Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 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.

November 18

Bibliographic query

This one's been annoying me for a little while, and I've had no luck sorting out an answer.

At the bottom of The Secret Battle, I've a tidy bibliography of all the editions (at least, all the English-language ones) I know to exist. What I can't find - and it's been irritating me for a little while - is a publication date for the sixth Methuen edition. I know the fifth was 1930 and seventh 1936, from long dredging through library catalogues, but I haven't been able to nail down an edition explicitly catalogued as "5th edition" with a date, or one dated 1931-1935 which could be presumed to be the 5th.

If anyone with more bibliography-fu than me wants to give this a shot, I'd be curious to know what you get. Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Surely in your last sentence but one, you mean 6th rather than 5th? So far, I have not been able to hunt out a 6th, sorry. Bessel Dekker (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure there was a sixth edition? Sometimes publishers withdraw an edition, or they skip a publication number for various reasons.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure - mainly, the late twenties early thirties were a big boom period for this type of "realistic" war novel, and it doesn't seem likely that Methuen would have had it out of print that long. In theory I ought to be able to get it from the publication dates, which usually give earlier editions, on the back of the title page, but the only Methuen edition I have to hand is the third. Hmm. Wonder if a local library has a ninth, or something. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Library holds a number of copies of varying editions - [1] - you could always ask them for advice. Or better yet, contact the publishers - Methuen Publishing - directly. 84.65.107.232 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I've been through BL (and the other deposit library) holdings via COPAC - lots of editions, not that missing one. Digging through the local catalogues, there's an eighth up at Somerville, which probably has the details on the reverse; I don't have reader access there but I could probably drop them an email and ask if I could come by one afternoon to consult it. Shimgray | talk | 16:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Editions? or simply printings? A popular novel goes through many printings but it it goes through numerous editions, you might call it a classic novel. --Wetman (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done a detailed comparison of changes between editions, but if the publishers actually called it one, that's good enough for me :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Got it! Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Soldier returns from war and starts attacking people.

Once I stumbled upon an article about a soldier who returned from war (I can't remember which war) and he started attacking people because he thought they wanted to attack him. I can't find the article anymore, and I hope you can help me!

Sincerely

Esther

First Blood? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking either the movie or the novel: First Blood (novel). We don't have an article on the movie Ruckus with Dirk Benedict, but then again, no one died in that movie. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but it wasn't (based on) a movie though, it actually happened.

There were a number of cases of returning vets reacting with violence, probably related to PTSD, esp. from the Vietnam war (one psychologist suggests that this was particular acute in the case of Vietnam because 1. the time between being in the war zone and being back at home was reduced to mere hours by fast aircraft, in contrast to the slow boats that they used in WWII and Korea, 2. the improved Pavlovian methods of teaching how to kill created people who were doing more killing than they were psychologically prepared to do, 3. the lack of support at home for the veterans and the blaming of them for the war). I don't know the particular article you are referring to, but there have been a number of such cases. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Sepi perhaps?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Would it be true to say that the defeat of the Republic in the Spanish Civil War was caused by weakness in the organisation and command structure of their professional army?86.147.184.248 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your homework question was "To what extent was the defeat of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War caused by weakness in the organisation and command structure of their professional army?" --Wetman (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this a very interesting question for the simple reason that the focus on the army of the Republic is almost always on the International Brigades, a tiny part of the forces available. There was weakness at the outset in the Republican army for the simple reason that so many of the officer class had defected to the Nationalists, though a larger proportion adhered to the side of the government than was one time assumed. It's as well to remember that a significant number of officers were Freemasons, an organisation loathed by the Francoists and the rest of the Spanish right. By far the greatest weakness on the Republican side was that military command was always subject to political and ideological supervision, almost completely absent among the Nationalists. The whole officer class, including those newly created to deal with the emergency, were under scrutiny by political commissars, who operated at all levels of command. Staff work and tactical planning among the senior command, particularly that of General Vicente Rojo Lluch, was good, but operations on the ground often failed because of the inexperience of many of the junior officers. Perhaps the most decisive weakness of all was the way in which politics and ideology impacted on organisation. Conflicts between the Communist commitment to a traditionally disciplined force and the Anarchist ideal of a revolutionary army, ended with a combination of organisational rigidity, on the one hand, and poor discipline, on the other. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Punishment of War Criminals along History

Many people - and probably even war criminals themselves - believe that war criminals will never be put on trial. Although it might be realistic to expect no punishment, since they have all the power on their hands, things turned ugly for many of them. Along history several war criminals often have had problems with legal tribunals: Pinochet was about 500 days under house arrest, Milosevic died expecting trial, the fate of many nazis was not better, Pol Pot, Saddam, Savimbi,... just to cite some, somehow paid for their crimes.

Is it realistic to expect that presumed American war criminals like Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or George W. Bush will face a tribunal?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Bielle (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The questioner didn´t say all these people were indeed war criminals, but just that there is reason to suspect them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.159.194 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the article The Trial of Tony Blair about a BBC Channel Four satire on this topic from a UK perspective. The programme itself is funny and unmerciful, worth a look. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Trial of Tony Blair was a Channel Four programme. Channel Four has nothing to do with the BBC. Please do not assume that all British television programmes are made by the BBC. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just like a Yank. I saw it on BBC America, so I naturally assumed.... I especially liked the bit where she took the lightbulbs. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I doubt that you'll get Rumsfeld, Cheney or George W Bush on trial as war-criminals. Apart from some anti-war groups wishful thinking it is unlikely in the extreme that such individuals will come to be consider war-criminals by any meaningful international body. Whether one agrees with the war or not, there is little value in this long-continued fantasy of having them in court on question of war crime. What they have done was generally accepted by every major international group that could plausibly do anything about it. Add to this the inherent weakness of international law and you've got very little opportunity for such things to occur. ny156uk (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If nobody thought that they should put Curtis LeMay up for war criminal hearings, nobody's going to bother with any of those guys. Even LeMay knew he was a war criminal. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you check the article again, you will find that Curtis LeMay did not admit to being a war criminal. Instead he said that if the Japanese were to have won the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war criminal. To accept the likelihood of being tried is not the same thing as to admit to being guilty. Are there cases in history where the "winners" try their own, or even one of their own, as a "war criminal" after the cessation of formal hostilities? Bielle (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from both the article and other sources that he knew that his actions, if judged by anyone but the victors, would have been considered war crimes. He, of course, didn't care that such was the case. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps they cannot be processes for war crimes, but what about all those cases of torture? Could be any legal complication for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.159.194 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to expect that many administration figures will abstain from international travel (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. excepted) when the Bush administration comes to its conclusion, especially if the next president is a Democrat. If the next president were to be Denis Kucinich, I'd expect them to go into exile at a friendly mideastern emirate, but that's the only scenario where I could see them being voluntarily handed over for war crimes trials (or anything else related). Depending on what comes out after the Bush crew leaves, they may face domestic criminal penalties, but this seems unlikely and many may get Ford-style pardons during the last hours of the Bush presidency. Donald Hosek (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they stay away from any country with an extradition treaty with Belgium, which has war crimes prosecutions without regional or jurisdictional constraint, they'll be OK. Kissinger has to do it, and he gets about a bit. Relata refero (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre and post-war appartments

If an appartment was built between 1939 and 1945 is it pre- or post-war?

It's a wartime apartment. 209.202.28.97 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., anything before December 7, 1941 is pre-war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jorg Friedrich

How valid is Jorg Friedrich's critique of the Allied air offensive in WWII?

I don't know the specific critique, but our page on him says that he "describes the English bombing of civilian targets during World War II as systematic mass murder". Personally I would find it hard to consider it much else; the deliberate targeting of civilian targets, and the purposeful erasure of any distinction between civilian and solider, is systematic mass murder by any other name. It is a war crime at the very least; it is morally unjustifiable by any measure. I am not sure what sort of true defense one could do of it—the Nazis did of course also target civilians, but on a much smaller scale, and in any case, one should hardly be trying to justify one's actions based on those of the Nazis (two very bad wrongs to not make a right). On top of everything else, it is now known that such campaigns had almost no effect on the war effort—it was clear very early on that carpet bombing of civilians neither destroyed morale nor significantly halted the war industry. At the beginning of the war, the British were deploring the Germans for accidentally bombing a schoolhouse; by the end of the war, the British and the Americans were reducing entire cities to slurries of burning flesh and metal. A massacre is a massacre. As Vonnegut said, one should never be proud of atrocities, even against ones enemies. At best it becomes a game of either "we didn't know" or "they did it too," none of which are legitimate moral stances. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What can I say about The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945? Is it good narrative? Yes, it is. More to the point, is it good history? Hmm....let me say this much: it comes in the form of accusation, accusation without strategic or political context. Not just my view, I hasten to add, but that of Bruce Kent, pacifist and anti-nuclear campaigner. Besides, recent research has done much to counter the argument that the Allied bombing campaign did little to weaken the German capacity to wage war. For those who have read, or intend to read, Friedrich's book might also, as a corrective, care to dip into Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction: The making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (2006). Tooze concludes by saying "If the war was right-and surely it was-then the only criterion is whether bombing helped win it effectively. And in my view it did." There was horror, yes; but the real horror was the war itself. The responsibility for that lay not with Bomber Harris or any other British commander. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Tooze's work so I can't comment on the economic argument, though I can say that "the ends justify the means" is a specifically amoral argument. What makes a just war is not simply the initial stakes, but the terms on which it is fought; what makes one just is not simpy how unjust one's enemies are. Just because the Nazis were unquestionably unjust does not mean the Allies have carte blanche to act like monsters. The war did not compel the slaughter of innocents—that was a choice deliberately taken, a line deliberately crossed that they had the high mindedness to find repulsive at the beginning of the war, and indeed many thought it repulsive throughout and after the war. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Is war ever moral; has it ever been moral? War is, by its very nature, a nasty business, that has never, ever discriminated between the innocent and the guilty. The way it which it is fought, the methods used and the tone set, rather depends on the circumstances. There are some wars that can only be fought, if they are fought at all, with an absolute intention to win, regardless of the cost, regardless of the methods. There are wars, in other words, that do not permit the luxury of moral reflection. It might even be said that to stop and think is already to have lost. So, 24.147, you believe that the Allies were 'monsters' for the 'slaughter of innocents' by aerial bombardment? Fine, that is your prerogative, though I personally am not comfortable with the emotive use of language. Bombing is just a form of aerial artillery. More 'innocents' were killed in the ground bombardment and assault on places like Budapest, Breslau and Berlin than in the bombing campaign of the western Allies. Should the Russians, then, have stood back and considered the amorality of their actions; that they were crossing a line into the repulsive? Indeed, the war did not compel the slaughter of the innocents; but it was not the Poles, nor the British, nor the French, nor the Danes, nor the Dutch, nor the Russians, and so on and so on, who started that war. If the Nazis had finished it the innocent would all have been on one side and the 'guilty' all on the other, regardless of age or military status. Unlike you, I am not comfortable with value judgements, not comfortable with depicting men who risked their lives, men who died in unusually high numbers serving their country and doing their duty, as 'monsters'. In the main I prefer taking a strictly empirical approach in answering questions here, not revealing all that much about my personal feelings. On this question, though, I am prepared to make them plain: the Second World War was a just war and the bombing campaign played an essential part in securing victory. The campaign was absolutely justified and the men of Bomber Command deserve all honour for the part they played. There is no more for me to add here that would serve any constructive purpose. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider the "war is always nasty" to be the ultimate cop-out. There are better and worse ways to fight a war; the British could have fought their war without liquidating Dresden, the Americans could have fought theirs without liquidating most Japanese cities. There is a distinct difference between deliberating targeting a populace and collateral damage, in my view—it is both a difference in tactics and in intentions. I believe that the Allies could have won the war without sinking to the level of massacre, yes. I do not, however, blame the pilots or the bombers themselves—from 20,000 feet in the air it is hard to see what one is doing or to have the sense to protest. I do blame the tacticians, however—whether they put their lives on the line to commit massacres matters not, as the SS men put theirs on the line as well. When one takes the position that "ends justify the means" then one allows anything, any atrocity, any perversity; to allow such is to lose any ability to distinguish between moral and immoral actions, between good and bad policy. This is not only contrary to civilized values, it is bad policy as well: there is a reason that German soldiers would willingly surrender in droves to the US troops but not the Russians—if you have a reputation for brutality and for a lack of respect of any laws of war, you lose any secret admiration your enemies might have for you, you force them to see you as the monsters that you are, and we all know it is easier to kill monsters. In any case, it is not a purely post hoc determination—indeed there were many both in the British command and the British populace at the time who considered such strategies abhorrent and unnecessary; it was not the only option that could have been followed, it was not inevitable—it was a choice, an immoral one. I have no sentimentality about those who fight wars simply on the basis of their fighting (among which I count family members, like most Americans); I write them no blank checks to whatever they want, I excuse "only following orders" only so far. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course this mass bombings did also have military value to some degree. But considering the fact that german military production reached its record high in the last years, i kind of doubt it. Reasoning was to weaken german fighting will. which it didnt, just as it didnt work for the Germans when they tried the same with the Brits. The erasing of complete civilian neighbourhoods are in my opinion a waste of military ressource that could´ve put to a better use in other branches of the allied military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresckow (talk • contribs) 12:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tresckow. Please read Tooze's book. The impact of the bombing campaign on German industrial production was far greater than was at one time assumed. It is not quite true, moreover, that the offensive had no impact on morale. You might care to look in a little more detail at the attack on Hamburg in July, 1943, though I admit this was of an exceptional nature. On your wider point, concerning the best use of military resources, I would say that it is important to look at the whole bomber offensive in a far, far wider strategic context. By 1942 intensive RAF operations had forced the high command of the Luftwaffe to give up all hope of rebuilding their own bomber fleet and relaunching the blitz on the United Kingdom. More than this, the priority given to the defence of the Reich meant that much of the available air power had to be concentrated in central Europe, away from other battle fields, allowing the Allies to achieve operational air superiority at some decisive points. Without this the campaigns in Africa and Italy could not have succeeded and the D-Day landings would have been all but impossible. In the Eastern Front the German Army was steadily deprived of adequate air support, as squadrons were diverted to home defence. So the resources devoted to the air offensive were well used, a vital part in ensuring victory. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an addition: in case anyone thinks that the Allied bombing campaign was considered the only option at the time, I recommend reading C.P. Snow's New Men in which he clearly lays out the fact that many within the government thought at the time that it was immoral and useless; of course, as he is labouring under a narrative compulsion in the book the objections to the (British) night bombing are only foreshadowing, in a larger sense, of the objections to the (American) nuclear bombs.

As to the question whether, if the war was right, should anything that would win it sooner be used, I think that most people, then and now, felt that it was important that certain differences be preserved between the sides, and both forms of bombing tended to dilute them.

Note also that the evidence is sharply divided; and also that it was believed at the time that the economic benefits to bombing the Reich at night would not be particularly great. Patrick Blackett focused on the lack of benefits rather than the moral considerations, and was overruled, as the expected effect on morale would make it worth it.

Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Second coming

Will the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and coming of the Jewish Messiah be the same event or are they to be separate events at different times and with different people and different missions?

They've come and gone. What? Did you miss them? --Wetman (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the world's number one Dickhead, so I may be wrong on the details, but didn't PKD ponder the idea that the Second Coming happened around the year fifty or thereabouts in "If you think this world is bad..."? And now here we all are stuck in the Black Iron Prison. Now whether PKD's essays should be taken seriously is something else again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer this question seriously: Christians believe the "Jewish Messiah" has already come the first time. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah; there cannot be a "Second Coming" because the first hasn't happened yet. So by definition, the two things you mention can't be the same. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ignoring those unhelpful responses: Some say Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah but the Jews failed to recognise him. Nobody else has yet turned up who fitted the bill, and afaik they're still waiting for a Messiah. Who knows what's going to happen if the Second Coming ever occurs, but I speculate the Jews would still say a returned Jesus isn't the Messiah. However, if they do acknowledge him this time, they'd have to also acknowledge he already came over 2000 years ago, in which case the coming of the Messiah and the Second Coming were events separated by 2000 years, and thus different events. Maybe a theologian can provide a more authoritative answer. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No messiah has ever been sent from God, nor will one be since God does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erica Perks (talk • contribs)

Thank you, God! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

God exists certainly by definition, although it may take (like the atom) special equipment for God to be seen. 71.100.160.132 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Call me cynical but I do think its rather convenient for theists that these events have already occurred. Why didn't G-d wait a while before sending his son back to the earth, perhaps then somebody could videotape it and prove the existence of Jesus indefinately. If G-d is real, he should have nothing to worry about in doing this. After all that would be the sensible solution. It also seems rather convenient to me that G-d spoke to people after the creation of the world, but now he's gone all quiet, seems rather strange. Proof enough for me that he doesn't exist, or that he's given up on humanity --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Theists would reply that one of the things that distinguishes God from other entities is that he has no need to merely prove he exists. They would also say the evidence for his existence is nevertheless abundant and compelling, and certainly does not rely on videotape. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Questions concerning God and creationism have been asked many times on the reference desk, and so far this one seems to be heading in a political direction. Notably, the OP failed to sign, and we've had a bunch of political comments from various anonymous (IP address) users. For all those that wish to respond, please do not start a troll war, and stick to the topic. I believe this question has only been mildly answered and could still use the knowledge of someone versed in theology. Thanks :) Rfwoolf (talk)

Afrikaner nationalism

In what ways did defeat in the Second Boer War stimulate new forms of Afrikaner nationalism? Did Afrikaners consider themselves victims and does this explain the later politics of the Republic of South Africa? Cetawayo (talk)

That sounds alot like a homwork question. Id aswer but im afraid id give u a HW answer and plus i dont no the awnser. Esskater11 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly does sound like HW. Try reading the specific part of the relevent article: Second Boer War: The End of the Boer War.--Chrisfow (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First, it left the Afrikaner community with a painful sense of victimhood, as you have suggested, Cetawayo, hardly surprising when one considers that some 28,000 of them died of disease and neglect in the concentration camps established by the British during the war. For a long time afterwards it was believed that this was part of a deliberate act of genocide. Second, the struggle itself, the heroism and sacrifice involved, took its place alongside the Great Trek and the Battle of Blood River as central myths in the Boer national epic. Having lost their political identity, the Boers placed ever greater emphasis on their culture, particularly on Afrikaans as a language distinct from Dutch, which finally achieved official recognition in 1925. It was in this, the language of the people, that Boer nationalism took its definitive shape, with more and more publications appearing on the subject of the war, particularly in the work of Gustav Preller. By the 1930s it is possible to detect the emergence of a distinct, one might say tribal, identity amongst the Afrikaans-speaking peoples, transcending the divisions of class and status, comparable, perhaps, in a British context to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. To an extent this mood was kept under a degree of control by respected leaders like Jan Smuts, who identified with the wider Imperial project, but it came to the fore with the victory of the National Party in the election of 1948, the beginning of the long rule of the white tribe of Africa. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Help identify this short story

I think it's by a relatively well-known author. It's probably from sometime between the 17th and 19th century. The story is about three caretakers who tell lies to a sick mother that her daughter isn't dying. The caretakers were described in the beginning as strict moralists who shun any kind of lying. But they did start to lie to make the mother feel better, but the little lies turned into big lies as the daughter worsened in health and died. 128.163.224.198 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

departing from convention

what do people think are some examples of writing that depart from or challenge typical writing conventions? 130.49.58.198 (talk)

The work of E.E. Cummings springs immediately to mind. He often ignored the conventional rules of capitalization and punctuation. GreatManTheory (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to offer up leet speak and, god forbid, AOLspeak. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks, those are cool ideas, but I was thinking more about an existing prose work instead of poetry or a language/dialect. 130.49.58.198 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How about anything by James Joyce, or is he now his own convention? Bielle (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC) If you want a specific title, then Ulysses would offer the most challenges, I would think. Bielle (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Bielle. That would have to be Finnegans Wake, a real adventure in language and syntax! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course, Clio. I only ever got to about page 75 in FW which is my excuse for having overlooked it here. That's my story, and I am sticking to it! Bielle (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Years ago I tried to read Finnegans Wake, but it was all too much. I prefer the jam of my weirdnesses spread a little thinner, with large smearings of the butter of convention. Then Bloomsday 2004 came around and I thought, this is the perfect day to sally forth into Ulysses. I sat down, determined to read it from cover to cover. I got to about page 15 and gave up. I'm not claiming he's not a great writer, because I've hardly read anything of his, but for me, unfortunately, he's virtually unreadable. Chacun à son goût. I know exactly what John Le Carré was talking about when he wrote in the introduction to The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes (2004): As a reader, I insist on being beguiled early or not at all, which is why many of the books on my shelves remain mysteriously unread after page 20. But once I submit to the author's thrall, he can do me no wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, Jack; for I love Joyce; I love his playfulness, his feeling for language, his encycolpedic understanding of the psychology, history, poetry, traditions and consciousness of his nation. As far as I am concerned Ulysses is one of the greatest books ever written. It is best not tackled, though, in a 'cover to cover' fashion. I read slowly, and digested even more slowly, punctuated by diversions into more conventional routes. You tried and you gave up, that's fine; so have a great many other people. I would not be so arrogant to persuade you back over old roads. But you might care, out of simple curiosity, to dip into the section headed Oxen of the Sun, my favourite part of the whole book. In this Joyce moves through the minds of various authors, using their forms of language, their modes of expression, their peculiarities, their literary idiosyncrasies, all with astonishing, almost intuitive insight. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Clio. I will keep it in mind, but I think I disposed of my copy of Ulysses in the belief that I'd never read it so why keep it. As for reading slowly, that's not my way. I prefer to read a book in as few sittings as I can manage, otherwise I tend to become distracted and never get back to it. But I will take your advice about Oxen of the Sun and see if it leads me to reading the whole book. A friend of mine once called me a "bad-ass word guy", an appellation I have since worn as a badge of honour. It has often struck me as strange that the little I read of Finnegans Wake, renowned as the ultimate book for lovers of word-play like me, left me so unimpressed. Maybe I'll give it another go now that I'm older and allegedly wiser. Cheers -- JackofOz (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions qualifies. In it Vonnegut suffers recurring, relapsing breakdowns in auctorial distance in defiance of standard operating procedure for novelists. It's been a long, long time since I read it, so don't ask for particulars. I only clearly remember his description of the junkyard dog. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I just remembered. In His Own Write by John Lennon. Excerpt here. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• In its day i think that Pride and Prejudice strayed away from typical literary conventions because of its use of satire, and because of how it very subtly mocked the upper class, for example its opening words; "It is a truth universally acknowledged that any man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a good wife". The novel very carefully played on the idiotic viewpoints of the British aristocracy. A really entertaining read, Mrs. Bennet is often the most satirized character as she is relentlessly trying to marry her daughters off to wealthy men with no regard for their happiness --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hunter S. Thompson was a pioneer of gonzo journalism. He's probably best known for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but, for purposes of your question (or, I'm guessing, your professor's question), a better example would be Fear and Loathing:On the Campaign Trail '72. In 1972, Thompson covered a U.S. presidential campaign for Rolling Stone. He rode the campaign buses with the reporters for the mainstream daily newspapers, but his pieces were so different from the conventions of political journalism that I was tempted to put "covered" in quotation marks. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned Tristram Shandy. This was without a doubt the first experimental novel in English, with all kinds of formal trickery going on. It's a great book, too. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommend two of Brian O'Nolan's novels written under the pen-name of Flann O'Brien - At Swim-Two-Birds and The Third Policeman. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any lipogrammatic work or other constrained writing should qualify. --Sean 14:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of Feersum Endjinn by Iain M Banks is written in an idiosyncratic phonetic style, and many of his books as Iain Banks are innovative to a greater or lesser extent. You might also consider graphic novels as challenging accepted literary standards. SaundersW (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Though not that novel an idea, epistolary novels can give you a formal break from convention. Amos Oz's Black Box for a more recent example I liked a lot, or David Mamet's Wilson: a Consideration of the Sources for a very cryptic one I did not enjoy as much. Other interesting forms of narratological departure include the unreliable narrator, metafiction, or reviews on unwritten books, such as Stanisław Lem's A Perfect Vacuum, or Borges's An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dracula is also an epistolary novel. All of the chapters are letters, journal entries, and, novel for the time, transcriptions of phonograph recordings. Corvus cornix (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept film? The film Memento centers on a man who loses all of his memories when he falls asleep, and has to keep writing in a journal to help himself to know what has been happening to him. And the story is told backwards, so the first scene in the movie is the last scene, chronologically. Corvus cornix (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are including film, then we must mention Peter Greenaway, especially Drowning by Numbers. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, High Noon. Not a strongly unconventional film (by today's standards), but it very strongly challenged the conventions of the western genre. I also want to point out that that isn't the most accurate summary of Memento I've ever read. risk (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think anything by William Burroughs or Thomas Pynchon would qualify. Why, oh why does the name of that american author who travelled England in a campervan with his family and fell in extasy before a religious work of art in a church inspiring him an amazing after-the-bomb novel in new-Eglish escapes me? Ah it's too far stored away in boxes.

You could also try a google search for experimental books or our very own experimental literature article. Keria (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Riddley Walker by Russell Hoban? I was going to mention it myself, with the mention below of books in invented dialect. Skittle (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Skittle that's the one. I found Will Self's Book of Dave very similar in atmosphere, then he prefaced an edition of Riddley Walker I think. Insipiration, inspiration! Keria (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article of which makes me discover Ergodic literature which might help answer the questioner's query, which brings back the title of a recent book: House of Leaves that I was earlier mistakingly looking for under the title of Dead Leaves , which is a non-conventional japanese animation, which makes me think of yet another one called Mind Game. Where will this end? Keria (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• A Clockwork Orange makes good use of an invented argot, and Nabokov's Pale Fire is perhaps the only annotated-poem-as-novel. --Sean 20:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If on a Winter's Night a Traveller by Italo Calvino. I'm afraid I got annoyed with it after not many pages, but it certainly plays with the medium. Rather more enjoyable, in my opinion, are the works of Jasper Fforde :) Skittle (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking music, avant-garde composers such as John Cage and George Crumb immediately spring to mind. bibliomaniac15 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget about The Catcher in the Rye.risk (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest B. S. Johnson for breaking with the convention that the author decides which order the chapters are read, and House of Leaves for challenging the very look of a book in the best way I have ever found. Theediscerning (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Comrade"

Do people in the former Soviet Union and other former Communist countries still refer to each other as "Comrade"? Or is some other term used these days? Do members of the British Labour Party regularly refer to each other as "Comrade"? Corvus cornix (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My Russian teachers all said that Comrade/Tovarishch was all pretty much un-cool in modern day Russia, that it invoked a pseudo-politically-correct desire to strip people of genders and titles and everything. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that any Labour Party member saying "comrade" is either a hardline devotee who was annoyingly ideological even in 1981, or doing it as a joke. Shimgray | talk | 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO "brother" was more usual in the Labour Party, however as it appears to have abandoned any attachment to ideals of fraternity, it also appears to have abandoned the epithet "brother". DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Australian former PM Gough Whitlam is well known here for calling his Labor colleagues "comrade". It's a joke in his case, stemming from his propensity to adopt pseudo-patrician forms of address and interpolate classical allusions wherever he can; he was never even remotely a Communist. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the British Labour Party freely used the C word, at party conferences at least, at one point in its history. It was probably in the good old, bad old pre-Blair years. I think I shall soon start using the BB-Before Blair-and AB-in the year of our Blair-designations! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I managed to miss the phrase "still saying", there. Certainly in the past, but now? I'd be waiting for them to grin. Shimgray | talk | 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The german SPD still uses it on party conferences and formal adresses within the party. However in the milder german Vwesion of Genosse as Kamerad is reserved for miltary and school.--Tresckow (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The old Serbo-Croatian language book I had gave the word "Drug" for "Comrade". I asked a Croatian friend about it, and he said that it was used for teachers, and for other state employees such as bus conductors. Nowadays it isn't used at all. SaundersW (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Drug" (rhymes with "book") is Russian for friend, and it pops up in other Slavic languages. It was the inspiration for the Droogs in "A Clockwork Orange". -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it rhymes better with "nuke," "mook," "juke," "souk," or "kook." Wareh (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like "druke" ? I'd have to disagree. There is no "oo" sound like that in any Russian I've ever heard. It's an elongated short "oo" sound, like in a slightly lengthened version of "book", "cook", "look", "nook", etc, but that lengthening doesn't change it to the flatter sound found in "juke". -- JackofOz (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, probably an issue of the difference between our English dialects, & the absence in either of the exact sound. Admittedly, my own rhyme words would sound heavily Russian-accented if pronounced with the vowel I'd use in Russian, but on the other hand the vowel in my American English "book" would leave me far more liable to being misunderstood if I were to use it in Russian. (As far as I can tell, our article seems to agree that the phoneme is closer to /u/ than to /ʊ/.) Wareh (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll still hear Tovarish used fairly regularly in Russia, but it's meant ironically or sarcastically. Koolbreez (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen in recent film clips, in the Russian military they still address each other as tovarich, as in "Yes, comrade colonel". The glory of the Red Army is a big deal for them.--Rallette (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the only place where it is still used unselfconsciously is in the appropriate political sections of English-speaking India. Relata refero (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to discover which was the last Labour leader to be regularly referred to as Comrade X. I suspect it was Michael Foot, but of course a search for "Comrade Foot" will throw up too many references to his nephew Paul Foot of the Socialist Workers Party. The only member of Labour who will today happily use the terms is, of course Anthony Wedgwood Benn, paradoxically the least proletarian of them all in origin. Relata refero (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)