add two articlesHEADmaster

* review of “Harry Potter and the Machiavellian Candidate”
* reaction on EconTalk show
* updates of the EBook format discussion

3 files changed, 231 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/computer/ebook-formats.rst b/computer/ebook-formats.rst
index 42bc864..a3bc742 100644
--- a/computer/ebook-formats.rst
+++ b/computer/ebook-formats.rst
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ books and similar stuff.
 
 * Daniel Glazman wildly disagrees with the current trends in `Web. Period.`_
 
+* **{update 2024-08-26}** https://starbreaker.org/ also mentions `Commonplace book`_ and `Digital Garden`_ as useful parable of what we are after. **NOT** IndieWeb_
+
 .. _`Portable Documents for the Open Web (Part 1)`:
     http://toc.oreilly.com/2012/08/portable-documents-for-the-open-web-part-1.html
 
@@ -60,7 +62,14 @@ books and similar stuff.
 
 .. _`Why e-books will soon be obsolete (and no, it’s not just because of DRM)`:
     https://gyrovague.com/2012/04/30/why-e-books-will-soon-be-obsolete-and-no-its-not-just-because-of-drm/
-
 .. _`Web. Period.`:
     https://medium.com/@daniel.glazman/web-period-4472fbfac90b
 
+.. _`Commonplace book`:
+    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book
+
+.. _`Digital Garden`:
+    https://maggieappleton.com/garden-history
+
+.. _IndieWeb:
+    https://starbreaker.org/blog/tech/has-indieweb-become-irrelevant/index.html
diff --git a/literature/greengrass-showing.rst b/literature/greengrass-showing.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e156411
--- /dev/null
+++ b/literature/greengrass-showing.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+How Cygnus Greengrass talks too much and yet too little
+#######################################################
+
+:date: 2024-08-08T16:49:29
+:category: literature
+:tags: review, harryPotter, blogComment
+
+(my reaction to the published chapter_ of “Harry Potter and the
+Machiavellian Candidate” by AmericanEagle47)
+
+It is more of it, but yes. Think about a book, which you read
+as a child, and you still remember it. How did it start? Let’s
+see. When I was a kid, I read Jules Werne “`Mysterious Island`_”.
+How does it start?
+
+   “Are we rising again?”
+
+   “No. On the contrary.”
+
+   “Are we descending?”
+
+   “Worse than that, captain! we are falling!”
+
+   “For Heaven’s sake heave out the ballast!”
+
+   “There! the last sack is empty!”
+
+   “Does the balloon rise?”
+
+   “No!”
+
+   “I hear a noise like the dashing of waves. The sea is below the car!
+   It cannot be more than 500 feet from us!”
+
+   “Overboard with every weight! … everything!”
+
+   Such were the loud and startling words which resounded through the
+   air, above the vast watery desert of the Pacific, about four o’clock
+   in the evening of the 23rd of March, 1865.
+
+Or, if you are not a friend of too much physical action, let’s
+try “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen. Everybody remembers
+`its beginning`_:
+
+   IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in
+   possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
+
+   However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on
+   his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in
+   the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the
+   rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
+
+   “My dear Mr. Bennet,” said his lady to him one day, “have you heard
+   that Netherfield Park is let at last?”
+
+   Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.
+
+   “But it is,” returned she; “for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she
+   told me all about it.”
+
+   Mr. Bennet made no answer.
+
+   “Do not you want to know who has taken it?” cried his wife,
+   impatiently.
+
+   “You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it.”
+
+And we want to be told as well, because we were made interested.
+Explanations may come later, but first is to catch reader’s attention.
+
+The second problem with your writing was: **SHOW, DON’T TELL!** We are
+never explained the psychological background of Mrs Bennet, ever. In the
+whole novel, there is not a paragraph which would say, that she was such
+and such. We are **shown** who she is by her action. We are not told
+what to think about Mr Wickham, he shows us his character by his
+actions. Or perhaps some other character tells us about him.
+
+The first chapter of your story (as it was before your current edits)
+was to my read something like reading CV: a long description of
+something I would like to see in reality. It was incredibly boring.
+
+The only interesting part of that chapter were few lines close to the
+beginning (also, make shorter paragraphs, long wallpapers of texts just
+make me snooze on its own):
+
+   On August 6, 1991, Cygnus Greengrass came home from his job at the
+   Ministry of Magic, where he was a higher-up in the Treasury
+   Department. He was frustrated after another unsuccessful meeting. […]
+   Beatrix, Cygnus’s wife already could sense from his grumbling and
+   muttering that work had not exactly been a sterling success.
+
+   She asked him about work, and Cygnus responded, “Work was an absolute
+   disaster. These bureaucrats in the Ministry wouldn’t know sound
+   economics if it beat them upside the head!” He added, “Dolores
+   Umbridge literally suggested that we could increase revenue by giving
+   Ministry of Magic employees a raise!” Cygnus groaned as he again
+   thought of her. God, was she annoying; even Dolores’ voice and her
+   distinctive giggling was enough to drive him to drink.
+
+And that’s probably it from the whole chapter (in the previous reading).
+
+We humans are strange creatures who are interested in telling and
+listening to stories. And stories have just two elements, which make
+them interesting: plot and character development. Anything which doesn’t
+help these two goals is boring. Both these two things are best carried
+by action or dialogue, all descriptions are just backdrop enabling these
+two. Do you see anywhere in the Verne’s story any description of the
+balloon or of the sea, did he describe the weather condition? Did he
+even tell us where the story actually happens (it is rather confusing
+for the Verne scholars, because they were supposedly leaving from
+Virginia, and now they are suddenly over the Pacific Ocean)?
+
+That’s also about the supposed lack of JKR’s universe building. Did you
+care when you were reading the books? Did you care that she had two full
+moons in a month, or that the school year always started on Sunday? I
+didn’t. (and yes, she probably overdid this ignoring unimportant things
+too much)
+
+Also, don’t repeat yourself! It is “show, don’t tell”, not “tell,
+then tell again, then tell again, then perhaps even show, and
+tell again” (this level of sarcasm is not against you, but some
+fanfiction stories are completely ridiculous in this, see for
+example “`Breakfast In New York`_” by Radaslab). So, you have
+this paragraph:
+
+   However, one curious thing did happen. Something that had set the
+   financial wizards into a frenzy. The news emerged that Gringotts Bank
+   in Diagon Alley had suffered a break-in on July 31, a very very rare
+   occurrence. What was more unusual is that the attempt almost
+   miraculously succeeded, only for it to become clear the vault in
+   question was empty. This was the source of great confusion until
+   August 6, when it emerged that the vault had been emptied earlier
+   that same day by none other than Harry Potter and Rubeus Hagrid, the
+   Keeper of the Keys at Hogwarts. Cygnus alone saw something
+   significant in this development, and believed there was no way it was
+   a coincidence. He also knew, because of the level of enchantments
+   placed on Gringotts vaults, that no one except some of the most
+   powerful wizards could have broken through. Who could have done it?
+   And why? And why was Harry involved?
+
+Why? I just wanted to tell that you should rewrite that paragraph
+and let somebody (e.g., Beatrix) tell him about it, only to
+find out, that you actually did make her to tell Cygnus a
+few paragraphs later. Just get rid of this paragraph as a
+whole. What’s important is that we learn about the break-in,
+nothing else. Or is there something else, then let *her* tell us,
+or perhaps make a scene to show us, don’t tell us yourself.
+
+And again, I am sorry for being harsh. I have just reread my
+`draft of fanfiction about Mary Bennet`_ and found out that whole
+chapter three should be thrown away and rewritten, because it
+completely fails at “Show, don’t tell” rule.  Michael Crichton
+(author of the novel “Jurassic Park” on which the film was based)
+said (alluding to an older theatre author) “Books aren’t written
+- they’re rewritten. Including your own. It is one of the hardest
+things to accept, especially after the seventh rewrite hasn’t quite
+done it.” We are not alone who don’t have easy life to write well.
+
+.. _chapter:
+    https://archiveofourown.org/works/57974005/chapters/147585301
+
+.. _`Mysterious Island`:
+    https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1268/pg1268-images.html#link2HCH0001
+
+
+.. _`its beginning`:
+    https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1342/pg1342-images.html#Chapter_I
+
+.. _`Breakfast In New York`:
+    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5141159
+
+.. _`draft of fanfiction about Mary Bennet`:
+    https://matej.ceplovi.cz/clanky/drafts/history-of-mary-bennet.html
diff --git a/research/universe-wants-us-poor.rst b/research/universe-wants-us-poor.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6d5c533
--- /dev/null
+++ b/research/universe-wants-us-poor.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Universe wants us to be poor
+############################
+
+:date: 2024-08-06T07:30:00
+:category: research
+:tags: politics, institution, economics, poverty
+
+While listening to `the new episode of EconTalk`_ on the normalcy
+of poverty and how MAGA is just a pure opium of the masses
+[#]_ I was enjoying a reminder of the Common Sense reality
+and gave me some strength to oppose prevalent fantasies of
+the current media. One thing you haven’t mentioned, which
+I see as very relevant for the establishing of industrial
+modernity, is the institutional framework required for it. The
+agricultural lifestyle was horrible in many aspects, but one
+thing which it brought to the table (and why it survived and
+survives so well) was to some extent independence on others (to
+some extent, I know). When you make your own food, clothes,
+etc., you can sustain your existence without relying much on
+others. However, the moment, you suggest, that some citizen
+of the city should give up all their existence and just clean
+the shit from streets for living, you have to offer them some
+reliability of income. Will be there this job around in the next
+year, next ten years? Am I not giving up my only source of income
+for fantasy, which will go away with the next administration
+coming to power? Will this job survive the next plague or a
+wave of famine? Unless there is some institutional certainty,
+it is very difficult to start on some division of labour to the
+extent you can get some industrial modernity. Yes, I know this
+is to a large extent what New Institutional Economists, Douglas
+North (and Hernando de Soto) were saying, but it needs to be
+emphasized.
+
+Yes, there were technological reasons (you cannot make a steam
+engine until you can make airtight machines, which requires
+exact machining unavailable until the eighteenth century, etc.),
+but I think there were mostly problems of lack of institutional
+framework, which could guarantee a peace required for the
+division of labour.
+
+.. [#] And here apparently I agree with J. D. Vance, who
+    apparently_ called Trump “cultural heroin” and “an opioid of the
+    masses.”
+
+.. _`the new episode of EconTalk`:
+    https://www.econtalk.org/the-ever-present-challenge-of-escaping-poverty-with-noah-smith/
+.. _apparently:
+    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Modern_comparisons