site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   3418 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 25, 2023

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I'm reading some Sherlock Holmes stories. I don't know why, but I suddenly feel impressed that these stories were ever written at all.

I read House of Leaves after seeing it recommended so many times. I cannot recommend it honestly, because I don't think I understood it. However I liked the experience of reading it, because I like solving puzzles and I enjoy books that are interactive which this one definitely is. It rewards the work you put into it and you really have to be alert and pay attention as motifs and words are repeated.

No spoilers but this book has so many layers that you can keep peeling back one after another after another but never get to a core. It's unreliable narrators all the way down nested within each other. The, I guess what you'd call the main narrative, a house with a mysterious pocket dimension, is certainly compelling and creepy. There is a lot of pretentious academic analysis and digressions, which I got the sense the author was poking fun at that sort of thing so I felt free to skim or skip large chunks of that. Whatever its purpose, it did bog down the narrative because it was just everywhere and I would have enjoyed it more without that element.

The most unrealistic element that I keep coming back to - there's a story supposedly written by a blind man praising at great length the visual cinematography of a film that he could not have possibly experienced firsthand. The blindness is only mentioned once or twice but that fact colored my reading of the rest of the book. I don't do drugs but if I did, I feel like a drug trip would feel like this book.

I read it after falling for the hype. I thought the notion of a house that is irresolvably slightly larger on the inside than the oustide was an original surreal idea. The rest of it was just a haunted house story wrapped in layer upon layer of meta. That might be thrilling if the reader isn't familiar with meta-reference but if you are it begins to feel over indulgent.

There's a good enough short horror/surreal story at the core, but it's not quite as big and clever on the inside as it looks on the outside.

I read it back in high school during the mid-aughts. I remember liking The Navidson Record, but not particularly caring for the Zampanò and Johnny Truant elements of the story. I was too impatient at the time to fully investigate the footnotes.

I found the story structure more interesting in theory than in execution. It felt like a critique or deconstruction of something I was unfamiliar with.

It was okay. Kinda gimmicky. I think The Navidson Record is a nice little horror story.

I dropped the book halfway through, it was far too insufferably into sniffing it's own butt crack to be worth the slog. And it wasn't even particularly scary, which might have salvaged the more pretentious parts.

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