Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 22

= May 22 =

Great Americans of the twentieth century
Besides a united states president, what three americans changed america in the 20th century? (which stand out on top)69.225.49.10 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well ... It sounds like someone would have to weigh the evidence and make their own judgement call on that ... perhaps even providing some clear and cogent rationale to back it up -- maybe in some reasonable form like an essay or paper? Pastordavid 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that we don't do homework here, and that this a call for opinions, not a reference question. Here's a hint to get you going on this for yourself: think of three important things that happened in the US during the 20th century.  Do anybody's names come to mind when thinking of those things?  --TotoBaggins 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another hint: Person of the Year. Here's another hint: greatness (depending on how you define it) does not always coincide with recognition ... since (apparently) small actions can have far-reaching consequences; such as the action of giving free homework answers anonymously over the internet to people who later go on to become world leaders because of their shrewd and wholly-subsidized opportunism. dr.ef.tymac 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are three hints: think about the greatest discoveries in science (such as in nuclear physics), in engineering (such as in manufacturing and aeronautics), and in electronic technology (such as in telecommunications).  Human rights would be another good place to start.  Okay, that's 4 hints.  I lied.  :-)  The Transhumanist 05:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes
Now that things are back to 'normal' I can now post my question. I'm looking for some more information on John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes, particularly his role in Scottish government during the reign of Charles II. Can anyone supply me with some additional details on his political career? SeanScotland 08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Sean. John Leslie was a fairly important figure in Restoration Scotland, and one of the great political operators of the day.  He was also a natural survivor.  In 1663 he succeeded John Middleton, 1st Earl of Middleton as High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament, effectively the Prime Minister of the day, though he was kept under close watch by John Maitland, 2nd Earl of Lauderdale, the Secretary of State for Scotland, based in London.  Rothes had little in the way of formal education, though he possessed plenty of native wit, managing to stay afloat in political storms that destroyed far greater men than him.  George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh wrote of him that "The subtelty of his wit obliged all to court his friendship."  He was charged, amongst other things, with dealing with the religious problem presented by the obdurate Covenanter opposition, enjoying limited success in his efforts to stamp out dissent.  His time as High Commissioner saw the first serious trouble of the Restoration period, with an armed uprising of the Covenanter underground, which concluded with the Battle of Rullion Green.  Rothes, who, by his own admission, liked "sogeris [soldiers] above all the other wayes of living", was, in part, blamed for the troubles because of the severity of his rule.  Lauderdale, with the approval of the king, decided to replace him as High Commissioner, taking on the position himself in combination with that of Secretary of State.  Rothes was still too important to be replaced altogether, though, so he was 'promoted' to the office of Chancellor, chief legal officer of the realm, but without the same degree of political clout.  He continued to occupy high office to the end of his life, intriguing against Lauderdale when the occasion suited him, but always emerging unscathed.  Clio the Muse 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I love you, Clio! SeanScotland 10:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stock market volume and volatility
I encountered a problem on correlation that is rather strange to me. I have got two sets of time-series data (N = 115) which have correlation coefficient of -0.0636 (Significance 0.01 - two tailed). However if I divide the data into two halves (N1 = 58 and N2 = 57) the correlation coefficient of first half becomes +0.6134 (Significance 0.01 - two tailed)and the second half +0.2317 (Significance 0.08 - two tailed). The data sets are related to stock market trading volume and volatility. Previous studies say that the correlation coefficient between those should be positive and significant. I am not a very statistics person. Can anyone help me what might be the reason for these results, in non-technical terms? How to interpret such results and relate it to the previous studies?

Thanks in advance.--202.52.234.141 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not crosspost. This question has also been posted (and answered) at the Mathematics section. --Lambiam Talk  09:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

United Nations
Just wondering what people's opinions is on the question: Is the UN capable and competent of keeping the peace in the post-Cold War order?137.166.4.130 11:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Helena


 * Unfortunately, that kind of question is not really suitable for the reference desk, since it asks for people's opinions. The RD is mainly for factual queries.  You might want to read United Nations and the articles linked to from there, prior to forming your own view on your homework topic. --Richardrj talkemail 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is a homework question, I would guess from the loaded nature of the wording here, that your angry conservative teacher would prefer that you justify an answer of No. -Czmtzc 12:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Czmtzc is reading the question rightly. It's a gnat's eyelash away from using the phrase "New World Order."  Furthermore, what's being questioned is the dual condition of being capable (i.e. might sufficient, conditions providing opportunity) and "competent" (i.e. not weakened by internal waste).  Yep.  It's a tautology, and it begs questions.  Utgard Loki 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

However, this type of question, which calls for opinions, is ideal for the Wikiversity Help Desk, so I've answered there:. StuRat 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Talmud
Why does Zohar call for the extermination of Christians ? Are the Jews still intent on carrying on this project ? See www.jfkmontreal.com/talmud.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.235.204 (talk • contribs)
 * That link does not refer to the Zohar (it's not a book of the Talmud), so it's difficult to deal with your question. However, I would point out that the site you link to is in no way a reliable source (a glance at its mainpage tells you that). And Jews are not intent on exterminating any segment of humanity (with the notable exception of Amalekites, who've not been identifiable since Biblical times, and even then, according to Maimonides, there was no imperative to genocide. Our article's really quite good, if uncited.). --Dweller 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It says that Jews are allowed to lie about their intentions. Did they follow the rules ? Did the Talmud lie to the Jews ?
 * As I said above, that page is not reliable. --Dweller 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "It" may say that, but the problem is that "it" is a webpage that also asserts that the Virginia Tech shootings are somehow related to the JFK assassination, as proved by an interview with comedian Jay Leno. The site could learn a lot from Alex Chiu on being credible and verifiable, and that's a low bar.  There is no Jewish project to exterminate Christians.  Your question has been answered.  Please take your trolling elsewhere.  --TotoBaggins 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a telling quote from the "jfkmontreal" website: "Salvador believes most 'professional' critics of the Kennedy assassination are financed by the U.S. Government, or the state of Israel, or both as a means of suppressing the truth by controlling both sides of the debate. Ironically, the author now believes the man who originally inspired him to uncover the truth about the Kennedy assassination is also a fake critic. That man is Yale drop-out and son of a Wall Street financier: Oliver Stone." Even by the high bars set by the Internet, this guy ranks pretty high on the kooky scale. -- Mwalcoff 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I of course agree with the above, but would just like to add that I'm terribly embarassed that this guy apparently hails from my home town, a place that is pretty much universally accepted by any measure as the world's greatest city. :--) Lewis 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... except by these ones. Rockpock  e  t  17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some guy who changed millions of people's lives for the better
OK, apologies for this question, it might be impossible to answer but someone might know what I'm talking about. A few months ago on the RD (can't remember which one) a question came up about who has contributed most to the good of mankind. Someone came up with a guy who I had never heard of before, who had done, made or discovered something wonderful. He wasn't a human rights leader, politician or anything like that. I think he was some kind of scientist who had discovered or invented something. It wasn't one of the well-known drugs like penicillin. Does anyone here have the faintest idea who I am talking about? Many thanks, and apologies for the dopey question. --Richardrj talkemail 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Norman Borlaug? ---Sluzzelin talk  12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the dude! "Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply."  Thanks so much. --Richardrj talkemail 12:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Impressive sleuthing. - MelancholyDanish

Sorry to be so negative, but keeping a billion people from starving to death, in countries with rapidly growing populations, will likely result in the deaths of several billion people (who wouldn't have existed otherwise) from starvation, in coming generations. StuRat 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The guy who discovered how to make fire, the guy who invented the wheel, the guy who first invented stone tools, and the guy who first made soup seem to be much more important people. A.Z. 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, Stu, that was a very negative comment. And both the above posts are off-topic mini-rants.  JackofOz 06:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked on JackofOz's talk page what he is referring to and what does "off-topic mini-rant" mean. In my opinion, my post and StuRat's post were intelligent, pertinent, important, on-topic, valuable, and particularly interesting. A.Z. 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z., "off-topic" means not related to the topic. The topic was to identify the specific person Richardrj was looking for, which Sluzzelin did.   All we were asked was to come up with Borlaug's name, not to discuss the pros or cons of his work or to revisit the earlier debate about who has contributed most to the good of mankind.  Both your and StuRat's posts were off-topic, so I can't agree they were pertinent.  "Mini-rant" is the mini version of a rant.  Stu commenced his post with reference to it being negative, and I agreed with him.  Were your posts intelligent, important, valuable and particularly interesting? - who can say, but since they were not related to the topic, it's irrelevant.  JackofOz 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this thread had become a continuation of the previous thread. Since the OP was interested in previous thread, they would be interested in further clarification about its topic. Do you, at least, agree that our comments would have been pertinent to the earlier debate about who has contributed most to the good of mankind? A.Z. 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that. I see an introduction to let us know what he was on about, culminating with "Does anyone here have the faintest idea who I am talking about?".  As for your last question, sorry, but I'm not getting into it.  JackofOz 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I hope there is broad consensus, however, that it would be wrong to delete our good faith, non-disruptive answers. A.Z. 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, despite his influence, Thomas Malthus' theories have consistently failed to come true. People who don't bother to actually read Malthus, and his critics, have been parroting the "mass starvation any day now" line for about 170 years. - BanyanTree 11:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mass starvation happens all the time, as it is now happening in Darfur, Sudan. This is partially due to warfare, but this, in turn, is due to too many people fighting over the meager resources of that region. StuRat 22:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Civilization
This may be a dumb question, but is there a useful distinction between describing for example Babylonia or Babylonian civilization? When speaking of an ancient civilization I can't think of anything you would cover in one and not the other. For example the Maya civilization has an article that covers bascially the same topics as Babylonia. Should we standardize on one or the other? Is the only difference here that Babylonia was a state and Maya and some others were not? - Taxman Talk 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally it's up to historians. However concerning Maya civilization in particular, it's unusual IMHO to name it the Mayan state or simply Maya. Roughly the same thing is Ancient Egypt, which wasn't a state, but rather a civilization. --Brand спойт 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Himmler's feudal settlements
What was the nature of Heinrich Himmler's scheme for rural settlements in conquered Russia? Captainhardy 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does Lebensraum answer your question? Corvus cornix 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Else, try Generalplan Ost too, or Drang nach Osten for some historical circumstance. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Himmler had his own pet scheme for eastern settlement, which could be subsumed within the general thrust eastwards for lebensraum, but was quite distinct from the Generalplan Ost. All of the details are to be found in The Master Plan: Himmler Scholars and the Holocaust by Heather Pringle.  The Himmler Plan aimed at more than just lebensraum: it was a bizarre scheme for creating a rural idyll in western Russia, harking back to earlier modes of existence, and a more 'authentic' and Germanic way of life.  By this, racially pure soldier-farmers would live in medieval-style German houses.  These ideas emerged in part from a work of 1929 by Himmler's close associate, Walther Darre, entitled Farming as a Source of Life for the Nordic Race.  Himmler began to move towards a fuller elaboration of his plans with the foundation in 1935 of the Deutches Ahnenerbe Studiengesellschaft für Geistesurgeschichte, or Ahnenerbe for short, meaning 'something inherited from our forefathers.  The Ahnenerbe scholars investigated a whole variety of things, from ancient house designs, 'Nordic' animal breeds and even, by Himmler's specific request, the sexual practices of the ancient German tribes!  A model farm was also established at Mehrow to the east of Berlin, where some of the notions were tested.


 * It was after the invasion of Russia that Himmler began to look to wider horizons, working in collaboration with Konrad Meyer, a senior planner and agricultural scientist, on a scheme that could be presented to Hitler. This was called the Master Plan East.  By this Himmler and Meyer envisaged the creation of three huge colonies.  The first, stretching south of Leningrad, was called Ingermanland; the second, embracing chunks of eastern Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, was known in the plan as Memel-Narew-Gebiet, and the third, incorporating large parts of the western Ukraine and Crimea, was Gotengau.  All three of these areas were to be completely 'Germanised' within a twenty year period.  All Slavs and the 'racially unwanted' were to be killed or enslaved, and the areas repopulated with small villages of German and SS settlers.  Each village, Himmler told Felix Kersten, his personal masseur, "will embrace between 30 and 40 farms.  Each farmer will receive up to 300 acres of land, more or less according to the quality of the soil.  In any case a class of financially powerful and independent farmers will develop.  Slaves won't till this soil, rather, a farming aristocracy will come into being, such as you still find on the Westphalian estates."  The villages would be dominated by a manor house, occupied an SS or Nazi party leader, a little bit like the feudal lord of the manor.  Such was Himmler's view of the Nazi Millenium.  Clio the Muse 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Boozy Britain
The Brits have a reputation for heavy drinking. Is this a recent thing? 86.131.255.228 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The very definition of a loaded question. Hammer Raccoon 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. I'm British, and I'm pretty sure we do have a reputation for heavy drinking (at least that's how we think of ourselves, I haven't surveyed all foreigners yet). It's perfectly reasonable to ask for how long we have had this reputation. How long we've been drinking heavily would be loaded, but that might not be what the OP meant. Algebraist 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Even whether Britons being heavy drinkers (or more problematically, binge drinkers) is a recent thing or not has been a topic of much serious debate, the historians seeming to say that it has certainly been the case for a long time. As for how long we've had a reputation for this sort of thing, I don't know. If only Clio were here! Skittle 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They certainly were not known as drinkers to Americans. Americans had, and still have, a vision of the British that is quite abstemious and fey.  On the Continent, on the other hand, I would imagine that 20th century travel has made other populations increasingly familiar with the football fan of the species, and this might slant things.  For actual alcohol consumption per capita, Scandinavian countries have the Brits beaten, but they may stay home more than the Brits do.  (England's worst crisis with drink was probably surrounding the Gin Lane-era, when distilling became a major industry for England and the government encouraged it.  Our article says that .25 of all the houses in St. Giles at the time were gin shops.)  Utgard Loki 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to compare statistics on the percentage of people in different countries who suffer from alcohol problems. According to Alcoholism, "In the United Kingdom, the number of 'dependent drinkers' was calculated as over 2.8 million in 2001" (sadly, a definition of 'dependent' is not given), which is around 4.6% of the population. --Richardrj talkemail 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been editing the Anne of Denmark article recently, and I noticed that the Danes seem to have been heavier drinkers than the British in the early seventeenth century. Anne's father, Frederick II of Denmark, was apparently a prodigious drinker: his drinking glass, which I have read is on show at Rosenborg Castle, held three quarts of wine (I do hope it was merely ceremonial, because that's one serious wineglass). At Frederick's funeral, the clergyman observed that he might have lived somewhat longer if he hadn't drunk so much. The visits of his sons Christian IV of Denmark and Ulric, duke of Holstein, to Britain tended to degenerate into extensive binges, drawing comment from the Brits. I have this original-research theory that Anne herself became an alcoholic: her liver was found to be wasted after her death at the age of forty four, and she had been suffering from gout and dropsy. Racking my brains for a British king who died of drink, I could only come up with Harthacanute: say no more. qp10qp 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the Institute for Alcohol Studies, the UK ranked seventh among 45 countries in per-capita alcohol consumption in 2003, behind Luxembourg, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Ireland, Germany and Spain: . -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio is here, Skittle!

Actually, not that much has changed, and these things, and the moral and social concerns they raise, tend to move in distinct historical cycles. In the early seventeenth century Parlaiment passed no less than four statutes against *drunkenness in a short twenty-year period. However, as Utgard Loki has indicated, the first great moral panic over patterns of alcohol consumption came with the the emergence of the Gin Craze in the first half of the eighteenth century, so vividly illustrated in William Hogarth's print, with its depiction of decay, violence, death, suicide, corruption and infanticide. The damage caused by rivers of cheap gin was only really brought under control with the introduction of legislation in 1751, the same year that Hogarth's print appeared. Gin Lane made an immediate impact on popular consciousness, on a public that was well-versed with the horrors of the gin cult, which included the case of Judith Defour, tried at the Old Bailey in 1734 for murdering her own child to sell its clothes to obtain more of the spirit. But Hogarth, it tends to be overlooked, was aiming his criticism not at alcohol consumption as such, but specifically at the cult of gin, considered to be a feminised drinking culture, symbolised by Mother Gin or Madam Geneva. At the same time as Gin Lane he also produced Beer Street, with lusty Englishmen drinking from foaming tankards! One version of this has a weedy Frenchman being manhandled by a strapping English artisan carrying a jug of beer. Public drunkenness was frowned upon, rather than consumption in large quantities of the 'right kind' of alcohol, particularly by men, which was rather expected. The real change in attitude comes with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. It was one thing for agricultural labourers to consume huge quantities of beer and cider, and quite another for those charged with minding machinery to do so. Urbanization, moreover, made drunkenness a much more serious social issue, just as it had during the London Gin Craze, because concentrated heavy drinking could easily become a major problem of public order. It is only really from this time that tea-drinking was prompted as an alternative, and more wholesome, cult for the great British masses. Concerns about drinking, and the occasional moral panic this induced, resulted in stronger and stronger systems of licensing control. But, yes, nothing much changes. The British have always been drunkards; the British always will be drunkards. No Continental cafe culture for us, thank you very much! Clio the Muse 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the sublime Hogarth print, see Gin Lane. --Lambiam Talk  07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, for beer, it was ever the "healthy" drink for the Protestant countries. It is not merely Hogarth who sees it as good stuff.  We have, of course, "small beer" as a requisite of human life in all sorts of contexts.  Additionally, we have a nice Dutch tradition that I only know from the visual arts of "healthy" beer (Franz Hals's The Jolly Toper being one, but also shown in Vermeer and others -- men with their beer and their wives taking a few delighted sips).  Additionally, my favorite Samuel Johnson poem, a parody of Thomas Warton, reads (sorry for doing this from memory, folks, and blowing a line):
 * Hermit hoar in solemn cell
 * Wearing out life's evening grey
 * Smite thy breast, sage, and tell
 * Where is bliss, and which the way.
 * So I spoke, and speaking sighed,
 * Scarce restrain'd the starting tear.
 * And he with ____ replied,
 * Come my lad, and have some beer.
 * Beer was a corrective to silly excess, to viciousness, and to violence, as beer-drunken men were supposed to fight in a clumsy and non-lethal way. Utgard Loki 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Beer was a corrective to silly excess, to viciousness, and to violence, as beer-drunken men were supposed to fight in a clumsy and non-lethal way. Utgard Loki 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, back in those days it was much safer to drink beer than water - there were all sorts of nasties in the water, which were killed off by the brewing process. -- Arwel (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Story (Short?) about a Door of Light
I recall, in elementary school, of reading a (short?) story about a door that appeared in the main character's life. The door was only seen by him and was golden or lighted. The door only appeared to him every 10 years or more. Each time he was tempted to go through the door but then decides not to. The only time he does decide to go through the door was when he was an old man. Then the story ends. Does anyone know the name and author of this story?! - --Juliet 19:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally reminds me of The Door in the Wall, but H. G. Wells. It was published as The Door in the Wall and Other Stories, and we don't have an article on it. It appeared to him every ten years or so, and he first enters it as a school boy. He only enters it once or twice more, and the last time he is an (old?) man and he actually dies. [' Mac Δαvιs '] ❖ 01:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Novelists in their books
Are there any works of literature where the author makes reference to himself in the third person? Secret seven 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Author character. Another one, not mentioned in the article, is Money by Martin Amis. --Richardrj talkemail 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Eugene Onegin is an obvious example. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Clive Cussler puts himself in every one of his novels (as mentioned in the Cussler article). Pastordavid 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isaac Asimov in Murder_at_the_ABA. I am suprised that I was able to recognize the title out of the hundreds listed in Isaac_Asimov_complete_bibliography. -- Diletante 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Asimov also notes himself in Thiotimoline to the Stars as "a semi-mythical scientist named Azimuth or Asymptote". &mdash; Lomn 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And in one of his novels there is a reference to "non-Asenion robots", also using a misspelling of his own name. Ah, the Isaac Asimov FAQ page has the details. --Anon, May 22, 23:00 (UTC)

For me this brings to mind The Inqusition of the Books, chapter 6 of the first part of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. Believing Don Quixote's delusions to be caused by reading too many books on chivalry, the priest, with the aid of the barber, decides to purge his library. During the course of their examination they come across one particular book;

"The Galatea of Miguel de Cervantes", said the barber'.

"That Cervantes has been a great friend of mine for many years, and I know that he is more versed in misfortune than in verse. His book has some clever ideas; but it sets out to do something and concludes nothing.  We must wait for the second part he promises, and perhaps with amendment he will win our clemency now denied him.  In the meantime, neighbour, until we see, keep him as a recluse in your room". Clio the Muse 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Philip Roth has a series of novels where the main character is named "Philip Roth" and appears to be very similar to himself. But whether the character equals the writer of the book is not necessarily the case (most obviously in something like The Plot Against America). zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also look at Tom Robbins, who includes, in his novels, a phenomenological account of writing the text, usually referring to his role in the story as ``The Author's''.Llamabr 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on Ulysses: there's speculation that the man in the long brown coat who appears every few hundred pages is Joyce himself. Also, some people suspect (with less evidence) that Tolkien appears in The Lord of the Rings as Tom Bombadil. Others have made a more convincing case (there's a link at the end of the article) to the possibility that Tom Bombadil is YOU. - MelancholyDanish
 * What about the Paul Auster novella where the narrator decides to take the pseudo Paul Auster, and then looks up the name in a telephone directory and discovers there's actually someone called Paul Auster listed in it. There you have the author, the narrator and one character sharing the same name. --Anne97432 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know the original question was about literature, not movies, but I still must mention Adaptation in this context. --Anonymous, 2007, May 23, 23:23:23 and I am not making this up (UTC).

I know it's not a "novel", but one very famous example is Julius Caesar in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which is " an account written by Julius Caesar (in the third person) about his nine years of war in Gaul ". Caesar's books is entirely "Caesar did this" and "Caesar did that". 62.147.39.153 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Explicit reference by a novellist to himself (or herself) in the third person", rather than a character in a book modelled on its author? Well, from memory, somewhere in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, it's mentioned that 'all the men of the town, amongst them young García Márquez, came running' (or something like that) to some incident. I vaguely recall mentions in passing of a 'García Márquez' in some of his other book books. (ps: And in Slaughterhouse 5, when Billy Pilgrim is in the latrines after they arrive at the POW camp, he hears a voice from the next stall saying... ah, you all know what comes next.) --Shirt58 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Borges seems to like including himself as a minor character (referenced in the third person) in his stories a lot. - MelancholyDanish


 * Heinrich Böll has the narrator refer to himself as 'The Author' throughout Group Portrait With Lady. Great novel, highly recommend it. Natgoo 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Situational Irony
Can anyone recommend some examples of classical literature that is full of situational irony and cleverly-constructed absurd situations existing between people? I'm thinking of Shakespeare's plays, for instance. "The Office" (both US and UK) is a good modern example. - MelancholyDanish
 * You may be using situational irony in a specialized sense. I would generally regard it as arising from a situation where a person's perceived purpose or motive is not the real one and where this situation causes a second line of commentary.  In that regard, I see it sometimes in the "cringe humor" of "The Office," but not all that frequently.  What do you mean by situational irony?  Utgard Loki 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually mean a few different things. In the first instance, narratives in which ironical situations are fond of happening often, as in "Catch-22," where things are generally always absurd, but in a thoroughly realistic and convincing way. For instance, "There were six men and a Scottish terrier living in Major Major's farmhouse, and five of them and the terrier were agents for the FBI." Or when Milo Minderbinder bombs his own squadron to make a business deal. The world of politics is full of craziness like this on a daily basis. In the second instance I mean really convoluted situations like the ones in Shakespeare: in "Hamlet," for instance, Hamlet is hoping to kill Claudius so that he can avenge his father's death; Laertes is attempting to kill Hamlet so that he can avenge his father's death; Fortinbras is trying to take over the kingdom so that he can avenge Hamlet's father's defeat of his father in war. Or in "Twelfth Night," where Viola is dressed as a man and falls in love with Duke Orsino, who is in love with Olivia, who won't have anything to do with him but falls in love instead with Cesario, who is actually Viola, but ends up marrying her twin brother.


 * Fun things like that. - MelancholyDanish

Like Lois Lane loves Superman, Clark Kent loves Lois, Lois just likes Clark, and Clark and Superman are the same person. And yes, Comic Books are classical literature.

Ivy League acceptance - rigorous requirements?
Sorry if this section doesn't match my question too well, I thought that "society" might fit this, plus the fact that I'd expect the people here to have more knowledge about academics than in other categories.

Hello, I'm worried about a little thing concerning my future, if I'd say so. I don't know if I'm aiming too high, but my philosophy is that if I think I can pull something off, I'll do so. As of what Google results have brought it seems that one has to be some kind of a prodigy to get into an Ivy League university. I'm currently in 8th grade, hence my first words, but I do believe that I must set goals that I can achieve. I score excellent scores at my subjects, and teachers have expressed how they feel about me as [insert-special at something], for example, language studies. The thing is, I'm grateful that when my family moved to where I live now, I got into a MYP class, we could say it's a junior-IB class. The latter IB, after compulsive schooling, has admission tests, MYP plus a GPA of at least 9 (3.6 GPA in the US system) is pretty much a straight ticket to IB for me, though. I am confident that through IB, I can get great scores, too. To summarize and paraphrase what I just said, does IB help in admissions? And do I even stand a chance? I feel slightly embarrassed as I feel like I don't have a realistic concept in my mind of the requirements of an "elite" university. Regarding extracurricular activities, what does it mean? Would I have to have ECs at junior high already? My only hobby outside school and general outdoor activity (not EC..) is music, I compose, play several instruments et al. IB has CAS, does this count as EC, even though it's actually required in order to receive an IB diploma (not that much of an extra)? Does it help that I speak Russian AND Finnish at a native level (both are my mother tongues)? And my English is.. well, I hope you can judge it based on this text, then there's Swedish and German that I'm currently learning. Oxbridge, for instance, will accept you in advance under the condition that you score a certain amount of points in your final IB diploma. Does Oxbridge compare with the top universities in the US in this sense? Thanks in advance :).. By the way, I don't crave for any of those universities, but I'd at least want to study abroad, and at a place that's challenging enough for my academical abilities. --88.193.241.224 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A good approach might be to write to the admissions office of 3 or 4 of the schools you would like to attend and ask them the questions you have asked here. Consult with your school guidance counselor for help in writing the letter. Your writing in this question is somewhat unclear and informal, I would work on that also. Good luck!-- killing sparrows  (chirp!) 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd echo killing sparrows remarks, especially on your writing, not to criticise you in any way, but because clear and concise expression is usually a bare minimum for serious consideration (even here on WP). As far as advice: 1) be as flexible as you can in terms of your expectations, especially regarding the most competetive schools; 2) even if you don't get in to your top choice as an undergrad, you still might go on to graduate or professional school; and 3) some prestigious institutions can be rather lonely, since competition is fierce and you are no longer "exceptional" once you get in (if you do get in, then you're either "just another" very bright person, or a blood relative of a prominent benefactor, or both). Very best wishes in your academic and personal endeavors. dr.ef.tymac 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oxford and Cambridge are in general as prestigious as the top universities in the US or anywhere else. It sounds like you might eventually want to go on for a Master's or even Ph.D. If you know what fields interest you most, you can do some research to find out where the top people in those fields are, and focus your attention on those schools. I've never been involved in the admissions process, but from what I hear, evidence of taking initiative, having a passion (with moderation!) for something, and social aspects of extracurricular activities, all carry some weight, for instance having organized events, or having served on some board or committee. See also our article University and college admissions and relevant articles referred to therein, and possibly other relevant articles listed in Category:University and college admissions. --Lambiam Talk  08:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "if I think I can pull something off, I'll do so. " — it's a beautiful philosophy, except when it doesn't work. Everyone has setbacks occasionally, failures and denials. One of the tricks to being a well-rounded person is learning to accept occasional failures and realizing that life goes on and to try harder next time. Just a tip. Don't build it up for yourself so that there is no alternative — keep a good goal, find out what others did to succeed, assess your chances realistically, be grateful if it works out, don't be crushed if it doesn't. --24.147.86.187 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are books which include charts showing what schools people usually go to if they do not get into a certain school. Always have Plan B and Plan C (safety schools) as well as "reach" schools you don't really expect to get into. The admissions process is an imperfect one. Edison 04:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)