site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   2437 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 21, 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.

So, what are you reading?

I've finished Churchill's Savrola. The latter half is a long revolution, with a focus on the fighting. Now that it's over, I can't say that it has been particularly memorable, but maybe I'll come back to it in the future. I found its specific interests of personality and capability, and its realistic, detailed style to be interesting. Not a bad read. I'll definitely be reading other writings of Churchill, though it seems like this was his only novel.

When all deductions had been made on the scores of ambition, duty, excitement, or fame, there remained an unabsorbed residuum of pure emptiness. What was the good of it all? He thought of the silent silent streets; in a few hours they would echo with the crackle of musketry. Poor broken creatures would be carried bleeding to the houses, whose doors terrified women would close in the uncharitable haste of fear. Others, flicked out of human ken from solid concrete earth to unknown, unformulated abstractions, would lie limp and reproachful on the paving-stones. And for what? He could not find an answer to the question. The apology for his own actions was merged in the much greater apology nature would have to make for the existence of the human species. Well, he might be killed himself; and as the thought occurred to him he looked forward with a strange curiosity to that sudden change, with perhaps its great revelation. The reflection made him less dissatisfied with the shallow ends of human ambition. When the notes of life ring false, men should correct them by referring to the tuning-fork of death. It is when that clear menacing tone is heard that the love of life grows keenest in the human heart.

Finished The End of Eternity. Strong ending, I think, though I would have preferred it if Eternity turned out to be holding humanity back not because actually we need WWII to reach the stars but because Eternity is stuck in a local maximum and would never do what it takes to break out of it.

Now on The Worm Ouroboros, by the man who called Tolkien a soy. I'm bewildered by the swiftly abandoned framing device, the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy? it's holding my attention despite that, and the 17th century prose is very convincing.

But the King would not hear him, but said, “Methinks it is for loyal subjects to seek greatness in the greatness of their King, nor desire to shine of their own brightness. As for this Demon, when thou sayest that I have overcome him thou speakest a gross and impudent lie. In this bout I did but measure myself with him. But thereby know I of a surety that when I put forth my might he will not be able to withstand me; and all ye shall shortly behold how, as one shattereth a stalk of angelica, I will break and shatter the limbs of this Goldry Bluszco. As for thee, false friend, subtle fox, unfaithful servant, this long time am I grown weary of thee slinking up and down my palace devising darkly things I know not: thou, that art nought akin to Witchland, but an outlander, a Goblin exile, a serpent warmed in my bosom to my hurt. But these things shall have an end. When I have put down this Goldry Bluszco, then shall I have leisure to put down thee also.” And Gro bowed in sorrow of heart before the anger of the King, and held his peace.

swiftly abandoned framing device,

It'll come up again later, briefly. Eddison did not forget about it. I suspect the whole thing was just his way of telling readers who were not yet used to the conventions of fantasy and world-building to prepare themselves to enter a completely different world from their own, and a request to observe it without rendering judgement.

the variety of kingdoms named Impland, Demonland, Goblinland, etc all peopled by ordinary men, and the general lack of cohesion in naming conventions among things that should have some common origin. Maybe Tolkien made good naming table stakes for fantasy?

Supposedly he invented them as a teenager and couldn't bring himself to change the names later. Unknown if true. I love the book and have come to acccept the names and the lightweight worldbuilding; it just doesn't do to approach it with 21thst century fantasy literature expectations.

it just doesn't do to approach it with 21th century fantasy literature expectations.

Ah, but Tolkien is firmly 20th century fantasy literature. I think even Conan the Barbarian does better with naming conventions, though perhaps largely thanks to cribbing from actual cultures.

Nevertheless I will persist.

You're quite right, but keep in mind that The Worm Ourobouros predates The Hobbit and Conan both, by over a decade. And I really meant 21st century expectations - I don't think 1930s or 1940s readers would already have consumed a large number of works in a well-established genre of world-building fantasy that shaped their expectations like those of modern readers have been shaped. But I may be wrong.

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