Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 11

= July 11 =

Harry Potter
If JK Rowling spent six years writing Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, how did she manage to complete the other, much larger books in just one or two years? 208.76.245.162 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * She had no publication deadline for the first one, and so could afford to dally. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a writer doing the rounds with publishers, I can give my experience that may or may not have anything to do with Rowling's... I started writing a novel in 1984. I finished writing my novel in 1997 (Note that I only wrote in 1984, 1988, and 1996-1997).  I spent the next two years working out how to get publishers to read it.  During that time, I was instructed to rewrite the beginning and end as two very short chapters so they could read how it starts and ends and make a decision to take time on the rest of the book.  I did that.  I got interest from two different publishers and sent them the entire novel in 2000.  Excited, I started my own sort of "advertising" on the Internet by posing as one of the characters and posting messages on a few BBSs.  Then, the interest turned into rewrites.  I did that.  One publisher lost interest.  The other switched me from one editor to another for the next four years and then lost interest in 2004.  So, all together, I worked on the novel, actively writing, for about 4 years.  I spent at least 5 years writing and rewriting for publishers who, in the end, told me that my novel had no market. --  k a i n a w &trade; 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, really, I don't think it's any wonder that Rowling has been quicker with the rest of the books -- after all, at that point she already knew how to write a book and undoubtedly had some kind of a writing routine down. (Also, looking at her biography, I see she not only had a baby but also suffered from depression as she was writing her first novel. These things probably contributed to the pace she was writing at.) And, as Tagishsimon notes -- a lack of deadline often translates to a lack of progress. I'd get very few things done without deadlines myself. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Longer does not always mean better, and a good short book does not necessarily take less time to write. As Blaise Pascal once wrote: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time". Writing, rewriting, editing, improving takes time.  Gwinva (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only did she have a writing routine down by the time the first book was finished but she likely had a better idea of where the characters were going and wasn't as concerned with the actual plot and story line. Dismas |(talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding from interviews with JKR is that she worked out the basic plot of all seven books before the first was published, so that would save time. Plus she was probably having to do other things to earn money while writing the first - once it was a success that problem would have disappeared. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * From reading interviews with her (and possibly a little reading-between-the-lines) she wrote books 2, 3 and 4 as quickly as she did because she was told she had to. That she had the plot mostly worked out, the characters mostly determined and more time available to devote no doubt helped, but it can be seen that the books expanded (see Gwinva's point) in a way that is not necessarily justified by the contents. In writing book 4 in a year, she encountered severe problems. She has written that she didn't plot it out properly beforehand, and when she had got a sizeable chunk written it just didn't work. She had to rip the thing apart and rewrite it, removing characters and scenarios and altering plots. A Weasley cousin vanished. After that experience she insisted on being given more time with the other books, and by then she was 'big' enough to be given it. 79.66.67.219 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion
Someone I know was talking about religious beliefs they had, and I was wonder if any already existing religious practices his beliefs could be connected to. He does not believe in a god of any sort, belives that the idea of god can easily be tracked back in history to its beginnings, possibly to a political monotheistic Judaism and a inquisitive polytheistic pagan beginnings, despite this, he is extremely tolerant of all religions saying that their moral beliefs are accurate, but the basis and reason that they have these theological mores are wrong. That the writings and stories of their religions are perfect if interpreted as metaphor and not fact (also that many of the great problems in the worlds history have been caused by the persistent belief in one's own ideas, and the need to try and convince others that they are right). I myself do not believe this, but we have an ongoing discussion and would like to more about his position. Thanks--Xtothe3rd (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not believing in God would be atheism, but believing certain morals that religions happen to promote is more of an ethical belief than a religious one. Perhaps rationalism would also fit.  --Bowlhover (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your friend is not really religious in any sense. He thinks that religious books are good parables but are not divine. He does not believe that religion transcends the history that created it—that it is specifically human made (and not divine). As to what his specific religious beliefs are—e.g., whether he is an atheist, agnostic, or pantheist, all of which could fit that description as given—we'd need more information. Why not just ask him what he self-identifies with? It'll be better than us just guessing. All you've given us so far is his opinion vis-a-vis other religions and the veracity of scripture, which opens up a number of possible interpretations. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I kind of doubt he really thinks that all religions' moral beliefs are accurate. While there's plenty of overlap there, there are many religions that have some moral beliefs that he's likely to find objectionable. (Well, then again, I guess he could believe that all moral beliefs are accurate even if he doesn't follow them, but anyway.) I mean, is he a strict vegetarian, for starters? Or does he believe that all homosexual acts are inherently wrong? Of course, it can often be hard to separate the underlying moral belief from the dogmatic belief, but still. I'd be willing to bet that he does a lot of picking and choosing based on what sounds good and makes sense to him. (And I'm not putting that down, mind you! That's smart.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be close to the views of Sea of Faith?Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, let's get serious here. Does he agree with the morals of the Kālī-worshipping thuggee and with the Jains? Algebraist 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to available data, yes. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reconstructionist Judaism is a stream of organized religion in which historical continuity of peoplehood and ethical behavior are paramount, while theology is rather absent. This would perhaps be in keeping with the OP's friend's position.-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly Secular humanism is his speed. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Type B personalities
I have been tested as a Type B personality and had a few questions about them. What are some good job or career ideas for a Type B? And what are some suggestions on where I would meet or find other Type Bs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.8.2 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing what a Type B personality is, would go a long way to helping people answer your question? Astronaut
 * Looks like it might be this. Fribbler (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which article suggests that the Type A/B dichotomy is at best dubious and at worst outmoded nonsense. In any case, taking it at face value, it appears that Type Bs constitute the majority of the population, so the OP shouldn't have much trouble. Algebraist 11:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

existence of soul
is there a soul which escapes from your body when you die?remi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.252.28 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article on soul, then the answer is "scientifically, it doesn't appear so, but many religions believe so". There are those, like Duncan MacDougall (doctor), who tried to measure the soul, but his experiments are generally not considered particularly reliable or repeatable (see also on Snopes: ). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Economic data on housing prices, inflation rates, and GDP growth rates
I am looking for economic data on housing prices, inflation rates, and GDP growth rates for June (2008) in the US, UK, and Euro Area. So far I haven't been too lucky.  Plasticup  T / C  11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My experience is that such information is rarely available for at least a month after the dates for which you search. I wouldn't be expecting to find much before the beginning of August, and perhaps even later. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found preliminary estimates from several governments. Most release their official figures around July 16th, but a few have gotten them out already. There doesn't appear to be any sort of central repository for this information though, so I have been going through each individual government site...  Plasticup  T / C  17:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian government: 1894
Two separate questions, swift responses appreciated: Who was in power in Italy in 1894? What is the most appropriate wikilink for this faction/junta? Grazi, Skomorokh  13:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The government was lead by Francesco Crispi. I'm not sure if he was leading any formal political party. Algebraist 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for that. Do you know the formal or historical name for the body of which he was the head (e.g. Third Republic); anything from ? I want to write something like "In 1894, the Government of Italy..." but more precise/decriptive/contextual; Government of Italy is a redirect to the bland and sweeping Politics of Italy. Thanks, Skomorokh  13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). Algebraist 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you ever so much. Skomorokh  14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

History university Arab World
Which university in the Arab world in each nations teach History, because I want to teach History in those universities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.34 (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken in context with some of the other recent Arab-themed questions on the Ref Desk, at least one of which was posted by you, I'm having a little trouble buying this, but I guess I'll play: I would be very surprised to learn of any decent-sized and generally respected university in the Arab world that doesn't teach history, seeing as it's such a basic academic subject. The list of Arab universities may be of interest to you. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although finding one which includes the actual history of Israel, as opposed to pure Palestinian propaganda, might be a challenge. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the actual history is somewhere in the middle. -LambaJan (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The latter part of your query looks like the focus of required follow-through: how does one obtain a teaching position in a university in the Arab world? What are the minimal necessary academic qualifications? What residence requirements (including proscriptions) are you likely to encounter? I suggest you approach the History department in institutions where you yourself have studied and get some placement advice. In parallel, contact the embassies or consulates of your target countries and see whether they're recruiting academics. This channel may present unanticipated opportunities mutually agreeable to all parties. And if the university-post aspect is negotiable, you might discreetly inquire at your own country's foreign intelligence agencies, appropriate branches of the United Nations, and NGOs working in that part of the world, who might be seeking an academically qualified individual willing to live and work overseas.-- Deborahjay (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Brothers Karamazov
I have to read the Brothers Karamazov. I get to choose between the Constance Garnett translation, Andrew MacAndrew translation, and the Volokonsky-Pevear one. Which one is generally assumed to be the best? And on a side note, is the title Brothers Karamazov grammatical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.186.7 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brothers Karamazov is old-fashioned, like Brothers Grimm, but we are used to both phrases now. Doobie Brothers is the natural order in modern English. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't it be great if they were called the "Brothers Doobie"? Fribbler (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually today people swear by Volokonsky-Pevear, but I'm sure you can find adherents to all of them. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy and Barack Obama
How long has Caroline Kennedy known Barack Obama and what people such as Tony Rezko do they know in common? Also, how long has she been traveling with Obama on his campaign plane? -- adaptron  (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * She knew of him at least by 1995 when the national news began covering him. As for who they know in common, pretty much the Democratic Party as well as most of the Republican Party.  If you want more specific answers, you need to further define what you mean by "know".  It can be anything from "heard the name" to "had frequent sexual encounters with". --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Creative Thinking on GREEN
I was wondering, with the world slowly being poisoned, is it possible that we as humans, could turn this global warming thing around, if we focus solely on the "Going Green situation?" I thought of some ways that can be tackled to dramatically slow global warming, ways like:

Land conservation-Save massive amounts of land and plant many plants needed. esp. trees, due to deforestation

Using waste as Energy- this country, U.S. produces so much waste, its ridiculous..we have enough waste created to convert it into energy usage.

Something that i'm working on, but i also thought about using radioactive waste as energy. Its waste and i know i sound crazy, but i'm in the process in finding ways to do this. We come up with all these other crazy ways, 'm pretty sure, if this comes to reality, it'll be worth it.

These are just a few ways i thought of... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.83.11 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble with turning generic waste i.e. including plastic etc, into energy is that it's incredibly polluting releasing all sorts of nasty stuff like dioxins, PCBs into the atmosphere in far greater quantites then even something like coal. It also doesn't actually help address global warming much. Perhaps it will have a minor effect on land usage but the biggest problem there is probably competition with agriculture and buildings+roads. It's still going to release just as much carbon dioxide as fossil fuels, probably more since I doubt it will be very efficient and since landfills decompose very slowly it's not as if that CO2 is going to be released anyway. The best way to solve the problem of waste is not to burn it for energy but to reduce, reuse and recycle. Reduce the amount of waste your produce in the first place. Reuse whatever you can and recycle what you can't (if it can be done in an energy efficient manner, i.e. using less energy then it will cost to make the plastic/whatever from scratch). Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no simple technical fix to our problem. The problem is about how we run and organize our societies—what sorts of lives we decide to live. For that same reason I don't see any real chance to try and fix it until it is far, far too late. Humans are lousy at thinking in the long term. Nobody wants to sacrifice. Everybody loves cheap plastic shit and cheap meat. And so everybody wants a quick, easy fix. But there isn't one. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As for waste, see radioisotope thermoelectric generator. The problem is that wastes are difficult to handle, create security and safety problems, and in the end, probably won't generate enough energy to make any process either economically, socially, or politically worthwhile. (Assuming you are not talking about plutonium reprocessing, which is entirely different. It has its own security issues but the energy payout is very high.) But in any case, before you worry too much about it, know that others have no doubt considered this, and there's even an active patent on one approach (this one). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any climatologists (a notoriously unreliable group of forecasters, of course) who believe we could "turn this global warming thing around". Global warming (like global cooling) is a fact and a challenge, but it seems the scale of the problem is being exaggerated by the IPCC and others. Xn4  ( talk ) 02:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not even clear that Global Warming will be bad for the world's most wealthy countries. America, for example, can expect increased crop yields in the already-fertile Mid-West. The ones who are really going to suffer are the Africans threatened by desertification and the Bangladeshis who will soon lose their entire country. So given that those with the power to do something will not be directly suffering, it seems unlikely that any considerable resources will be diverted to fixing the "problem".  Plasticup  T / C  13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Free speech zone
I just read about free speech zones in the US particularly about how they are apparently sometimes used to move protestors (while allowing supporters) away from political rallies by the Secret Service particularly for Bush. I guess you could argue that a protest could get out of control and degenirate into violence but I read that this is sometimes also justified by the notion that in the age of suicide bombers, anything suspicious needs to be treated with caution. Since I find it so bizzare a suggestion, I'm just wondering, other then in the court case, has there even been any support (preferable with references) for this reason either by the Secret Service, the media (e.g. Fox News) etc? To avoid soap-boxing, I don't want any discussion as to the merits of the claims or practice. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Secret Service just says they do not discuss operational details and methods of protection. They have just said generalities like "security concerns justify the use of segregated zones for protesters" per St Petersburg Times, 2002, or "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations" per CBS News 2003 .  See SFGate and the New York Times  from 2004, which says the Secret Service told police to keep people making statements in oppisition to the President in the Free Speech Zone where they could not be seen or heard by reporters or the President. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said in 2002  "Those who pose a genuine threat to the president are expected to carry signs identifying themselves as such, as a courtesy." Clearly an assassin would carry a sign saying he does not like the object of his attack, and would never try to blend in by carrying a sign that says he like the person, so it is not censorship to move protestors to a cage out of sight and earshot. The Roanoke Times (2007)  noted that policies like "free speech zones" keep the President in a "bubble,"  completely insulated from reality. Edison (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The mere existence of free speech zones implies that free speech no longer exists outside the zones, much as drug free school zones implies a total failure in making the entire country a drug-free zone. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "School Zone Ends: Resume Drug Sales Now". StuRat (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The drug free school zones are a bit different. They indicate increased penalties for drug sales/possession within the area, sort of like speeding in a work zone. Free speech zones though... that's really scary.  Plasticup  T / C  13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears the Secret Service can't tell the difference between people expressing their views of an individual or set of policies, and risks of violence. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't agree with the concept of Free Speech Zones, but have heard one reasonable argument in favor of them: Since the Secret Service must not only protect the President from death threats, but also from protestors wanting to throw rotten fruit, etc., they can better focus on preventing assassinations if they first remove people who pose the lesser threat from the area. StuRat (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)