site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1696 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 20, 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 finished Nasr Abu Zayd's Rethinking the Qur'an: Towards a Humanistic Hermeneutics. It's a short essay, but very valuable.

It is not only a question of contextualization, which is pivotal in discourse analysis, but more than that it is what the discourse tells about the context and how. Now, the question is which is historical and which is universal, a question that keeps all the modern liberal Muslim scholars of the Qur'an busy. Being confined to the Qur'an as 'text' alone, the conservatives win at the end of the day. When the liberals, for example, emphasize 'togetherness' as the universal eliminating the 'hostility' limiting its meaning to the negative past the conservatives will apply the principle of 'abrogation' to historicize 'togetherness' as abrogated and will universalize 'hostility', as the abrogat [sic]. In the present context of unsolved Palestinian-Israeli trauma, whose hermeneutics or meaning is valid? The winner is sure to be the meaning of ghetto, separation and isolation, the meaning of Mr. Sharon's wall.

Zayd's hope is to fight against that outcome in Middle East/Western relations, which 'hostility' he sees as being supported by the adapting of Islam to resistance.

I'm finally done with Mother of Learning. I guess there's something inherently alluring in progression fantasy, because I shouldn't have spent so much time on a single book.

I liked the story taking a few rapid twists and turns during and after the escape from the time loop. Some of the setups and payoffs in the final act were good, but some were asspulls. Zach didn't get an end to his character arc at all.

I'll give it a zero on my usual scale.

I just finished the Silmarillion. I've had the book for decades, and had read most of the stories out-of-order at one point or another (with the rest being filled in by wikipedia dives and the occasional lore video on youtube), but this was the first time I actually committed to reading the whole thing front to back. This is also the first time I've read any of it since reading George RR Martin's Fire and Blood, the only other book I'm aware of in this particular genre of "not quite a fantasy novel, not quite a history book." It's a fascinating contrast, and a handy reminder that Tolkein is still the undisputed king.

The central conceipt of Fire and Blood is that it's an in-universe history book drawing from multiple unreliable sources, with the fun coming from noticing the various biases and trying to piece together "what really happened." Something I didn't realize until now, however, is that the Silmarillion is doing basically the same thing, but never tells you. You may notice as you read that some stories are told as detailed accounts inlcuding dialogue and a more-or-less full recounting of events, while other important events and even entire centuries get glossed over in a single paragraph. If you read particularly closely, you'll notice a pattern where the stories involving Gondolin and Doriath are told in longform with lots of details, and the more removed from these kingdoms you get, the more sparse the prose becomes. The sons of Fëanor and their realms, for example, recieve almost zero attention in the text. This is because the "author/editor" of the Silmarillion was clearly a refugee from Gondolin who moved to the mouths of Sirion where their people mingled with refugees from Doriath (this is confirmed by Tolkein in the Unfinished Tales, yough nowhere made explicit in the Silmarillion itself). We have no stories from Himring or Thargelion or Ossiriand because those people never had the opportunity to share them with Tolkien's source.

Now, we know that the real reason for this is that the Fall of Gondolin, the Children of Hurin, and the tale of Beren and Luthien are the three main First Age stories Tolkein wanted to tell (and the only ones he'd get even somewhat close to completing), and his son had to cobble together the Silmarillion from a bunch of unorganized and contradictory notes after Tolkein died. But this almost makes it better? Unlike Fire and Blood, with its manufactured inconsistencies and clear authorial intent, the Silmarillion really is a lost book of fragmented histories requiring careful historigraphical analysis to fully understand. Just like with his languages and other aspects of worldbuilding, Tolkein presents the real thing where other fantasy authors only present a facsimile. I get the same joy of discovery reading the Silmarillion as I get reading Le Morte d'Arthur.

The Silmarillion is my favorite book, bar none. I think there are a couple of reasons why. One is that when I was a teenager reading LOTR, I picked up on all the references Tolkien made to the wider history of the world (as he intended, of course). I was super curious to learn more about who Fëanor was, who was Elbereth, what was "the West that is forgotten", and so on. So when I finally did read the Silmarillion, it scratched an itch that I had for quite a while and was very satisfying.

The second reason I like it so much is because of the way it's written. Honestly, that's surprising to me, because normally I care nothing for prose and view the words as simply a vehicle to communicate the story to me. But something about the way Tolkien writes the Silmarillion (and also LOTR, though not as much) really moves me. I suspect it's because he was intentionally modeling his work on the real life epics he knew so well, but either way it gets my blood pumping. One of my favorite passages:

Then Fingolfin beheld the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Oromë himself was come: for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat.

And Morgoth came.

It's so majestic (the whole passage, not just the bit I quoted). It really does elevate the story beyond what it would otherwise be, and make it something special.

Yes! It’s a beautiful, unique work. Not even imitated all that often.

Despite being killed off remarkably fast, Fëanor is one of the characters of all time.

My copy has this crazy painting of an exploding castle on the cover. I was able to trace it back to “The Fall of Numenor” from this calendar. No; I have no idea why that rated the cover. If you haven’t seen those, enjoy.

Currently reading Post Captain, the second Aubrey-Maturin novel by Patrick O'Brian.

I enjoyed the first one and then forgot about the series, until recently I saw on X that it was described as "Jane Austen for boys." That made me pick it up again.

I just read that one!

Not nearly as self-contained as M&C, but it’s fun and badass and absolutely hilarious.

Finished reading The Salt Fix. It did do a pretty good job of making the case that the FDA's current RDAs for salt are bunk and the claims that even lower salt limits as being supposedly "heart healthy" due to blood pressure control are basically made-up. It seemed a little vague about what to actually do, though, besides saying it's basically fine to "salt to taste", or eat as much as you think tastes good, and talk to your doctor.

So I guess it made me feel more comfortable with consuming significantly more salt, which I have been thinking about doing for a weird medical issue I have. I suppose I ought to explain that a bit better, but I think I'll hold it for a Wellness Wednesday thread, to save filling up the book thread with my weird medical issues.

If you are mainly eating food you cook yourself from whole or minimally-processed foods, salt is basically a non-concern. Salt to taste.

High-sodium diets in the western world are almost universally diets high in ultra-processed or fast food.

I agree with the diagnosis of this book. Especially if you any significant amount of exercise, salt is such a non-issue.

I've been rereading The Lord Of The Rings. I grabbed the first volume when I went on a trip, just to have something to read, and it has been nice. It's been several years (maybe a decade?) since I last read it, so I've been enjoying reading it again. Stuff always hits you differently when you reread books. This time, I've noticed (for the first time) just how much elvish devotion to Elbereth seems inspired by Marian devotion among Catholics, and also just how old some of the characters are. Frodo is 50! I know it was right there in the text, but it never stood out to me before, and it's interesting given how young many fantasy heroes tend to be nowadays.

and also just how old some of the characters are. Frodo is 50!

The time between Frodo finding the Ring and the quest beginning is another thing where Jackson's view of it dominates in my mind. Intellectually I know it, but the movie seems so much smoother that that's what sticks in my head.

50 ain't old! Cirdan is pushing 11,000!

Incidentally, this is the source of most of my nerd rage toward Amazon's Rings of Power. It bugs me that Galadriel is written as a petulant teenager when she is literally older than the sun

True, but what I meant is that Frodo is somewhat old by our reckoning (as hobbits seem to live not much longer than humans do), at least relative to the ages one sees in fantasy protagonists. There are of course creatures much older than Frodo (Gandalf, Sauron and Sarumam being probably the oldest, since they were around before the world itself was created).

I'm currently reading LOTR (after having read The Hobbit) for the first time.

It's hard to give it an objective view because a) I saw the films first, and so I know the major parts of the story, b) I'm long past the age where reading it might make a big impression, and c) I've never been into fantasy.

Interestingly in the films it was Legolas I couldn't stand while in the books it's Gimli. It also feels like a lot of scenes are weirdly underworked for such a long story. Like when they release Theoden from Wormtongue's influence after what feels like five minutes of just pointing at him and going "Mate, his name is Wormtongue. Worm Tongue! Mate, come on!" and Theoden is all like "Yes, you make a persuasive argument. Wormtongue, you have been revealed as an enemy agent and a traitor to our kingdom, and for that there can only be one punishment: Sending to Coventry".

It’s not about revealing Wormtongue (which is a nickname anyway), it’s about giving Theoden the courage to do what he already knows needs to be done. Wormtongue is providing a plausible excuse to do nothing, that’s all.

Sure, it's just an example of how lightly what would seem to be important events are handled by both the writer and his characters. Meanwhile lesser events are dwelt on at length.

Cold Days turned out way better than I expected.

Freedom’s Forge is a WW2 biopic about setting up military-scale production. There’s something aaqc-worthy there about the change in expectations over 80 years, but I’m not sure that I’m the right person to write it.

I find myself going back to older books. A lot of Golden Age detective stories, which can be an acquired taste. Most recent is a collection of short stories from 1925 about a forensic surgeon for Scotland Yard called Reggie Fortune. The tone is very much of the time, and it could be grating in large doses, but for example I found this exchange very funny (of course the big cheese at Scotland Yard is a minor sprig of the gentry, of course the style of badinage is very of its day, of course it is about the well-off upper classes, of course it is very much Entre Deux Guerres and before the Great Depression and economic crash):

In a day or two Reggie made a call on the chief of the Criminal Investigation Department. He was received with a cry of joy. The Hon. Sidney Lomas pranced round the table holding out his arms.

“Reginald! My innocent child! Embrace me! I thank Heaven for your deliverance. Not a stain upon your character, they tell me. Wonderful!”

“You know all about it, do you?” said Mr. Fortune morosely.

“These little things will get about,” Lomas chuckled. “I wish I’d seen you at the police station. The fair young hero, falsely accused, defying calumny. ‘Where are my emeralds?’ says the villain hoarsely. ‘Search me,’ the noble youth cried, ‘search me, varlet!’ And his innocence was proved in the fair light of Heaven.”

“Yes. I wasn’t taking any risks,” said Mr. Fortune. “You see, I’d had the beastly things in my pocket.”

The face of Lomas changed like an actor’s from mirth to gravity. “The devil you had! And what have you been up to, Fortune?”

“I wish I knew. I was stuck in that show behind a woman who was having a spasm of the heart. When we moved on I thought I felt something at my coat-tails. I found that emerald pendant in my pocket. I dropped the beastly thing under the table and looked about for anybody suspicious. All very ordinary people. And then Mr. John Good, of the International Detective Service, was arresting me. Queer sensation, Lomas. Ever tried it?”

“Nobody has arrested me yet,” said the chief of the Criminal Investigation Department modestly.

What's interesting is that this is in the approved style where murder is treated more or less as a lark for the quirky investigator to have fun solving, but the stories are not like that. They're often about serious effects of the crimes on the people involved, and Fortune is more concerned with justice (so far as he can manage it) than the requirements of the law. He's also fully aware of the results of his investigations: if he catches the bad guy/proves his guilt, he gets that person hanged. It's not all fun and games.

The language and behaviour of the characters may be that of the "silly ass" from Wodehouse's Drones Club, but they are in fact intelligent and capable people. Though nowadays describing a male character as "prancing", "conspicuously jaunty", or "sitting in front of his dressing-table perfecting that work of art, the wave in his hair" we would have a very different impression of his, er, personal life.

Maybe the same applied in the 1920s!

I tried a couple Poirot short stories recently. Not super impressed. Sherlock Holmes if he only had 10 pages to work it out. Not that there aren’t some redeeming qualities, but it didn’t wow me at all.

My wife and I are continuing our tradition of reading aloud before bed. We started with Wodehouse but the current novel is Chandler’s The Big Sleep. My God, this is incredible. Marlowe just sort of stands around until people get uncomfortable and either leave the evidence or try to kill him. And there are so many hilarious phrases.

Least expected feature: Los Angeles. I always assumed noir was a New England thing.

Chandler is a very good writer. Less cynical in a way than Dashiell Hammett, but the amount of corruption in the police he describes (and which seems to be pretty historically accurate) is breath-taking. You can tell an honest cop because his clothes are shabby and he looks poor. But that's how business is done in LA!

He has a way with language, I think my favourite bit is "crazy as two waltzing mice" but there are plums in all the books.

She had lovely legs. I would say that for her. They were a couple of pretty smooth citizens, she and her father.

I can’t say why this one hit me so hard. It’s so stupid. I love it. Material for the Lyttle Lytton contest.

But the best scene so far has been the four-way confrontation in some jerk’s apartment.

I hit Agnes on the head with less delicacy than before, kicked her off my feet, and stood up. Brody flicked his eyes at me. I showed him the automatic. He stopped trying to get his hand into his pocket.
"Christ!" he whined. "Don't let her kill me!"
I began to laugh. I laughed like an idiot, without control. Blonde Agnes was sitting up on the floor with her hands flat on the carpet and her mouth wide open and a wick of metallic blond hair down over her right eye. Carmen was crawling on her hands and knees, still hissing. The metal of her little revolver glistened against the baseboard over in the corner. She crawled towards it relentlessly.
I waved my share of the guns at Brody and said: "Stay put. You're all right."
I stepped past the crawling girl and picked the gun up. She looked up at me and began to giggle. I put her gun in my pocket and patted her on the back. "Get up, angel. You look like a Pekinese."
I went over to Brody and put the automatic against his midriff and reached his Colt out of his side pocket. I now had all the guns that had been exposed to view. I stuffed them into my pockets and held my hand out to him.

Also Lord Peter Wimsey, who always heavily salts his conversations with quotes from some poem or other that nobody (who hasn't specifically majored in fin-de-siecle English poetry) has ever heard of. It gets annoying for the reader sometimes!

Reggie is definitely a forerunner to Lord Peter. He writes a telegram in Latin to tease the CID boss, and another story has his knowledge of Ancient Greek be a plot point.

But so far, I'm amused. Though in the first story he's thirty-five years old, which everyone treats him as being "just a boy". And we think extended adolescence is a modern phenomenon!

I’m reading “The Protector’s War,” the second book in S.M Stirling’s Emberverse series. I previously read his Nantucket trilogy, which I loved. I thought the first book in the Emberverse, “Dies the Fire” was good, but in general I like this series less than the Nantucket trilogy. I don’t know why, exactly, but two things sort of standout:

  1. The speed with which people adapt. They’re two weeks into this world shattering event and there is literally an organized kingdom.

  2. I wouldn’t say it’s blatantly anti-Christian or anti-traditional religion, but the focus on a witch coven as this beacon of civilization (at one point facing off against a nasty preacher) just sort of rubs me the wrong way. Of course if this was traditional fantasy I’d take no issue.

Overall, though, I’m enjoying the series.

I was away on holidays this week and read about 150 pages of The Best Minds on the second leg of my outgoing flight, bringing me up to about the 70% mark. Haven't touched it since, aiming to finish it next week.

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