The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXVIII

[Chukchi Husky]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, you realise that there's a distinction between "things I don't enjoy" and "things that are pretentious", right? Maybe this stuff just resonates with Owen in a way it doesn't with you, no harm in that.

The term for that is fetish, and fetishes are acquired. I don't accept that I cannot comprehend, even in principle, just what he finds fascinating about the Iliad.

I'm not sure what you mean?

You never read Wishbone as a kid? I enjoy the books to this day.

First, isn't this more of a rant than a question?

It's both.

Second, if you don't understand or accept poetry, why do you think reading poetry in prose form makes it any better? If I'd like to try out country music, but don't like music, reading prose versions of the songs wouldn't be a very good strategy. Or if I don't like movies, listening the soundtrack of, say, Citizen Kane wouldn't do the original work justice.

The Iliad is a story as well as a poem.

 

[Arakhor]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

I have no idea, but whoever told you that is probably wrong.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

Guess that depends on how basic you start, but from the premises you probably start with:

No

 

[Mouthwash]

Sorry, I didn't notice this post at first.

The overall military mission is grounded on the idea that abducting someone else's wife is wrong (Paris abducting Helen). That's it's whole rationale. Achilles has been here for nine years toiling on behalf of Agamemnon's brother with that as the rationale. The Agamemnon does that very thing to his own foremost soldier, putting the whole rationale for the war into question.

If that were the case then it was not made even slightly clear, and the tone of the writing actually counts against that explanation. The whole thing is about dividing up spoils of war. They may as well have been Vikings pillaging Korea.

It's muuuuuuch better in oral verse. Remember, the Homeric poems originally weren't written down but were delivered orally. Imagine listening to someone reel off an hour-long catalog of soldiers and their homelands. Imagine someone listing, from memory, the names and backstory of every person who died on September 11. You'd be astounded he could hold all of that in his memory. Homer is proving his credentials to tell the story. Think of it as a poetic feat rather than a plot point.

I don't believe I benefit from it. The translation is meant for late-modern English-speakers, but the translator doesn't feel the need to edit anything out?

 

[Cutlass]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

Those people are liars and idiots. Stop listening to them.

 

[Traitorfish]

The term for that is fetish, and fetishes are acquired. I don't accept that I cannot comprehend, even in principle, just what he finds fascinating about the Iliad.

Well, there's comprehending and there's grokking, y'know? Owen could tell you what he finds compelling about the text, but that's all abstract if you find the text boring and impenetrable. It's the same way that somebody could tell you about all the delicacies and layers of a fine Scotch, but if all you taste is iodine and ethanol, that's going to remain abstract. You've never going to understand their enthusiasm at intuitive level until the thing begins to resonate with you in the same way.

Consider that we only tend to describe enthusiasms we find impenetrable as "pretensions" when those enthusiasms carry some sort of cultural cachet. Somebody who professes a passion for weird, esoteric indie rock might be "pretentious", because that style of music has a strong cultural cachet, but we don't call them "pretentious" if they profess a passion for weird, esoteric heavy metal, because heavy metal does not have a strong cultural cachet. In the former case, we question the authenticity of their enthusiasm, but in the latter we merely dismiss it as irrelevant. Why is that? I think it's a defensive reaction, because we worry that the assertion of esoteric taste in the former case is a claim to superiority, while in the latter case it's practically self-ostracising. It doesn't require that we actually value weird indie rock very highly or that we regard weird heavy metal with contempt, only that we recognise that the former is regarded highly by others, and that the latter is not regarded highly by others.

So the message, I guess, is not to worry about it. People like what the like, and that might not always make sense to you.

You never read Wishbone as a kid? I enjoy the books to this day.

Oh, right, no, never encountered those. So I guess I get what you mean, but you have to remember with adaptations like that, they're editing a set of often pretty complex and weighty stories down to the basic plot, specifically with the intention of making it accessible to an audience who are coming in with little to no background knowledge. They're going to emphasise certain aspects and downplay, alter or remove other aspects so it makes sense. They're a re-writing of the text for modern and local sensibilities rather than a simple retelling.

 

[Farm Boy]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

Depends on if you're using the same energy accounting that claims ethanol is energy negative as well.

 

[sophie]

Owen says he is a fan of the poem, and he isn't not one to be pretentious, so I assume there must be some avenue to enjoying it.

1) I'm very flattered that you would hold my opinion in such high regard

2) Art is subjective dude. Just because I like something doesn't mean that you have to like it or else you're just an uncultured swine (which you are; how the [copulation] don't you like the Iliad?!?!). I'm sure there are a hundred things I can think of that are deeply interesting to me that are disinteresting to the vast majority of people on these boards. For example, my favorite painter is Mark Rothko. Go ahead. Be irritated. I dare you. I think an important part of evaluating art is, even if you don't find it aesthetically appealing to you, understanding that it is meaningful to someone, and trying to understand why that is. It'll lead you to having a surprisingly broad interest in art, if even from a purely intellectual/academic standpoint.

3) I seem to recall you having a very similar opinion about Breaking Bad a few years back. Stick with it. You may be surprised.

4) I like the Iliad because I find mythology interesting. Also it's extremely important as a cornerstone of Western Cultural Heritage. I feel very similarly to it as I feel to the King James Bible. If you want an interesting story, give the Odyssey a try. The story and literary elements are (in my opinion) SO much more interesting in the Odyssey. The Iliad is basically 100% cool vignettes and contextualizing. The overarching narrative is a bit...meh.

5) If you want to give something similar-but-not-Eurocentric a try - check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's like, one of my top-5 stories EVER. SO good.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've been meaning to tackle either Romance or The Water Margin over the summer, as it happens. Maybe start with the latter, given that it's about a third of the length, but if Romance is really as good as all that...?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I've been meaning to tackle either Romance or The Water Margin over the summer, as it happens. Maybe start with the latter, given that it's about a third of the length, but if Romance is really as good as all that...?

I last finished Romance of the Three Kingdoms in 7th grade, so my memory is really, really fuzzy, but anyways....

I loved it. I consider it one of my most favorite works of fiction. I originally wanted to read a chapter a day with that (so, what, 3 months?), ended up finishing it in less than a month. That said, I think it has a bit of a formulaic, cut and dry sort of flow that makes it read more like a stereotypical history book of lists of battles than a work of fiction sometimes - while this may be partly due to the translation, I think it's also probably present in the original, given that it's kind of supposed to cover 100+ years of history; I don't mind too much, but it can seem kind of bland to some. There's also the caveat that it's written in a different historical and cultural context about a topic that itself is in a different historical and cultural context, but I think you shouldn't have a problem dealing with that. If you have experience reading some Chinese literature I don't think it'll be anything new.

I do think though, of all the four classical Chinese novels, it's the most important for the Sinosphere - most analogous to Hamlet for the Anglo-American literary canon or Illiad/Odyssey for the West. Journey to the West has some nice religious stuff, and Water Margin and Dream of the Red Chamber can be interesting dramas, but Three Kingdoms is the great big honking epic that delves into the political and cultural aspects of the Sinosphere, something greater - for better or worse - than all the little people involved in it. Or at least that's how I feel thinking about it. I do think it has the most influence in the Sinosphere out of any of the four classics, at any rate (not that the others aren't important). Even in good ol' 'Nam people will probably know more about Three Kingdoms compared to the other classics.

Whichever translation you find, though, make sure they have a lot of footnotes and anotations, those really, really helped me. The translation I read was by Moss Roberts, dunno how good he is as I have nothing to compare it to, but what I do like is that his version has a large section of footnotes and essays that literally take up half the entire 'book'. It really helps in explaining some of the stuff such as the cultural/historical references (whoever wrote the book loved throwing in random allusions to historical poems all over the place) or the reasoning behind events which otherwise I'd miss.

Watching the old Chinese TV series isn't a bad idea, though it's not substitute for reading the original of course - I've watched part of the Vietnamese dub of it and it seems to follow the story closely. There's also an old anime that, despite being kinda crappy quality even for its time and also ending about halfway through the actual novel, follows most of the story relatively closely as well despite throwing in a few changes. Again, no substitute for the original, but I also recommend it if you want a visual experience. Dynasty Warriors, however, is not a proper alternative.

As for Water Margin... my dad bought that for me, coincidentally, soon after he bought me the Three Kingdoms (same publisher I believe), but I never got around to really finishing that. Or the Journey to the West, for that matter, they seemed kind of less interesting compared to the THree Kingdoms for me.



Actually, this all reminsd me, I probably should ask my dad to help get me a Vietnamese translation of the Three Kingdoms.

 

[Takhisis]

Has anyone these past 100 years postulated that ancient litterature is something enjoyable to read as entertainment? As opposed to something to study, you know?

I don't really know, there might be something to the stories about over-ambitious men or something.

Ancient literature? Aristophanes, Eurypides, Xenophon… I'd say yes. It's no wonder, given that they are all Greek.

Depends on if you're using the same energy accounting that claims ethanol is energy negative as well.

Boo-urns! Boo-urns!

 

[Mouthwash]

2) Art is subjective dude.

Only to a certain degree. There's no such thing as a fundamentally subjective thing.

Just because I like something doesn't mean that you have to like it or else you're just an uncultured swine (which you are; how the [copulation] don't you like the Iliad?!?!).

I could never bring myself to that stupidity; I'm only concerned that I'm ignoring some deep, essential part of human experience. I can think of several things that I easily could have missed (which are unimaginable to me here and now).

I'm sure there are a hundred things I can think of that are deeply interesting to me that are disinteresting to the vast majority of people on these boards. For example, my favorite painter is Mark Rothko. Go ahead. Be irritated. I dare you.

But why? Why??? He paints rectangles in different shades of blue, and sells them for millions of dollars! I don't care how perfectly deliberate they are, they are every bit as arbitrary as a preschool painting. Try to explain it to me. Try! I could spend all day describing the joy of political theory; of how humans interact within their constraints.

3) I seem to recall you having a very similar opinion about Breaking Bad a few years back. Stick with it. You may be surprised.

I watched all of Breaking Bad and it is absolutely my favorite show. At the time I badly overestimated the typical quality of TV. I doubt very much that the Iliad will get better, though. Ancient poems go through a production process spanning generations.

4) I like the Iliad because I find mythology interesting.

I like Breaking Bad because I find crystalmethinteresting no I don't but even if I did I wouldn't like Breaking Bad for that sole reason.

5) If you want to give something similar-but-not-Eurocentric a try - check out Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It's like, one of my top-5 stories EVER. SO good.

The Iliad isn't Eurocentric; Eurocentrism wasn't a concept back then and I doubt it really shaped Western society in any way.

I think I'll stick with Game of Thrones.

 

[jackelgull]

You'd be surprised at how pervasive Greek and Roman mythology is in Western literature.

 

[sophie]

Only to a certain degree. There's no such thing as a fundamentally subjective thing.

Needless to say I disagree. In fact I'd go so far as to say most if not [/i]all[/i] things in this world are fundamentally subjective.

I could never bring myself to that stupidity; I'm only concerned that I'm ignoring some deep, essential part of human experience. I can think of several things that I easily could have missed (which are unimaginable to me here and now).

And forget what I said about pretentiousness.

Irony.

But why? Why??? He paints rectangles in different shades of blue, and sells them for millions of dollars! I don't care how perfectly deliberate they are, they are every bit as arbitrary as a preschool painting. Try to explain it to me. Try! I could spend all day describing the joy of political theory, of how humans interact within their constraints.

Are they just rectangles though? This is a guy who was educated at an art school. He is more than capable of painting a "classically beautiful" Annunciation or Ascension painting if he truly wanted to. Yet he doesn't. Why?

I doubt very much that the Iliad will get better, though. Ancient poems go through a production process spanning generations.

What? As I said, I find the story interesting because of all the little vignettes. They're interesting because they allow me to peer, however superficially, into the mind of someone who lived 2900 years ago. And that is exceedingly cool to me.

I like Breaking Bad because I find crystalmethinteresting no I don't but even if I did I wouldn't like Breaking Bad for that sole reason.

Really? Because I like Breaking Bad because of the cinematography and editing. I guess different people like the same thing for different reasons. Huh.

The Iliad isn't Eurocentric; Eurocentrism wasn't a concept back then and I doubt it really shaped Western society in any way.

I think I'll stick with Game of Thrones.

Eurocentric in the sense that it's valued as a quintessential piece of art/fundamental to ones cultural development because of Eurocentrism. It's particularly valuable because it's referenced in other things which we deem as significant because we come from a European cultural heritage. This is, ultimately, why it's taught in virtually every English class in this country. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is more or less the same for the Chinese cultural heritage, only eminently more readable.

Also I'm sure I like Game of Thrones for very specific reasons which you notably do not share.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What exactly is enjoyable about reading classical literature? I picked up a copy of the Iliad (translated by Rouse) and it thus far hasn't made me cry or inspired me to conquer the world.

I have a copy as well, and haven't gotten around to reading it. Or rather, I've started and put it down after half a page.

That doesn't mean it's a bad piece of literature. It just means it's something that some people have trouble getting into. In my case, it's not the subject matter, since I find mythology and ancient history fascinating. I've read lots of other stuff about the Trojan War.

I guess it's like Shakespeare. I enjoy it, but other people don't.

I have recently had myself some Poe. Some of his stories have a style which feels like it was inspired by court records.
That novel of Jules Vern about that submarine (something-thousand miles under the sea) was plainly a bad novel.

I feel your disappointment when it comes to classic literature. I think the simple truth is that "classics" are foremost and at times nothing but memes. Saying they are hold dear as a matter of custom, not necessarily due to any actual worth in the modern world of literature. And upon discovering this, one can feel betrayed, even infuriated for such misguidance and false pretense. However, classics still can be good, I am sure. I enjoyed a novel by Honoré de Balzac, for instance. And I vaguely recall furiously enjoying The Raven by Poe. But one should not trust the classic-label.

But all I just said is also in a way besides the point - because did you actually expect ancient Greeks to spot great story telling? In this case I think the label "classic" does not even imply such a thing. It just is an historic document.

One thing to remember was that Homer didn't sit down one day and say, "I am going to compose a classic poem that will still be known over 2500 years in the future and frustrate the hell out of high school and university students some day." To him it was contemporary literature, like anyone would write if they felt inspired to do so. Who knows what will eventually be considered a classic?

Another thing to remember is that Homer composed his poem to please his contemporary audiences. Most people couldn't read back then, and so if you wanted to get your story told, you got a much wider audience by composing it either as a song or poem that could be sung or recited.

 

[Mouthwash]

Needless to say I disagree. In fact I'd go so far as to say most if not [/i]all[/i] things in this world are fundamentally subjective.

Please explain this, then. And I will be disappointed if you are talking about qualia.

Irony.

Where's the irony? As Traitorfish pointed out, pretentiousness refers to things that are considered High Culture. Most of the things I'm talking about you've almost certainly never heard of, if I haven't openly fawned over them on this forum.

Are they just rectangles though? This is a guy who was educated at an art school. He is more than capable of painting a "classically beautiful" Annunciation or Ascension painting if he truly wanted to. Yet he doesn't. Why?

I already knew all of this. If I still don't see it, asking isn't going to make me do so.

If I were to consider only your question, and no other circumstances, I would say that his paintings were therapeutic to him in some fashion. But if you aren't already interested in such visual therapies? Certainly it does not explain why billionaires compete over them.

What? As I said, I find the story interesting because of all the little vignettes. They're interesting because they allow me to peer, however superficially, into the mind of someone who lived 2900 years ago. And that is exceedingly cool to me.

I supposed that is fascinating, but only in the proper context. Not the kind of thing to be simply read, or even valued on its own merits.

Really? Because I like Breaking Bad because of the cinematography and editing. I guess different people like the same thing for different reasons. Huh.

Not because of what happens in it? Not even a little?

Eurocentric in the sense that it's valued as a quintessential piece of art/fundamental to ones cultural development because of Eurocentrism. It's particularly valuable because it's referenced in other things which we deem as significant because we come from a European cultural heritage. This is, ultimately, why it's taught in virtually every English class in this country. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is more or less the same for the Chinese cultural heritage, only eminently more readable.

I'll give it a shot, then.

 

[W|M]

I already knew all of this. If I still don't see it, asking isn't going to make me do so.

If I were to consider only your question, and no other circumstances, I would say that his paintings were therapeutic to him in some fashion. But if you aren't already interested in such visual therapies? Certainly it does not explain why billionaires compete over them.

It's because they subvert the concept of art itself

 

[Borachio]

Does it take 50 years for a wind turbine to generate the same amount of energy that it takes to manufacture one?

It's that bunch of people again?

The average windfarm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy

Not that I suppose your friends read the Guardian, or would be likely to accept what it publishes.

 

[Mise]

I liked Breaking Bad because I found crystal meth interesting. I mean I liked a whole lot of things about Breaking Bad, but one of the main reasons -- especially at the start -- was the making and selling of crystal meth.

If I were to answer Owen's question, why Mark Rothko decided to draw a bunch of big rectangles instead of something more obviously beautiful, I'd say it was because the market for things that are obviously beautiful was already saturated, and he saw a niche that he could be dominant in. He probably thought that drawing rectangles like Mondrian was easier than drawing more complicated shapes like Picasso, so went the big rectangle route. He must have seen Mondrian's work and thought, "that's good, but it would be better if it was 10 ft tall." Not only would it then have the inherent benefit of being bigger than everyone else's drawings of rectangles, but people would have to come to my gallery to 'fully experience' it. And then they'd say to their friends, 'oh you can't understand this work from a picture of it - you just HAVE to go and see it in the gallery! It's only $15 admission, too!' Also, since it takes up so much space, I'd only have to paint one or two of them to fill my gallery.

I mean, the way my brain is set up, I just can't imagine any other way of thinking that allows me to end up painting a Mark Rothko painting. But this is why I'm a pricing analyst at a large mining company, and not one of the most celebrated painters of the modern era.

(P.S. It should be clear from this that I don't really know how galleries work.)