diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | computer/ebook-formats.rst | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | literature/greengrass-showing.rst | 173 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | research/universe-wants-us-poor.rst | 48 |
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 |