Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< February 16 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 18 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


February 17

[edit]

Can we build a person from nicknames?

[edit]
(This is more a pointless wikichallenge than a real ref-desk question)

Clio's mention of The Nose (in #Nazi sphinx, above) reminded me of Igor "The Beard" Kurchatov. Can we find enough notable people with body-part nicknames that we can Frankenstein a whole person together? I can think of:

to start with. Double (worthless) wikipoints to anyone who finds anyone named after neglected internal organs like the pancreas. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Last Don, Joseph Massino, Big Joey, but also '"The Ear, see The Last Godfather: He "quietly became known as “The Ear” by ordering his men to point to their ear instead of saying his name out loud."
  • Frank Sinatra, "The Voice" (well ... don't know about the voice being a body part, but it would be nice hearing Boris Karloff sing "Come Fly with Me" . In any event, googling "nickname" and "bodypart" turned out to be a bad idea.
  • Poker player Mike "The Mouth" Matusow
  • Elvis "The Pelvis"

---Sluzzelin talk 00:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an organ either:

And what about Deep Throat? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From [1] we get:

Anthony Licata: "Anthony Firehawk," "Anthony Nighthawk," "Cheeks."
John D'Amico: "Jackie Nose." "He had his nose fixed. He had a big, distorted nose at one time," DiLeonardo said at the Gotti trial. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Pancras is close enough to the pancreas. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Mark Pancreas Latham? Retarius | Talk 05:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they really count, but I simply cannot resist adding Charles the Bald,Charles the Fat and Louis the Stammerer to the mixture. If I were to extend the criteria to include aspects of character or personality I would also throw in Charles the Simple and Selim the Sot! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Scareface", Chesty Morgan. If we're including fictional characters: Big Pussy and Little Pussy.

So are we just missing neck, abdomen, back, and shoulders, not counting internal organs? --Allen (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erling "Wry-Neck" Skakke, from the Orkneyinga Saga can supply the first item. Bertha Broadfoot can supply a second foot... - Nunh-huh 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC) - ps: as for abdomen, won't Lead Belly do? - Nunh-huh 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For back there is Edmund Crouchback. For a nose, Justinian II the Slit-nosed. I'm afraid I'd be creating a rather defective person here. We could use spare parts from Baldwin IV the Leper! By the way, we have a Lists of nicknames of European royalty and nobility that should be useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for THE internal organ – it's good to see you, "Brain"-y Babe, again ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The List Adam Bishop mentioned is a repressively huge set of 24 long lists, by letter of the alphabet. I scanned through a couple, and that's where I found the iron arm, the blue tooth, and the hairy foot, yet there are surprisingly few body part nouns. There are more nicknames referring to parts, such as "The One-Eyed" or "Of Blonde Hair". Some intriguing names are featured in those lists, and a couple of unreferenced ones that made me wonder.
Speaking of BrainyBabe, I glanced at Wikipedia's Classification of admins, but body parts don't even form a category among our administrators! I did count 71 animals divided in 14 zoological categories. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi back, Julia et alia; I am not an admin! But my "brainy" is just an attributive adjective, not a noun to build the body with. By all means add it/me to the Frankenstein stew. -- Which is the biggest sex organ, BTW, the skin or the brain? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the toe as in football player "The Toe" Lou Groza. More athletes: Darts player Colin Lloyd aka "Jaws", baseball player Jay Buhner aka "Bone", race car driver and "Ironhead", Dale Earnhardt, hockey player "Knuckles" Chris Nilan. See also List_of_sportspeople_by_nickname (might have missed a few again) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about size scientifically, but as the sexiest organ, IMO hands down it's the brain with skin a tight second. : )) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got three fingers up there from one nickname, here's another three: Three-Fingered Jack" (Manuel Garcia) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to paint a better picture of our Frankenstein monster's physical attributes, we can turn to Malcolm Canmore (big head), Ealdgyth Swan-neck, Edward Longshanks, (ie. long legs), Edmund Ironside, Cawallon Lawhir (longhand) and can discover his height (Maelgyn Hir: the tall). We can add colour (to hair or skin) with Edward, the Black Prince or William Rufus (red), Donald Ban (white); age him (James the Old Pretender), and make him (it?) attractive (Bonnie Prince Charlie), but slightly rough at the edges (Gurgust the Ragged great-grandfather of Urien, but I can't find him here). Looking at internal anatomy, we have Thorfinn Skull-splitter, (but we don't need any more, since we have Ivar the Boneless) and we can get some body fluids from Peibio Clafrog who, according to one source, also had the nickname "Spumosus" (or dribble), Bloody Mary and Eric Bloodaxe. Lesser body "parts" also include freckles Merfyn the Freckled. Have we got both feet yet? Because there's Aed Whitefoot too. We know the monster's parentage (William the Bastard). Hey, we can dress our monster as well, with John Toom Tabard (empty coat).Gwinva (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed, Gwinva, by your command of royal sobriquets! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I had to look the Welsh ones up. Gwinva (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptozoologists might include the elusives, Spring Heeled Jack and Bigfoot (surely not the names their mama gave them). Julia Rossi (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then of course there is "The Muscles from Brussels". — Michael J 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if all you people had just started with Jesse "The Body" Ventura, you wouldn't have needed any other parts! --Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, February 19, 2008.

Ahem, even the body might have need of Golden Tonsils. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh, and don't forget he's also Jesse "The Mind" Ventura. The poor creature still lacks a soul. Who is nicknamed "The Soul"? (I only know that person's Godfather, Queen and High Priestess). Well, according to the article on Avi Nimni, former Maccabi player Nir Klinger "was nicknamed "the soul" for playing in any situation despite being injured on many occasions." ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the golem to that degree Sluzzelin. It's next step is to have feelings and for that I offer australian rocker Gary "Angry" Anderson. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found "Foot Lawson,"[2], a cave explorer and Ruskin socialist. Also Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch, American football player. Edison (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin is right to request a soul. We also need to imbue life; will Macbeth do? I understand "beatha" means life. I've also remembered Cat's Eyes Cunningham, and a quick serach for likely organs in Wikipedia has yielded Liver-Eating Johnson. I'm sure there's someone the Phlegmatic, too. Anyone know? Gwinva (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the late lamented Evel Knievel (if homophones are acceptable). If you want feelings and don't mind having non-persons, there are Happy Gilmore; Grumpy, Happy and Bashful from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film); and a whole menagerie in Mr Men. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A notably happy real person is Happy Rockefeller. Edison (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best ref desk thread ever! An ASCII barnstar to all involved: * Neıl ☎ 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish ducat in 1500s

[edit]

Over at the Francis Drake article we've run into a problem. At one point in the article it says "King Philip II was claimed to have offered a reward of 20,000 ducats (about $10 million by 2007 standards) for his life." but then later it says "37,000 ducats of Spanish money (almost 4 million by modern standards)." This was recently noticed and a {{what}} tag was placed. It's been talked about a little on the talk page, but we can't find how much a ducat is compared to modern US money. The first event with King Philip II offering it was in 1582. Not sure the exact date of the second mention but it is ca. 1589. Thanks for the help! Deflagro C/T

Currency calculations over such a timescale are going to involve lots of handwaving, but you can compare the price of gold. Our ducat article says a ducat was 0.1107 troy ounces, so 20,000 ducats would be 2214 troy ounces. Gold seems to sell for around 900 USD per troy ounce, so that's about $2M. Of course currencies haven't been tied to the price of gold, and the relative costs of everything have risen or fallen so much over half a millenium that quoting a modern currency figure is of questionable value. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just on a worldwide-view point: unqualified usages of "$" to represent US dollars in articles about non-US subjects is questionable. It makes more sense to convert this sum to Euros or, given the nationality of Drake, pounds. If the USD is to be used on the grounds of international standard of conversion, it should at least be labelled "US$". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo and Albania

[edit]

I've been following some of the news regarding Kosovo's independence movement and I'm confused about something: if the independence movement is based on ethnicity, why don't the Albanian Kosovans want unification with Albania proper as opposed to full independence? News articles even show Kosovan Albanians using the flag of Albania to represent their cause (for example [3]). Is there some reason for why Kosovans don't want to be part of Albania? Are there any groups that do support unification? I know this is a very complex and controversial subject and I apologize if I may have caused offense, I am just genuinely curious about this. --86.152.125.77 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually wondered about that too. Maybe it would be fraught with the same problems as the reunification of Moldova with Romania would be? Maybe they're thinking it's better to do it in two stages: first independence, then a year or two down the line if there's no war with Serbia, they'll hold a referendum on unification with Albania. I suppose Albania would have to hold a referendum on it too. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no appetite amongst Kosovars to join Albania for the very good reason that it is a seriously *&%£!ed up country. It was once the most politically self-isolated state in the world -- autocratic Enver Hoxha broke with both China and the Soviet Union as not pure, not Communist enough. At one point the only state Albania was talking to was North Korea. OK, that isolation ended some years ago, but the legacy lives on. It is terribly poor; the economy is predominantly subsistence agriculture, kiosk-level transactions, and the black market. Transparency International gives it a corruption rating of 2.9; the only European country more corrupt is Moldova. Wise old traveller Dervla Murphy, who knows her onions, was genuinely frightened by feral children in the countryside, not the urban slums. Why would the Kosovars wish to join that mess? They have the option of turning their faces to the balmy sunshine of the European Union, who are offering and planning to send a benign invasion of bueaucrats in suits and briefcases, to haul Kosovo into the modern age. One may very well tell them to beware of Eurocrats bearing gifts, but faced with a choice of the EU or Albania, I know which I would choose. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albania isn't that bad. Its better than Kosovo at least, which is now, since declaring independence, the 'poorest nation in Europe'. Albania is reforming at an impressive rate, is enjoying economic growth, and has its own candidacy for EU membership. Kosovo-Albanian union may be something that will happen in the future, but not right now, for the simple reason that it is exactly what Serbia claims will happen - Serbian scaremongers state that Kosovar independence is the first step towards the creation of a Greater Albania that will go on to conquer the whole Balkan peninsula and randomly subject the Yugoslavs to Talebanesque government, I'd wager that Kosovars don't want to acredit that view by enacted any part of it just yet... Ninebucks (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Anything but Serbia"? You have to realize that the locals (of all sides) aren't exactly trusted to deal with such matters in a peaceful manner (the EU is mainly there trying to ensure the *hit doesn't hit the fan, and isn't very interrested in Kosovo - the area doesn't have anything of value and would quite a headache - hell, it allready is a headache). There is a big problem with any 'separation of Kosovo and imediate unification' with Albania. Basicly it would be a re-drawing of the borders of allready established countries, and noone is really interrested in that, especially the countries who would have to deal with refugees if the going gets "hot" (Austria, Germany, France, etc). There is a real danger that other regions in the area get the same idea (and most of them wouldn't bother themselves with any referendums). What we have to wait for is if the 'north-western corner of Kosovo' (don't know the proper name of the area where the Serbs are the majority) declares either its own independence (intending to join with Serbia in a couple of years) or its 'seccession from Kosovo and unification with Serbia' in the near future. If they are smart and make a local referendum and any of such options wins (and it probably would) the goverment of Kosovo would quite unable and perhaps even unwilling to oppose it ('ppl who chose independence shouldn't deny it to others' and all that jazz). The forces of the UN probably wouldn't do a thing (the dirty work of suppressing "rebelions/independence movements" isn't quite their thing). Flamarande (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the notion of a Greater Albania has long figured in the Kosovan independence movement. The current PM, Hashim Thaci, was once a proponent of that idea. But Pan-Albanianism has never been politically viable. For one thing, it would invite Serb-dominated northern Kosovo to secede and join Serbia. For another, it would depend on the improbable cooperation of Albania, which would be reluctant to take an action that would enrage Serbia. Even if it were achieved, it would limit Kosovo's options considerably, making it more difficult to obtain foreign investment and assistance. In their current position, they receive specialized attention. Lantzy talk 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia feels very threatened by the Greater Albania idea. AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Open Piano Suggestion"

[edit]

I've been able to identify the notes on the treble clef and bass clef and the bottom and upper ledger lines of each clef. Yet I find it hard when I'm playing a song which requires a key signature of no more than four or five flats or sharps does it become difficult to play the key indicated sharp or flat from the key singature without a reminding accidental beside it and automatically hit the proper black key. Say if the key signature was C sharp, I would be playing and when the music signals for the sharp key to be pressed I think otherwise and instead play Natural C instinctively, since there is no sharp or flat sign beside it. Also being familiar with the clefs, I have lots of trouble trying to make fingers equal to another when there parts are required. I'm good with my left hand to play the upper part of the keyboard, and my right hand also does the opposite.

Can someone prefer a exercise to both correct my sight reading disability and my inept fingering for clefs? --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your second question, but to get used to the different "black key" combinations of different keys, I think the most effective way is simply drill - i.e. practice your scales, chords and arpeggios in diferent registers until each of them comes naturally. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are exercises specifically designed to improve sight reading skills, but apart from the scales etc that PalaceGuard mentions, I don't know what they are. A good piano teacher should be able to help. To give you an idea of how complex sight reading actually is, you might want to read Eye movement in music reading and Sight reading. Many professional musicians seem to have a natural ability to sight read, but many others don't, and have to work at it, but are still very good musicians regardless. Some amateurs, like myself, can sight read very well but only infrequently raise their playing standards above that level. It's all a question of what you want to achieve. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When sight reading, you have to keep the key signature in mind as well as reading the clefs and time signature and so on. This is, of course, difficult to do. An exercise that might help (other than simply sight reading whatever music you can get a hold of) is to take a simple sequence and play it in a range of key signatures (without transposing it, and then with transposing it). When you don't transpose it, it will sound quite bad, but it will help you get used to remembering which keys are sharps or flats, and actually playing them. Steewi (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening time for British University

[edit]

What time of the year does the most British University open (new semester) ? --125.24.181.83 (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well our 'school' years run from September to July. Students going from school/college into university typically start their degrees in September or October. We also have the Open University which has courses starting throughout the year - though it is distance-learning rather than being based in a classroom. ny156uk (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that this is British time not US time ? --125.24.181.83 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i'm sure in so much as i'm English living in England and my school year always started in September and always ended in July. My friends all started their degrees in September/October of the year and their 'years' ran until around June/July when they would generally come home and work until the next year started again in September/October time. ny156uk (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The northern hemisphere is generally consistent all around (that half of) the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
British universities used to start in October but now often begin the first term or semester in September. (Oxbridge still runs three eight-week terms, but many others have two semesters.) The academic year used to end in May, hence May ball, but some universities finish teaching in late March or early April, and then have time for revision before the end of year exams. Universities are open year-round: research continues, and the buildings are open (except between Christmas and New Year, as for most British offices). The most certain way to find out about an individual institution is to go to its website and look for "academic calendar". BrainyBabe (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The semester system tends to be a bit half-hearted in many English universities. In Exeter, for example, there is an intersemester study week in January, but many modules are year-long, and students may not join the university in January. The teaching patterns still follow a 3 term arrangement and the semesters are fitted a little awkwardly into it. SaundersW (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics boycott

[edit]

Many people including Steven Spielberg and a group of Nobel peace prize winners, Olympic athletes, politicians etc are boycotting the 2008 Olympics because of the situation in Darfur. Why are people not concerned with human rights in china? Besides, Beijing can make significant change in China whereas they would be of limited influence in Khartoum. 118.90.78.205 (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true to say that China is of limited influence over Khartoum. See Olympic Dream for Darfur. --Richardrj talk email 10:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The activists seem to have found a soft target - an authoritarian regime can't very well answer back on issues of human rights, which is why they are focussing disproportionately on the issue, as if Sudan was a Chinese colony. If it was Britain that was taking the same stance as China on the issue, the activists would not have nearly as much leverage as they have now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are, essentially, using a prominent event as a chance to try pressure governments (yours/mine/China etc.) into action on what is occurring. Personally I dislike the politicalisation of sporting events - they exist as one of the few areas where many countries with wildly differing political/social policies can come together and compete as relative equals and can be used to foster positive relationships between countries. Additionally I find it dubious when 'celebrities' come out and make political statements - invariably they have limited knowledge, only ever take the populist angle and rarely appreciate the great complexities of international diplomacy/relations. Anyhoo sorry that's not really an answer to your question but i've typed it now... ny156uk (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question was: "Why are people not concerned with human rights in China?". Well the honest answer is: Because China is relativly far away and doesn't seem to want expand itself at the expense of other countries. Another major point is that China is powerful in the military, political, and economical arena. Its goverment has been able to keep the internal peace and its internal authorithy. Also its grasp of propaganda is quite good.
Of course there are 'some' persons and liberal organizations who are truly concerned with human rights and liberties inside China. The issues of Tibet, the Falung Gong 'sect', and Tianameng square 1989, Taiwan, the enviroment, arrest of disidents, and censorship in China, are relativly hot issues (and make good stones you can always throw against the Chinese goverment).
But the hard cold truth is that the Chinese goverment has been able to mantain its power and is the largest singular market of the world. Foreign goverments who want to deal and make agreements with China know that they have to be polite (in other words: they leave such internal matters for the Chinese goverment, and complain all the time but never too loud). Major business firms who want to make business with and inside of China know that they have follow some 'rules'. Everybody is doing business and wainting for an eventual Perestroika (hopefully a peaceful one). It is as simple as that. Flamarande (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple answer to the original question is that China is not currently engaged within its own borders in any human rights abuse that remotely approaches the enormity of the genocide in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of lives seem to be at stake in Darfur, so for many human rights activists, Darfur is a higher priority than the repression of dissent and other human rights issues within China. Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulus package refunds for working kids

[edit]

I work, and made over $3,000 for the 2007 tax year, and paid taxes on that. I was also claimed as a dependent of my father. I know that parents get $300 per kid, but do I also get a rebate for having made over $3,000, or is my rebate the one that my dad gets? I've read the bill, and still can't figure this out. In other words, would it make sense that I'd get my $600 or $300 or whatever it is check made out to me, in addition to my father getting the additional $300 check for claiming me? Jared (t)  17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your father claims you as a dependent, then you will not be eligible for a rebate. According to the Economic Stimulus Act, Section 6428 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended to read as follows:
(a) In General- In the case of an eligible individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the first taxable year beginning in 2008 an amount equal to the lesser of--
`(1) net income tax liability, or
`(2) $600 ($1,200 in the case of a joint return).
The key language here is "eligible individual". Further down in the act, you find:
(e) Definitions- For purposes of this section--
`(1) QUALIFYING INCOME...
`(2) NET INCOME TAX LIABILITY...
`(3) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL- The term `eligible individual' means any individual other than--
`(A) any nonresident alien individual,
`(B) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual's taxable year begins, and
`(C) an estate or trust.
Now, if you refer to Section 151, you find that that section provides for tax deductions for dependents. In other words, if a parent claims you as a dependent, then you are not eligible for the rebate. Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

musical term

[edit]

I have a score which uses the term Bog. which I am unable to find a meaniing for. Ksunsh01 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)ksunsh01[reply]

It might stand for Bogen, the German word for bow which is often also abbreviated as "Bg". It's an instruction to bow the instrument (arco) as opposed to plucking it (pizzicato). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could help to know what instrument/instrumentation it is written for. Any ideas? 71.57.26.126 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning, middle and end?

[edit]

It is a truism that writers should follow this standard pattern. But is there any great literature that does not? In other words, are there literary works that have no discernible beginning, works which thrust the reader into the middle of the action without any background explanation?81.156.0.56 (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many works do this, or start at the end, but they nearly always build context through flashbacks. The one I can think of right now is P.S. Your Cat Is Dead although that's not great literature by any means. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at In medias res. It's traditional for epics (the Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Star Wars franchise) to start in the middle of the story. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finnegans wake is probably best described as cyclic. It does not seem to be following the "standard pattern", or anything standard really. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest works of literature ever*, the Iliad and the Odyssey, both do. User:Krator (t c) 21:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (* indicates literary superlative and shouldn't be taken literally. Though you might.)[reply]

Tristram Shandy comes to mind. The central character is not even born until Book III. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slaughterhouse Five, where the protagonist main character has come "unstuck in time." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In considering this I immediately thought of the superlative Franz Kafka; specifically of The Metamorphosis, where the story opens with Gregor Samsa turned into a giant insect, and The Trial, where a Josef K wakes to find himself under arrest. No explanation is ever offered for either of these events. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Block wrote a book on fiction writing ("Telling Lies for Fun and Profit", which is a great name, I think), and one of the chapters covers this extensively. His opinion was that you can write a draft where you start at the beginning, continue through the middle, and reach the end, but you should then take the second chapter and put it before the first. "Second things first," I think was the name of the chapter, and he said Mickey Spillane did it consistently with every story he wrote. He also said Spillane wrote consistently engaging, attention-seizing prose better than almost anyone. The fact is, in fiction, exposition can be kind of boring, so if you start with the first real crisis or gunfight or car chase or sex scene, you can get people's attention and go back to fill in the background later, if it still seems important. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Godard famously said that a story should have a beginning, middle, and end but not necessarily in that order.[4] He proved it too, In Praise of Love forinstance. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film Memento starts at the end, proceeds to the middle, and finishes at the beginning. Corvus cornixtalk 02:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you count the grainy scenes, it was really starting at both ends and finishing in the middle. I would say that most stories follow a BME pattern, but it's not necessarily a chronological beginning, middle and end so much as it is "situation, development, resolution". That is, start by showing us what's happening, then build on it so that we begin to get an understanding of it, and then wrap it up with a solution or explanation. So, for example, in Memento, we start with the situation of the main character shooting someone, and some exposition to explain his memory problem. Then we develop the characters, and finally we get the last piece of information we need to understand everything. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (novel) sort of does this. You start at the beginning but you're thrust into a world you don't know anything about and people are making references to all sorts of places and people like you would just know if you lived in that galaxy, but you don't. It's what culture shock feels like. -LambaJan (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another approach, there are the convoluted "flash-back" style books. I recall reading The Perfect Sinner by Will Davenport, which flicked between the stories of a woman in the present and a 14th C knight journeying with a young Geoffrey Chaucer. The knight constantly has flashbacks to events in his past and, to complicate things, begins telling other tales of his past to Chaucer, in rather random order (with extra flashbacks). Meanwhile, the 20th C woman looks over her own past and receives tales and flashbacks from her grandmother... There is an ending (or, two, perhaps), where everything gets tied up, but otherwise it's a rather convoluted thread (and managed pretty well). The complexity and structure of a novel rests mainly with the skill of the writer, rather than any prescriptive outline. Gwinva (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are also a number of plays that go backwards.... George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart's Merrily We Roll Along, the musical based on it, Merrily We Roll Along; Harold Pinter's Betrayal... see reverse chronology. - Nunh-huh 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole universe that runs backwards. -Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote attributed to Jean-Luc Goddard that "every movie should have a beginning, a middle and an end - but not in that order". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.dedalus gave us that earlier on. You might say the middle of this thread is now at the end. How very Godardesque.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian questions

[edit]

Does anyone know what the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick the second Sicilian questions were? To do with religion, I think. Cap Cod (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to figure out what your class assignment is or learn more about Holy Roman Emperor Frederick the second? If you are trying to figure out what your class assignment is, I suggest you call a classmate or your teacher because it is unlikely that any of your classmates regularly watch the reference desk. As for Fredrick, do you mean Fredrick the Great i.e. Frederick II of Prussia? Sifaka talk 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Yikes, I don't think I could have misinterpreted the question any further than I have already. See Clio the Muse's response below. Sifaka talk 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Frederick the Great of Prussia was never Holy Roman Emperor and had no connection with Sicily, that's unlikely. More likely is Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Sicily. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, King of the Romans, King of Italy, Germany, and Sicily; Holy Roman Emperor and stupor mundi-astonishment of the world. The 'Sicilian questions', Cap Cod, refers to a series of queries he circulated among leading Arab scholars, concerning the nature of belief; questions like 'What are the proofs for the immortality of the soul?', which if raised by any ordinary mortal in Christian Europe in the day would almost certainly have led to accusations of heresy. But Frederick was no ordinary mortal! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Public Opinion

[edit]

I'm doing work on the response of people in the Axis countries to wartime defeats. I've got some good material for Germany and Italy but not for Japan. What I would really like to know is what the Japanese public were told about the Battle of Midway, the turning point in the Pacific war. Cigar for a good answer! Fox Sake (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one article from American Heritage magazine that is somewhat relevant. I'll keep looking in the meanwhile. Sifaka talk 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several interesting books mentioned on this site (which is probably not acceptable as a source by the way since it is a tertiary source) One of the interesting books is Glines, Carroll V. The Doolittle Raid: America's Daring First Strike Against Japan. New York: Orion Books, 1988. ISBN 0-88740-347-6. Sifaka talk 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is that Midway was such a disaster for the Japanese that the public were only told part of the story. At the time it was claimed that one carrier was lost instead of four. The truth filtered through to those among the Japanese public who had access to Allied news sources; but when the navy was pressed on the matter it held to the official line, on the insistence of General Tojo. Indeed, according to a statement by Naoki Hoshino, a Japanese Fascist ideologue, it was not until three years after the war that the full truth became known, when evidence was presented at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

In view of the strategic situation after Midway, I suppose one can understand the reluctance of the Japanese high command to tell the people. The fact is, after Midway, the Japanese were fighting an impossible battle, one where isolated island garrisons could be decimated without proper naval and air support. The defense perimeter, essential to Japanese war planning, had been breached. If one was to liken the strategic situation it to a medieval conflict, then in June 1942 the walls of the city had fallen. Thereafter, all the enemy had to do was to fight their way towards the heart of the citadel. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio the Muse, you get the cigar! Can you please point me to the source for the statement by Naoki Hoshino? Thanks. Fox Sake (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will find it, Foxie, on page 246 of The World at War, an oral history edited by Professor Richard Holmes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"water bottles" of antiquity

[edit]

What did ancient civilizations use as "water bottles" i.e. reusable water containers carried by a single person. The time frame I am interested in is pre-1st century, although I am not sure it matters since portable water containers may not have changed all that much until recent centuries. (so feel free to ignore the time frame) Speculation is welcome as are any articles, pictures, or water storage containers you've seen in video games or movies set in an appropriate historical period.

I can think of two examples of water containers: the waterskin and the canteen. The waterskin was used in the Ancient Near East. I would like to know about how the waterskin's spout was sealed (cork? stuffed with cloth? nothing at all?) and its overall appearence (I've seen a "liver" shape and a "bag-with-four-legs" shape). The canteen was present during the American Civil War, but were they used before then? Sifaka talk 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to have corks, but I think they're modern. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole variety of materials were used as water containers, from animal bladders and leather skins to gourds. There would also be corked earthenware vessels, and there is, I believe, evidence that at least some Roman soldiers used glass bottles. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_February_17&oldid=1142534234"