User:Jopower
Hello to All Wikipedia!
[edit]I'm a possessor of some common, odd and unusual knowledge in many diverse subjects which I hope will help and enhance Wikipedia. My most favored general subjects are History, Historical Fiction, Science and Science History, Science Fiction, Military Science, Technology, Photography, Mechanics, ships and air craft from all eras. I have some specialty interests in the era 1880-1920 (a particularly fascinating period centered around the fall of empires and rise of the individual), the Imperial German Navy, Air Force, Army (in that order) and all contemporaries, WW2 (just because it's so omnipresent), the various American wars and conflicts, early Science Fiction writers, early film tech (motion and still), [to be expanded as I think on it].
I especially enjoy the sometimes little known, yet influential moments of history not found in general school books. I enjoy the surprise and sudden flow of connections that follow the reveal of such events. Case in point: prior to the recent movie "Hugo" (2011), I knew some minor details about George Melies and "A Trip to the Moon", mostly as a back ref to newer SciFi movies, but nothing about his vast output of 500 films prior to the 1st WW, many utterly ground breaking in technique and style. The man himself has fascinating and I would much enjoy seeing more than "A Trip to the Moon". This process is like finding a new planet or dimension to explore each time.
As a boy, I often sat for hours running through the Encyclopedia Britannica following serial interests from volume to volume. National Geographic, et al, much the same. Later, I'd spend similar hours buried and sponging in the stacks at Texas A&M Library. One perfectly sized window sill in particular needed repainting due to my jean rivets. Today, Wikipedia is one of those places where I find and follow such connections.
Sensing The Age From Which You Read
[edit]One thing I find important when reading books of some age is to know the era from which it was written... the copyright year is usually the best clue. Attitudes and nuances from that time carry through in the text and color the works. I have often seen readers push up their noses at older SciFi because they consider the writer so out of date. Yet, see the copyright and see that, say, it's Welles "Time Machine", 1895. Prior to this book almost NO ONE (including scientists) considered that an integral part of anything in our universe must include it's DURATION. It is the question considered in the beginning of the the book:
“You know of course that a mathematical line, a line of thickness nil, has no real existence. They taught you that? Neither has a mathematical plane. These things are mere abstractions.”
“That’s all right,” said the Psychologist.
“Nor having only length, breadth, and thickness, can a cube have a real existence.”
“There I object,” said Filby. “Of course a solid body may exist. All real things —”
“So most people think. But wait a moment. Can an instantaneous cube exist?”
“Don’t follow,” said Filby.
“Can a cube that does not last for any time at all, have a real existence?”
Filby became pensive.
“Clearly,” the Time Traveller proceeded, “any real body must have extension in four directions, it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and —Duration.”
When I read the Time Machine at 12 or 13, I had not a thought about this 4th dimension either and had to re-read several passages and re-read the book several times over the years as I matured. Afterwards it was always with me, often in new ways with the years, and I could often tell who did not have thought of it, just as I could tell who was not flying (meaning use of the 3rd dimension: height). The point is that Wells brought it to the masses in such a way anyone could grasp and it's his brilliance. For me, to be able to put aside all the years between 1895 and today is to return the joy of such works, suddenly you see the moment Man's thought began to widen on a subject, maybe slowly at first, but eventually more common and mainstream. So, assigning current thought and morals to the past is a grave error. Those who do show me a shallowness in this regard. I know they will not grasp all my meaning or my research (here in Wikipedia, et al) if I post concerning some historical subject (and I admit to such in different manners of my own).
Another in this line is the WHOLE of "Gulliver's Travels", Johnathan Swift, 1728/35. Now who has seen more than the Lilliputians bit on screen and thought it just a child's tale? I bet the way Gully put out the fire has been... edited? And there are 6 more places he explores... some not exactly for young readers either! Now, when you DO read them without knowing something of the times and state of various institutions that Swift came from, it is less than half intelligible and appears a pure farce-fantasy. I will leave you to give it a try as I have said, laying aside the last 280 odd-years, and taking up the whole project to see what he's telling you about in his time period. Then, bring it forward and applying the history brings the full weight to your reading and learning experience. Ah-haaaaa..... mayest ye pronounce?[2] Jopower (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)