site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   1894 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 15, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Literally, it’s not that different.

Oh, really?

Do you often use words like "bride-people" or "valetudinarian", describe someone as of "easy fortune" or say "consequence" when you mean "social position"? Those are examples from just the first few pages of the book.

I mean the latter two, yes. Bride people seems easy enough to parse, especially with context. I will admit to probably needing to look up valetudinarian, but we have dictionaries in our pockets.

No, but reading books like Emma is precisely the way one becomes familiar with these sorts of archaisms. It'll never get easier if you don't force your way through it. But once you've got a couple 19th century doorstops under your belt, the prose becomes a lot easier to digest.

Also, the different language is half the fun! There's nothing wrong with having to look something up every other page. Consider it an opportunity to learn something new.

Looking up every second word is how I learned foreign languages to begin with. If it weren't for brute-forcing my way through foreign literature via dictionary, I wouldn't be writing to you right now.

I think there is value to knowing the words the author selected. Consequence is a word that shows it's not just "class" and that class is more than just how comfortable your life is. Consequence means that these character's lives are considered more significant through the means they get their bread. The word choice is an introduction and an education into a mindset that is unlike ours.

With about 40-80 hours of practice, you can accustom yourself to the vocabulary and grammar differences. The number of words you will need to look up will go down to maybe a dozen a book. This is very different from requiring everyone read all novels in their original language, because learning a whole language takes 1000s of hours.

Also modern people write like that sometimes. Pick up This is Happiness by Niall Williams for example.

You are a Finn right? It's worth noting that the a core part of "English" education in America has been reading the classics, so we do get more practice with the more archaic style. This serves to expand vocabularies, recognize more styles of English communication, and to understand where some words and cultural references come from (I'm looking at you Billy S).

If your primary experience with English is dryer teaching English or technical writing some literature will absolutely be a bit challenging to read, but much of it was more or less lowbrow at the time and it is expected that an "educated" person in the U.S. be able to read these with an excess of assistance.

Separately, many English speaking people will have a fluency with Victorian social norms that will puzzling to people from outside milieus.

Probably your struggle is as much vocabulary as it is missing cultural context.

EDIT: An earlier version of this comment had misremembered OP's country of origin. Apologies for all involved and for my dead dignity.

Jane Austen was not a victorian writer, and he's Finnish anyways.

I don't know that she's a popular part of the American curriculum, either- Shakespeare makes a strong showing in the better programs, and everyone reads Huck Finn(The American novel). The shorter works(Where the Red Fern Grows, The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird...) are pretty common. Younger grades have modern literature written almost specifically to be read in English class. In high school, I remember a bit of Steinbeck, more Dickens than I would have preferred, but perhaps a quarter of the curriculum being Shakespeare.

Context

Yeah def mixed him up with someone else.

Doesn't need to be literally Victorian or Regency for random English bullshit and Amero-English bullshit to be an appropriate description of context that is skipped off of.

And agree with the characterization of Austen being less popular than Shakespeare etc, but it remains pretty popular with women and girls who read which means the influence is there.

And the point remains: it's not pure highfalutin, and educated people will communicate in that way at times and American students are supposed to be presented the opportunity to develop understanding of those references. It's much harder for non-English speakers to get the exposure (especially in the formative years) to make this stuff easily understandable.

You are Indian right?

Accusing a Finn of being Indian...

Dang must have had 'em mixed up with someone else - point remains about it being a first language vs. not a first language expectations thing.

Always going to be harder coming in.

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