Humanities desk
< August 9	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 11 >

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.

August 10

How common is the name ‘Карл’ (Karl) in Russia?

(A search turned up little of use.) — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 02:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Language reference desk, WP:RDL. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it is not among the top 90. --Jayron 32 10:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of European scientist in 18th or 19th century with teenage wife?

Is there such a scientist or husband-wife team? By the way, what was the average age of marriage in the (probably Western) European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question, the Wikipedia article titled Western European marriage pattern would be a good place to start your research. The answer to your first question, I'm about 99% certain, is Marie-Anne Paulze Lavoisier, who married Antoine Lavoisier at the age of 13 in 1771, and who herself became his assistant and a chemist in her own right. --Jayron 32 13:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big dresses and ability to move

A long time ago, people wore long dresses that touched the ground. Did they impede the ability to move? Or did rich people not have to work so long dresses were just for status and beauty while poor people had to work intensively on the farm? How prevalent was obesity among the wealthy? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the 20th century, dresses had to be long enough to conceal the ankles.
Sleigh (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At which time period are you researching? "A long time ago" is pretty vague. If you give us a specific time or range, we can help you find sources that discuss women's fashion from that time period. --Jayron 32 13:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's a form of conspicuous consumption. Like pale skin and soft hands, a dress you can't work in shows that you don't have to work. The usual costume histories cover this in detail - try Norah Waugh's, if you can find a copy. They're mostly framed inside, so lighter than you might expect but certainly so wide that they can make moving around indoors tricky.

There's also the question of corsetry. A stiff corset can be comfortable to wear, even more comfortable if you have to stand all day - but you can't bend in it, you can't use your back muscles to lift anything, and you can't eat so easily so might have to forego a meal during working hours. It was usual for above-stairs (i.e. visible maids, not kitchen staff) servants to wear stays (a more moderate form of corsetry) rather than a laced corset, because no stays would be seen as slovenly, but the same corset as 'the family' or even the housekeeper would be too restrictive to get their work done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget long fingernails, which alas are still with us, although usually not long enough to make all work impossible. StuRat (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.70.33 -- there's a difference between "big dresses" (farthingale/hoopskirt/panniers/crinoline) and "long dresses". And yes, working-class women who needed freedom of movement didn't wear floor-length dresses to do their work, even when that was the fashion among upper-class women... AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They regularly wore floor-length dresses. It varied a bit depending upon occupation, but floor length dresses were common, especially for jobs (service, shops) where they'd be dealing with the middle- or upper classes. Plenty of the "home management" books include advice on maintaining such dresses, including the common practice of trimming them around the bottom edge. Such trim could hide wear and dirt, or could be replaced more easily when worn. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady's-maids and shopgirls often did, while those who did strenuous physical labor demanding freedom of movement didn't wear them (the extreme in that direction being the Pit-brow women, who actually wore trousers, which many middle-class types thought was actively immoral). AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for one version of what women Victorian factory-workers wore, see this painting. It was decent enough by most standards of the time, but they did not wear floor-length dresses or crinolines to work, and they wouldn't have worn them whatever upper-class fashion trends were. AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Wigan, the pit brow women who did serious manual labour at ground-level in the Lancashire coal mines went to work in trousers. However, women workers in other coalfields were proud of being able to do their jobs in long skirts. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to "pit brow women" two days ago not too far above! And like the factory girls in the painting, those women workers in other coalfields would have worn skirts that were long by modern standards, but NOT floor length... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for obesity among the wealthy, perhaps not as bad as you would think, due to sickness. (It's hard to become or stay obese if you suffer from tuberculosis.) Ironically, modern healthier people are able to become obese, which makes them unhealthy. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some good quotes.

Anybody got any good quotes? For what purpose... to make someone more intelligent.

However, I'll start with a list, which can help you guys brainstorm. Thanks!

Education is unnecessary for intelligent people, useless for stupid people.

No raindrop considers itself responsible for the flood.

I fault the person who asked the offensive question, than the person who answered it.

When you are sarcastic to someone, and that person took offense to your sarcasm, the insecure person doesn't apologize, the uninsecure person does.

Better to do more than the minimum required. For example, if someone asked X, but meant Y, it is better to answer X and Y than to only answer X or only answer Y.

Better to be hated for what you are, than to be liked for what you are not.

The most pathetic type of cowards are ones that have no balls to admit they're a coward. Example: coward is afraid of X and you ask them are you afraid of X, and they say no.

12.130.157.65 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. Wikiquote has rather a lot of good quotes.

However, I'm not sure what you're looking for is quotes. Those aren't quotes and quite a few of them are in poor English, which, depending on audience, won't necessarily make someone look more intelligent. I think you're looking for aphorisms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If." c. 350 BC.
Sleigh (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, aphorisms. Thanks. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"Adversity reveals the genius of a general; good fortune conceals it." Quintus Horatius Flaccus

"Noble and manly music invigorates the spirit, strengthens the wavering man, and incites him to great and worthy deeds."

"Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war."

"Fortune favours the brave." "Fortes fortuna adiuvat" Publius Terentius Afer

"It is right to learn, even from the enemy." "Fas est et ab hoste doceri" Publius Ovidius Naso

"In kung fu nothing is unstoppable..." _Kung Fu Hustle_

"Never lie, steal, cheat or drink. But if you must lie, lie in the arms of the one you love. If you must steal, steal away from bad company. If you must cheat, cheat death. And if you must drink, drink in the moments that take your breath away." Will Smith

"Soldiers do not like being under the command of one who is not of good birth." Onosander

"Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary." Blaise Pascal

"If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research." Wilson Mizner

"No evil is honorable; but death is honorable; therefore death is not evil." Zeno of Citium

"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle." Robert Anthony

"Content is king." Click & Baird 1974

"Good God! Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself Homo!" Professor Farnsworth _Futurama_
Sleigh (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected quite a few quotes on my userpage. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." — Albert Einstein^[2] — Preceding comment added by 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4176:1674:84F8:476B (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." - John William Gardner. StuRat (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy is the one who finds wisdom,

And who gains understanding;

For her proceeds are better than the profits of silver,

And her gain is better than fine gold.

She is more precious than rubies,

And all the things that you may desire cannot compare with her

Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honour.

Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.

She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called blessed". The Book of Proverbs, Chapter 3: Verses 13-18. Alansplodge (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another.” ― Ambrose Bierce

“I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson "DOR (HK) (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

Why did so many movements happen during the 60s?

The feminist movement. The black movement. The gay movement. The vegetarians. Anti-war. Why did all these things happen around the same time? Did one influence another? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counterculture of the 1960s may be of interest. The introduction to that article says that "1960s counterculture grew from a confluence of people, ideas, events, issues, circumstances, and technological developments which served as intellectual and social catalysts for exceptionally rapid change during the era." --Viennese Waltz 16:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, mass media may be more relevant. These movements did not start in the 60s. They just got more publicized in the 1960s, because mass media left us a greater, more detailed record of what happened in the 1960s. Every one of the above listed "movements" were prominent, large, and widespread movements for decades or centuries before the 1960s. We just have mass media to thank for publicizing them. Feminism didn't start in the 1960s, the Seneca Falls Convention happened in the 40s. The 1840s. The black movement didn't start in the 1960s. The NAACP was founded in 1909, and even before that were the Radical Republicans who argued for full equal rights for all races back in the 1860s. Vegetarianism has been around for millenia. There have been pacifists for just as long as well. --Jayron 32 16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about de-colonization, the Thaw, Mao, Prague? how are 60's mass media different from 50's mass media anyway, a few more TVs per capita? No, something momentous happened in the 60's. Your mass media theory doesn't explain anything. 78.53.240.218 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but TV in the 60s was in color! Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on videotape. Made it easier than kinescope to show all markets the same thing in the same quality, and show them it again (or again and again, if needed). Repetition and uniformity helps get any point across, but TV didn't start the fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...TV didn't start the fire." FTFY :-) Matt's talk 16:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that, it seems strengthening the freedom-loving nations against aggression began with Harry S. Truman's 1949 inaugural address. Those who heard it while their brains were spongiest turned 18 in the 1960s. Coincidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was an interesting read that circulated yesterday: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/ Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump phenomenon an outgrowth of 60's lefty counter-culture, that's rich. Atlantic writers apparently think they can do anything with words. 78.53.240.218 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice anything interesting in the 1960s in this graph? https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/per-capita-world-energy-by-source.png 96.66.16.169 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Baby boomers (the post-WWII generation), who "are associated with a rejection or redefinition of traditional values". They were the children of the Silent Generation, many of whom "focused on their careers rather than on activism, and people in it were largely encouraged to conform with social norms". Both articles discuss the validity and causes of these generalisations, but I think an improved standard of living is a key point. Alansplodge (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1848 are another pattern of widespread political turmoil. Demographers correlate such movement to demographic growth in a relatively peaceful and wealthy context. So numerous young mind do not care so much about next day or the foreign enemy (most American young people couldn't see viets as an enemy the way previous generation had seen japs or fritz, for instance) as they would in harsh time or when at war. Instead they brew ideas to cure the world of his obvious flaws (making it even worse in the process, but they still don't know it). Gem fr (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inglehart's post-materialism model is one explanation. However, our article does not deal properly with the weaknesses of his approach (in particular whether he is reading things from the data or imposing a pattern on it). On the Left, Arthur Marwick wrote an enormous book called The Sixties trying to answer this question. I haven't read it (I suspect very few people have read the whole thing) but he has probably thought more about this than anyone else. On the Right, Dominic Sandbrook, writing only about the UK in White Heat, attributes it to rising living standards and the social stability given by the welfare state (e.g. he notes that many of the key figures received grants to study at art colleges) & the conservative family life of the previous generation. Matt's talk 15:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for vegetarians, they go back at least as far as the Jains, dating to at least 500 BC. For homosexual movements, we have perhaps Sappho, from about the same time. StuRat (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to talk mainly about the US experience, whereas the 1960s and 1970s saw important movements across the globe (1968 in Paris, decolonization). Two points should be made here. After WWII the Western world experienced significant economic growth and significant advances in standard of living. Sectors that previously had less access to higher education were now increasingly represented amongst students. But upward mobility was still limited (in the US in particular for minorities and women) and the educational system did not adapt to the desires of the young generation. At the same time by the late 1960s it appeared that US world hegemony could be defeated, US suffered set-backs with the Cuban revolution (inspiring guerrilla struggles across Latin America), South-East Asia (by 1975 it appeared that communists could seize power in Thailand, after victories in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), the Portuguese colonies in Africa (whom by 1975 all went in a pro-Soviet direction), etc., etc.. Amongst youth and intellectuals there was a strong tendency to perceive that the established order was about to break into pieces and a new world would grow from the ashes. That, in combination to socio-economic factors, was a very fertile ground for radical movements. In a way, the is a parallel to the way ISIS has succeded recruiting young men from Western Europe and Gulf countries. --Soman (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron32 explained above what we get through our lenses a great deal is an effect of exposure. There is a parallel, or it is instead consequential: "Piece and love", quoting approximately the traditional freedom greeting, and freedom with the numbers. Askedonty (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did San Francisco become the centre of the 1960s counterculture?

What was it about San Francisco that made it become a major centre of the 1960s counterculture?Uncle dan is home (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read this or this or this.--Jayron 32 17:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that movements tend to focus on a geographic location through a positive feedback loop; there may have been nothing in particular about San Francisco over other major metro areas that led to the hippie movement being focused there, excepting that a few key figures happened to already be from the West Coast. For example, bands like the Grateful Dead (from nearby Palo Alto) and the Jefferson Airplane started playing clubs in the Fillmore Street area, and the success of those bands attracted others to the area, even if they weren't from San Francisco. The same sort of thing happened during other art/cultural movements. Sunset Strip in LA became the center of Glam Metal, the Bowery in New York did the same for Punk and New Wave; Birmingham in England became the center for the early Heavy Metal, Seattle and Grunge music, and so on. It only takes a few like-minded people to become big in an area to create a growing movement. --Jayron 32 18:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In San Fransisco's case, its status as a major west-coast port helped it. Castro District, San Francisco became the a major gay community because - according to our article - it was where men dismissed from the US Navy for homosexuality in the Pacific Theater of WWII settled. Similarly, it was a very ethnically diverse city, with a large East Asian population, which meant that you didn't have to go too far to find books/discussion groups about Eastern philosophies such as a Taoism and Zen Buddhism that influenced a lot of counter-culture thinkers. Smurrayinchester 08:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice anything interesting in the 1960s in this graph? https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/per-capita-world-energy-by-source.png 96.66.16.169 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's it. Natural gas causes hippiness. No wait, space races cause hippiness. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... yeah... now that you bring it to our attention, I noticed that the graph does not mention San Fransico... not even once (What's up with that?) Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing the reference don't seem to point out. Back in the late 1950's a parts of San Francisco was very much down town (hard to believe now) and apartments were very cheap to rent for middles class youths who wanted to spend their summer surfing. This was the new post-war generation that saw no point in completing high school nor getting a job when mom & dad's monthly allowance enabled them to be beach-bums. This La Dolce Vita culture attracted others looking for this sweet life too. This is reflected in the middle class music of the Beach Boys and perhaps ( and I won't argue about it) the more realist appraisal by the more working class The Mamas & the Papas. I put that it was the societal/ economic environment which attracted these groups. Not the other way around. As that was where their audience and livelihood was. Aspro (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, San Francisco was already home to the beat generation, which was transmogrified by Ken Kessey and the Merry pranksters into the hippie generation, with the advent of LSD as a major part of the transformation. The book was written in 1968, not many years after the event it records. -Arch dude (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
La Honda, California is in the Bay Area, but it certainly isn't downtown SF, which is what the OP was asking about. Also, I'm not sure your synopsis is all that accurate. However, the great attractor in SF was likely Ginsberg and the San Francisco Renaissance. They'd been there for a decade or more (IIRC, both Ginsberg's "Howl" and Keroac's The Dharma Bums were based in SF and/or written mostly there. Neal Cassady was also based in SF for much of the time, IIRC. Still, that only moves the question back a generation. If the hippies showed up to learn from the beats, then why did the Beats choose SF? --Jayron 32 16:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article on the San Francisco Renaissance is very informative and argues that the key man was Kenneth Rexroth. Our article says he "exercised a major and early influence over the evolution of the area's local artistic culture and social counterculture". So why was he in SF? The article just says, "After meeting his first wife, he moved to San Francisco; he would live in California the rest of his life." However, Rexroth's Autobiographical Novel apparently contains a paean to the city that supports the arguments given above: he was attracted to both the physical geography (seas and mountains, the perfect combination in Chinese thought) and its liberal atmosphere. He attributes the latter to its ethnic diversity and to the fact that it was settled by sea, rather than land. (Jared Diamond would love this: geography as destiny!) So those perceptions might be an important part of the answer. In another piece, Roxroth noted the diversity brought by refugees from the Pacific War and that the nearby mountains had many camps for conscientious objectors, who subsequently settled in SF. Matt's talk 22:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In another section of the Autobiographical Novel, Rexroth claims that the hippie movement grew from the pro-cannabis faction of a libertarian group that he led. Matt's talk 23:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Ken Kesey's Acid Tests may have had something to do with it; but note that Kesey was only an employee. An employee of Menlo Park VA Hospital, where MKULTRA organized the LSD experiments to see whether it could use the substance to get people to talk. What is interesting, of course, is that this was a psychological experiment, and Navy psychologists oversaw blue discharges that created the San Francisco gay community - so while I am not sure, it is possible that both of these features were directly the responsibility of the siting of a particular military psychiatric facility. But I don't know that! Wnt (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could the climate have something to do with it? The wind off the ocean can be a shock but I saw ice only once in all my years there (a frozen puddle on the north side of a large building), and heat waves are also rare. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a theory (does anyone know the name or have a link ?) that people who didn't fit in kept moving West, until they ran out of land, on the West Coast. Thus, the West Coast is more diverse, and more tolerant of diversity, than most of the rest of the nation. Of course, this doesn't explain why San Fran would be the epicenter, versus Los Angeles, Seattle, Anchorage, Portland, etc., but it may be one factor. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Go West, young man" turned into "Go West". Sort of. Not sure if they're theories, but they're links. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and violence in popular entertainment

Why is crime and violence such a prominent feature of popular entertainment? Movies, tv shows, novels, etc are often stories about crime and war. Is it rooted in the themes of "classic" tales and legends; from the Illiad to Snow White, or is it an unrelated modern phenomenon? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have always thought that Shakespeare's plays have especially violent scenes, like Romeo and Juliet commiting suicide. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In his book The Classics Reclassified, Richard Armour wrote that young Will worked in a butcher shop. All the hacking and skewering made quite an impression on him, and he reproduced it at the end of each of his tragedies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People want fantasy for entertainment. They don't want to watch their real life for entertainment. Most people are not regularly (if ever) involved in violent crime or war. So, it makes for good entertainment. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History begins with (boring...) legal and accountant writing (laws, number of sheep a lord gives a shepherd and expect to return, ...), and epics tells of war, murder, treason, stealing, cunning, with a salt of desperate love (Homer's work, Mahabharata and Ramayana, Old Testament...). So, nihil novo sub sole Gem fr (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that people are attracted to fiction tropes that they do not experience in their own lives, many people get to experience war and wartime conditions first-hand at some point. Wars are not rare, and mass mobilization tends to have wider effects on society. The military dead of World War II alone were about 24 million, with estimates of total casualties (including civilians) reaching a number of over 80 million people. Dimadick (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mother lived through the WWII "Blitz" in Britain, she hates war themed movies and tv shows. She visibly reacts to the sound of explosions, more than 70 years after spending many nights in underground shelters. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any story with a hero and a villain, there needs to be some sort of conflict. Violent, especially deadly, conflict works best for a few reasons. When the story begins with the villain killing the hero's friend/family/village, there's no taking it back as there would be if he'd insulted, robbed or annoyed them. The plot is irreversibly set in motion, and the roles are firmly established. On the journey, the hero must meet challenges; if the audience knows the only alternative to winning is death (thus no payoff to their investment in the character), they'll be happier to see him win (through justifiable violence) and angrier at the villain for almost ruining the story. Eventually, the conflict must be resolved. A violent death for the villain gives the audience clear finality and a simple moral. If good and evil instead agreed to put aside their differences and work together, all the violence preceding this ostensibly win-win resolution would retroactively become neutral, and the audience would feel duped (and perhaps riotous) for being made to feel anything about any of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note: 1) people write what they know 2) people have been creating art with violent themes since the beginning of art. 3) we currently live in the least violent era in history, like ever, for real. [3], [4], [5]. The thesis that our art is violent as a recent phenomenon or a product of a modern, violent age simply doesn't bear out on several fronts. Violence in the modern world stands out in contrast only because it is rare in the modern world. When an army massacres random innocents in the modern world, we react in horror because its an aberration, most of the world lives their lives where that doesn't happen. In previous centuries, that was called "your average Tuesday". --Jayron 32 17:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual violence is rarer in the Age of Aquarius, but technological depictions of it are ever-increasingly numerous and vivid. Writers used to write what they know after knowing the real world, but now primarily type their shit on the same computer where they "experience" their news, video games, movies, YouTube compilations of best news, video game and movie deaths, hardcore porn, social justice campaigns and sometimes even literature. Violence itself may stand out today, but the pop culture market has been glutted with blood since 1994. Nicole Brown Simpson, Mortal Kombat II and Itchy & Scratchy Land marked a new dawning, at least in America. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was glutted with blood well before 1994. La Marseillaise, William Shakespeare, Homer. "Modernity is worse than anything before" is Luddism and not borne out by actual data. --Jayron 32 12:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for why people like violent stories, this goes way back to before writing, when the stories were likely to come directly from the survivors, and any info they provided on how they managed to survive might have proved useful to preserving the lives of the listeners, when they found themselves in similar situations (which were more common, when violence was widespread). Of course, this is far less likely to work today, with fictional violence and fake methods of surviving (like doing acrobatics to avoid bullets, rather than something more sensible, like hiding behind a large object). StuRat (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples of instructionally violent true stories after writing? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. One example I recall reading (but not exactly sure where), is that striking a match at night was dangerous on the front lines, as that could allow a sniper to spot you. It might not be obvious that striking a match could get you killed. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is if the soldier is an astronomer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking closer to the beginning of writing. Something that might suggest the supposed prehistoric way carried over. But yeah, good to know that fire glows in the dark. Can't really blame modern(ish) audiences for assuming "lucifer matches" were merely made by the Devil. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For something closer to the beginning of writing (in fact from before writing but written down later), there's the Iliad and it's tale of the Trojan Horse. Whether or not it's true, the warning still remains not to bring anything inside your fortress large enough to hide enemy soldiers. Of course, this is obvious to us now, but before it had been done (and the info passed along), it might not be something people looked out for, like terrorists with box-cutters taking over airplanes and crashing them into buildings. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part that isn't obvious is that they light up the area enough for a sniper a km away to spot you and take a shot. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if he's already sighted on your position. You're safe from the naked eye (at a km). Do you remember what war this story was about? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WW2, but applies today as well. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Three on a match (superstition) suggests that this may date as far back as the Crimean war. I'm certain (from family conversations), that it predates WW2.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.30 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Night vision devices make it hard today, even for non-smokers. But yeah, still holds up better than the ancient advice on decapitating a hydra or tricking a Gorgon. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the literal Hydra isn't an issue, there is the figurative problem that when you kill a terrorist 2 more might pop up in his place. Certain practices, like disposing of Osama Bin Laden's body at sea rather than returning it to the family to be made into a shrine, can help to prevent this. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The figurative bin Laden is fishier than Neptune. The god and the planet. Let's just agree to disagree on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A candle at 2.85 kilometers out is as bright as a magnitude 6 star. A match would have to be 8.12 times dimmer to be magnitude 6 at a kilometer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Googling the brightness/luminosity/magnitude of a match, but the synonyms for "match" bludgeoned me mercilessly. I know it's more than eight times quicker than a candle. I suppose the safest tactic is avoiding the front line altogether. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you first strike a match, I suspect the flash is significantly brighter than a candle. That may get the sniper's attention. Then, once they have the location down and use their scope on it, the remaining light may be sufficient. StuRat (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely a front line soldier wouldn't know snipers have huge range and it seems plausible that if the enemy's close enough to snipe, the target's not too small to see. And if he can easily see his hands while lighting his cigarette then his face will look just like that only smaller so thus still visible. Also it's obvious that if the match went out before he could snipe he might still shoot at where he you were/were going anyway and hope he hits. But Intelligence quotient#Job performance says the US cutoff is about 85 with experiments to 80 so perhaps this train of thought won't dawn on all before it's too late. (pun intended) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that snipers don't just target enemy soldiers. Plenty of snipers are targeting civilians, right now, so they need to know this info, too. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., Saki#Death. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now for a reference: What attracts people to violent movies?, citing a joint research project between the University of Augsburg and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Alansplodge (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alansplodge, for a proper answer. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Italian opera?

I think the words are in Italian? Basically, the story takes place during the Middle Ages. The Italian family wants to know who will inherit the lands of the wealthy landowner. At the end of the opera, one pretends to be the landowner and says his will, but the best property (the house) goes to one guy. What is this play? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Gianni Schicchi. - Nunh-huh 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That sounds right. My favorite part was when the guy said, "Gianni Schicci" and the family members moaned, because that meant they didn't get the inheritance. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]