site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   3376 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 16, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I recently asked ChatGPT what the most recent global children's literature phenomenon before Harry Potter was. Surely someone must've written something since the Narnia books. It confidently said Matilda and refused to budge even when I told him I had no fucking clue who Matilda was.

Anyway, this Friday I found myself on a long bus trip with only a phone to keep me company and I decided to see what it was all about. And, oh boy, was I not impressed. Is everything by Roald Dahl as bad as Matilda? I wouldn't read this trash to my child if you paid me. The last book I inadvertently read that was equally terrible was The Girl that Played with Fire by Stieg Larsson.

Don't know about global penetration, but John Marsden's Tomorrow Series was pretty big in Australian schools. There was enough of a gap between installments that people got hyped for the new ones but I doubt it was anywhere near as big as Harry Potter. Also AFAICT it didn't really make much of a dent outside Australia and maybe New Zealand.

I randomly stumbled across that series at the library as a kid and read at least the first couple books. It definitely would not get published today, just due to the premise being anathema to mainstream publishing houses. For context, the series is about a group of young Australians essentially engaging in guerilla warfare and sabotage against foreign invaders (from unspecified countries in Southeast Asia). Looking at the critical acclaim at the time is a fascinating window into the discourse in the '90s and early 2000s.

Edit: Just to be clear my recollection is that the author really tried to avoid racial and geopolitical issues to the point where I found it somewhat confusing and unrealistic. He mostly focused on the characters and their struggle to survive under occupation. The premise is what would make it unpublishable, not his execution of it.

Kind of like a Strayan Red Dawn?

The link in my post seems to agree:

While some comparisons with Red Dawn can be made, there are some significant differences to the story, such as its focus on Australia, character development and the more realistic story of young people surviving in a war zone. I always felt that the idea that Australia, with its relatively small population and relative isolation from Europe and America, could be invaded and completely conquered in such a short period is a lot more realistic than similar events occurring in America.

I always felt that the idea that Australia, with its relatively small population and relative isolation from Europe and America, could be invaded and completely conquered in such a short period

If innumerable games of Risk have taught me anything, it's this.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats