site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   1519 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 5, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I'm retrying Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, among other things.

Ivanhoe

I have a weird habit of talking like the author of whatever I'm reading at the moment and while my wife quite enjoyed the week I was reading Jane Austen she's annoyed now that I speak like its 1194

Almost done with my current book. Next one I have close to me is Night of Power. I abhor Fisk’s writing style and it’s extremely difficult for me to read narrative history; I’ve always found it incredibly boring. It was recommended to me by a friend after I recommended to him The Fall of Israel.

Still on A Canticle for Leibowitz.

That book spurred me on to start writing fiction again. I hate what I write but it at least made me want to do it. 10/10 would read again

Excalibur, the third and final book of the Warlord Chronicles. Enemy of God was even better than the first book. The author has already covered all the scraps of Arthuriana I'm familiar with, so I have no idea where the story will go next. 10/10 would recommend.

I thoroughly enjoyed Robert Harris’s Cicero trilogy (Imperium, Lustrum, and Dictator), the great orator’s professional life and the waning of the Republic seen through the eyes of Cicero’s scribal slave.

Your recommendation for post-Roman Britain is now on hold in my library audiobook app.

That sounds really interesting as well. I'm halfway through the last book, so I'll check it out next.

I'm a big fan of Arthuriana and may check this out. However, a quick glance at the wiki page suggests that it subverts a lot of things I'd rather not see subverted. While the stance on Christianity isn't clear, I've run into... too many examples to enumerate of ~Arthurian fiction from that era which indulge heavily in eye-rolling disparagement. At least this one doesn't sound obnoxiously feminist?

Curious as to your take.

Personally I adore Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle, especially the first two books, which do something really cool by weaving in the Atlantis myth. Also, I think because of Lawhead's progressive brain tumor, his writing seems to have gotten steadily worse over his career after those books, but last I checked (a while ago admittedly) they still stand up well.

Cornwell is compelled to shit on Christianity (at least in the Arthurian trilogy, Warlord Chronicles, the archer books, and at least one of the Sharpe books), with a consistency that bothers me. It’s his single biggest deficiency. I can’t think of anyone else who writes battles so well.

I have the same aesthetic aversions that you do, I think. There is no girlbossing, women are portrayed as either passive victims, clever manipulators of the egos of men, or wild eyed semi-feral holy women, all of which are (to me) very plausible and period accurate.

The author justifies his revisions by putting the story in the mouth of a narrator with a very specific POV. The narrator is a pagan, a warrior, and a commoner who by chance learns how to read a bit when young and who is at the right place at the right time to witness or participate in many of the greatest eventa of Arthurian legend. One of his best friends, a noble born Christian cavalryman ("knight") would have told the same story but with different emphases and interpretations, and it would sound much more familiar to fans of "Le Mort D'Arthur."

I get the sense that the author is both a fan of Arthurian legend and of 5th century British history and has done his best to reconcile the two without doing a disservice to either. It's gritty and real, but it's not "grimdark." And there is no projection of 20th century morality back in time.

I'm not a huge Arthuriana buff. He does change some characters I think, but in a way that leaves the door open for the later "canonical" interpretations of them to still make sense. Arthur, for example, has the air of confidence, nobility, and invincibility you've come to expect when leading men or speaking publicly. But in private, when confiding to the main character, he reveals that he is sometimes wracked with doubt or grief or barely-controlled anger. I think it's pretty clever. Instead of tearing down or subverting the Arthur you expect, or making him into the bad guy, the author shows the psychological toll that singlehandedly bearing the destiny of Britain on his shoulders takes on him.

I've been listening to To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. It reminds me of my experience trying to read James Joyce: mostly confusion. But since it's an audiobook, at least I can accomplish tasks while I listen.

Catching the Big Fish: Meditation, Consciousness, and Creativity by David Lynch.

My youngest brother is working through a Latin class, so I'm working through the Aeneid in the original Latin to help him out before his exams.

Hollywood's Hellfire Club: The Misadventures of John Barrymore, W.C. Fields, Errol Flynn and the Bundy Drive Boys

The same friend who lent me the biography of Errol Flynn lent me this one. Along the same tack, though not quite as wild a ride. Those were definitely different days.

Once you finish Bloom you can read The Coddling of the American Mind, if you haven't already.

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