Humanities desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 15

Why does the sun make people happy?

Moved to the Science desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's so bad about pandemics?

Yes, yes, I know there's the pain and suffering of the infected. But I'm talking about a more dispassionate and logical approach. Let's say that a disease spreads throughout a continent or maybe even farther. The ones who are most affected will likely be the poor (due to limited access to health care), the elderly, and the very young. So you're basically taking out those who are taking money and resources from welfare systems, those who are no longer adding significantly to the production of goods/services, and in general those who are on the receiving end of the balance sheet. There will be the initial cost of keeping the people outside of those demographics healthy but after the disease has subsided, won't society be "healthier" in some respect? So is there a "harm" that I'm missing here? Dismas|^(talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The typical party line is that suffering is never justified or acceptable, but I for one am with you. I think the real problem is that we read the news about far-off places that we have no business knowing about, when we should really just be concerned with what's in front of our noses. Vranak (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the harm that you're missing is what you've passed over with your dispassionate and logical approach. Djk3 (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biologically, Dismas is correct. Pandemics either wipes out an organism or make them fitter for survival.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same dispassionate logic might next take you to the next step. Why waste money on any health care, for any one, rich or poor? It is the weak (and the unlucky) who get sick. Let them all die and humanity will be the stronger for it. It is not a strength I would admire, and not a place I would care to be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Setting to one side the repugnant sentiment expressed by Dismas and Vranak, if we consider a pandemic such as Spanish flu in 1918/19 "another unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old." In our own time, AIDS is doing much the same, notably in Africa (one of Vranak's far off places that we should not concern ourselves with, as if that makes it all go away). I'm going to doubt that the orphaned child of an AIDS victim agrees that it was the economically unproductive who died. Dismas and Vranak might want to reflect on what sort of society they want to live in: one which does not give a shit, I'm guessing. One which conveniently selects out evidence that does not support their world view. Lovely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling argument, Tagishsimon, but I ask you this: if someone is suffering in Africa that I am unable to help, is it better for me to know or not know about them? If I know about them, the suffering is compounded, if not, it is limited. If suffering in the first place is objectionable then why is it acceptable in my case?

Perhaps if I were a more typical Westerner living a decadent lifestyle (SUVs, ski trips, winter in Hawaii, a closet full of shoes) then it would be good for me to know about the less fortunate in Africa, Iraq, or at my nearest homeless shelter. But I cannot even support myself, so learning about those even more pitiful than me doesn't help anyone. Vranak (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the relevant answers, I find the assumption that I endorse such a situation fascinating to say the least. I don't recall saying that we should throw the poor and elderly to the wolves. I was just posing a question about a hypothetical situation and asking for relevant issues that I might be ignorant of. Dismas|^(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "harm" you might be missing... I guess what's also missing is the idea of personal, cultural and social capital which is not measureable in economic, goods and services, balance sheet terms. These are invisible largely because they're not going to appear on the books. See Pierre Bourdieu for an expansion on that. Sometimes people are simply worth supporting because they're part of society and contribute in ways economists and accountants overlook, but are important in ways known only to their families, carers, and others whose jobs depend on having the poor, elderly and ill to cater to. My bet is that society wouldn't feel so well off if the vulnerable disappeared for, among other reasons, that they are binaries, offering a dialectic such as in the existence of the Other. (and a ps, the "other" continues to encroach as those who are "us" take our turn to be "them" given time and chance events which as I see it, respect no-one in reality. I'm smiling at the idea of you imagining a selective pandemic. Hmmm, the Black Plague took out the educated and well-off, opening up previously privileged fields of employment to people from the lower classes. Howzat for an unpredictable pandemic!) Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I also didn't completely understand what you were asking, Dismas. Was the "harm" that you might be missing to be viewed entirely from a species point of view? If so, it is theoretically conceivable that a sufficiently virulent pandemic could wipe out the entire human species either directly or by affecting its ability to reproduce.

If not, even for a seemingly "unaffected" and "healthy" individual, and even from a "dispassionate and logical" point of view, and as pointed out by Julia Rossi, a pandemic will not only make the victims suffer and die, but also lead to great suffering among the survivors in their families and communities, with far-reaching global effects, especially if there is the impression that too little was attempted in terms of fighting the virus or protecting human beings. Entire societies could collapse with unpredictable costs and consequences regarding their peace and stability, as well as that of neighbouring regions. Even without compassion and only applying selfish logic, this isn't desirable anywhere in a globalized world, unless you happen to profit from instability. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the world's poor were wiped out, who would do the jobs that poor people tend to do? I hate to sound this arrogant, but I'm rather happy having a desk job.

Besides, since most forms of poverty aren't genetic, the evolutionary gains would be slight. What would probably happen is that there would be a serious shakeup in the economy when the poor-people-in-large-numbers suddenly stop buying stuff and at the same time suddenly stop showing up for their minimum wage service jobs. After a (hopefully brief) period of chaos many of us currently enjoying life in the middle class would find ourselves filling the role previously held by the plague victims.

That's how it's always happened in the past. A society would have to take a deliberate effort to avoid that. But then we're talking about Communism or something, and that's not easy to get right.

That's not to say a giant population decrease wouldn't be good for the species or its longterm survival, of course, but you asked about society.APL (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemics also herald political and economic instability. We look back on the social and economic effects of the Black Plague today and see a net gain, since it moved Europe a bit closer to what we have today (a less strong Church, increased social mobility), but that's just the pride of the victor (and omits the peasant uprisings, persecutions of minorities, etc.). Who knows what would happen in a similar situation today—it's a dice roll, and could most easily end up in awful situations. Additionally, I think you underestimate the long-term effects of getting rid of the elderly, the poor, and the young. The poor contribute a huge amount to the functioning of an economy; the elderly are major investors; the young are, well, the next generation of laborers, thinkers, workers, etc. A nation with no elderly and no young and no poor would be in sad shape indeed; and any benefits to state coffers from a lack of welfare checks would be quickly offset by a lack of tax income, a lack of manpower, general economic downturns, etc., much less the expenses of disaster mitigation, healthcare, insurance, etc. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider the fact that a pandemic will take out more than just the elderly and children. It would take millions oflives, regardless of fitness, age etc. If it was fast-acting enough it is likely that no amount of wealth and thus medical treatment could cure it before it does huge damage. It would destabilise society, taking out key workers all over the map, and to look at it from your point of view, taxpayers. If it was severe enough it could do much more than just this: as Ms Rossi mentioned, the Plague was pretty severe. To look at it from your point of view, you might consider the possibility that humans could expend billions or even trillions attempting to cure it, to no avail. Your way of looking at it is short-sighted to say the least. I would say society would be much "healthier" place if we actually gave a crap about people suffering from deadly diseases, and attempted to show some compassion and empathy towards them. Let's assume that people on benefits/welfare contribute nothing to society, and are then all killed off in a huge pandemic. Sure, the governments of the world would be paying out less in benefits, but you'd the have no old people, who are often the most involved in politics, no young people, who are indeed the future, no struggling musicains to get you throught the hard times as you deal with the death of your student cousin, virtually no real economic hardship for some of the greatest art to be created from etc etc. It may feel to you that many people are on the "receiving side of the balance sheet", but that is to ignore all the advances of the last 150 years in Western civilisation. One of those victims could have gone to university on welfare and developed the cure for cancer. One could have become the next Shakespeare. One could have done anything, for that is what we often recognise now: although many traits are genetic, human potential is enormous, and clever parents do not a clever child make, and the same is true for poor or struggling parents. Your point of view seems to be encroaching upon eugenics or social Darwinism, and yours, Vranak, is either objectivist or just plain selfish. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, Dismas, if I gave the impression that I thought you were supportive of a society that throws people "to the wolves". My comment was meant merely to remind us that, once we start thinking that way as a society, we are headed to places that may well be even worse. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you owe anyone an apology, Bielle. Anyone asking questions about "what's the harm" in millions of people dying horribly ought to have a thick skin, I should think. Matt Deres (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it curious, Bielle, that when an argument like this is presented that it is always the 'others' who are affected, those removed by distance, or by poverty, or by culture; those in 'far-off places' and with 'far off lives', never oneself. My father has a very extensive collection of Bob Dylan recordings, and I am reminded of one song in particular, World War III Talkin' Blues, where the narrator keeps having a recurring dream that he is the only person to survive a nuclear holocaust. Troubled by this he goes to the doctor;

Well, the doctor interrupted me just about then,

Sayin, "Hey I've been havin' the same old dreams,

But mine was a little different you see.

I dreamt that the only person left after the war was me.

I didn't see you around."

The typical 'party line' in the nineteenth century was that the suffering caused by cholera was 'justified and acceptable' for as long as it only affected poor people. But, unfortunately, disease, being rather blind, tended to walk, all unannounced, into nice middle-class neighborhoods, then it was a different matter altogether! Death is fine just so long as they are the deaths of other people, and then one can be dispassionate and logical; then one can discuss healthy demographics and healthy organisms in all liberty, in the full conceit of Olympian 'logic'.

But it occurs to me, Bielle, that we have reached such a stage of development that there is no need to wait for the necessary pandemic to 'winnow out' those far away and worthless people. Why not begin the process ourselves? We would, of course, have to prioritise those suitable for some measure of social hygiene. You may have your own views on this. Jonathan Swift suggests in his wonderful A Modest Proposal that the problem of hunger could be solved by the consumption of babies. But I personally think it better if the terminally stupid start dining on one another! And, please, everyone, never seek to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. People with a thick skin deserve less courtesy than those who are more easily offended. I'll have to remember that, Matt. Bielle, thank you for your apology. As Matt assumed, I do have a thick skin and was not offended by your comment, though you did jump to an incorrect conclusion. I don't advocate pandemics. I am simply looking for more than a "we should save the poor because they're human beings just like you and me" argument. I was looking for the soceital effects as well as the financial and political. So far, the responses have been most enlightening! Thank you, everyone! Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of good points have already been made, and to expand on one issue regardless of whether it is harmless that the eldery and children die, let's remember that for the children and parents of these children and elderly respectively, they're not going to see it from this dispationate POV. They're very likely to spend as much time and money as possible trying to keep their children/parents alive. And once their children/parents do die, this could easily have a strongly negative effect on their mental health (let's not forget that the wealthy of delay childbearing to an age where they can't just have more children) and on their personal development. So putting aside the potential contributions of the children and elderly you've just said you think don't matter, even those whose physicial health isn't affected by the pandemic may still not contribute as much as they could have or would have because of the pandemic's effect on those around them Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What your missing is Morality. Willy turner (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majahapit civilisation

Disclaimer: not a school project.

What are the features that caused the civilisation to flourish/decline? (In terms of geogarphical location, allocation of occupations, government and leadership, form of writing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean Majapahit?--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, soory for the speeling error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiblebug590 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the disclaimer? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colette and religion

Exactly when, and exactly why, did the French writer Colette, who often proclaimed her agnosticism, start to take an interest in matters of religion? Did she undergo some kind of personal or spiritual crisis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.98.146 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer to this, but if Colette did meet such a crisis I guess it was near the end. As she wrote in La Maison de Claudine (1922), "Tu comprendras plus tard que jusqu’à la tombe on oublie, à tout instant, la vieillesse". (You will understand later that we keep on forgetting old age, until we get to the grave.) Xn4 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on this topic, 217.42, in The Secrets of the Flesh: A Life of Colette by Judith Thurman (Bloomsbury, 1999). It was in the spring of 1943 when Colette turned towards religion, urged on by Francois Mauriac, who decided that it was his personal mission to 'lead Colette to God.' It was on his urging that she began reading the Bible, particularly the epistles of Saint Paul. She was highly vulnerable at the time, old and ill, increasingly convinced that she may not survive the war. However, Maurice Goudeket, Colette’s husband, took a more sceptical view of her motives, that her 'spiritual flirtation with Mauriac', as he put it, might give her some kind of immunity 'in a moment of great danger'. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

How does one mentally prepare ones self for the eventual death, assuming all practical matters, like wills, financial affairs ect. are taken care of?--Artjo (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent study it was proven that people with some type of religion usually cope better with death/dying. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. If you are disinclined to religion you might like to contemplate impermanence as well as rebirth, and perhaps consider voluntary work in a hospice.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of interesting books on the subject. I found Sherwin Nuland's How We Die to be quite interesting. But anyway, there's no obviously generalizable answer for the individual person; any reasonable response will have to be personalized to their situation. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these answers, I am not religious by any standards, so will try to find the Nuland book. Thanks again.--Artjo (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many non religious people (including myself) find it helpful to realize that we have all actually been “dead” for eternity. As Schopenhauer saw it, for instance, life is merely a short and rather unpleasant episode in an expanse of glorious nothingness. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the Captain's recommendation. There's something about Nuland's clinical detachment that I found strangely comforting. That kind of writing could easily come across as cold or inhumane, but done correctly it serves to bring the horrors down to our scale, where we can more easily confront them. It's been several years since I last read the book, but I seem to recall that the chapter on murder was one of the most enlightening. Matt Deres (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going with personal experience, after a gradual loss of faith I found a realistic dream in which I actually died oddly helpful. Terrifying, but left me strangely comfortable with the notion after the initial response wore off. S. dedalus's approach was precisely the sort of thought which made me uncomfortable (When you have been dead 1000 years, you have only begun to be dead), so these things vary widely from person to person. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People living deeply have no fear of death. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm very surprised that no one had yet mentioned the Kübler-Ross model or its author Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. If I were in the position you describe, this would likely be where I started. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify--I'm not sure that her model would be the only thing that allowed me to deal with the process. But I think understanding why we feel the emotions we do as we approach death, and how we transition between them, would be one of the best ways of making that transition more smoothly and with more self-awareness. 71.112.36.216 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the throwaway lines in Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces is that the ultimate purpose off all religions is to prepare its adherents for, and provide comfort at the time of, death. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and bureaucratic decay

Thank you for answering my question about Engels. I am turning now to Lenin. Beyond the warnings in his testament about Stalin did he see a danger to the revolution in the rise of the new bureaucratic class?Yermelov (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was, Yermelov, effectively 'hoist by his own petard.' "We are convinced", he wrote, “that our machinery of state...is inflated to twice the size we need", but offered no solution to the problem beyond the rather lame suggestion that 'further study' was required. Effectively the situation was impossible, because he had created the problem of over-centralisation himself. In his recommendations on the recruitment of 'irreproachable communists' to the Central Control Commission he says, with absolutely no sense of irony, that "...a great deal has yet to be done to teach them the methods and objects of their work." In other words, the supervisors of the supervisors need supervising! For Lenin the Party had to play the leading role in all spheres of Soviet life. From this all else followed; from Stalin to the final collapse of the whole impossible structure, crushed by a dead-weight of empty dreams. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Bin Laden

Shortly after the September 11th disaster, the US government identified Osama Bin Laden as its lead terrorist target. I saw a follow-up national TV news story reporting that Osama was totally dependent on dislysis machine treatment...it seemed credible. I have not seen a similar report since. If he does require/required such treatment he should have had major difficulty surviving in the Afghan/Pakistan caves, as our government reported as his hiding places. He would also have had diffulty surviving to this date. If this is true, maybe government searches should have traced a dialysis machine trail.

Could you verify whether Osama Bin Laden did require/requires regular dialysis machine treatments? If he does, what ailment is being treated?

TyRonne de DuPonte' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyRonne de DuPonte' (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try here it's a complete medical history, including information inferred or discovered by intelligence services that has been revealed to the media. I can't vouch for the reliability of the site, but the article seems very well referenced. Evidently Osama does not require dialysis, but does suffer from kidney stones. There used to be a wikipedia page about the CIA's analysis of his gait, which I believe they use to verify his identity in the videos as it is very difficult to imitate, but I can't find it. Essentially I think the CIA determined from the way he walked that he had something wrong with him, possibly bone problems, but that it was not renal failure. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlborough coat of arms

Are there more informations on the coat of arms of the Marlboroughs? Why a double-ehaded eagle, the spanish motto and the Shell of Saint James?--Tresckow (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the bit about the spanish moto is explained on the page the image resides on, Duke of Marlborough, which states "The meaning of the motto, Fiel pero desdichado (Faithful but unfortunate), can be related to the fact that as a consequence of his loyalty to the king, the first duke lost his home and lands. It is original having the motto in Spanish and not in Latin. That could be related to the fact that the first duke become honored after the battle of Blenheim, decisive in the Spanish succession war." There's no reference but it seems plausible.

However, despite my best efforts on Google I can't find anything that explains the origins of the various parts of the coat of arms. I wouldn't be too shocked if Clio knows, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I read this explanation. But I wondered if there was more to it. Considering the eagles that are rather odd for British heraldry. At least in my opinion. sadly Google has nothing to offer.--Tresckow (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperial Eagle and princely coronet are to do with the first Duke holding the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (an honour granted by the Emperor in 1705). With regard to the shells, the part of the arms the OP is interested in is the quarters representing Spencer. They weren't part of the arms until added by the 3rd Duke, whose father was a Spencer, his mother Lady Anne Churchill. The 14th century arms of Hugh le Despencer were Quarterly argent and gules, in the second and third quarters a fret or, over all a bend sable. It isn't certain that these Spencers were descended from him, except through female lines. When we come to Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland (1674-1722), father of the 3rd Duke, the bend sable is differenced by three escallops argent, distinguishing him from other Spencers, who bore on that bend five mullets argent or three fleurs-de-lys. Xn4 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German eagle has its head turned to our left hand, and the Roman eagle to our right hand. When Charlemagne was made "Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire," he joined the two heads together, one looking east and the other west...

Benét, W. R. (1948). "two-headed eagle." The reader's encyclopedia p. 327.—eric 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I always thought the Double-headed eagle was the symbol of the Byzantine Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it was, but adopted also by a miscellany of empires. One of the most surprising uses is on the arms and flag of little Albania. Xn4 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope's Airplane

This morning on the radio a newscaster stated the Shepard 1 was in the air, the Vadican reports that the Pope is on his way to America. Was this a joke? or Does the Pope fly in a plane called Shepard1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raszone (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article: [1] will answer your questions. Yours, Lord Foppington (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he does. CNN mention the Shepherd 1, as to many other news sources. It's not as strange as the Popemobile, though. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resourceful Tips to be a Qualified Cartoonist?

I was asking how to be a cartoonist without a acquainted edge on illustration or drawing characters before.

I had a interest by watching cartoon shows these days namely Stephen Hilling's (or whatever his name was) brainchild of the American program, Spongebob Squarepants. I envied the genius of making a sponge speak and have typical human characteristics and so I thought it wouldn't be so bad if I made characters of my own to entertain. --Writer Cartoonist (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be only me but I don't really understand your question. What is 'to be a qualified cartoonist'? Do you mean with a diploma? By cartoonist you seem to mean character designer or did you mean something else (someone that writes and draws newspaper cartoons, animation ,comic books)? Making up goofy things might cover most of it? Practice and looking at 'cartoons' are the two basic ingredients it would seem to me. Maybe you could rephrase your question (for me anyway). Using google queries such as 'cartoon blogs', 'illustration blogs', 'drawing ressource', 'character design', etc, will show you how broad the field is. All the best. Keria (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are how-to cartoon books, and illustration courses from community college to degree level and cartoon workshops, so googling is the way to go. If a person has ideas they can get a cartoonist to collaborate with them which is what Harvey Pekar did. He had ideas but not the cartooning ability. I guess you've thought of training yourself by copying, developing stylistic bits that you like and putting them into your characters. I saw a little book that played on the stick man theme because the guy had ideas but could only draw stick men. It worked. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could practice by yourself, attempting to draw the human body in motion in various poses. try buying a small mannequin withadjustable joints and just sketch its body shape accurately and try to add features. The human body is really complex and difficult to make look realistic, so it'll improve your ability endlessly. Try and give your drawings character, or even better attempt to create characters, like a storyboard or something. I've no idea how to do cartoons in flash but I'd imagine you'd still need to be able to draw pretty well, depending on what style you're doing. Practice is the best way to get good, and I find that when you sketch out a character, the ideas normally turn up pretty quickly. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeffreyLotusSan

Mister San was born on October 4th, 1993 and has made many accomplishments. He has been through many struggles in life, and yet is living it to the fullest. He is loved by the most awesomest people on earth, like Tho Nguyen.

Jeffrey San became the queen of [name here] kingdom, ruled by his one and only king, Tho Nguyen. Misz Nguyen has hired a noble servant who has been there for both her& her queen through many troubles. Vuong Tran, would be this handsome [gag] gentleman's name.

Vuong Tran, was born February 3rd, 1993 and is currently still walking. He likes to be himself& day dream about [fill it in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misz thoquin (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of wiki Mad Libs? Dismas|^(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Prison Cells

I remember seeing pictures, several years ago, of a private and highly secure room that was to hold a very high-profile criminal for his life-time sentence. My memory seems to suggest that it was built in Britain for an Islamic terrorist, but this could be false. I also feel like I saw it on the http://news.bbc.co.uk website, but this could also be wrong. I've tried searching that site, along with general google searches, but I can't seem to turn anything up. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a very strange idea. Does anyone remember ever hearing about a special prison room, designed with one criminal in mind? It's one of those things that has been pinging around the back of my head for a long time, and I'd love to have it cleared up. Thanks in advance for anything you think up! -Vannav (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Noriega#Trial? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vannav, forgive me, I skipped your question earlier because I assumed it was a matter of no interest to me. But on further reflection, and now having read the detail of your submission, I wonder if you have Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Libyan terrorist, in mind? I believe he has a specially designed cell in some Scottish prison. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loveable characters from literature

What male characters or heroes of literature would you fall in love with? Keria (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I´d be a girl most likely with Jean Valjean, Javert or Colonel Brandon (that is if he´s like Allan Rickman in the movie).--Tresckow (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcliff! I hated you; I loved you.[2]. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the chicks dig Mike Hammer. ;-) —Kevin Myers 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, some of us are handicapped in this! But judging by the women I can't resist, I'll say Lord Peter Wimsey. Xn4 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not limit it to males here! Wrad (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a chick or gay, I'd probably go for Lazarus Long. Since I'm not a chick or gay, I'd go for pretty much any Heinlein heroine especially Laz Long's twin "daughters", Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee. "'What would you do if you had a million dollars?', 'Two chicks at the same time'" - Not Heinlein but it gets the point across... Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common ones I hear are Mr Darcy (handsome and smouldering) and Mr Knightley (sensible, good-natured and handsome) from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Emma, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights (why? I have no idea, whatsoever), Jean Valjean (older, honourable, gentlemanly), Marius (sensitive, romantic) and Enjolras (strong, leader type) from Les Miserables. Steewi (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - I'd be interested to know JackofOz's opinion here. Steewi (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steewi, thanks for the interest in my opinions, but this is actually quite a tough call for me. I've been so immersed in non-fiction reading for so long that fictional characters do not readily suggest themselves to me. I'll have a memory search and get back to you. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I realise - probably for the very first time, actually - that as I matured to the point where I was able to fall in love with anyone, I unconsciously decided that fictional characters, interesting as they can be, are just not available to fall in love with in a real sense, and so I switched my attention to real people. Hence my interest in biography and non-fiction in general when it comes to reading. I can certainly fall in love with characters from movies, but I suspect that's strongly influenced by the actor/tress playing the part. For example, I love Alec from E.M. Forster's Maurice, but if an actor other than the delectable Rupert Graves had played the role in the movie, I suspect I couldn't give a fig for Alec. In my strange mind, the actor and the role are often merged into one. Maybe I need more boundaries in my life. Thanks for the opportunity to continue on my steady and unremitting path to self-actualisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I need to justify my dreams to you, Steewi, but I see in Heathcliff all of the uncontrolled and elemental passions; dark, brooding and impossibly romantic. You are quite obviously male...or most awfully tame! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Wrad (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True on both accounts, Clio, but you assume that my maleness would completely remove my opinion... Steewi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? How clever of me! I have to say, though, that my assumption appears to have been based on a false premise, does it not?! Anyway, I rather thought I was directing my remarks at your professed ignorance over the possible attractions of Heathcliff. You now do have an idea what these might be. You may not like the idea, but you have it, notwithstanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an odd question for a predominantly male website. I'll have to say anyone but Lovecraft's Cthulhu. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions assumptions. I have yet to see an unflawed study or survey that indicated the editors of Wikipedia in general, or even of the reference desk, were significantly predominantly male. Of course, I may be experiencing a slight True Scotsman here :). To the question, I'd have to agree with Mr Darcy. Heathcliff I found deeply irritating and unpleasant, but then I felt that way about the whole book. If we're stretching the 'literature' label, possibly The Stainless Steel Rat or Lupin from the Harry Potter series. Oh Lupin, how glad I am never to have watched the movie version of you. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can include pop-culture literature, there's replicant Roy Batty; (segueing to the movie: especially his monologue at the end summarising his short, harsh life). He was weird, but admire-able. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to go with Rhett Butler. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, perhaps? · AndonicO ^Engage. 08:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old Salon thread [3]] that kept coming back around to vacillate between Darcy and Jamie from Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. Catrionak (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Carton. --LarryMac | Talk 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. John Dolittle [4]!--Eriastrum (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¡Wow! I don't know any of these characters. Thank you very much. Keria (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I have strange tastes in men (read Byronic and/or tragic and/or Anti-Hero), but Mr. Rochester, Mr. Thornton, Edmond Dantes/Count of Monte Cristo, Eugene Onegin, Roland Deschain, Dexter Morgan, Richard Rahl, and Rand al'Thor are some of my favorites. (If we were to delve out of literature, I'd mention The Doctor, Dream, Batman, and The Punisher among others....) My roommate recommends Horatio Hornblower, and seconds the Scarlett Pimpernel. Zidel333 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, John Carter of Mars? Tarzan (the one in the books, not the movies - he was, after all, a British lord). Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts came to mind when I read this enjoyable thread. Clio, you surprise me. If you like dark and brooding, why not Mr Rochester? At least he has intelligence and wit. Heathcliff, well, if you aren't disgusted by his wife-beating, violence, necrophilia, adulterous and incestuous obsessions, ill-natured manipulation of others, brow-beating and temper tantrums, you'd still be bored by him within a week. Hardly a mind to excite anyone (I tried to imagine him contributing to the Ref desk; Mr Rochester would be amusing and insightful; Heathcliff could bring WP to its knees).

Xn4: you're in good company. Dorothy L. Sayers fell in love with Lord Peter as well.

JackofOz: I recommend falling in love with fictional characters. Existing entirely in the imagination, you can conjure and manipulate them at will, and create a hybrid!

I take all your recommendations very seriously, Gwinva, naturally, but I can't promise to do this. I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself "Hmm, what will I do today? I know, I think I'll find someone to fall in love with". It comes upon us, usually when we least expect it - and sometimes when we least want it. That's my experience. Anyway, while I love all humanity, I'm only ever in love with one person at a time, and I'm fully spoken for at the moment, and intend to stay that way forever. Sorry, but I'm just not made to fall in love with people I can't actually touch. The best I can do with fictional characters is to admire them. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking more generally, I have noticed the standard interest in Darcy. Yet, how many are like Elizabeth, and date their affection to seeing Pemberley for the first time? If Darcy were poor, would he be as interesting? For loveable Austen heroes, Henry Tilney is unfairly overlooked by most: he is amusing, intelligent, kind, loyal, steady, accepting, although probably not exciting. I suspect there is a difference between those women want to marry and settle down with – the Darcys, Tilneys and Lord Peters – (see following question) and those they want a love affair with. Hornblower, the Doctor, Sharpe (and so forth) are exciting, but would make poor husbands. The Byronic types may be romantic, but they offer little but misery long term.

On a related topic, I've heard Elizabeth Bennett described as "the most shaggable Austen heroine". Gwinva (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rochester is tiresome and altogether too bourgeoisie for my taste!. Alas, nobody-apart from me, that is-seems to understand the elemental force that is Heathcliff. Cathy is his anchor; without her he is lost, blowing through the novel with all the unrestrained energy of a great tempest. Their's is a mutual passion, with echoes of an ancient tragedy, that goes well beyond the cosy domesticity that Jane brings to Rochester. Charlotte did not understand the force of Emily's great novel, a work of unsurpassed genius, going far beyond anything she ever achieved; going well beyond the limits of the Victorian imagination itself. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Clio, about Emily Bronte's genius: her writing is extraordinary. It drags one into a dark and claustrophobic world, and portrays the depths of wild tempestuous passion. But it's not a world I'm tempted to stay in; it is a relief to emerge from it. Gwinva (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We buried him, to the scandal of the whole neighbourhood, as he wished. Earnshaw and I, the sexton, and six men to carry the coffin, comprehended the whole attendance. The six men departed when they had let it down into the grave: we stayed to see it covered. Hareton, with a streaming face, dug green sods, and laid them over the brown mould himself: at present it is as smooth and verdant as its companion mounds - and I hope its tenant sleeps as soundly. But the country folks, if you ask them, would swear on the Bible that he WALKS: there are those who speak to having met him near the church, and on the moor, and even within this house. Idle tales, you'll say, and so say I. Yet that old man by the kitchen fire affirms he has seen two on 'em looking out of his chamber window on every rainy night since his death:- and an odd thing happened to me about a month ago. I was going to the Grange one evening - a dark evening, threatening thunder - and, just at the turn of the Heights, I encountered a little boy with a sheep and two lambs before him; he was crying terribly; and I supposed the lambs were skittish, and would not be guided.

'What is the matter, my little man?' I asked.

'There's Heathcliff and a woman yonder, under t' nab,' he blubbered, 'un' I darnut pass 'em.

For me Heathcliff and Cathy will walk those moors, hand-in-hand, forever. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, your comments regarding Heathcliff seem to border on hyperbole. As for Charlotte’s tale, Mr. Rochester and Jane have a smoldering passion throughout nearly the entire novel; but it was due to morality and Victorian modesty that they could not simply just out and express their love as melodramatically as Emily’s character’s did. Also, Jane gives Mr. Rochester far more than plain domesticity as you put it, she gives him true love, a happy and mutual beneficial marriage among equals, children, and above all else the hope and desire to repent his sins to save his soul. These are all things that are not shared by Heathcliff’s and Cathy’s story. And lest we not forget, Mr. Rochester was so desperate to join his true love Jane he was on the brink of suicide, an act of terrible finality that not even Heathcliff acted upon. While readers may poo poo the “happy ending” of Jane Eyre in comparison to the more brutal tragic love affair between Heathcliff and Cathy; but this response is too simple an answer as both Jane and Mr. Rochester have had to suffer by the Hand of God, both bodily and emotionally, before they could be reunited. Their pain makes the ending that much more satisfactory. Zidel333 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply love drama and hyperbole, Zidel! Yes, Jane Eyre is a nice Victorian morality tale, with a comfortable and acceptable ending; a kind of secular Pilgrim's Progress. Wuthering Heights is altogether greater, a story of love that transcends the mundane. To imagine Cathy and Heathcliff in cosy domesticity, like Jane and Rochester, is to imagine the impossible. Emily's great novel was misunderstood by Charlotte and most contemporary opinion. It touched on aspects of love and tragedy that they simply could not comprehend. Heathcliff is part of my romantic vision. Thus it is, and thus it remains. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the realist Jane, refusing to accept a relationship with the one she loves until she can be sure they will be on an equal footing. It's not really a morality tale, more a story of power and love. It's not so much the immorality of bigamy that stops her sticking with him, more the uncertainty of the position she would find herself in. She knows he's liable to stray and that, without a legal marriage, she will have no recourse if he loses interest in her as he has done in others before. I'm not so keen on Rochester myself, but the book is certainly not cosy. (As to the comfort of the ending, I recommend reading The Eyre Affair) Darcy though; smart, funny, sensible, charitable, actually thinks about things and caught off guard by his love! 130.88.140.121 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a morality tale alright, a progress through trial and tribulation to the calm waters of matrimony. It's all there; the Slough of Despond, Hill Difficulty, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair, even Giant Despair himself. Resolution comes as Jane and Rochester enter through the gates of matrimony, their own celestial paradise. The book may not be cosy; the end certainly is, which is precisely the point I am making. It is for this, and other reasons, that I consider Jane Eyre, for all its worth, a lesser achievement than Wuthering Heights.

Honestly, I’m not sure why I've been drawn so far into this. I admire all of the Brontë books, though Wuthering Heights has a special place for me as one of the greatest, no, let me be more precise, the greatest English novel of the nineteenth century. I return to Keria's question. Yes, Heathcliff, mad, bad and dangerous to know, is my romantic ideal; the one figure in literature that Clio, in the shape of Cathy, could fall madly in love with! …he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Beauty hotclaws 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a slightly elastic view of 'literature': Rhett Butler, Doctor Zhivago, and, from the pornographic section, Tarl Cabot (precis:all women secretly long to be enslaved and raped by muscle-men). --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]