User talk:Piewalker

Noticed you're new here (I noticed you on the list of reecently updated pages)! Welcome to the Wikipedia! If you have any problems trying to figure things out, feel free to ask me (or anyone else here; we help each other as we can) -Litefantastic 01:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Homeworld
One day, when I know what map we're playing on, I'll win. For now, I'll complain and fight vandalism. :P  _-M      o      P-_   19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, just a notice; I'm starting a detailed list of ships from both races in Homeworld 2 at User:Master of Puppets/Ships in Homeworld 2. If you want, contact me at my talk page and we can work something out (I'm doing the info, but I'm looking for someone to do screenshots). Cheers!  _-M      o      P-_   22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

>_>
Homeworld? :P Mopper Speak! 19:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piewalker: Thank you very much for your kind and positive message. It is great to know that there is at least one other person with interests common to mine. We must certainly keep in touch. I shall look for a print reference to the connection between Cupid and the Beast, Psyche and the Beauty. I have not found one yet. It seems to me apodictical, self-evident. Yet I hope somebody else has pointed it out before I did, since too many Wikipedians have this neurotic phobia against "original research." Egregious nonsense may be quoted if it has been printed, common sense is eschewed with horror if not printed somewhere. Notorious example: Khirbet Beit Lei. Thanks again; more later. Das Baz 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I also like Herman Hesse. I've read all or most of his novels, all of his short stories. I've seen two movies based on Siddhartha. Other of my interests include Alexander the Great, Ancient Israelite History, Animal Rights, Anime, the Future, Jesus, Manga, Nonviolent Resistance, Veganism, and Vegetarianism. Not one Encyclopaedia in my local library mentions the connection between Eros and Psyche and Beauty and the Beast - except, of course, Wikipedia. I shall check Bettelheim next. I think that's where I read about the connection, if I'm not the first one ever to notice it. Das Baz 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I really need to check out those Siddhartha films. I haven't been able to stop watching Alexander either. I don't like the bisexual inferences, but I think it's Stone's and Farrell's best. I looked up the promotional stuff Kilmer did for Alexander and he's too modest. Thanks for looking into the Eros/Psyche Beauty/Beast connection. What's your location? Are you in the US? Utah? I think you're right about the common sense thing. I'm certainly for backing up and validating common sense. Maybe I'll help in your search if I can get these papers written this week. What's Bettelheim? --Piewalker 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander, Bettelheim, etc.
The best movie based on Hesse's Siddhartha is Zachariah, starring John Rubinstein and Don Johnson. Best darned movie that nobody's heard of. I was a bit disappointed by Stone's Alexander movie. Mary Renault's books are a million times better. Bettelheim is Bruno Bettelheim, a flawed and tragic man who nonetheless made some important contributions, including The Uses of Enchantment - which may be where I read about the connection between Eros and Psyche and Beauty and the Beast, if I did not think it up myself. I think the Alexander movie would be a lot better if you took out the Ptolemy frame (big waste of time!) and ended the movie with the big battle in India, and Alexander dying in that battle. Yes, I know, that would not be historically accurate - but it would make for a darn good movie! Das Baz 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A flawed man indeed. Like the rest of us. Yes, Alexander dying in battle may have offered the dramatic illusion that he was his own martyr and the unwitting victim of his own neuroses/vision. I think that would indeed be a satisfying end to it, but it's too Braveheart-esque. I think Stone intended the film to unravel as it did, perhaps not so cleanly, or perhaps cleanly, like the Gordian Knot Alexander himself solved. Ptolemy didn't get enough screen time, older or younger. I was influenced by both Ptolemys. I think it's no accident that Alexander, arguably history's most influential conquerer of the world, emerged within ~300 years of the one who overcame the world. Enter comparisons/contrasts now. --Piewalker 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Was finally able to get hold of the Bettelheim book and enter the reference, including the ISBN, in the Till We Have Faces article. Bettelheim emphasizes a connection I had totally forgotten about: The Oedipal love of Aphrodite for Eros, and of Beauty for her Dad. I dare say it says something about my psyche that I repressed that memory. Meanwhile, I shall enter some comments on the Alexander movie in the discussion page for the article on it.Das Baz 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change of Plans: I made some of my points about Alexander (2004) in the article itself, not only in the discussion page. And I had to make a comment I had not planned to make. By the way, William Braveheart Wallace did not die in battle. He was cruelly tortured to death by Edward I Longshanks, the most evil king who ever ruled in blood and horror on the Earth. Das Baz 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Wallace was a freedom-fighter and martyr. I knew he was executed. Alexander was a brilliant, magnanimous, yet brutal conquerer and war-mongerer, not a freedom-fighter. Great comments. --Piewalker 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander in his day was notorious for being far more magnanimous and far less brutal than anybody else. He astonished people by refusing to rape or sexually abuse slaves and POW's, male or female, at a time when such a practice was widely accepted and even expected. He treated those who opposed him with more compassion than Genghis Khan used on those who surrendered to him. Today, however, all sorts of slanders against him are spread around. He is even blamed for the massacre at Mali, which happened while he was unconscious and near death. But at least, no one casts doubt on his existence. Jesus on the other hand - in ancient times, no one doubted his existence either, but slanders against him were spread - that he was a sorcerer, that he drank too much. Today, no one impugns his goodness, but many doubt his existence. Alexander did not invent war, but he perfected it. He both designed the grand strategy and fought valiantly on the front lines (no one else has ever done both, or at least not so successfully- he never lost a battle. No retreat, no surrender.) Jesus may well have invented Nonviolent Resistance, at least that is how Mahatma Gandhi interpreted his philosophy of "Turning the other cheek." Benjamin Urrutia, following up on Gandhi, proposed that Jesus may have been the leader of the Jewish nonviolent resistance against Pilate at Caesarea, described by Josephus. This theory must be right, as there is no way it can be wrong, and not a single firm argument has been advanced against it. Das Baz 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fascinating argument, Das Baz. Of course Alexander didn't "invent war." While we're on the subject, who did? The devil? God? Humanity? I suppose if any single individual has come close to "perfect[ing] it [war]," I agree, Alexander has...that is, if war was a human act that could be perfected. Ideally, I would think, war's perfection is peace, the antithesis of conflict. The art of war...of killing...an art or science? And is the U.S. the most advanced? Most efficient? I recall hearing in the media (can't remember exactly where) that Gulf War II was the biggest ground offensive of all time (second only to the Battle of Hoth, of course), perhaps measured by the sheer scope of hell-fury released from U.S. cannons, bombs, cruise missiles, or the number of ground troops mobilized to invade Baghdad. Certainly, D-Day was also a massive offensive. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an offensive of how many? The cost of war transcends casualties or numbers. The courage of a few are enough to exalt men into legends. Herbert Kaufman penned a haunting poem-book, "The Song of Guns," in which the classic poem "The Hell-Gate at Soissons" described a World War I sacrifice of 12 Englishman fighting roadside with the French:


 * "My leg, malheureusement, I left it, behind on the banks of the Aisne. Regret? I would pay with the other to witness their valour again. A trifle, indeed, I assure you, to give for the honour to tell How that handful of British, undaunted, went into the Gateway of Hell." Herbert Kaufman, The Hell-Gate at Soissons, second stanza, p. 18, The Song of Guns, 1914


 * And on the necessity of war:


 * "There was no other way, O Lord, Except the sword. The fight we fight is not our will, Yet we must die and we must kill"... Herbert Kaufman, We Draw the Sword, lines 1-4, p. 16, The Song of Guns, 1914

--Piewalker 01:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Orual and the Beast
Your connection between Orual and the Beast was also proposed by Gracia Fay Ellwood. Great minds think alike. Das Baz 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Flattered. Regards.--Piewalker 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Till We Have Faces
I see you worked a little bit with the quotes today. =) Nice to see this one particular article worked on. I'm planning on rereading TWHF soon (in my sparetime) to rewrite part of the plot section and organize it a little better. I was wondering if you could continue to help rewriting the article, more specifically the explanation of the title and the retelling's conception sections. Since it appears that you provided the quotes originally--correct me if i'm wrong-- I figured it would be easier for you to help in this part, since you would have easier access to the sources. To make it more like an encyclopedia article I think the sections with the quotes need a little more wikified. I'm not against the use of quotes, I merely think it would be more effective if these particular sections were rewritten; which would mean certain citations being paraphrased (though not necessarily all of them), and new conjoining sentences being written instead of leaving it in bulleted format. b_cubed 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I see you have an interest in making this article move into higher rating status. A noble pursuit, indeed. It'll be a good thing. Mark my words, I'm going to bring the images back. All three are beautiful works of art and may bring individual memories to our readers. We need to bring those three images back sometime. That mask image is very, very neat. I want it to get up there sometime. I have some ideas on how to present the three covers. As far the Lewis quotes. Sometimes, it's best to allow the words of the person you're quoting to let them speak for themeselves instead of potentially convoluting their original intent with a paraphrased, many of which are error. Frankly, these quotes are very impactful. True, we could have some explanatory paragraphs for each quote or group of quotes, but I think they speak for themselves, or in this case, rightfully our praised author does the talking. Piewalker 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, I don't have a problem with the other cover art. However, due to the current length of the article I thought it was a little overkill to put all three on. I definitely want to see the one with the mask on at some point. In regards to the quotes, from my experience as a writer, simply leaving bulleted quotes in any article won't do it any good. Since you are a little more familiar with the quotes than I, that is why I suggested that you could work on them. I believe the quotes will be much more impactful out of bulleted form and into more of a reading form--that's what reader's expect, and quite frankly I don't see this article reaching a higher quality level until that is done and the plot is rewritten (which i plan on contributing to very soon). "Easy reading is damn hard writing," as Nathaniel Hawthorne once put it. I don't expect it to be that easy to rewrite the quote section--if you need help or suggestions let me know--but i don't expect the article to reach a higher quality leverl until it is. (by the way, this is more or less what i meant, write a paragraph and throw in a c.s. lewis quote where it is appropriate and helpful.)
 * I buckled down and wrote it. I'm very, very pleased with how it turned out because it sheds light on everything about the novel and even makes some other observations I don't think anyone has thought about yet. I look to you, Das Baz, and others for more critical insight. I just needed to be prodded a little. I won't be bringing the cover art back until we bring the article up a few notches/ranks. It's getting there. Then, and only then, will I bring them back, potentially combining all in one horizontal image so we can see them side by side. Remind me to do that next month or so. Piewalker 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Till We Have Faces is a Great Classic
But somebody dares to say at the bottom of the article that it is "B-Class" and "of middle importance"! Please correct that nonsense! Das Baz 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an attempt to get this article through various Wiki processes to make it a "good article." To reach that, it has to go through a nomination process. You're right, the book itself is a great classic, Lewis' best, in fact (he thought that, and I think that, too). The Wiki article on it is not nearly as good as the book...but it is getting better. B_Cubed is helping some with good points here or there, but is also resisting, too. Thus the beauracracy of the Wiki. The only way to correct it is to help make the article better. Ultimately, this process should result in the article getting a little higher visibility, especially if it some day makes it onto Wikipedia's front page! See also WikiProject_Novels/Assessment. Piewalker 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)