and in my opinion, I think it still would have happened, it would have probably just happened later. Because the duel wasn’t the “breaking point” for Burr, it was just one of those little things that led to it.

Also while I’m on the topic of the election, it happened a few years before the duel. The election of 1800 was on March 4, 1801 (yes, 1801. It was tied for a very long time.) The duel was on July 11, 1804. So not directly afterward.

“Just to keep me from winning.” it is true that Hamilton did not trust Burr to be in power, and did everything he could to stop him.

The workshop version is cooler and more accurate. (if LMM had just kept the workshop version and what was in it I probably wouldn’t be writing TBH)

“I am not the reason no one trusts you,” in a way, yes, Hamilton is the reason no one trusts Burr. Hamilton had a lot of power and a lot of people listened to him. A good example of this would be his role during John Adams’ presidency. Hamilton constantly whispered into Adams’ cabinet members’ ears and basically told them what to do. And they believed him, and did what he said.

“Even if I said what you think I said, you would need to cite a more specific grievance. Here’s an itemized list of 30 years of disagreements.” Hamilton and Burr argued so much and Hamilton said so many bad things about him that when Burr asked him to admit to saying these things Hamilton essentially said “yeah well I’ve said a lot about you so you’re gonna have to be a lot more specific because I don’t know which time you’re referring to.”

Best of Wives, Best of Women

The title (and the line in the song) are a reference to this letter.

Hamilton was not with his wife the night before the duel. He was at a house he had rented in new york city that he stayed in sometimes while away for work. A few of his older sons were with him, though, including John C. Hamilton, who was interviewed many years later and gave a retelling of what happened the night before. You can read it here.

The World Was Wide Enough

“A doctor that he knew” was David Hosak, the same doctor who treated Philip after his duel just 3 years earlier.

“Now, I didn’t know this at the time but we were near the same spot your son died,” I’m fairly sure he knew, Philip’s duel was a pretty big thing and a lot of people knew.

“My fellow soldiers tell you I’m a terrible shot.” Burr was actually a very good shot. There’s even an account of him doing target practice a few days before the duel.

“But look it up, Hamilton was wearing his glasses,” Hamilton put on his glasses because he was old, and had bad vision from his years of service in the revolution, and from how hard he worked. Fun fact, he was facing the rising sun, which meant the sun glared off his glasses, rendering him unable to see clearly. He wouldn’t have been able to shoot Burr if he tried.

“This man will not make an orphan of my daughter.” Burr’s daughter, Theodosia, was 22 and married. I’m sure she would be fine. On the other hand, Hamilton’s kids were very young. The oldest, Angelica, was only 19, and the youngest, Philip II, was only 2. These kids all needed a father figure in their life, but apparently, Burr didn’t consider that.

In the lines "Laurens leads a soldiers’ chorus on the other side / My son is on the other side, he's with my mother on the other side / Washington is watching from the other side," it seems like they’re being listed in a very particular order but I’m not sure what it means or why they’re in that order.

Hamilton quotes Laurens’ lines right before he dies and it makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend. She was telling me about how for some time after Laurens’ death, Hamilton didn’t really speak that much in congress and such. At first, I thought “oh it’s because he’s dealing with the death of his closest friend and possible romantic partner,” but then my friend explained that that’s not why he was quiet. It’s because when Laurens was in South Carolina, trying to convince the house of representatives to give him his black battalion, he didn’t talk that much. He waited for everyone else to talk, and then he jumped in and talked. That’s why Hamilton was silent for a lot of the time. He was doing what Laurens did. He was quoting Laurens.

“They row him back across the Hudson, I get a drink.” After shooting Hamilton, Burr went to his cousin’s house as if nothing had happened.

Burr showed seemingly no regret for shooting Hamilton, and even bragged and joked about it for years after.

Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story

“Every other founding father’s story gets told,” it really is kinda sad how little people know about Hamilton. He’s not taught about in school. He wasn’t a president.

I do wish that the musical talked a bit more about Hamilton’s kids and their contribution to keeping Hamilton's story alive. Especially John C. who went through all of his father’s papers and wrote the first biography on him.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I really wish the Laurens-Hamilton relationship was a bigger part of the show.

The actors are amazing, but the people they play have little to no character/personality, and it kinda brings the actors down.

I love Phillipa soo.

There are so many inaccuracies that could have been easily avoided, and I genuinely don’t understand why LMM did some of the things he did. Like there was no reason to make Angelica the love interest. Absolutely no reason. And yet, here we are.

Hamilton, the musical was a great way to make more people interested in history, but unfortunately because of how wrong the show is, a lot of people who gain an interest in history from it think that it’s 100% right and treat it like a documentary. I would know, I became interested in American history because of the musical and I didn’t know how many things were wrong or left out until recently.

The workshop version was better and more accurate.

And that’s it! I’d like to give a big thanks to my friends who helped me, especially my friend Mary.

#gil writes #gil's hamilton musical essay #im actually so proud of this #please dont let this flop

153 notes · View notes

fineillsignup · 5 years

Text

tips for choosing a Chinese name for your OC when you don’t know Chinese

This is a meta for gifset trade with @purple-fury! Maybe you would like to trade something with me? You can PM me if so!

Choosing a Chinese name, if you don’t know a Chinese language, is difficult, but here’s a secret for you: choosing a Chinese name, when you do know a Chinese language, is also difficult. So, my tip #1 is: Relax. Did you know that Actual Chinese People choose shitty names all the dang time? It’s true!!! Just as you, doubtless, have come across people in your daily life in your native language that you think “God, your parents must have been on SOME SHIT when they named you”, the same is true about Chinese people, now and throughout history. If you choose a shitty name, it’s not the end of the world! Your character’s parents now canonically suck at choosing a name. There, we fixed it!

However. Just because you should not drive yourself to the brink of the grave fretting over choosing a Chinese name for a character, neither does that mean you shouldn’t care at all. Especially, tip #2, Never just pick some syllables that vaguely sound Chinese and call it a day. That shit is awful and tbh it’s as inaccurate and racist as saying “ching chong” to mimic the Chinese language. Examples: Cho Chang from Harry Potter, Tenten from Naruto, and most notorious of all, Fu Manchu and his daughter Fah lo Suee (how the F/UCK did he come up with that one).

So where do you begin then? Well, first you need to pick your character’s surname. This is actually not too difficult, because Chinese actually doesn’t have that many surnames in common use. One hundred surnames cover over eighty percent of China’s population, and in local areas especially, certain surnames within that one hundred are absurdly common, like one out of every ten people you meet is surnamed Wang, for example. Also, if you’re making an OC for an established media franchise, you may already have the surname based on who you want your character related to. Finally, if you’re writing an ethnically Chinese character who was born and raised outside of China, you might only want their surname to be Chinese, and give them a given name from the language/culture of their native country; that’s very very common.

If you don’t have a surname in mind, check out the Wikipedia page for the list of common Chinese surnames, roughly the top one hundred. If you’re not going to pick one of the top one hundred surnames, you should have a good reason why. Now you need to choose a romanization system. You’ll note that the Wikipedia list contains variant spellings. If your character is a Chinese-American (or other non-Chinese country) whose ancestors emigrated before the 1950s (or whose ancestors did not come from mainland China), their name will not be spelled according to pinyin. It might be spelled according to Wade-Giles romanization, or according to the name’s pronunciation in other Chinese languages, or according to what the name sounds like in the language of the country they immigrated to. (The latter is where you get spellings like Lee, Young, Woo, and Law.) A huge proportion of emigration especially came from southern China, where people spoke Cantonese, Min, Hakka, and other non-Mandarin languages.

So, for example, if you want to make a Chinese-Canadian character whose paternal source of their surname immigrated to Canada in the 20s, don’t give them the surname Xie, spelled that way, because #1 that spelling didn’t exist when their first generation ancestor left China and #2 their first generation ancestor was unlikely to have come from a part of China where Mandarin was spoken anyway (although still could have! that’s up to you). Instead, name them Tse, Tze, Sia, Chia, or Hsieh.

If you’re working with a character who lives in, or who left or is descended from people who left mainland China in the 1960s or later; or if you’re working with a historical or mythological setting, then you are going to want to use the pinyin romanization. The reason I say that you should use pinyin for historical or mythological settings is because pinyin is now the official or de facto romanization system for international standards in academia, the United Nations, etc. So if you’re writing a story with characters from ancient China, or medieval China, use pinyin, even though not only pinyin, but the Mandarin pronunciations themselves didn’t exist back then. Just... just accept this. This is one of those quirks of having a non-alphabetic language.

(Here’s an “exceptions” paragraph: there are various well known Chinese names that are typically, even now, transliterated in a non-standard way: Confucius, Mencius, the Yangtze River, Sun Yat-sen, etc. Go ahead and use these if you want. And if you really consciously want to make a Cantonese or Hakka or whatever setting, more power to you, but in that case you better be far beyond needing this tutorial and I don’t know why you’re here. Get. Scoot!)

One last point about names that use the ü with the umlaut over it. The umlaut ü is actually pretty critical for the meaning because wherever the ü appears, the consonant preceding it also can be used with u: lu/lü, nu/nü, etc. However, de facto, lots of individual people, media franchises, etc, simply drop the umlaut and write u instead when writing a name in English, such as “Lu Bu” in the Dynasty Warriors franchise in English (it should be written Lü Bu). And to be fair, since tones are also typically dropped in Latin script and are just as critical to the meaning and pronunciation of the original, dropping the umlaut probably doesn’t make much difference. This is kind of a choice you have to make for yourself. Maybe you even want to play with it! Maybe everybody thinks your character’s surname is pronounced “loo as in loo roll” but SURPRISE MOFO it’s actually lü! You could Do Something with that. Also, in contexts where people want to distinguish between u and ü when typing but don’t have easy access to a keyboard method of making the ü, the typical shorthand is the letter v.

Alright! So you have your surname and you know how you want it spelled using the Latin alphabet. Great! What next?

Alright, so, now we get to the hard part: choosing the given name. No, don’t cry, I know baby I know. We can do this. I believe in you.

Here are some premises we’re going to be operating on, and I’m not entirely sure why I made this a numbered list:

Chinese people, generally, love their kids. (Obviously, like in every culture, there are some awful exceptions, and I’ll give one specific example of this later on.)

As part of loving their kids, they want to give them a Good name.

So what makes a name a Good name??? Well, in Chinese culture, the cultural values (which have changed over time) have tended to prioritize things like: education; clan and family; health and beauty; religious devotions of various religions (Buddhism, Taoism, folk religions, Christianity, other); philosophical beliefs (Buddhism, Confucianism, etc) (see also education); refinement and culture (see also education); moral rectitude; and of course many other things as the individual personally finds important. You’ll notice that education is a big one. If you can’t decide on where to start, something related to education, intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, etc, is a bet that can’t go wrong.

Unlike in English speaking cultures (and I’m going to limit myself to English because we’re writing English and good God look at how long this post is already), there is no canon of “names” in Chinese like there has traditionally been in English. No John, Mary, Susan, Jacob, Maxine, William, and other words that are names and only names and which, historically at least, almost everyone was named. Instead, in Chinese culture, you can basically choose any character you want. You can choose one character, or two characters. (More than two characters? No one can live at that speed. Seriously, do not give your character a given name with more than two characters. If you need this tutorial, you don’t know enough to try it.) Congratulations, it is now a name!!

But what this means is that Chinese names aggressively Mean Something in a way that most English names don’t. You know nature names like Rose and Pearl, and Puritan names like Wrestling, Makepeace, Prudence, Silence, Zeal, and Unity? I mean, yeah, you can technically look up that the name Mary comes from a etymological root meaning bitter, but Mary doesn’t mean bitter in the way that Silence means, well, silence. Chinese names are much much more like the latter, because even though there are some characters that are more common as names than as words, the meaning of the name is still far more upfront than English names.

So the meaning of the name is generally a much more direct expression of those Good Values mentioned before. But it gets more complicated!

Being too direct has, across many eras of Chinese history, been considered crude; the very opposite of the education you’re valuing in the first place. Therefore, rather than the Puritan slap you in the face approach where you just name your kid VIRTUE!, Chinese have typically favoured instead more indirect, related words about these virtues and values, or poetic allusions to same. What might seem like a very blunt, concrete name, such as Guan Yu’s “yu” (which means feather), is actually a poetic, referential name to all the things that feathers evoke: flight, freedom, intellectual broadmindness, protection...

So when you’re choosing a name, you start from the value you want to express, then see where looking up related words in a dictionary gets you until you find something that sounds “like a name”; you can also try researching Chinese art symbolism to get more concrete names. Then, here’s my favourite trick, try combining your fake name with several of the most common surnames: 王，李，陈. And Google that shit. If you find Actual Human Beings with that name: congratulations, at least if you did f/uck up, somebody else out there f/ucked up first and stuck a Human Being with it, so you’re still doing better than they are. High five!

You’re going to stick with the same romanization system (or lack thereof) as you’ve used for the surname. In the interests of time, I’m going to focus on pinyin only.

First let’s take a look at some real and actual Chinese names and talk about what they mean, why they might have been chosen, and also some fictional OC names that I’ve come up with that riff off of these actual Chinese names. And then we’ll go over some resources and also some pitfalls. Hopefully you can learn by example! Fun!!!

Let’s start with two great historical strategists: Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu, and the names I picked for some (fictional) sons of theirs. Then I will be talking about Sun Shangxiang and Guan Yinping, two historical-legendary women of the same era, and what I named their fictional daughters. And finally I’ll be talking about historical Chinese pirate Gan Ning and what I named his fictional wife and fictional daughter. Uh, this could be considered spoilers for my novel Clouds and Rain and associated one-shots in that universe, so you probably want to go and read that work... and its prequels... and leave lots of comments and kudos first and then come back. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

(I’m just kidding you don’t need to know a thing about my work to find this useful.)

ZHUGE Liang is written 諸葛亮 in traditional Chinese characters and 诸葛亮 in simplified Chinese characters. It is a two-character surname. Two character surnames used to be more common than they are now. When I read Chinese history, I notice that two character surname clans seem to have a bad habit of flying real high and then getting the Icarus treatment if Icarus when his wings melted also got beheaded and had the Nine Familial Exterminations performed on his clan. Yikes. Sooner or later that'll cost ya.

But anyway. Zhuge means “lots of kudzu”, which if you have been to the American south you know is that only way that kudzu comes. Liang means “light, shining” in the sense of daylight, moonlight, etc; and from this literal meaning also such figurative meanings as reveal or clear. (I’m going to talk about words have a primary and secondary meaning in this way because I think it’s important for understanding. It’s just like how in English, ‘run’ has many meanings, but almost of all them are derived from a primary meaning of ‘to move fast via one’s human legs’, if I can be weird for a moment. “Run” as in “home run” comes from that, “run” as in “run in your stocking” comes from that, “run” as in “that’ll run you at least $200″ comes from that. You have to get it straight which is the primary meaning, which is the one that people think of first and they way they get to the secondary meaning.)

“Light” has a similar “enlightenment” concept in Chinese as in English, so the person who chose Zhuge Liang’s name—most likely his father or grandfather—clearly valued learning.

I named my fictional son for Zhuge Liang Zhuge Jing 京. The value or direction I was coming from is that Zhuge Liang has come to the decision that he has to nurture the next generation for the benefit of the land, that he has to remain in the world in a way that he very much did not want to do when he himself was a young man. In this alternate universe, Liu Bei has formed a new Han dynasty and recaptured Luoyang, so when Zhuge Liang’s son is then born he chooses this name Jing which means literally “capital”. This concrete name is meant as an allusion to a devotion to public service and to remaining “central”. After I chose this name, I discovered that Zhuge Liang actually has a recorded grandson named Zhuge Jing with this same character.

above, me, realizing I picked a good name

ZHOU Yu is written 周瑜 in both simplified and traditional Chinese characters.

The surname Zhou was and remains a very common Chinese surname whose original meaning was like... a really nice field. Like just the greatest f/ucking field you’ve ever seen. “Dang, that is a sweet field” said an ancient Chinese farmer, “I’m gonna make a new Chinese character to record just how great it is.” And then it came to mean things along the line of complete and thorough.

Yu means the excellence of a gemstone--its brilliance, lustre, etc, as opposed to its flaws. It is not a common word but does appear in some expressions such as 瑕不掩瑜 "a flaw does not conceal the rest of the gemstone's beauty; a defect does not mean the whole thing is bad".

Zhou Yu has gone down in history for being not only smart but also artistic and handsome. A real triple threat. And this name speaks to a family that valued art and beauty. It really does suit him.

Zhou Yu had two recorded sons but in my alternate history I gave him four. I borrowed the first one’s name from history: Xun 循, follow. Based on this name, I chose other names that I thought gave a similar sense of his values: Shou 守, guard; Wen 聞, listen. The youngest one I had born when he already knew he was dying, and things had not been going well generally; therefore I had him give him the name Shen 慎, which means “careful, cautious”.

SUN Shangxiang 孫尚香 is one of several names that history and legend give for a sister of w//arlord-king Sun Quan who was married to a rival w//arlord named Liu Bei in a marriage which, historically, uh, didn’t... didn’t go all that well. In my alternate history it goes well! You can’t stop me, I’ve already done it!

The surname Sun means “grandson” and the given name components are Shang mean “values, esteems” and Xiang “scent” which we can combine into meaning something like “precious perfume”. A lot of the recorded names for women in this era (a huge number didn’t have any names recorded, a problem in itself) seem to me to be more concrete, to contain more objects, to be more focused on affection, less focused on hopes and dreams. This makes sense for the era: you love your daughters (I HOPE) but then they get married and leave you. You don’t have long term plans for them because their long term belongs to another clan.

I gave her daughter by Liu Bei the name Liu Yitao 劉義桃. Yi 義 meaning righteousness, rectitude and 桃 meaning... peach. Okay, okay, I know "righteous peach" sounds damn funny in English, but the legendary oath in the peach garden, the "oath of brotherhood" is called in Chinese 結義 "tying righteousness" and the peach garden is, uh, a peach garden. I also give her the cutesy nickname Taotao 桃桃 which you could compare to “Peaches” or “Peachy”. Reduplication of a character in a two-character name is a classic nickname strategy in Chinese.

GUAN Yinping 關銀屏/关银屏 is a “made up” (scare quotes because old legends have their own kind of validity, fight me) name for a historical daughter of Guan Yu. Guan means “to close (a door)”. Yin means “silver” and ping means “a screen, to hide” and according to the legend, her father’s oath brother Zhang Fei named her after a silver treasure. So here again we see a name for a woman that completely lacks the kind of aspirations we see in male names. Who would have an aspiration for a daughter?

My fictional characters, that’s who. I named her daughter Lu Ruofeng 陸若鳳/陆若凤, Ruo (like the) Feng (phoenix), based on a quote from a Confucian text about what one should try to be during both times of chaos and times of good government. I portray her father as a devoted Confucian scholar, so that was another factor for why I looked to Confucian texts for a source of a name.

Modern parents also now have big dreams for their daughters :’) and so modern girls receive names that are far more similar to how boys are named.

GAN Ning 甘寧/甘宁 is a great example of a person whose name does not suit him. Gan 甘 depicts a tongue and means “sweet”, and Ning 寧 which shows a bowl and table and heart beneath a roof means “peaceful”. Which, it would be hard to come up with a name for this guy, a ruthless pirate turned extremely effective general:

that is less suitable than essentially being named “Sweet Peace”.

And when he was an adult, his style name—a name that Chinese men used to be given when they turned 20 (ie became adults) by East Asian reckoning—indeed reflects that. Choosing your own style name was widely considered to be crass. I absolutely think that Gan Ning chose his own style name; he was that kind of a guy. And the name he chose! Xingba 興霸/兴霸! I’ve never seen another style name like it. It means, basically, “thriving dominator”! Brand new official adult Gan Ning treats his style name like he’s picking his Xbox gamer tag and he picks BadassBoss69_420, that’s what this style name is like to me. Except, you know, he had almost certainly killed many hundreds of people by the time he was nineteen, so, uh, it wouldn’t be a wise idea to make fun of his name to his face.

In my fictional version of his life, he married a woman whose father was the exception to the “parents love their children” rule and who named his daughter Pandi 盼第 “expecting a younger brother”, which is a classic “daughters ain’t shit, I want a son” name. Real and actual Chinese women have been given this shitty name and ones like it.

Because Gan Ning had an ironically placid name, I also gave his daughter the placid single character name Wan 婉, which means “gentle, restrained”, as a foil to her wild personality.

So there are a bunch of examples of some historical characters and some OCs and how I chose their names. “But wait, all that was really cool, but how can I do that? You can read Chinese, I can’t!”

I originally had a bunch of links here to dictionaries and resources but Tumblr :) wouldn’t let the post show up in tag search with all the links :) :) :) so you need to check the reblogs of this post to see my own reblog; that reblog has all the links. I’M SORRY ABOUT THIS. Here are a list of the sites without the links if you want to Google them yourself.

MDBG - an open source dictionary - start here

Wiktionary - don’t knock it til you try it

iCIBA (they recently changed their user interface and it’s much less English-speaker friendly now but it’s still a great dictionary)

Pleco (an iOS app, maybe also Android???) contains same open source dictionary as MDBG and also its own proprietary dictionary

Chinese Etymology at hanziyuan dot net

You search some English keywords from the value you want, and then you see what kind of characters you get. You should take the character and then reverse search, making sure that it doesn’t have negative words/meanings, and similar. Look into the etymology and see if it has any thematic elements that appeal to what you’re doing with the character--eg a fire radical for a character with fire powers.

And then, like I mention before, when you have got a couple characters and you think “I think this could be a good name”, you go to Google, you take a very common surname, you append your chosen name—don’t forget to use quotation marks—and you see what happens. Did you get some results? Even better, did you get lots of results? Then you’re probably safe! No results does not necessarily mean your name won’t work, but you should probably run it by an Actual Chinese Native Speaker at that point to check. Also, remember, as I said at the beginning, sometimes people have weird names. If you consciously decide “you know what, I think this character’s parents would choose a weird name”, then own that.

THINGS YOU SHOULD PROBABLY IGNORE!

Starting in relatively recent history (not really a big thing until Song dynasty) and continuing, moreso outside of mainland China, to the modern day, there is something called a generation name component to a name. This means that of a name’s two characters, one of the characters is shared with every other paternal line relative of that person’s generation; historically, usually only boys get a generation name and girls don’t. (Chinese history, banging on pots and pans: DAUGHTERS AIN’T SHIT AND DON’T FORGET IT!) “Generation” here means everyone who is equidistant descendant from some past ancestor, not necessarily that they are exactly the same age. For example, all of ancestor’s X’s sons share the character 一 in their names, his grandsons all have the character 二，great-grandsons 三, great-great-grandsons 四 (I just used numbers because I’m lazy). By the time you get to great-great-grandson, you might have some that are forty years old and some that are babies (because of how old their fathers were when they were conceived), but they are still the same generation.

In some clans, this tradition goes so far as to have something called a name poem, where the generations cycle, character by character, through a poem that was specifically written for this purpose and which is generally about how their clan is super rad.

If you want to riff off of this idea and have siblings or paternal cousins share a character in their names, ok, but it genuinely isn’t necessary. Anyone with a single character name obviously doesn’t have one of these generation names, and by no means does every person with a two character name (especially female) have a generation name. If you’re doing an OC for an ancient Chinese setting (certainly anything before the year about 500), you shouldn’t use these generation names because it wasn’t a thing. Also, in a modern setting, even if such a generation name or name poem exists, it’s not like there is any legal requirement to use it (though there may be family pressure to do so).

As a further complication, some parents do the shared character thing among their children without it actually being a generation name per se because it isn’t shared by any cousins. Or, they have all their children (or all their children of the same gender) share a radical, which is a meaning component in a Chinese character.

If someone does have one of these shared character names, then their nickname will never come from that shared character; either they will be called by the full name or by some name riffing off of the character that is not shared. For example, I knew a pair of sisters called Yuru and Yufei with the same first character; the first sister went by her English name in daily life (even when speaking Chinese) while the second sister was called Feifei.

tl;dr If you don’t already know Chinese, consider generation names an extra complication for masochists only. Definitely not required for modern characters.

Fortune telling is another thing that I think you should either ignore or wildly make up. Do you know what ordinary Chinese people who want to choose a lucky name for their child do? They hire someone to work it out. This is not some DIY shit even if you are deeply immured in the culture. There are considerations of the number of strokes, the radicals, the birth date, the birth hour. You’re the god of your fictional universe, so go ahead and unilaterally declare that your desired names are lucky or unlucky as suits the story if you want to.

MILK NAMES

In modern times, babies get named right away, if for no other reason that the government requires it everywhere in the world for record keeping purposes.

However, in traditional times, Chinese people did not give babies a permanent name right away, instead waiting until a certain period of time had passed (3 months/100 days is a classic).

What do you call the baby in the meantime? A milk name 乳名, which your (close, older than you) family may or may not keep on using for you until such time as you die, just so that you remember that you used to be a funny looking little raisin that peed on people.

This kind of name is almost always very humble, sometimes to the point of being outright insulting. This is because to use any name on your baby that implies you might actually like the little thing is tempting Bad News. Possible exception: sometimes a baby would receive a milk name that dedicated it to some deity. In this case, I guess you’re hoping that deity will be flattered enough to take on the job of shooing away all the other spirits and things that might be otherwise attracted to this Delicious Fresh Baby.

Because milk names were only used by one’s (older) family and very close family friends of one’s parents/grandparents, most people’s milk names are not recorded or known, with some notable exceptions. Liu Shan, the son of Liu Bei, who as a baby was rescued by Zhao Yun during the Shu forces retreat from Changban. Perhaps because his big debut in history/legend was as a baby, he is well-known for his milk name A-Dou 阿斗, which means, essentially, Dipper.

If you’re writing a story, you really only need to worry about a milk name for your character if it’s a historical (or pseudohistorical) setting, and even then only if the character either makes an appearance as a small infant or you consciously decide to have them interact with characters who knew them well as a small child and choose to continue using the milk name. Not all parents, etc who could use the milk name with a youth or an adult actually did so.

Here are some milk names I’ve come up with in my fiction: Little Mouse/Xiaoshu 小鼠 for a girl, Tadpole/Kedou 蝌蚪 for a boy, and Shouty/A-Yao 阿吆 for a boy. In the first two cases the babies were both smol and quiet (as babies go). The last one neither small nor quiet, ahahaha. 蔷蔷 Qiangqiang, which is a pretty enough name meaning “wild rose” (duplication to make it lighter), except the baby is a boy, so this is the typical idea that making a boy feminine makes him worth less, which, yikes, but also, historically accurate. Also Xiaohei 小黑 “Blackie” for a work that I will probably never publish because I don’t ever see myself finishing it. I might recycle it to use on another story.

Here are some more milk names I came up with off the cuff for a friend that wanted an insulting milk name. They ended up not using any of these, so feel free to use, no credit necessary. Rongzi 冗子 “Unwanted Child”; Xiaochou 小丑 “Little Ugly”; A-Xu 阿虛 “Empty”; Pangzhu 胖豬 “Fat Pig”; Shasha 傻傻 “Dummy”.

PITFALLS!

Chinese has a lot of homophones. Like, so many, you cannot even believe. That means the potential for puns, double meanings, etc, is off the charts. And this can be bad, real real bad, when it comes to names. It is way too easy to pick a name and think to yourself “wow, this name is great” and then realize later that the name sounds exactly the same as “cat shit” or something even worse.

Some Chinese families live the name choosing life on hard mode because their surname is itself a homonym that can make almost any name sound bad. I’m speaking of course of the poor Wus and Bus of the world. You see Wu may have innocuous and pleasant surnames associated with it, but it also means “without, un-”. (Bu is similar, sounds like “no, not”.) Suddenly, any pleasant name you give your kid, your kid is NOT that thing.

This means picking a name that is pleasant in itself yet also somehow also pleasant when combined with Wu. So you might pick a character with a sound like Ting, Xian, Hui, or Liang - unstopping, unlimited, no regrets, immeasurable. A positive negative name, a kind of paradox. Like I said, this is naming on hard mode.

If you are naming an ancient character, I am going to say in my opinion you should ignore all considerations of sound, because reconstruction of ancient Chinese pronunciations is on some other, other level of pedantic and you just don’t need to do that to yourself.

For modern characters, however, an attractive name, in general, should be a mix of tones and a mix of sounds. As a non-Chinese speaker, basically this means especially if you go for a two character given name, having all three characters start with the same sound, or end with the same sound, can sound kind of tongue twistery and thus silly/stupid. That doesn’t mean that such names never exist, and can in some cases even sound good (or at least memorable), but how likely is it that you’ve found the exception? Not very. (Two out of three having repetition isn’t bad. It’s three out of three you have to be careful of. Something like Wang Fang or Zhou Pengpeng is probably fine; it’s something over the top like Guan Guangguo or Li Lili you want to avoid.)

Just like the West (sigh), in the modern Sinosphere it is widely acceptable for girls to have masculine names but totally unacceptable for boys to have feminine names. If you see the radical 女 which means woman, don’t choose that character for a boy, at least if you’re trying to be realistic. Now Chinese ideas of masculinity doesn’t have the same boundaries as Western ideas, but if you want to play around in those boundaries, you gotta do that research on your own; you’ve left what I can teach you in this already entirely too long tutorial.

Don’t name a character after someone else in story, or after a famous person. In some/many Western cultures, and actually in some Eastern cultures too (Japan is basically fine with this, for example), naming a baby the same name as someone else (a relative, a saint, a famous person, etc), is a respected and popular way to honour that person.

But not in Chinese culture, not now, not a thousand years ago, not two thousand years ago. (Disclaimer: I bet there is some weird rare exception that, eventually, somebody will “gotcha” me with. I am prepared to be amazed and delighted when this occurs.)

Part of this is because of a fundamentally different idea in Chinese culture vs many other cultures about what is valuing vs disrespecting with regard to personal names. The highest respect paid in Chinese history to a category of personal names is to the emperor, and what would happen there is that it would be under name taboo, a very serious and onerous custom where you not only have to not say the emperor’s name, but you can’t say anything that sounds the same as the emperor’s name.

Did I mention that this is in the language of CRAZY GO NUTS numbers of homonyms? The day-to-day troubles caused by observing name taboo were so potentially intense that there are even instances where, before ascending to the imperial throne, the emperor-to-be would change his name to something that was easier to observe taboo about!

So you see this is an attitude that says: if you want to honour and show respect to somebody, you don’t speak their name.

As the highest person in the land, only the emperor gets this extreme level of avoidance, but it trickles down all through society. You can’t use the personal names of people superior to you. Naming a baby after someone inherently throws the hierarchy out of whack. Now you have a young baby with the same name as a grown adult, or even a dead person, who is due honour from their rank in life. People who would not be permitted to use the inspiration’s name may now use that name because they are superior to the baby who received the name! This would mean that hierarchy was not being preserved, and oh my heaven, is there anything worse than hierarchy not being preserved? All of Chinese History: Noooooo!

Now. As an author—and I hope to God no one is using my Chinese name guide as a resource to name an actual human baby because I can’t take that kind of pressure—you can use the names of characters to inspire the names of other characters, in the following way.

Remember that I said that the key, the starting point, to naming someone in Chinese is to start from a value. Okay. So what you do, if as the author you want to draw a thematic connection between two fictional characters, is take the Inspiration character’s name, think about what the value is that caused that name to be chosen, and then go from that value to choose the New Character’s name.

If you’ll recall what I said about Gan Ning and his baby Wan, this is exactly the approach I took. Gan Ning had a placid single character name that belied his violent and outrageous personality; I chose a placid single character name for his similarly wild daughter to make them thematically similar. As an author, I named his baby after him. But within the context of the story, she was not named after him. Does the distinction make sense?

Values also run in families for obvious reasons. It’s very common to look at a family tree and see lots of names that follow a kind of theme and give you a sense that, eg, this family is rather low class and uneducated; this family is very erudite but a bit too fussy about it; this family is really big on Confucianism. So yes, as an author, looking to other characters for inspiration is not a bad idea.

Remember, a lot of times, as an author, you can and even should kick realism to the curb sometimes. If you want to make some Ominous Foreshadowing that Character A’s name is something to do with fire but! They name their child something to do with water and therefore they are destined to clash with their own offspring, gasp, you can do that kind of thing because you are the god of your universe. Relish your power.

Do you have any more questions? Feel free to send a PM or an ask. I hope this was helpful! Go forth and name your Chinese OCs with slightly more confidence!

Edit 22 April 2019: I added some more sections (fortune telling, Milk Names, and taboo on naming after people). I also need to overhaul the entirety of the previous to emphasize that even thought I thoughtlessly used “Chinese” as if it was synonymous with “Han”, there are non-Han Chinese and they can have very different naming customs. Mea culpa.

38K notes · View notes

ottomanladies · 4 years

Note

Hey this a question about Köçeks and their connection to the Harem but also LGBTQ in the harem and the empire. I read somewhere that court dancers and concubines, jealous of attention to the boys killed them? What about eunuchs? Did women of the Harem ever have affairs with them? How did castration become a thing in the first place and who decided who was castrated vs. who was a slave soldier? Do we know if women had affairs with other women in the harem? What about the eunuchs?

I'm sorry, köçeks have no connection to the harem. They were entertainers in the city (taverns, pubs?, clubs, etc) not in the palace.

It seems you have read the wikipedia page about them because it says:

Köçeks were much more sought after than the çengi ("belly dancers"), their female counterparts. Some youths were known to have been killed by the çengi, who were extremely jealous of men's attention toward the boys.

And, again, belly dancers were not harem dancers or court dancers. So, no, no one from the harem killed köçeks.

About eunuchs, Croutier says:

The first traces of eunuchry appear in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, which eventually become one and empty into the Persian Gulf. In that delta, a beautiful valley nurtured many tribes— predominantly matriarchal societies. During the ninth century B.C., Semiramis, queen of Assyria, castrated male slaves. So did other queens. — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

I seem to remember that the Byzantines employed eunuchs in the Royal Palace and that is how eunuchs ended up being employed in the Imperial Harem of the Ottoman sultans.

And indeed Croutier says about this:

During the fourteenth century, when the Ottomans first began secluding their women, the Byzantines supplied them with eunuchs, but it did not take the Turks long to establish their own trade. — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

Eunuchs could not be castrated by Muslims so they were sold already castrated. It was Christians and Jews who castrated them

Egyptian Christians or Jews castrated some young black boys on the way at rest stops, since Islam prohibited the practice. It was a risky operation with a high mortality rate, and the hot, arid climate was not conducive to easy recovery. Desert sand being considered the most efficacious balm, the newly castrated were buried up to their necks until their wound healed. The boys who survived the pain, hemorrhage, and subsequent burial became luxury items, bringing enormous profit to the traders. And since they attracted wealthy purchasers, the eunuchs’ futures actually held opportunity for position and power. — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

Talking about sexual relations between concubines in the harem is a very risky thing because most of the people who reported them did so to feed the image of the harem as a world of sexual perdition. An example:

“It is common knowledge that as a result of this familiarity in washing and massaging women fall very much in love with each other. And one often sees a woman in love with another one just like a man and woman. And I have known Greek and Turkish women, on seeing a lovely young girl, seek occasion to bathe with her just to see her naked and handle her.” — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

Another rumour is that they could not serve entire vegetables to the concubines because they would use cucumbers or similar vegetables to pleasure themselves... which is something clearly written to shock Europeans.

Of course we cannot exclude lesbian relationships in 700 history of harem seclusion but I'm quite sure they were kept a secret because I doubt that the sultan would have appreciated that.

The only time sources talk about a lesbian relationship is with Turhan Hatice Sultan and Meleki Kalfa. They said that they would share the bed but it was done just to discredit the valide sultan and not for the sake of reporting the truth. Also sometimes Meleki is portrayed as a seductress who deceived Turhan Hatice just for power.

About eunuchs, again Croutier says that there were instances in which they had sexual relationships with the women in the harem (or outside the harem):

The loss of sexual organs does not necessarily remove all sexual desire, especially if castration is performed at puberty [...]. A eunuch who had lost only his testicles could still have erections and enjoy sex. — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

They sometimes kept their own odalisques, and others preferred young boys, as a court halberdier remarked in Risale-i Taberdariye fi Ahzal-i Ağa’yi Darüssade (1714): These wretched men, they fall in love with handsome youths too and keep them close, these wretches have so much desire in their corrupt bodies. Every single one of them buys a couple of slave girls and secretly keeps them in their room, jealous of the others of their kind. They fight with each other over these women they keep in their rooms. How could a traitor commit such an act without sexual urge? — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

Eunuchs were also known to experiment with aphrodisiacs and erotic paraphernalia. Having contact with the outside, they were able to obtain a variety of sex toys, including artificial phalli and other erotic succedanea. They were also highly skilled in the art of oral sex; a woman who married after having made love to a eunuch was often dissatisfied with her husband’s performance, according to a halberdier: Is it said that these odalisques who become intimate with eunuchs develop a voracious sexual appetite? That they do is a well-known fact all over Istanbul. Two odalisques were given their freedom and married off. A week after their weddings, the husbands divorced them. The reason being that the odalisques told their husbands they did not perform as well as the eunuchs. Because of that, the husbands divorced them. This incident occurred in my time. — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

I don't know if these things are true or not but they were reported by ottomans. Again there's always the doubt that it was done to discredit those men or to smear their reputations. I personally think that eunuchs led a very sad life because not each of them became Chief Harem Eunuch and therefore powerful and respected. I feel like they had to deal with a lot of rumours and malicious gossip. After the fall of the empire, no one wanted to get close to them:

During the last days of the Ottoman Empire, there was a great deal of concern about their survival in old age. They feebly attempted forming unions. Nobody wanted to deal with them anymore, because they stood for a past everyone wanted to bury. “In the midst of a crowded bazaar,” Edmondo de Amicis writes in Constantinople (1896), “among the throng of pleasure seekers at the Sweet Waters, beneath the columns of the mosques, beside the carriages, on the steamboats, in kayiks, at all the festivals, wherever people are assembled together, one sees those phantoms of men, these melancholy countenances, like a dark shadow thrown across every aspect of gay Oriental life.” — Harem: The World Behind the Veil

#anon #ask post #ask: ottoman history #ottoman harem #turhan hatice sultan #meleki kalfa #Anonymous

24 notes · View notes

schnowydays · 4 years

Text

The “Herne and the Red Kite” Analysis Nobody Asked For

WARNING: This is probably a very long and unnecessary post.

Wah, so at first I was quite nervous on posting this at all because this is just so embarrassingly long and it is really overly thought out. Plus no one even asked for it and there does not seem to be a need for this since the song is kind of straightforward. But, I still put work into this so I’m going to post it anyways cuz it would feel like a waste if I didn’t. Plus, I’m immensely busy with school right now, so why not just let this fester while I’m away? So,,, here we go:::

Okay, so this was spun out by this post and I just became so interested in what the heck this song was about. I’ve always loved listening to it but I had no idea what the heck was going on - who is Herne? A red kite?? Does this relate to Hadley and Rosalie???

Plus, I love reading analysis on stuff so, here I am, attempting to make my own.

Anyways, to give a quick overview, I am going to be analyzing both the words and the instruments used in the song, going strictly by the studio recording. Everything here will be MY OPINION ALONE so it could be possible that I am horribly wrong on certain things. This research was INCREDIBLY LIGHT so there are probably a lot of details that I missed. Plus, I don’t really have strong music or literature knowledge, nothing beyond what you’re taught in high school. I’ll try to clear up the blocks of text with pictures or videos of things I think are helpful.

I’m basically going to be the English Teacher who finds meaning in everything meme. You know, the:

So, without further ado...

Background

The Song Itself

As we all know, “Herne and the Red Kite” was written by Hadley Fraser and was released on his EP Just Let Go. Although it was released in 2014, I’m not entirely sure when this song was written, so it could have been really any time before then. Just to get it out there, based on what others have already said (from that post, yes), this song is most likely to be about Hadley and Rosalie Craig. Here is the song itself if you’ve (somehow) never heard it before. You can also listen along and read at the same time :D

youtube

Characters in the Song

Herne

Based on only a Google search, “Herne the Hunter”, an English folklore ghost, is really the only thing that shows up. He is mentioned by Shakespeare in The Merry Wives of Windsor in which he is described as “the ghost of a former Windsor Forest keeper who haunts a particular oak tree at midnight in the winter time” (Wikipedia). He is associated with the Windsor Forest and the Great Park in Berkshire. He basically does a lot of not cool stuff, like making cows produce blood instead of milk and making trees die. Another version states that he was made so that parents can scare their children into being more obedient. Herne is also the surname of a bunch of people. Because Herne is such an interesting name to use for a song like this (why didn’t he pick literally anything else??), then there is probably some intention behind the use of this name and probably the connotations that come with it.

Red Kite

So, apparently, the Red Kite isn’t actually a kite but is actually a kind of English bird. Fun fact, during Shakespeare’s time, it was considered to be an insult to be called a kite because this bird, back then, was regarded as quite a lowly bird since it was literally associated with trash. It was related this way because it eats dead things haha... However, it was hunted intensely until it became basically extinct except for a few in Wales. Over time, as the population began to thrive again, the Red Kite became a celebrated symbol of Wales (probably) (source).

According to a lot of different sites, apparently Red Kites also have some meaning to them. I think the most consistent and most important one is how they are a connection between the living and the underworld. This mystical connection binds well with Herne being a folklore ghost who, of course being a ghost, is probably dead. So, already, they are a pretty good match.

A good thing to note as well, birds, in general, are usually used to symbolize freedom. Also, as far as I can tell, there are really no previous stories or songs or works or whatever about Herne and Red Kites together.

Hadley and Rosalie’s Relationship

I got this information from here (brought up by @peonybooks in a chat, thank you!!)

So, depending on where you look, in 2008 or 2009, Hadley and Rosalie met on the set of A Christmas Carol production in Birmingham, although at the time, they were both dating other people. A piece of the set had fallen on Rosalie during that time and basically destroyed her arm. However, she was determined to swiftly come back to the stage because she was afraid that if she hadn’t, she’ll never be able to come back at all. That, and “because [she] had fallen in love with [Hadley]” (my feelings waaa).

Once the production was over, Hadley shipped it back to LA while Rosalie stayed in London. Hadley returned a year later and called up Rosalie for a drink. It was then discovered that they had actually liked each other this entire time!! They just never told each other. They lived together in Crystal Palace after that and married in 2014. This makes it around the time that this EP was released.

Hadley and Rosalie as Herne and the Red Kite

Something interesting I noticed was the relation of their names to these characters. H is for Hadley and Herne. R is for Rosalie and the Red Kite.

Of course, this little fun fact breaks a bit if Hadley is using his real first name, Robert, haha. The “Red” in “Red Kite” can also be a relation to how Rosalie has red hair (thanks @alittlepawblog hehe).

Also, something worth noting is how Rosalie sings all the lines that are in Herne’s perspective, and Hadley sings all the lines about the Red Kite’s perspective. That trade-off is quite neat, actually. They are both narrators together in this story, but they are swapping who talks about who. It makes the whole song feel like they are speaking for each other together.

Lyrics and Instruments

I think for this part, I am going to break it up by when each person sings. So basically, whenever there is a new singer or if they start singing together, that will be a new section. Italics are lyrics, regular print is the analysis.

Instrumental

The story is introduced by an accordion. To be honest, it sounds quite static, or maybe even stoic. There is not a lot of feeling in it, maybe to demonstrate how Herne and the Red Kite’s lives were like before meeting each other.

The sprinkles of hi-hats spring the beginning of the song, which consists of a guitar melody, bass and a violin. The violin has a recurring melody that is highlighted every time there is an instrumental break. It could perhaps represent Herne as both Herne (and subsequently Hadley) is mentioned throughout the song consistently, while the Red kite is only mentioned after the introduction.

Rosalie

Herne lived alone, lived alone in a wood Staring at swallows, wishing he could Join their migration from flower to flower Finally deciding to rest on some bower

Herne is introduced right off the bat, making him kind of the main character. That, and the fact that he has the most lines in the song directly about him. Makes sense if Herne is supposed to stand in for Hadley, since Hadley wrote this song. The fact that he lives in the woods also fits nicely with how he is supposed to be a ghost associated with the Windsor Forest and the Great Park.

The lyrics state he is lonely and stares at swallows, wishing he could join them and fly far away visiting beautiful things (“flower to flower”). Swallows are typically symbols for very very good things, like happiness, protection, connection, conflict resolution, etc. The words “finally deciding to rest” kind of makes it like he has been on this long trek for happiness for a while. He’s been doing this search for so long that he just has to rest, finally. And, in case you didn’t know like me, a bower is “a pleasant shady place under trees or climbing plants in a garden or wood” (thanks Google).

So, just to recap Herne is a lonely ghost who doesn’t want to be this way. He wants to be happy, have a connection with something, but being isolated in the wood just doesn’t let him do that. This may indicate how lonely or just duller things seemed to be for Hadley before he met Rosalie. He didn’t feel a true connection or see true beauty, something he desperately wanted to experience, until her.

BOTH

With another With another

Albeit being very short, these can potentially have meaning behind them. “With another” - another what? They also start singing together here for the first time. Perhaps the “another” is each other, Hadley and Rosalie, or a foreshadow that Herne will be joined by another person or being soon, a sort of set up for the Red Kite, who is introduced in the next line.

Hadley

Herne lifts his head and the Red Kite goes drifting by Suddenly in love with something that caught her eye

Hadley now sings but from the perspective of the Red Kite. Notice before that Rosalie sang the last verse, but all about Herne. They kind of mirror each other in this way.

youtube

With the video above, you can see how, while they drift, the Red Kites move their head a lot. Maybe this is a normal bird movement and I’m just too dumb to know, but they seem to be actively searching below them. I think this derives from how they are scavenger birds. However, instead of spotting food, she spots Herne and is “suddenly in love”. This could parallel into real life, where Rosalie might have seen Hadley in passing on the production and experienced love at first sight. These lines indicate that Herne (Hadley) has clearly seen the Red Kite (Rosalie) as well, probably having the same love at first sight moment, something that can be inferred once the song progresses into the next Rosalie verse.

In this verse, the accordion returns as well, possibly indicating some remnants of the past sadness still lingering. There is uncertainty. However, a new instrument is also introduced simultaneously: the mandolin. To me, it kind of sounds very happy and bright and hopeful, especially in the plucky way it was used. This new instrument, as well as the potentially cheesy representation (rip me), can indicate that something new and exciting is going to begin.

BOTH

Something that's shining so bright in the sunlight Let's hope we never...

If we’re sticking with the definition of bowers being shady, then should it not be very unlikely that the Red Kite or Herne have spotted each other at all? Perhaps through this line, they are saying how unlikely their relationship was to have occurred, but when it ultimately did, it was glorious. In the following line, they say “Let’s hope we never lose that thing that shines in the sunlight ever again”. Maybe it was just so unbelievably good, so amazing, that they were afraid that they would lose it because it just feels so unimaginable. Besides, this flips well into reality since they never told each other they liked each other and kept it secret for a whole year!! PLUS, they were dating others when they first met!! Very unlikely relationship indeed.

...then again, this could just be them saying the other is really great haha.

The accordion is fazed out as if the longer Herne and the Red Kite gaze at each other, the past sadness and loneliness are slowly melting away. The violin returns, swelling into the next line.

BOTH - HADLEY MELODY, ROSALIE HARMONY

...lose that thing that shines in the sunlight ever again

Them singing together makes it like they are in total agreement with each other. It’s like Hadley is making this statement in the melody, and Rosalie supports wholeheartedly with her harmony. From Hadley to Rosalie, and Rosalie to Hadley, they feel like the other outcompetes the sun (the sun!).

Instrumental

The violin melody from the beginning returns, as does the guitar melody. However, after the violin does its melody once, the trumpet now copies it! If the violin represents Herne because of how both he and the violin are introduced at around the same time, then the trumpet could represent the Red Kite, bringing new a much more vibrant, bold and triumphant vibe to Herne’s life. Plus, the fact that the trumpet copies the violin’s melody probably means there is a connection between the two. This would make it somewhat like an instrumental duet or could also possibly foreshadow that something very good is about to happen.

Rosalie

Only one Herne and not enough wood Climbed up the bower and atop it he stood Called down the Red Kite from high up above Come land down here and be my love

Herne feels so attracted to the Red kite that he feels a physical pull to her, so much so that he climbs up on top of the bower. With not enough wood, he’s too far away from the Red Kite, and with only one Herne, it feels like nothing is there to support him in what he is trying to do. So he calls down the Red Kite to be with him instead, kind of like how Hadley called Rosalie for a drink all those years ago. It was him that reached out at the end that called her to him. “Be my love”, they will soon declare to each other during/after that fateful meeting.

This also begins the hunter-bird relationship, if we are going to take this a little more literally. Hunter and bird relationships are very mutualistic. They help each other, with the birds guiding the hunters to their targets and the hunters paying them back in some way, usually through food or other means.

BOTH

Forever Forever

Singing together, they both want to be together forever (haha, pretty obvious?)

Hadley

Red Kite flies down (he's waited his life for this) Whispers to Herne something, whispers, and then a kiss

As the Red Kite flies down towards Herne (as Rosalie gets closer to Hadley, or comes to meet him), Herne (Hadley) thinks that “he’s waited his life for this”. This goes back to the beginning where we know that Herne really wanted to go beyond the wood to see new beautiful things. Now someone beautiful has come to him instead, making his once isolating and lonely world so much more dazzling and loving.

They also whisper, which is a pretty intimate choice of word. And they kiss! Literally spelling out a loving relationship. The happiness, love, protection, connection that Herne (Hadley) yearned for, for such a long time, is finally here.

The mandolin also returns, the hope has its pay off! It continues to play throughout the rest of the song until after a few “Herne and the Red Kite” repeats at the very end of the song.

BOTH

Something that's shining so bright in the sunlight Let's hope we never...

BOTH - HADLEY MELODY, ROSALIE HARMONY

...lose that thing that shines in the sunlight ever again

Once again, they repeat these words, as if to reaffirm this message that they are the best thing to have happened to each other. This is also at the end of the song, you can interpret as the end of this segment of the story, but the start of something beautiful. As time goes on, this magnificent idea they hold of each other never changes, despite anything that happens.

Instrumental

This instrumental segment sounds like a slightly altered version of the instrumental breaks we’ve heard before. It is a lot more energetic, with the first threeish notes being kept from the original, but now tacked on with something extra. Overall, it just sounds so much happier than the instrumental breaks we’ve been getting before.

BOTH

Herne and the Red Kite (repeat)...

This line is repeated 12 times (yes, I counted). The overall feel just sounds so triumphant and happy, like we’re celebrating. The joyous melody has the mandolin fade out, and if you really listen, the trumpet and violin seem to be having a very animated conversation with one another, calling and responding to each other and at times responding really quickly. The same guitar melody that we hear during the instrumental breaks is back as well.

Instrumental

All the instruments fade away, with the violin’s recurring melody closing the celebration off until there is only the guitar left. With only the violin standing out at the very end, it's nice that the original solo melody is now surrounded by all these other exciting things, making it kind of say that Herne is still Herne, but now he is surrounded by so many wonders now that the Red Kite is here. With the guitar having its ending solo, It makes it sounds like this is a tale gone by, and now we talk about it as if it were a folktale or a legend. It kind of feels like we’re just talking about this story around a campfire instead. Herne and the Red Kite grew old and grew old together, closing off the song like a musical “happily ever after”.

Extra Stuff

Interesting Notes

The way it is written sort of sounds like a children’s poem, describing a simple but cute story

The song, overall, personally has a folklore vibe to it haha

There are a few pairs that can be picked out

Herne and the Red kite

Hadley and Rosalie

Male and Female voice (duet)

Violin and Trumpet

Accordion and Mandolin (Accordion is replaced by the Mandolin)

Any time the two sing together, it kind of just reinforces the narrator aspect of things, how they seem to be telling us the story of how they met and ultimately fell in love from a long time ago

Unanswered Questions

Why use Herne of all figures? Herne is supposed to be a very scary ghost. If it truly is supposed to represent Hadley, does this mean he identifies with the ghost in some way? Or did he derive some meaning from Herne’s presence in the works he shows up in?

Conclusion

Waa ok, that’s all I have for now about Herne and the Red Kite. If you made it to the end, thank you so much!! Truly appreciative that you read all the ramblings <3

Here is the super general story: Herne was yearning for something more and was feeling lonely. Then he saw the Red Kite drift by, and for both of them, it was love at first sight. He desperately wanted to be with her, so he called out to her despite the odds or the distance, and as she descended to him, he felt excited that his loneliness was finally going to end. From then on, they shared a happy and joyous relationship until the end of time. The end~

The writing of this post took much longer than the actual light research and speculation part of it. Again, I might be completely wrong because this is just what I think is going on, and I might also just be looking waaaayyy too deep into things. If this is truly a proper, or at least somewhat proper, reflection of Hadley and Rosalie’s relationship, then I feel incredibly soft :’)

If you have any other ideas, or if you agree/disagree with my analysis, please let me know!! I’m really excited to see what others have to say. :D

Until next time, I guess haha

#hadley fraser #rosalie craig #herne and the red kite #personal analysis #personal insight

34 notes · View notes

baddyzarc · 4 years

Text

3/7 Ruins: Legend of Souhachi Kiraku

1 2 x 4a 4b 5 6 7

So the reason I wanted to group Gilag and Alito together is because Alito has plenty of substance in his ruins while Gilag is just,,, Hnng they would've balanced each other out but nope, heres Gilag's Ruins

So uhh Gilag is supposed to be a joke Barian Emperor. I get that. He’s the first to be fully revealed and he starts off as an imposing threat for, like, two episodes. Then he goes off???? draws manga and watches anime and lives in the school gym and he has no brain cells as clearly evidenced by the Friendship Game episode but also he kills.

Being such, Gilag has the shortest stick of the Emperors (almost on par with Merag but she has a prominent connection to the main Barian Emperor narrative). I’m not being figurative by-the-by. He has ONE episode to cover the legend of his ruins while the others get two episodes minimum, Nasch got like five total or something, so I can see that the writers,,, did not really care about Gilag. Which is unfortunate, but this is going to be my most out-there analysis because of the situation.

Unlike the other Emperors who have new settings for their ruins, Gilag’s ruins is the Duel Lodge.

This isn’t a new location nor does it reveal that much about his character (after all, the Lodge was meant to develop Yuma and Astral’s character during their first visit in season 1 and nothing new happened to this place during the Mythyrian Arc.)

But this means he should have the closest connection to Rokujuro and Yamikawa, but to my knowledge, the writers didn’t do anything with this aside from Gilag being the one who kills them during the Barian Onslaught Arc. Maybe there could be a connection to how Yamikawa felt betrayed by Rokujuro during the first season of Zexal. He attacked him, and then they made up soon after. This is similar to the story of Ponta and Gilag, but there isn’t much parallelism besides “two close persons becoming distant before making up”.

The most important outcome of the ruins is the reveal of the Mythyrian Guardian, Ponta the Tanuki, and Ponta is what this essay is going to be mainly about.

Like most of the Emperors, the Guardians often play a role in their legends. More often than not, the Guardians are the Mythyrian Numbers; they are tasked with protecting the Emperors (Mach, Abyss, and Jinlon are the clearest examples). Ponta is the strangest one because he is the only Guardian to exist as his own physical entity. This is seen in the show’s finale. He’s able to exist as himself without being attached to the Number card, and this may seem strange until you consider what happens in the Legend of Gilag (or Souhachi Kiraku if you want to get technical)

Gilag’s legend is a bit tough to grasp because there isn’t a single narrator.

In the text of the show, Rokujuro reveals that Gilag was a benevolent, smart, and powerful warrior during the Sengoku Era (which is characterized by military and social conflicts). He distributed his wealth from his conquests with the peasants rather than horde it with his vassals.

From Ponta, we find that Gilag found Ponta in the battlefield, saved him, and they formed a friendship. Ponta became his Kagemusha (a doppelganger/shadow warrior) and helped him win his battles. He was the one responsible for all of Gilag’s fame and fortunes. He says that Gilag was jealous of his strength, got rid of him,and then perished in the battlefield. Keep in mind that Ponta isn’t omniscient, and he clearly resents Gilag when he says this, so this source should be taken with a grain of salt (The episode is called “Yuma Confused!? The Unreliable Account of Gilag the Tanuki”).

From Gilag, it was discovered that the vassals were unhappy with him distributing the wealth, and they were going to rebel against him. To protect Ponta, Gilag forced him to leave so he could deal with the rebels. He ends up presumably dying in a burning building.

Finally, upon freeing him from the curse, it is revealed that Don Thousand influenced the vassals to rebel against Gilag, and in order to fill him with hatred over the betrayal, he placed the Over-Hundred Number “Number 106: Huge Rock Palm - Giant Hand” in his heart, allowing him to pass onto Barian World. It ended with Gilag perishing in a burning building with the rebels cornering him.

So what happened here?

With the Emperors, I strongly believe that the personalities they have as Barian Emperors are an extension of true personalities as humans (compare this to when Gilag and Alito got an extra dosage on Don Thousand, for example). With Vector, a major personality-changing curse was embedded into him at such a young age that his evilness is part of his true personality (or as said by Yuma, the “kind” Vector still exists as Rei Shingetsu), while most of the other Emperors inherit their curse shortly before their death. What we see now is most likely how they were originally, plus maybe a thousand years of them as Emperors.

So Gilag is, according to Yuma, “a despicable bastard, stingy, and an annoying jerk”. From his schemes in the show, we clearly see that he is not smart. All of his plans fail, he lacks foresight, and he gets distracted very easily. But he also cares deeply about his bond with Alito. This bond was strong enough to knock Don Thousand’s curse out of him. So this makes it tough to decipher the actual story because the Gilag of the present is nothing like the Gilag of the past.

Using this information, I can say that each narrator has elements of the truth. I believe that Gilag is strong and passionate about things he loves (idols, manga, and his country I presume), but he’s arrogant and has more brawn than brains. Gilag is only as strong as his plans are (under the orders of Nasch and Don Thousand, he usually gets the job done without an issue. When he has to make his own decisions, yikes). Meanwhile, I believe that Ponta is the one holding most of the wisdom, strategy, and brains.

Together with their strength and wisdom, they balanced each other and created the Legend of Souhachi Kiraku.

Also, bear in mind that Gilag has the only legend that has a non-Barian name attached to it (Legend of The Cursed Royal Palace, Legend of the Gladiator, Legend of the Dragons, and Legend of an Ancient Hero). The Legend of Souhachi Kiraku isn’t the product of Gilag or Ponta, but Gilag and Ponta.

From here, the rest of the words spoken by Gilag should be true. He said he “completely made it up”, but he also muttered “how did I know about the legend?” afterwards to tell the audience that what he said is indeed true. The reveal of his actual memories reaffirms this.

So the true story is that Gilag and Ponta worked in unison to defeat their enemies. They distributed their wealth among the peasants. The vassals were angry that they weren’t receiving the spoils from the battles, and with the influence of Don Thousand, the vassals plotted to betray Kiraku (as in Gilag and Ponta). In order to protect Ponta, Gilag banished him and sent him away. Gilag perishes in the rebels’ fires. Ponta later dies of old age.

With Don Thousand, he interjects into the story at two points. First by influencing the vassals to turn on Gilag, then again by placing hatred in his heart.

Why I think Don Thousand comes in twice is because the first instance wasn’t enough to alter Gilag’s fate as a Barian.

For Gilag, the satisfaction of saving Ponta meant he could still ascend into Astral World; as long as his best friend was safe, he was unfazed by vassals rebellion. Don Thousand went in one more time to induce hatred into him, sealing his Barian fate as he perished. This is most similar to the fate of Mizael (influenced the people to turn on Mizael and Jinlon, and then implanted hatred into his heart as he died) opposed to, say, Vector whose single personality swap set him straight for Barian World, or Nasch who didn’t need to be injected with hatred or altered like Mizael or Gilag; his entire life sucked so badly (due to Don interfering with Vector and Merag, yes, but he did not touch Nasch at all) that he chose to go to Barian World.

Enough about the other Emperors though, let’s talk about the Guardian of the Mythyrian Number, Ponta.

Like most of the Guardians, Ponta is both the Guardian and the Mythyrian Number “Number 64: Veteran Tanuki Sandayu”. And although I try to keep the discussion in the realm of the original/OCG, it should also be noted that in the TCG, this card’s name is “Number 64: Ronin Raccoon Sandayu”. Veteran means experienced fighter, and Ronin means wanderer, or a warrior without a master. In both cases, it describes what Ponta represents in his relationship with Gilag.

To those unaware, Ponta is based on an extant animal known as the Japanese raccoon dog, or tanuki.

Ponta himself is not a regular tanuki as he is based on the yokai, Bake-danuki. Bake-danuki are known to be the cunning, trickster type whose main trait is transforming into other apparitions. Despite this, they are also associated with good fortune (which they carry in their massive fucking gonads), virtue, and strength. Most of these traits can be seen within the Mythyrian Number that represents Ponta, or more importantly, the tokens that it spawns.

These “Kagemusha Tanuki Tokens” hold most of the Bake-danuki traits which I am now taking from Wikipedia because they summarized better than I can:

These tokens also have the ability to turn into the strongest monster on the field (appropriately transforming with a leaf) too. Anyways, Tanuki legends are really fascinating and there is a lot of information on them, go here if you wanna learn more (this is a really cool site in general, especially if you wanna read about yokai and other neat things).

Despite being his Guardian, Ponta loathes Gilag, blaming Gilag for his own death as well as Ponta’s fate as a Kagemusha. He hates that Gilag got all the credit for the Legend of Souhachi Kiraku while Ponta was banished and locked away in a statue with Gilag’s face on it. All in all, Ponta wants to be his own being. He no longer wants to be a Kagemusha, a shadow, for a man he despises.

Instead, and hear me out, I think Ponta wants to be the actual Gilag.

This can be seen in how he treats the Mythyrian Number as well as his interaction with Gilag. Ponta’s first action upon meeting Gilag was, ironically, stealing his body. This is strange for a creature that doesn’t want to be remembered as someone else, and then he becomes that exact same person. However, it should be noted that Ponta’s name isn't revealed until the very end of the episode, so perhaps he isn’t interested in letting people know that he’s “Ponta” at all.

He was content going forward in life as Gilag.

And remember, Ponta died during the Sengoku Era (1400s-1600s), so he was trapped in the statue of Kiraku for at least 400 years. During this time, he was referred to as only Kiraku, never as Ponta. After so long, after 400 years of never hearing his real name or being recognized as himself, it isn’t a stretch that Ponta doesn’t see himself as “Ponta” anymore. He sees himself as a shadow of Gilag, and so he made it a plan to be the real Gilag if he ever gets the chance, or at least, be in his body. Hence, he took over Gilag’s body.

Even when he hijacked Yuma’s body, he preferred being in Gilag’s body so much that he swapped back after he finished cheating.

You can see this in how he uses his Mythyrian Number, too. Like most of the other Guardians, Ponta is the Guardian and the Mythyrian Number, “Number 64: Veteran Tanuki Sandayu”. During the duel, Ponta utilizes “Veteran Tanuki Sandayu”, the true warrior, while the “Kagemusha Tanuki Tokens” are Ponta’s shadows. This is made more apparent when the tokens (which normally turn into any monster on the field with the highest attack points) turn into copies of “Number 64: Veteran Tanuki Sandayu“, mimicking his relationship with Gilag.

Ponta wants to see himself as an actual warrior with Kagemusha of his own, rather than the other way around. He even becomes concerned when Yuma attacks his Kagemusha.

Personally, I see this sequence as Ponta having a sudden detachment from his dream of “being Kiraku”. Deep down, he still sees himself as a Kagemusha, and so when he sees the destruction of the Kagemusha Tokens, he also sees this as a destruction of himself.

When he finally loses, he mutters, “I’m not a shadow, I’m not a shadow,” almost as though he internalized this perception of himself while desiring nothing more than to reject it.

Ponta knows that he isn’t the true Gilag, but after half a millennium of being a Kagemusha to Gilag, I don’t think he knows who he is anymore.

This changes when Gilag gets his human memories back and approaches him. Upon telling Ponta that “you’re Ponta”, Ponta appears surprised to hear his actual name. By hearing someone speak his name after 400-something years, Ponta finally sees himself as his own person again.

And believe it or not, this idea falls into why he exists as his own raccoon dog after the show ended.

Ponta decides that he can be his own person. He doesn’t need to be tied down by Kiraku or anything else. This is why he willingly leaves Gilag’s body and detaches himself from the Mythyrian Number.

This is evidenced when Astral absorbs the Number first, and then Ponta emerges from the body; at this point, Ponta is no longer a Guardian but simply a Tanuki.

Also, if Ponta is still the Guardian/Mythyrian Number, then Gilag should’ve received the “Number 64: Veteran Tanuki Sandayu” when he eh-hem,

swallows Ponta.

Ponta comes back later, of course. Along with the Mythyrian Number, Alito and Ponta, Gilag’s two best friends are used to free Gilag from Don Thousand’s curse.

They even make up afterwards.

And before anyone starts, I do not know why Ponta is still friends with Gilag after all of this.

Like really im not joking. im not saying that ponta is that type of raccoon, but if my friend ate me, id be kinda pissed ngl

like maybe these scenes?? Gilag sent Ponta away under the pretense of hoarding the fame for himself. After finding out Gilag died, Ponta was devastated. He cried for a moment, saying that Gilag would still be alive if Ponta wasn’t banished. But then he convinced himself that Gilag deserved it.

Ponta obviously cares for Gilag despite how big of “a despicable bastard, stingy, and an annoying jerk” he is. Ponta also says that he would’ve preferred dying with Gilag in battle rather than be sent away. Ponta clearly sees something in Gilag that makes him worth fighting for.

Maybe Gilag has a good heart under his questionable tendencies.

When Ponta loses the duel with Yuma, the immediate reaction of Gilag tells us that he is very concerned over the safety of Ponta, but then he retracts himself, like he remembers he’s supposed to be tough and emotionless.

And to be honest. Ponta could be like, like “hey, my buddy Kiraku, getting mind controlled by Don Thousand really sucks, might eat me because he’s a little grumpy-grump, it happens you know, no big deal”.

They get drunk together.

It’s the Sengoku Period. They probably do a lot of stuff off-screen like Gilag usually does with Alito. Maybe having an occasional fallout or all of that is normal. I truly don’t know.

What I do know is that Ponta is able to complete his arc at the end of the show. Without being tied down as a Kagemusha, a Guardian, or a Mythyrian Number, he is able to exist as a physical being in the modern world.

So Ponta has a complete character arc. Not complaining, but I do wish that the ruins has more to do with Gilag himself. The information on his past life is interesting enough, but the story is more about Ponta than Gilag. And what we found out about Gilag’s current life is... alright.

The connection between his Mythyrian Number and Over-Hundred Monster is minimal. Aside from being both Earth Monsters, I do not see any connection between the two nor why its a giant hand. “Number 64: Veteran Tanuki Sandayu” kinda features Gilag and Ponta as a warrior and a Kagemusha, which I thought is neat.

The most disappointing thing is that the writers didn’t do anything with the concept of Gilag being possessed by Don Thousand. I mean, Alito went absolutely berserk. Like from baby child to unhinged bloodlust. Gilag is—he’s just Gilag, that’s just regular Gilag i swear. Like, maybe Gilag on steroids the second time, but Don Thousand looks at this guy eating live raccoons and said “ssssshyyeah, I don’t need to fix this one.”

#long post #my hc is that don was supoosed to grab ponta but he made a mistake and ended up with gilag #like that raccoon wouldve wrecked as an Emperor #zexal #gilag #girag #dyzarc writes #barian biology

39 notes · View notes

tristinvang-blog · 5 years

Text

How Important is Literacy Sponsorship?

Researcher and professor of English, Deborah Brandt wrote an essay called Sponsors of Literacy. In that essay, Brandt wrote about literacy sponsorship and the ways it affects the relationship between literacy and the economy. Literacy sponsors, according to Brandt are, “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy—and gain advantage by it in some way”(Brandt, 72). In the essay, one of the ways literacy sponsorship affects the relationship between literacy and the economy is the way in which it is accessible and rewarded.

To illustrate this, Brandt gives the example of two individuals, Raymond Branch and Dora Lopez. Both Raymond and Dora Lopez were similar in that they were the same age, grew up in the same town, and attended the same college. Despite these similarities, Raymond had ended up in the higher end of the economic spectrum whereas Dora ended up on the lower end. The explanation for this is economic inequality was because the inequality of literacy sponsorship. Raymond Branch had access to more and better quality literacy sponsors. He had access to a number of academic, commercial, and parental resources such as new technology, professors, electronic stores, his father’s lab, and some founders of the first electronic bulletin boards in the U.S.. Dora Lopez on the other hand had lower quality and less literacy sponsors. She had access to a limited amount of resources for the literacy she sought. What was available to her were books by South American and Mexican authors, letters for her family, and limited access to computer technology.

Brandt points out that the inequality of sponsorship between Dora Lopez and Raymond Branch is due to their social differences. She states that, “Throughout their lives, affluent people from high-caste racial groups have multiple and redundant contacts with powerful literacy sponsors as a routine part of their economic and political privileges”(Brandt, 77). In the case of Raymond Branch, he fits this description perfectly. Not only is he is part of a majority-race group, he also has a professor as a father and a real estate executive as a mother, putting him in a high status position. In contrast to this, Dora Lopez belonged to a minority-race group that only made up of one percent of the population in her town and was a daughter of parents who had worked blue collared jobs. For the cases like Dora Lopez, Brandt explains that, “Poor people and those from low-caste groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors”(Brandt 77).

We see how the quality of both Raymond’s and Dora’s literacy sponsorship paid off by looking at their careers. For Raymond, he became a successful freelance writer of software and software documentation whereas Dora became a worker for a cleaning company, helping as a translator for the Latino staff at her company. From this we see how literacy sponsorship is the paramount factor in one’s literacy and economic placement. You cannot have economic success or literacy without the proper literacy sponsors. Raymond, as a result from his advantaged background was exposed to a greater level of literacy sponsorship and therefore achieved an economically successful career. Dora on the other hand, as a result of her disadvantaged background was exposed to lower level of literacy and therefore did not achieve a non economically successful career. The problem with this is that Brandt had left out an important variable in an individual's pursuit for literacy, which is personal determination.

Although literacy sponsorship can provide literacy to individuals it is not the only means of obtaining it. Literacy can be achieved by yourself with determination. An example of this is Malcolm X. Like Dora Lopez, Malcolm X was part of a minority-race group and he was low class. Unlike Dora Lopez, Malcolm had no parental support, he had no civil rights, and he dropped out of school after Eight grade. Considering these disadvantages Malcolm X’s literacy should have been far worse than Dora Lopez’s but he became one of the most important and influential leaders in the Civil Rights Movement, a feat by no means can be done with someone with negligible literacy. The agent behind Malcolm X’s literacy success was his own personal determination to become literate,

Credit to wikipedia

In order to achieve the level of literacy he wanted Malcolm X needed to educate himself because he had dropped out of school in Eighth grade. Malcolm X didn’t receive his literacy from others, as he says in Learning to Read, “Many who today hear me somewhere in person, or in television, or those who read something I’ve said, will think I went to school far beyond the eighth grade. This impression is due entirely to my prison studies”(Malcolm X, 107). What prompted Malcolm X to become literate was the fact that he had been the underdog in discussions which was the result of his lack of literacy. During his first attempts to educate himself, Malcolm X describes just how hard it was for him. One of the things that Malcolm X said about this experience was that “every book I picked up had few sentences which didn’t contain one to nearly all of the words that might as well have been in Chinese.”(Malcolm X, 107), telling us how he started almost entirely illiterate. How Malcolm was able to study under these conditions he answers by saying, “I would have quit even these motions, unless I had received the motivation that I did.”(Malcolm X, 107). Although Malcolm X enjoyed educating his self education, the education itself still required a great effort. Malcolm X had to go through great lengths to educate himself. Malcolm X use as much time as he had reading as much as possible. He even would try to extend the time he had to read by staying up. This was not only sacrificed sleep(resulted in 3-4 hours of sleep) it also required more effort because the only light source available to him at night came from the glow of a corridor light. On top of all of this there was also the danger of being caught by guards. Malcolm X describes the amount of reading he has done by saying, “No university would ask any student to devour literature as I did”(Malcolm X, 109). What Malcolm X gained from his intense reading was very strong knowledge about the history of African Americans and the injustices inflicted upon them by Caucasians. This information helped Malcolm X in becoming influential because he had a deep understanding of the historical grievances of the African Americans which he was able to use to rally followers. A good example of this is Malcolm X’s contribution to the Nation of Islam in which he was able to convince people to join his organization, increasing the number of followers from 500 to over 30,000. Although this itself isn’t an economic success it certainly shows that Malcolm X has a level of literacy that can find itself job that can be on the economic high end.

Another example like Malcolm X that compares more fairly to Dora Lopez is Sandra Cisneros. Like Dora, Cisneros was a female Mexican American who had working-class parents. Her literacy sponsorship was also similar in that she had the influence Spanish literacy from her family which she states in a personal essay by writing, “my father’s only reading includes the brown-ink Esto sports magazines from Mexico City and the bloody ¡Alarma! Magazine that feature yet another sighting of La Virgen de Guadalupe on a tortilla or a wife’s revenge on her philandering husband by his skull in with a molcajete”(Cisneros, 102). There difference between the two is that Cisneros had achieved a level of literacy recognized on an international level, earning her numerous awards. Like Malcolm this level of literacy came from her determination to become literate. In Only Daughter, as a result of being cast away from her brothers Cisneros wrote, “that aloneness, that loneliness, was good for a would-be writer—it allowed me time to think and think, to imagine, to read and prepare myself”(Cisneros, 102), meaning that within her free time(alone time) she was devoted to raising her own literacy. This reflects Cisneros’s own determination to become literate. Cisneros not only actively raised her literacy not for its own sake but in the efforts to become a writer. Her endeavor was strengthened by her desire to be acknowledged by her father. Not only did it encourage her to write more but it also encouraged her to pursue higher education. The result of her hard work paid off because she became a successful writer and produced well known books.

Credit to Literary Hub

Through Dora Lopez and Raymond Branch, Brandt showed that inequality of literacy sponsorship affects the economic and literary outcome of an individual. This isn’t true however because it fails to apply to Malcolm X and Sandra Cisneros. If Brandt’s idea was true than Malcolm and Cisneros should have ended up with low literacy or economic status rather than being profiters off of their own literacy. Instead of showing that literacy sponsorship is necessary for high literacy, both Malcolm X and Cisneros show that an individual’s determination to pursue literacy is more powerful in obtaining high levels of literacy than literacy sponsorship. If an individual’s determination is strong enough, than it can allow the individual to become literate despite having no significant literary sponsorship. Looking at Malcolm X’s case, we saw that he was able to overcome his disadvantages in learning or obtaining literacy that was a result of racism through the hard work of self education that came from his desire to learn. Looking at Cisneros, we saw that she grew up in a middle class family with similar literacy sponsors as Dora but because of her hard work she was able to become successful as a writer. Needless to say literacy sponsorship can benefit an individual greatly in the pursuit of literacy, it's just that an individual do not require great literacy sponsorship to become highly literate.

Bibliography:

“Biography.” Malcolm X, https://www.malcolmx.com/biography/.

WARDLE, ELIZABETH. WRITING ABOUT WRITING. BEDFORD BKS ST MARTINS, 2019.

Audio(in a youtube video):https://youtu.be/wCWWHIuRGnE

1 note · View note

lati-will · 6 years

Text

Spiritual Clichés & New Age Spirituality

A cliché is “an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating” (Wikipedia). So a spiritual cliché is a teaching that has been repeated so many times that its meaning is weakened, or even distorted.

The more popular a certain spiritual teaching becomes, the greater is the possibility of it being misunderstood or misapplied. In this article, I will explore 12 common clichés, the truth behind them, and their hidden dark side. These clichés are not necessarily false, but they only tell half of the story and are easy to be misread.

My approach to spirituality is pragmatic (rather than metaphysical), non-sectarian (rather than dogmatic), and grounded (rather than idealistic)—so be prepared that the “warning label” that I add to these clichés strongly carries those perspectives.

Once we understand the caveat that comes with each of these clichés, we are in a better position to discern when and how to use it.

Spiritual Clichés About the Practice

1. “You are perfect as you are”

Most spiritual traditions teach that, in essence, we are “perfect” (or at least “perfect in our imperfections”). Vedanta, for instance, teaches that we “are already the Self here and now”. You will find similar ideas in Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, and some Tantric lineages.

Although in some level this idea is true, it overlooks the fact that, from a pragmatic point of view, we are far from being the perfect manifestation of that innate perfection. If everything is already great as it is, there is no room for growth, no scope for a spiritual path, and no fuel for any type of self-transformation.

“Everything is perfect and yet everything can improve”

This, “nothing to do, nowhere to go” approach is also prevalent in some meditation circles, where people cringe at the idea of practicing meditation with a specific goal/purpose in mind. They are also against wanting to progress in the practice. (I’ve explored the problem with that approach in depth in my post on neo-advaita.)

The better way to read this teaching is that it refers to the “absolute” or “essential” level of reality, and thus needs to be balanced with the relative and pragmatic level of reality.

Similarly, at the psychological level, we need to balance self-acceptance with self-improvement. Too much of self-acceptance and we become stale, or we become entitled narcissists (“This is how I am!”). Too much of the self-improvement approach we go into a “I’m never good enough” mindset.

Balance is the key.

2. “Be positive!”

There is nothing wrong with the idea of being positive. Positivity is great. Indeed, in my article on the gunas I argued that the whole spiritual path can be defined as a journey towards sattva(purity, goodness, truth, balance).

What is unwholesome about this concept is the underlying idea that negativity is “unspiritual”. When interpreted like that, this concept works like a psychological virus with great potential to create feelings of shame, guilt, remorse, self-loathing, self-denial, spiritual bypassing, and split personality. Now that’s not really positive, is it?

Being positive is not about sugar coating the negatives or pretending that they are not there. It’s about recognizing them, integrating them, and then transforming or releasing them.

The more integral approach is to start from a point of recognition and self-acceptance. You first accept that certain unwholesome thoughts/feelings/intentions are arising within you. Then you work on them, according to your capacity, to transform those energies into something positive, or to express them in a healthier way.

This is a very different approach than refusing to see, or just superficially replacing the negative thought with a positive one, while pushing the negativity underneath the carpet of your subconscious mind. That doesn’t work so well.

I like this idea, explored in the book How to Cook Your Life, that everything you bring into the “kitchen” of spirituality is an ingredient and needs to be prepared properly so it can be consumed. That includes the negative stuff.

3. “Be nice!”

“Be nice” is an expression, in social interactions, of the “be positive” principle. It’s also related to the Christian ideals of “loving everyone unconditionally” and “turning the other cheek”. In the path of Yoga and in Buddhism, this principle is called ahimsa (non-violence).

This teaching is essential, but it needs to be practiced differently by different people, according to where they are in life. Examples:

For people who are in abusive relationships, the teaching of “be nice” is exactly what they don’t need to hear. They are often “too nice” and caring by nature – and that is partly why they are in trouble.

A monk may need to apply this teaching in its most literal sense, never using violence even for self-defense.

For people living in society, some amount of self-assertion is absolutely needed, otherwise that niceness may lead to one experiencing suffering—which will further lead to feelings of self-loathing (self-violence) and anger/remorse (violence). Even in this case, however, one can set boundaries without having the desire to harm; in other words, we hiss but don’t bite. Our niceness should also be applied to ourselves.

In the Bhagavad Gita (the most famous holy book of India), the prophet Krishna insists that the warrior-prince Arjuna needs to go to war. Arjuna’s kingdom was being attacked, and he refused to fight back because of the principle of ahimsa. Krishna basically brought to his attention that if his kingdom is conquered by the enemy, their non-violent way of life would disappear, and all his people would suffer immensely. In that case, fighting was the most spiritual thing Arjuna could choose to do.

We also see the element of divine anger in the mythology of many traditions—such as the goddess Durga fighting the demons, and the “guardians of the Dharma” in Buddhism (1, 2, 3).

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. — Edmund Burke

At the essential level, we are all connected, all one. So “being nice” is a good idea. Ahimsa is a great principle. Kindness is a great virtue.

But sometimes being tough is the best thing to do, even from the spiritual point of view—like when Jesus turned the tables in the temple, in anger because people were being disrespectful in a holy place. Sometimes truth and authenticity need to speak louder than kindness and harmlessness.

The balanced approach seems to be: wish no harm, do no harm, but protect yourself from harm by keeping your boundaries. Sometimes you may need violence to stop unjust harm, and that can also be spiritual.

4. “Be here now”

Being present is a great teaching. It’s what most people take as the key point in the teachings of Zen, Taoism, Allan Watts, and Eckhart Tolle. And yet, the idea that spirituality is all about living in the moment is reductionist and naive.

The reason why we are told to live in the present is because 90% of all our suffering and problems are in the “past” (memories) or “future” (imagination, desires, projections). And yet, as Sadhguru explores in this talk, spirituality is not a disability. We should be able to use our mental faculties freely, but not be used by them.

“There is nothing unspiritual about thinking about the past or planning for the future. These are important mental faculties. The problem is when the mind is in control of you, rather than you being in control of your mind.”

By all means, live in the present. Be connected to your body. Reduce the tendencies to compulsively live in the past or future. But when you need to think about the past or the future, do so with clarity and purpose.

5. “Your mind is a trap”

In some spiritual paths the mind is spoken of as the obstacle. The obstacle to what? To the spiritual goal, however you may define it—realizing the Self, connecting with God, living in harmony with the Tao, etc.

There is a deep truth about that statement. The mind is the house of all our misconceptions, illusions, impurities. And the spiritual ideal is so sublime that it transcends the mind. So in a way, the mind is what needs to be overcome or transcended; and attachment to it as the sole source of knowledge is indeed a trap.

But seeing the mind as “the enemy” is only half of the story. Your mind—just like your body and your heart—is a part of who you are. An integral approach to spirituality is about the whole individual (body, mind, and heart). An integral spiritual practice needs to involve all aspects of your being—so that it can evolve all aspects of your being.

“Truth transcends the grasp of the mind. But we won’t realize it unless we work on the mind—polishing, purifying, and mastering it.”

Often, to say that “the mind cannot understand it” is to ask you to shut up, to just believe and trust—rather than to take the trouble and develop your power of discernment (Viveka), your wisdom (Prajna). “Be a light unto yourself”, said the Buddha.

“The truth is, many things transcend the reach of our intellect; and yet there is a lot of space for the intellect to be of service in the spiritual path. It’s again about finding that balance: use the mind, master the mind, but don’t rely only on the mind. Body, heart, and mind are all vehicles of knowing.”

Spiritual Clichés About Life

6. “If you believe it, the universe will make it happen!”

Do your thoughts and beliefs, by themselves, influence the outcome of external events?

This is a highly controversial topic.

Some spiritual philosophies will say it does.

Others will say “Sometimes it does, but within the limitations of your karma and some other factors” (that’s what I personally believe in).

Still others will tell you that it doesn’t.

Regardless of your position about this, the dark side of this cliché is thinking that you can just believe and it will happen. Being realistic about it is seeing that we need to take action. If we believe in something, then let us act on it.

“Don’t just believe and hope. Act! Action is the ultimate confirmation of belief.”

Otherwise, it’s just wishful thinking, daydreaming. Unless, perhaps, if your mind is super-powerful like that of a Yogi in Samadhi (which is not the case with 99.99% of the people applying the Law of Attraction philosophy). Until then, the best approach is to believe and use that as fuel to take positive action in achieving what you are seeking.

7. “There are no coincidences…”

Another controversial one.

If you live by this belief, you are constantly trying to “read the signs” in everything that happens—from a random comment a person says to you, to a flat tire you had in the traffic, to the time it rained this morning and you had to cancel an appointment.

In all my years of studying spiritual philosophy (especially Eastern), I don’t recall coming by any master that says that absolutely everything that happens in your life happens for a reason.

Well, there is definitely a reason behind everything. Every effect has its cause. But are all the millions of events that happen in your life, on a daily basis, orchestrated by God or “the Universe” for the purpose of showing you something? I don’t think so.

“There is a lot of randomness in life. Sometimes there is some sense to it—at other times there isn’t. Learn a lesson if you can, but don’t be fanatical about “reading signs” everywhere.”

Still, regardless of this cliché being true or not, it seems that the belief that life is happening for me rather than to me is an empowering worldview. It is helpful and useful, as it creates many opportunities for learning. The problem only arises when we are a bit too fanatical about this view.

There are two other clichés that fall in this category:

“It was all meant to be”

“God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.”

Both of them have the positive effect of giving you the motivation to go on, and the openness to accept things as they are.

The dark side of the first one, however, is that it can create the impression that our actions and decisions don’t matter. Thinking like that weakens our willpower and can lead to us evading responsibility for our actions (and there is nothing spiritual in that). It can also create a mindset where we continuously accept things that we don’t need to passively accept (things that we could change with some effort).

Similarly, “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle” has the dark side of serving as an excuse for avoidance. It is built on the assumption that God or “the Universe” is putting us through an ordeal, rather than that challenge being the result of our own actions and choices.

Like most of the other spiritual clichés, these ideas do carry some truth in them. They can be deeply empowering and useful. When they are not, however, it’s time to stop and reflect on whether we are reading them properly in the first place.

8. “It’s your karma!”

The teaching of karma is empowering. It says you are in control. It says that your actions matter and the universe is ultimately fair—even though the results of actions may be delayed.

In my own life and spiritual quest, I can see how the idea of karma has helped me immensely. In several circumstances, it prevented me from making bad choices, encouraged me to persevere in what I believed to be right (despite not getting the results as soon as I expected), and removed the tendency to brood over the perceived “injustices of life”.

“The teaching of karma is great when we use it to understand our lives, and improve our choices—but not when used as a tool to judge other people.”

The problem is when we try to use the idea of karma to judge other people. This leads to the “it serves you well”, and “you get what you deserve” type of attitude—which is the opposite of the ideals of kindness and compassion that spiritual teachings promote.

We may live by the idea of karma—but let us apply that understanding to our own lives, rather than judging others. Otherwise we would just be promoting a culture of victim blaming and indifference.

Life is too complex, and we can never really know the reason behind something happening (if karmic or otherwise). We can never know the true reasons behind the adversities or the boons that others experience in life (if karmic or otherwise).

9. “What you see in others, you have it in yourself.”

Another version of this one is “What you hate/fear in others, you hate/fear in yourself”.

Honestly, if this sentence would disappear from the face of the earth, I wouldn’t miss it.

This idea is promulgated in many circles without being ever fully explained why it is so. A lighter version of this is “Everyone is your mirror.” I like this a bit better, because it leaves it open for you to decide what that means, case by case.

From my understanding, this idea is more of a pop-psychology cliché than a spiritual cliché. And it’s the perfect conversation stopper, also known as a thought-terminating cliché. Many people use it as an alibi when their flaws are pointed out: “Well, if you think I’m arrogant, that only shows that you are arrogant yourself.” (Are you serious?)

The truth portion of this is that we will indeed dislike in others what we dislike in ourselves. We often also love in others what we love in ourselves—even if we have it to a lesser degree. But that’s as far as this saying can go. It’s not applicable to everything.

“The idea that the world is a reflection of ourselves is a useful teaching. But does that mean that all the problems that I see outside of me I have in me also?”

In order to see something in another person—for example, narcissism—we need to have a mental model of what that thing looks like. There are many ways of having a mental model of what narcissism is. Being narcissistic is certainly one of these ways. But so is having observed that behavior in friends or family members. Or even having studied about it in psychology books.

I can only identify that two people are speaking Chinese if I have an idea of what Chinese sounds like. Does that mean that I, therefore, must know Chinese? Obviously not.

Personally, I can say I dislike seeing arrogance in others, and I’ll agree I also have some of it in me (still); but I also hate laziness, and I’m probably one of the least lazy people you will ever meet.

Overcoming our own weakness is part of the spiritual path; being able to recognize the negative traits of others is just a useful skill for living in this world. Evaluating and discerning does not necessarily mean judging.

Otherwise you end up with the disastreous combo of “goodness + naiveness”, and then trouble will surely come your way.

Conclusion: although sometimes there is a correlation, it’s not right to say that whatever virtue/shortcoming you see in others you also have in yourself.

Spiritual Clichés About Living

10. “Just let it go”

There is no doubt that letting go is one of the essentials skills/qualities we develop in the spiritual path. It’s a natural expression of living in tune with the impermanent nature of reality, and it saves us from much needless suffering.

Yet there two things that we need to watch out for in this.

The first one is knowing that letting go does not necessarily mean giving up. It doesn’t mean that we don’t care. It’s not synonymous with “whatever…”.

We need both skills. We need the ability to persevere in what is meaningful, in what feels right—and at the same time be lighthearted about the outcomes. We need to put our best foot forward, do what needs to be done, and accept with equanimity whatever comes. That’s what the Bhagavad Gita teaches; that is karma yoga.

“Letting go is not synonymous with giving up or not caring. It should not be used as an excuse to be irresponsible, lazy, or to live in a shell of fear.”

If you are a parent seeing your child going astray into drugs and crime, and you think to yourself, “Whatever. Let it be. It’s not under my control, there is nothing I can do about it.” That is not detachment; it’s not what the masters meant by letting go. Doing everything in your power to fulfill your duties, your dharma, in the best possible way, while understanding the nature of things and accepting 100% the results that come—that is a true detachment. That is balanced.

As a rule of thumb, you can get clarity on these differences by asking yourself: “Is letting go coming from a place of fear and confusion, or is it coming from a place of wisdom and clarity?”

11. “Go with the flow”

The idea of being sensitive to the flow of things, both internally and externally, is wonderful. It can help us move about more smoothly in life, and waste less energy fighting the wrong battles.

On its dark side, however, this idea seems to suggest that we should have no plans, no goals, no will. I can’t think of many spiritual masters who achieved enlightenment with that attitude. Nor can I think of many people who achieved something great in any area of their lives by following that mode of thinking.

“It’s beautiful to go with the flow. It’s also beautiful to be able to sometimes direct the flow….”

Spirituality promotes acceptance, letting go, and contentment here and now. But it is not against having a goal, actively transforming circumstances, or putting in an effort. If spirituality is to be pragmatic and have a worldwide relevance in the 21st century, we must find a way to embrace this paradox.

12. “Money is evil”

Money is not unspiritual—it is something we need to survive in this world. If anything is “unspiritual”, it would be attachment and materiality—being too obsessed with money, or too greedy about it.

When we are really hungry, a big part of our thoughts and energy goes to finding food. We are less available to anything else. Thinking is less clear, and our focus is less stable.

Likewise, when we don’t have a sufficient flow of money in our life, a lot of time and mental energy is wasted on either getting money or doing trivial tasks that could otherwise be solved with money. As a result, we have less space and energy to focus on our spiritual practice.

“Money is a tool. It’s your obsession with it that makes it a problem.”

Having one million dollars in the bank and focusing on how to get the second million is as unhelpful for spiritual development as having no money and constantly worrying about how to make ends meet. The same goes with health—obsessing over being leaner/stronger is a distraction from the spiritual path just as much as being physically weak and sick is.

Ken Wilber has some interesting thoughts on why the money, the body and sex are seen as enemies in spirituality in some traditional teachings. You can read his article on the topic here.

An Unspoken Cliché

“My path is better than yours…”

I can’t finalize this article without mentioning another widespread idea in spiritual circles that is almost a cliché, although it’s rarely verbalized. It’s the idea that “My path is superior and more direct”; or, in other words, “My guru is better than yours”.

This sort of dogmatism is, unfortunately, common to many spiritual approaches I have studied. And it’s not only in spirituality—you will find it in the realm of politics, health, finances, sports, everywhere. It seems this is how the human mind works: if I am in a group, that must be the best group!

I have been so much exposed to this type of thinking that I became almost numb to it. Everyone has good arguments to say why their technique is more effective, their approach more thorough, or their path superior. They are all partially right, and all partially wrong.

Reality is wider than any sectarianism. There is no superior path; it’s only about finding what path matches your needs at any particular moment in your life. Once you find it, walk in it with the conviction that this is the best path for you. And be ready to move on from it if you feel the calling.

Seeing Beneath the Surface

Every spiritual teaching has the power to become a cliché; and, usually, every cliché has some basis in truth. In this article I’ve dissected 12 common spiritual clichés, reflecting on the truths they contain, and the often overlooked dark sides that come with them.

At the end, when being exposed to any sort of teaching or philosophy, we must exercise our own discernment. Especially when a teaching becomes very popular and widespread, that is a great opportunity to ask oneself: “What is the original meaning of the teaching? Is there a dark side to this idea?” If possible, get clarification from different teachers, or exchange ideas with more experienced practitioners.

Spirituality needs to be pragmatic. It’s about finding the best way to live, and practicing that. It’s about exploring our human potential beyond the clutches of what is currently considered “proven” by mainstream science. And it’s also different things for different people.

May this piece serve as an invitation to think more deeply about what spirituality truly is about.

(For a more comical exploration of spiritual clichés and some laughs, check out the UltraSpiritual channel in YouTube.)

Which of these clichés do you think is the most misunderstood? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

By: Giovanni Dienstmann

#spiritual #spirituality #spiritual life #life #consciousness #subconscious #soul #teachers #humanity #humanity articles #articles

343 notes · View notes

tiny-personal-university-thing · 6 years

Text

How to Research in a Scholarly Manner

Here are some tips when it comes to finding the right sources for your kind of intimidating research argument papers/research review papers.

Use the CRAAP Test to evaluate your sources

The CRAAP test is a method you can use to help you evaluate the information a source provides you with. Trust me, professors/graders/TAs will evaluate your sources.

C- Currency. When was this information published? Has it been revised/updated?

R- Relevance. This relates to the importance of your information. Does the information relate to your topic, or answer your research question? Who is the intended audience? Is the information at an appropriate level? Generally, you don't want to cite Ms. Smith's 3rd Grade History blog in your collegiate/scholarly essay. Try to aim for sources at a "higher" level than you.

A- Authority. This is the source of the information. Who is the sponsor/publisher/author? This also relates to an author's credentials. Is the author even qualified to write on this topic? When using web sources, look at the URL. (Examples: .com, .edu, .org, .gov, .net)

A- Accuracy. Is the article truthful, reliable, and correct? Has the information been peer-reviewed?

P- Purpose. Why was the article written?

You can also use the SMELL Test

The SMELL Test is very similar to the CRAAP test.

Source. Who is providing the information? Humans are incapable of objectivity. Every author is biased in some way.

Motivation. What is the author’s impetus in providing me with this information? To persuade? To inform?

Evidence. Trustworthy providers of information should attempt to confirm/verify their claims.

Logic. Is it logical? Information that jars you, or “is too good to be true,” probably is.

Left Out. What is not being said can occasionally tell you more than what is being said. Beware of omissions!

Don’t be afraid to utilize your personal librarian.

If your college/university has personal librarians for your major use them! They know the library and search engines like the back of their hands!

Become familiar with scholarly search engines.

This doesn’t necessarily exclude Google; however, try using Google Scholar instead. What many students do not know is that their college/university pays for hundreds of search databases. They are free to use because the university uses your tuition money to fund their subscriptions. Some of the most popular databases I like to use are Academic Search Complete and EBSCO. There are also more focused databases you can use to do your research/find sources, such as Web of Science. Again - ask your librarian. They can tell you all about them. Again, the cool thing about using these search engines to find sources is that because your school pays for you to be able to use the sources you find - you won’t have to pay for them. Otherwise, you may be asked to pay an outrageous amount of money to read the source in its entirety.

Try to avoid shady sources like Academia.edu or ResearchGate.net. According to some professors, it indicates you used regular old Google.

You found the PERFECT source, and then you found out your university doesn’t have it in their collection... but another one may...

Many universities are part of a network where sources are sent/loaned/traded to other universities. This can be referred to as Document Delivery or InterLibrary Loan. You probably can’t call up Harvard’s library to ask if you can borrow a source; however, your school’s library might have a rapport with them through InterLibrary Loan type services and can request the source for you. Just ask a librarian. These sources are typically “free” to students because that’s where your tuition goes.

Use an annotated bibliography/value-added annotation to keep track of your sources (S+A+R)

An annotated bibliography goes one step further than just a regular bibliography. You can do this by remembering (S+A+R).

S = Summary

Briefly summarize the source

A = Assessment

Assess the authority/expertise of the author

Also assess institutional affiliations of the author

Make note of the author’s POV, and anything that may be left out

R = Reflection

Discuss how the source is helpful to your research!

Cite your source in the appropriate format (MLA, APA, Chicago, CSE, Turbanian), and then directly below it summarize, assess and reflect!

You can use Wikipedia, just don’t cite it

Using Wikipedia to fill in the gaps in your knowledge on the topic of your thesis is a-okay! You can also make use of Youtube videos such as Crash Course - these are narrated by Hank and John Green. Yes, the John Green.

Becoming a temporary expert, or even just more well-read on your thesis/topic will help you present better arguments, as well as aid in your ability to evaluate sources. Resources like Wikipedia/Crash Course/etc. are great to use when supplementing your own knowledge as they are typically conveyed in a manner that the neophyte can comprehend. So you won’t have to decipher out any subject-specific jargon.

When your ancient professors say “no internet sources,” - ask for clarification

There are basically 2 internets. There is the “public web” that is accessible to search engines like Google, and then there is the “invisible web.” The invisible web is basically comprised of web resources that your university purchases that only your university community can use. Articles you find here using a search engine like Academic Search Complete exist in a physical, print journal. It just happens to be delivered to you via the internet to facilitate easier research. And if your professor is published - and they probably are if they want to keep their position at your university - then their work is more than likely accessible through the internet.

I have found these tips incredibly useful when learning how to navigate my university’s massive library collection. And of course, a librarian imparted this wisdom to me.

Happy researching.

#studyblr community #study blog #studyblr #studyspo #new studyblr #new study blog #new studyspo #student #college #research #study techniques #study tips #university #school #essay #writing #scholar

30 notes · View notes

usodanee · 6 years

Text

Regarding Ouma’s Talent || Analysis

Because I’ve heard about people bringing up theories regarding this topic, I decided to throw in my own ideas and why I think that the title of Super High School Level Supreme Leader suits Ouma perfectly. Many like to argue that just like pretty much everything else about Ouma, his talent is also fake because it doesn’t suit him or because he doesn’t show any kind of qualities a “Supreme Leader” should possess. But is that really the case?

This will be a bit longer, so prepare for a couple of paragraphs to read through. And obviously, this post will contain massive spoilers for all of V3, so be prepared.

Hello, thanks for clicking this post, I appreciate it. Anyway without wasting much time, I’m gonna get straight to the bottom of the issue. There are two particular questions I’d like to discuss, the first being “What is a Supreme Leader?” and the second being “Does the title suit Ouma?”

So I’m going to start with the first question. First of all, to get this out of the way because it’s a silly argument that goes around in the fandom every once in a while, the basic definition of Ouma’s talent. As taken from the wiki, his talent is Ultimate Supreme Leader 超高校級の「総統」 chō kōkō kyū no “sōtō” The issue that usually arises when talking about Ouma’s talent is the 総統 (sōtō) part, as it’s the same noun used in association with Adolf Hitler. It’s undeniable that this is at least partly intentional, considering that the association immediately puts the word into a negative context. In his promotional art, Ouma has been given a cape and a military hat, again to give him a more sinister impression than his canon self ultimately shows.

Everyone who has been a fan of the Danganronpa series for a while should already be aware of this fact, but for newcomers I’d like to point out that Spike Chunsoft loves to market this series with a bunch of red herrings. This has been the case ever since the first game, so I am absolutely convinced that portraying Ouma in this dark light was absolutely in order to fool us, the audience, into believing into his malicious intentions. And well, it goes even further than that, considering that Ouma does a bunch of very terrible things during the course of the game. While his intentions were to ultimately put an end to the killing game, it’s undeniable that he’s responsible for most bad things happening during the later half of the game (for example the entirety of Chapter 4, though I’d argue that none of it was his fault alone. He still fucked up pretty badly though)

However, it’s wrong to assume that 総統 (sōtō) is exclusively used in a negative context or only associated with evil dictatorship. Now my Japanese is pretty limited, but from my research and the words of my friends who are fluent in Japanese it’s safe to assume that 総統 (sōtō) is a very neutral word, used to describe “leaders who unite a large group of people under themselves, mostly on top of a state, and is used for many types of state leaders” according to the Japanese wikipedia definition. Evidence? Well, the same word is also used in order to describe Tsai Ing-Wen, the current President of the Republic of China. Someone not related to Nazis at all!

Even without any knowledge of Japanese, it should be easy to recognize that it’s exactly the same title that’s been used as Ouma’s talent. So, yes. The negative association is absolutely intentional. But, who would have guessed, it’s a lie! At least the idea that Ouma is an evil dictator who terrorizes the entire world is a lie. Because as we’ve taken from the game, the truth is that while Ouma is the leader of an organization, he’s also a pacifist and the worst he does is play pranks to people. That much I won’t have to explain. The game literally throws that answer right in your face.

Now another argument that could arise is that the motivational videos are lies as well. But my question is... why would they be? If everything had gone according to Monokuma’s plan, then every student would have gotten their own motive video. There would be no reason to lie if the only person receiving and watching the video is the person who already knows the truth anyway. Which leads me to another question. Harukawa too had her true talent hidden, which, at first glance, would make it possible for Ouma to have a fake talent as well. But there are two things that contradict that argument, and they’re all in the main story too.

First of all, yes, Harukawa’s talent was originally listed as the Super High School Level Child Caretaker, even in the Monokuma pad. But her true talent got eventually revealed due to two factors. First, her lab. Harukawa never got a fake SHSL Child Caretaker lab. Her lab was always that of the SHSL Assassin, which is why she didn’t permit entrance until the cat was out of the bag anyway. Ouma on the other hand has a perfectly fine SHSL Supreme Leader lab. He never got to see it, but it has his organization’s logo, a throne, tons of disguises, and so on. It’s definitely a lab suitable for his talent.

The second would be the previously mentioned motive videos. Ouma only knew about Harukawa’s true talent because he had taken a look at all of the motive videos by himself. So even when her talent as the SHSL Assassin was still unknown, the motive video never lied about it. Because as mentioned, there was no reason to, because Harukawa was originally going to be the receiver of it anyway. Ouma’s video, again, showed him as the SHSL Supreme Leader. That’s pretty heavy evidence for his title to be legit.

Another point I’d like to make at this point is that Ouma’s lies were always fabricated by himself. He never had any kind of assistance, and even during Chapter 4 and 5, his lies only held up because the mastermind played along with them. Ouma never had a lie ‘set up’ for him like Harukawa, who lied about her talent ever since the beginning. In fact, Ouma’s lies kept piling up with the duration of the killing game and the progress of it. While he had wanted to stop the killing game ever since the beginning, his big masterplan only really took fruit during Chapter 4 and 5.

Of course, Ouma was “meant to be” a villain-like character according to Shirogane’s imagination of the killing game. But as we also know, not even Shirogane knew the culprit of the 5th chapter until Saihara solved the case for her, so at some point, Ouma, much like Saihara and co. at the end of the game, decided to go against her script and did his own thing. One of the things Ouma never denied was his title as the SHSL Supreme Leader though. Yes, he obviously lied about the circumstances and the true meaning of that title, but at the core it wasn’t wrong. He never denied being the leader of an organization, he only exaggerated about the circumstances of it. Which finally leads me to the second question.

So what qualities that make a 総統 (sōtō) does Ouma possess? If we separate ourselves from the image that a Supreme Leader has to be an evil, crazy dictator, then honestly? Quite a few. We never get to hear a lot about DICE, which is a shame, but it’s enough to establish that the members of DICE were devoted to Ouma and that they undeniably saw him as their leader. And that in itself is essentially what makes him a 総統 (sōtō). He is the leader of an organization. Nobody ever said it had to be an evil organization. Well, Ouma did, but he is a liar, and the video is evidence against his words. Together with his last words before his death, in which he claims that he had to lie to survive and that he could never enjoy a killing game like that, it seems pretty legit that he’d be the leader of a group of pacifist pranksters.

Now things are going to be a bit more analytical. I saw a few posts that argued that perhaps Ouma could also be the SHSL Liar or SHSL Prankster or something like that, because that’s, well, the most obvious solution to the problem. My issue with that idea is that there is literally zero evidence supporting that claim. During the entire game, there isn’t even as much as an implication that Ouma’s talent could be fake. While most of his lies are eventually implied to be fake or downright proven wrong, this is the one thing that’s never once argued.

Now out of all Danganronpa games, V3 obviously has the ending with the most room for interpretation, but it still strikes me as... odd. Because while this game does leave a couple of things rather vague or only mentions them between the lines, this one, as mentioned, is never once questioned. Even after watching Ouma’s motive video, nobody starts to question that his title might not have been SHSL Supreme Leader after all. The definition, the background of that title, had changed, but not the title itself. As such, what reason is there to assume Ouma’s title is fake, except pure speculation?

During my research I began thinking and this is where things get a bit less matter of factly. I’d love it if you could hear me out though, because it’s a big reason as to why I decided to write this post in the first place. When I thought about the fact that Ouma, in fact, is not some evil mastermind, then I started questioning: “If that’s not what his title is all about, then what is?” And while yes, Ouma still has his organization, I started to wonder. What makes a Supreme Leader in the first place? Or what makes a great leader in the first place?

So I went and looked into it a bit and what I found out is that there are very little traits that are usually associated with leaders, at least according to experts and studies. In fact, and I’d agree with that, multiple sources I’ve read argued that a great leader is adaptable and that some organizations need stricter, more straight-forward leaders than others. If we assume that to be true, then isn’t Ouma perfect to be the leader of a trickster organization like DICE? And there’s more.

In What Makes a Leader? by Daniel Goleman, he states that after various experiments and researches, he found that the most important quality for any kind of leader is what he defines as Emotional Intelligence. Now EI defines itself as the capability to recognize their own emotions as well as others. Goleman’s model mentions five main traits that define Emotional Intelligence, and Ouma possesses every single one of them.

1. Self-awareness – the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions.

Ouma is very self-aware. He’s not just self-aware, but also very much aware of his surroundings. In fact, he admits multiple times that one of his favorite things is to tickle reactions out of people. That’s one of the reasons he likes Saihara so much - because his reactions are “fun”. Without this kind of awareness, it would be absolutely impossible for Ouma to get underneath anybody’s skin. He can be highly manipulative too, another trait that’s only possible if you have the ability to recognize what makes people tick.

He’s also aware of his strengths and weaknesses. The lock-picking for example becomes useful to him multiple times, and what about when he regrets lying about carrying the cage because he knew he’d be too weak to do it anyway. Just because Ouma lies about his abilities doesn’t mean he’s unaware of them. He knows what he’s capable of, and more importantly, he knows what he isn’t capable of. He knew while he wanted to take down the mastermind, that it was impossible for him to do it without preparations and help. While he wasn’t against finding a way out of the school and working together, he knew that Akamatsu’s attempts to force them all together were very much futile.

On a sidenote, that’s a very interesting part in the story. Because while Ouma calls Akamatsu out on her admittedly foolish plan, if you talk to him a day later, he’ll ask you about your progress with Saihara, and while it’s played off as a joke, it’s likely that he wanted to know if they found anything useful in the meantime. He was also one of the people who were pretty much like “Hey let’s go to bed and think of something else tomorrow” Ouma never hated the idea of cooperating, but he knew Akamatsu’s idea of it was bound to fail. Monokuma then presented the first motive to them, which made cooperation between them all even harder. (As pointed out by Amami, who explains that the privilege of the first kill is very much like the Prisoner’s Dilemma) So Ouma was working against some pretty impossible circumstances here, and when the first kill happened, as also predicted, cooperation seemed so much more difficult.

2. Self-regulation – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.

Very much Ouma too, except he does it almost in reversal. It’s interesting how his ability to lie more or less gets in the way of his qualities as a leader. Ouma is very good at controlling his emotions. During most of his interactions, he switches several times from sad, to happy, to sad, and back to happy again. With a bit of cynical insults here and there. It’s all an act, and an act is only possible if you’re very much controlled on the inside, if you suppress what’s truly there. He makes use of his emotions like they’re buttons he can press however he pleases. And he could use them to stay calm and keep everyone together, but instead he uses them for his own fun and sometimes safety.

The changing circumstances part could also be applied to the killing game itself. Ouma had trouble trusting people after so many of his fellow students had betrayed each other. Besides, there’s also Momota, who is supposed to be Ouma’s polar opposite in many ways. Momota believed that the way to survival was to blindly trust everyone, which was a concept Ouma thought was stupid and foolish. Because they were in a killing game, he adapted to the situation, and when more and more people started to die, he became more suspicious of them and eventually had to abandon the idea of cooperation all together.

3. Social skill – managing relationships to move people in the desired direction

Gonta? Iruma? Yeah. As already mentioned, Ouma can be highly manipulative. There’s this part in Chapter 4 in which he asks Saihara to cooperate with him and he refuses, and it’s only then that he realizes that it might be too late for cooperation after all. As mentioned, Ouma was suspicious due to the circumstances of the killing game, but overall he wasn’t against cooperation (though he figured that Akamatsu’s attempts were too straight-forward) That’s when Ouma really realized that if he wanted to do anything, he had to do it by himself.

Again, what’s interesting is that Ouma has the skills to manipulate people to follow him, but actively uses his lies to do the opposite. It was Ouma’s own fault that people had grown so increasingly suspicious of him, mostly because of how he acted like he wanted the killing game and like he enjoyed it. (It could be argued to how much extend that’s Ouma’s fault alone, but it’s undeniable that it would have been easier to trust him had he just admitted to hating the killing game. However, that was beyond his emotional capabilities after all)

4. Empathy – considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions

Ouma is very empathic. I’m not even gonna argue about that. The very evidence of that is in Chapter 4. To go back to that part for a bit, at that point Ouma knew very well that Gonta had killed Iruma. Has someone ever wondered why, out of all investigations, this is the one he assists Saihara with? Because he already knows the culprit. But it’s not like he doesn’t feel incredibly bad about what happened. He yells at Gonta., tells him to deny that he’s the culprit, because Ouma himself couldn’t stand the picture of Gonta getting sentenced to death without fighting back at all. After the trial, he even asks to be executed himself. And all the other times? He progressively grows less and less depressive whenever a body shows up, but considering how upset he is about murder, this just seems like another act. He cried when he saw Amami’s body, he was upset about Hoshi too, and then by the third chapter he slowly began to joke about it because he couldn’t take it anymore.

I mentioned earlier that Ouma can use his emotions like buttons and for the most part, that’s true. He can put on masks and hide his emotions, or create certain emotions, if the situation calls for it, but underneath it all, the killing game really got to him. He grew more and more paranoid and anxious, he grew more and more numb and in the end he even threw away his own moral compass in order to end the killing game. He’s just incredibly good at pushing these kind of emotions aside in order to keep up his strong act.

Wait, what? Yes. The fact that Ouma tried to end the killing game even though he had no personal gain from it is evidence enough for his care about his classmates. He could have taken the antidote to the poison himself. He could have let Momota die. But he decided against it. He decided to give his life so that the killing game could be stopped, even though he knew he’d die. He didn’t do it for glory or to be worshipped. He just did it because he hated the killing game and he couldn’t forgive someone who took any kind of joy out of something as cruel as that.

5. Motivation – being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement

And finally the last point, though that should already be clear. Ouma is incredibly goal-driven. He was willing to accept everyone’s hatred, being punched and being made the villain, even sacrificing his own life in order to end the killing game. We don’t get to see everyone else’s room, but I’m going to assume that Ouma is the only person who gathered evidence from past cases just because he was so determined to find any kind of clue that would lead him a bit closer to the mastermind.

These last points combined make me think of something that crossed my mind when I first thought about his talent too. I thought that Ouma volunteering himself for the plan to take down the mastermind was his way of making up for everything. The reason for that is that Ouma wasn’t suicidal. He didn’t want to die. He wanted to survive with everyone else, but after everything he pulled, and how nobody trusted him any longer it seemed pretty much impossible. Why I’m so sure that Ouma wanted to live? Well, because he sacrificed both Iruma and Gonta in order to do that. Because he wasn’t done yet, because he didn’t want to die a worthless death in such a cruel game.

However, by Chapter 5. Ouma had no one. Everyone was against him and considering that he only pretended to be the mastermind, he was surely aware of the fact that the true mastermind would come after him eventually. The mastermind can’t touch the students directly, so he was sure that something would happen eventually. And he was prepared for that. He perhaps wasn’t prepared for the exact details of it, like Harukawa shooting him with a poisoned arrow, but he had he hammers and bombs prepared and at his hand, and even the camera in order to set up the trick of Chapter 5′s case.

As much as Ouma had to act quickly considering he was literally dying, these little things are all evidence that he planned at least a little bit beforehand. Perhaps his original plan didn’t include him dying, perhaps it did, but at the very least he was willing to give his life for this plan, as later proven. (Again, he totally had the chance to survive. He could have pulled another stunt like in Chapter 4 and got away safely, but didn’t this time)

However, did he want to die as a hero? Was it a heroic sacrifice? Not at all. Nobody but Momota knew his true motivations until the very end, and even then everyone still doubted them until they saw his motive video. He did it for the sake of it. He did it because after everything he figured this was the only and best way to not only challenge the mastermind and end the game, but also to make up for all the things he couldn’t forgive himself for.

There is an unwritten rule about ships that says that the captain leaves last. This is because the captain holds responsibility for himself and his crew until the very end and should attempt to save everyone first and himself last. For some reason, while I thought about Ouma’s talent, it made me think of that fact. I was thinking, what makes a Supreme Leader? The size of your realm? The loyalty of your followers? Influence and power?

Personally, I figured that something all great leaders have in common, for how flawed and terrible some of them turned out to be, is that they eventually acquired power. However, it’s near impossible to gain power by doing nothing but terrible things. Even if their intentions were less than good, they somehow managed to earn the trust of a whole bunch of people. They listened, and they gave the people what they wanted.

And I feel like Ouma, who is known as a leader, is actually willing to give a lot to the people who trust in him, who he pulled under his wing and considers his personal responsibility. DICE for example. We don’t know much about them, but there must be a reason why a bunch of adults follow this high school kid so faithfully. They wouldn’t do that if he was just a great liar and prankster. He must have something else, something like Emotionally Intelligence, in order to gather people around them and achieve whatever he wants to achieve.

Ultimately, Ouma is a person who searches the best solution for everyone. The greater good. The ends justifying the means. Even by sacrificing himself. Even by sacrificing others. He sacrificed a lot in the killing game. People he liked, his own life, any chance of forgiveness from the people who ended up hating him for good reason. He sacrificed potential friends, the trust of his fellow students and he gets the consequences. He ends up alone, insulted, punched, hated and yet he still wants to end the killing game with his own damn hands. For all of them, because in the end, it’s the best solution for everyone involved.

And I think that’s what makes Ouma a Supreme Leader. The absolute clarity to know what’s best for everyone, even if it means he gets the worst end of it and even if it means he has to throw away his own morals, or even die.

#kokichi ouma #ouma kokichi #kokichi oma #oma kokichi #v3 spoilers #new danganronpa v3 #ndrv3 #analysis

227 notes · View notes

judgestarling · 6 years

Text

“DNA Makes RNA Makes Protein” Is Not the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

From page 282 in Adam Rutherford’s A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived:

“Francis Crick named the core kernel of molecular biology the ‘Central Dogma’ in 1956—the idea that DNA encodes RNA that translates into proteins. ‘Dogma’ is a term that we science types have been trying to avoid since seventeenth century, give that it means an incontrovertible belief laid down without evidence by an authority. It was puzzling that Crick should apply it here in the business of science, in an endeavor that relies exclusively on evidence and never on authority.”

Rutherford later quotes Horace Judson’s The Eight Day of Creation to claim that Crick didn’t know what “dogma” meant. In a footnote on the same page, Rutherford claims that Crick used the term “dogma” because in 1957 there was no evidence for his Central Dogma, so the use of the term was meant to emphasize that “all religious beliefs were without serious foundation.”

In his Glossary, on page 384, Rutherford repeats the claim that Crick’s Central Dogma is “DNA makes RNA makes protein.”

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is the original source of the information being discussed. A primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation or a document created by such a person. My wife, Dr. Mina Graur, who is an historian, has repeatedly warned me against secondary sources. Again, she was proven right.

In Adam Rutherford’s book and in hundreds of textbooks that litter my office, the Central Dogma of molecular biology is defined as the information-flow pathway from DNA to RNA to proteins. The wording is usually very catchy: “DNA makes RNA makes protein.” This dogma is attributed to Francis Crick, but none of the books in my possession provide a reference.

Most of these books also state that the dogma was refuted with the discovery of reverse transcriptase by Howard Temin and independently by David Baltimore in 1970. The fact that genetic information can flow from RNA to DNA was deemed by an unsigned editorial in Nature to be a refutation of the Central Dogma.

Well, none of these claims is true.

The first mentioning of the Central Dogma is in a very long and eerily prophetic 1958 article by Francis Crick in Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology entitled “On protein synthesis.” The title of the symposium was “The biological replication of macromolecules.” On page 153, the Central Dogma is introduced to the world.

The Central Dogma This states that once 'information' has passed into protein it cannot get out again [italics in the original]. In more detail, the transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible. Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein. This is by no means universally held—Sir Macfarlane Burnet, for example, does not subscribe to it—but many workers no think along these lines. As far as I know it has not been explicitly stated before.

On the NIH website, a preliminary note or sketch is posted in which Crick provides an early outline of the Central Dogma, the axiom that DNA and RNA specify protein, but that protein can never specify either. The note is dated October 1956, but this note was only made public after Crick’s death in 2004. (The original note is stored in the Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine.) Crick first publicly elaborated on the Central Dogma at a Society for Experimental Biology Symposium entitled “The biological replication of macromolecules,” held at University College London in September 1957, and published in 1958.

First page of a 1956 note used by Francis Crick to deliver his 1957 talk at the Society for Experimental Biology Symposium. This note became the basis for his 1958 paper that enunciates the Central Dogma

Interestingly, in the archival notes accompanying Crick sketch, the transcribed text is listed erroneously as

The Central Dogma: “Once information has got into a protein it can't get out again”. Information here means the sequence of the amino acid residues, or other sequences related to it. That is, we may be able to have

DNA --> RNA --> Protein but never DNA <-- RNA <-- Protein

where the arrows show the transfer of information.

Please note that the arrow leading from RNA to DNA does not exist in Crick’s note; it is a mistake introduced by the archiving librarian.

The figure in the note is particularly illuminating since it is clear that Crick in 1956 has already realized that the transfer of information from RNA to DNA is not a logical impossibility. The dashed line merely indicates that as of 1956, the transfer of information from RNA to DNA had not been discovered yet.

When Nature claimed in 1970 that the Central Dogma was “reversed,” Francis Crick was quite miffed, and he wrote a short paper in Nature entitled the “Central Dogma of molecular biology.” In this paper Crick dismisses the Nature editorial and writes:

This is not the first time that the Central Dogma has been misunderstood, in one way or another. In this article I explain why the term was originally introduced, its true meaning, and state why I think that, properly understood, it is still an idea of fundamental importance.

Interestingly, Crick’s definition of the Central Dogma only rarely made it into the textbooks and popular books; Nature’s mischaracterization did. A figure on page 24 of my 2016 Molecular and Genome Evolution, explains the routes of information flow according to the Central Dogma. It is a rare exception in the literature.

(a) Nine possible routes for information flow among DNA, RNA, and proteins. (b) The five possible routes of information flow according to Francis Crick’s Central Dogma. Only these five routes are found in nature.

The origins of “DNA makes RNA makes protein” may be older than the Central Dogma. Google Books informs me that in 1954, Edwin Chargaff is recorded as saying

“I don’t bother easily. I really don’t know. I seem to gather that the theory now is that DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein. This may be so in special cases. I think there is some evidence that DNA makes DNA and RNA makes RNA. In fact, there is little chemical relationship at least between the total DNA of the cell and the RNA. We have looked for this but there does not seem to be any.”

Part of an exchange in a 1954 book in which we find a phrase similar to “DNA makes RNA makes protein”

I do not, however, have access to this book, and it may take some time for interlibrary loan to deliver a copy.

When did the DNA-makes-RNA-makes-protein obscenity started masquerading as the Central Dogma. It seems that it stared immediately after Crick published his 1958 paper, but the great impetus occurred after the misleading Nature editorial from 1970.

Occurrence frequency of the phrase “DNA makes RNA makes protein” in the English literature from 1950 to 2008.

Let us now return to Adam Rutherford’s book. It seems to me clear that his references to the Central Dogma are wrong. In fact, they are worse than those in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article also provides some references to books I have not read. His description of the central dogma contain an additional element—the claim that Crick didn’t know what “dogma” meant. This claim is based on his 1979 book The Eighth Day of Creation. This claim does not seem reasonable, not only because Crick was a well educated person, but also because in his 1956 note, he seem to have considered an alternative name for what became the Central Dogma. The other name—the Doctrine of the Triad—is also derived from Christian religious nomenclature. We know that Francis Crick was deeply anti-religious, and according to Sydney Brenner, the anti-religious Francis Crick used the ecclesiastical term “dogma” as a joke. I wish Crick would have dubbed his principle, the Doctrine of the Trinity.

So, while I agree with Rutherford that Crick was a genius, I doubt that he was also an “idiot.”

Postscript 1. In 2015, two punctilious ignoramuses (Manel Esteller and Sonia Guil from the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute in Barcelona) published a paper in Trends in Biochemical Sciences in which they decided to “rewrite history” and invent a new definition of the Central Dogma. Accordingly, the Central Dogma was defined as “one gene gives rise to one RNA to produce one protein.” In their paper, this “new and improved” Central Dogma is thoroughly and totally refuted. Where did these people even come up with this definition?

Postscript 2. It has been suggested that prions may be construed as a refutation of the Crick’s central dogma. A prion is a protein that can fold in multiple, structurally distinct ways, at least one of which is transmissible to other prion proteins. Does this structural “contagiousness” really contradicts the central dogma. I fear not. Francis Crick defined information in the context of information flow as “the sequence of amino residues in a protein or the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA.” According to this definition, a prion does not transmit protein-to-protein information.

Postscript 2. Sydney Brenner liked the DNA-Makes-RNA-Makes-Protein slogan so much that he decided to extend it to “DNA Makes RNA Makes Protein makes Money” (quoted in Masterminds: Genius, DNA & the Quest to Rewrite Life by David Ewing Duncan).

13 notes · View notes

tomfooleryprime · 7 years

Text

The illogic of a logical philosophy

The pilot episode of Star Trek: Discovery was titled “The Vulcan Hello,” and Michael Burnham was all about giving one to the Klingons.

Unfortunately, the Vulcan hello she was referring to looked a little less like this:

And a lot more like this:

Apparently, this shocked some fans, but I’m not really sure why. There are a lot of perpetuated ideas that Vulcans are strict pacifists because, after all, war is illogical. But if we really peel back some of the canon, the reality is that Vulcans probably prefer peace, but they’re certainly not above violence, and that’s the problem with living by logic.

Is violence illogical? Who’s to say? Even a philosophy based on pure logic is doomed to be convoluted because spoken language is imprecise and no philosophy is absolute. Yet Vulcan philosophy is often treated as though it must be, as if for any single issue, there is only one perfectly logical solution amid a sea of half-logical alternatives and utter irrationality.

So, what is Vulcan philosophy? Over the years, it’s expanded into a belief system that has two giant scoops of Greek stoicism, a pinch of Jewish mysticism, a dollop of utilitarianism, and a rationalism cherry on top. I would actually argue that this Frankenstein philosophy is whatever it needs to be, so long as it can be defended with a reasonably sound argument delivered in monotone, dispassionate speech. And therein lies the problem. How do we decide what is “reasonably sound?” Worse yet, what is logic?

Believe it or not, there is no universal agreement on the exact scope of this particular discipline. The ancient Greeks studied logic in philosophy, but logic also has more discrete applications in mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. I could type thousands of words dissecting the different branches of logic, but Wikipedia did it so much better than I ever could. Bottom line is, if you’re not using logic to defend mathematical proofs or write code, there’s a whole lot of gray area for what can be considered “logical.”

Me too, Amanda, me too.

So how do stoicism, rationalism, and utilitarianism fit into the Vulcan narrative? Stoicism goes back to the ancient Greeks and championed the idea virtue was based on knowledge, and that wise and virtuous people lived in harmony with reason and were able to accept reality and not allow themselves to be controlled by pain, fear, or desire. If that doesn’t sound like the first page of the Vulcan playbook, I don’t know what does.

Rationalism is a philosophy that sort of bridges ancient stoicism with the modern world and asserts that reason should be the chief source and test of logic rather than religious belief or emotional response. And lastly, utilitarianism is a doctrine that asserts that actions are right if they are useful or benefit a majority. Sound familiar?

If it doesn’t, you’ve never seen The Wrath of Khan. Or shopped at Hallmark.

But the thing is, not one of those philosophical systems says, “No violence.” If The Teachings of Surak has strict rules prohibiting violence, all the Vulcans we’ve ever met across six different series are really shitty Vulcans.

We see many instances of Vulcans preferring to avoid violence and killing—Vulcans often employ a nerve pinch to subdue aggressors rather than smack them around—but they are capable of worse. In the TOS episode, “Journey to Babel,” a Tellarite ambassador is murdered by someone who “knew exactly where to apply pressure to snap the neck instantly,” according to Dr. McCoy. As Kirk ponders who could have possibly committed such an act, Spock is all too quick to throw his dad under the bus and say, “Vulcans.”

While he quickly adds that “Vulcans do not approve of violence” he also mentions that “it would be illogical to kill without reason.” And so:

Backpedaling at warp eight.

Sarek knows how to kill because he’s skilled in a deadly martial arts technique called tal-shaya. The fact that Vulcans train in martial arts, possess weapons like the lirpa and the ahn-woon, and cruise around the quadrant in ships outfitted with weapons suggests they are at least prepared to defend themselves if necessary, which would disqualify them from being absolute pacifists. But that doesn’t necessarily make them warmongers either.

So, what about actually instigating a war? In Enterprise, we got a view of Vulcans that a lot of people weren’t comfortable with. We saw Vulcans spying on their Andorian neighbors, we saw religious factions fighting one another, and we saw a Vulcan High Command that seemed remarkably belligerent. Some fans might argue that after the discovery of the Kir’Shara in the Enterprise story arc that included the episodes “The Forge,” “The Awakening,” and “Kir’Shara” led to a new reformation, Vulcans returned to their true logical roots, ditching their semi-violent ways.

But it’s evident that Vulcans believe that sometimes logic requires violence. Recall those utilitarian principles woven throughout Vulcan philosophy. One of the most well-known philosophical thought experiments is referred to as The Trolley Problem, and it’s a test of utilitarian judgments. There are many variations, but the short one goes like this:

There’s a trolley hurtling down a track with five people on it. The brakes are shot and it’s going to crash, killing all on board. You happen to be standing next to a switch that would divert the trolley onto a separate track where it would gently crash into a sandbank, saving the lives of those five people. The only problem is, there is a person tied to the tracks you want to divert the trolley onto. If you pull the switch, you will actively kill one person to save five. If you do nothing, you will passively allow the person tied to the tracks to live at the expense of the five on the trolley. And so, if we are capable of acting, do we have a duty to act? (Here’s a fascinating quiz if you’d like to explore your own beliefs on the subject.) But what would Vulcans do?

Rather than spend time debating it, I can tell you exactly what most Vulcans would probably do. In the TOS episode, “Operation, Annihilate!,” Deneva colony is infested with neural parasites and Dr. McCoy can’t find a way to kill them. Kirk is struggling to find a way to prevent the spread of these parasites, and Spock points out the only logical solution, though it is “understandably upsetting,” is to destroy the colony and its one million inhabitants because there are billions of people living beyond Deneva colony to think about. McCoy didn’t handle it well.

A real dick move, Mr. Spock. A real dick move.

Now, to his credit, Spock was also infected, so he was willing to die for his principles, but he didn’t bat an eye at the idea of killing a million people. The good news is, it’s old-school Trek so of course they found a solution that didn’t end with the tragic slaughter of a million colonists, but Spock’s initial recommendation was that it was logical to commit an act of violence against one million people to save the lives of billions.

Maybe you agree with him, maybe you don’t, but that being said, is it really such a wild notion to believe that the Vulcans would prefer occasional small acts of aggression against the Klingons if there were sufficient reason to believe it would prevent a war?

When explaining to Captain Georgiou what a Vulcan hello was, Michael Burnham didn’t say the Vulcans slaughtered every Klingon they encountered, simply that they “fired first” in order to “say hello in a language the Klingons understood.” If anything, it sounds like the Vulcan policy was more in line with a warning shot than a Klingon genocide, and from my own simple-minded human perspective, that sounds pretty damn logical if it prevents real and prolific bloodshed.

But that comes back to the initial question of “what is Vulcan philosophy?” Perhaps we should ask ourselves who is the ultimate judge of what is logical? In theory, it should be Surak and his teachings, right?

Surak’s a smart guy who obviously knows a bargain when he sees one, as illustrated by this ensemble that looks a 6th grade home economics project met the clearance rack at the local craft store.

Unfortunately, just because something is written down doesn’t mean everyone is going to agree on the same interpretation, otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court would be about 99% less busy and history wouldn’t be littered with the bodies of billions of people desperate to prove their version of the God of Abraham is the right one.

I don’t know why Vulcans are so often portrayed as being a culture of homogenous personalities, beliefs, and values, as though logic is logic and there’s no room for variation. Imagine what the series would have been like if we played switcheroo with Spock, Tuvok, and T’Pol. Picture the moody and somewhat emotional T’Pol trying to give advice to Captain Kirk, or the wise and experienced Tuvok trying to talk Archer out of half the shit he did in the Delphic Expanse.

Tuvok’s eyes are clearly asking if it’s too late to go back to the Delta quadrant and get assimilated by the Borg.

The point is, individual Vulcans aren’t interchangeable, and I don’t think their beliefs are either. Just look at what happened in the Enterprise episode, “Carbon Creek.” Three Vulcans are marooned on Earth in the 1950s and are facing starvation when they encounter a pair of deer. Despite the fact that Vulcans eat plant-based diets because their tenets about non-violence extend to animals, Mestral suggests eating one of them because:

A Vulcan Mrs. Donner.

Stron is Vulcan-horrified at the idea of resorting to “savagery,” but thankfully T’Pol/T’Mir agrees to violate the Vulcan version of the Prime Directive instead so they don’t have to murder Bambi’s mom. But that scene raises an interesting point. Who was right, Mestral or Stron? Or both? Or neither?

Put 100 Vulcans in a room and ask them when war is justifiable, I’m sure they’d all spout off some Vulcan version of Just War Theory like the smug, walking information databases that they are. But put 100 Vulcans in charge of making a real-world decision about going to war, and we’d get 100 different answers, some which directly contradicted others, but each defended by iron clad logic.

To wrap this drivel up, Vulcan philosophy is a really bizarre hodgepodge of conflicting ideologies. They believe in infinite diversity in infinite combinations, which means they celebrate the beauty of the countless variables of the universe, unless it’s a Klingon bird-of-prey, in which case, they shoot that shit up. Pacifism is great when it’s convenient, killing is bad, except for when it isn’t, it’s not genocide if you have a really good reason, and eating animals is wrong, except for when it’s necessary. Yeah, logical.

I’m of the opinion that Vulcans are no better than humans—they do their best to grapple with complex issues according to a chaotic and occasionally contradictory set of beliefs. Even if they swear they aren’t driven by emotion, they are still at the mercy of their life experiences and world views when it comes to decision making. Logic is a tool that can help them arrive at answers, but it isn’t the answer. Most importantly, like any tool, logic can be abused or corrupted.

Given the weight of the evidence, I would re-assert that Vulcans are happy to declare anything as being logical, so long as it suits their agenda or personal beliefs. Or perhaps it’s better to say that the writers of Star Trek will call anything logical if it adds to the dialogue or advances the plot.

What say you, T’Pol?

#star trek #star trek discovery #star trek enterprise #star trek the original series #vulcans #vulcan philosophy #spock #t'pol #tuvok #meta #long post #live long and prosper

190 notes · View notes