Babylonian era problems. (photo via tbc34)
old school hate mail
Imagine how pissed you have to be to engrave a rock
Ok but there was this guy called Ea-nasir who was a total crook and would actually cheat people ought of good copper and sell them shit instead.
The amount of correspondences complaining to and about this guy are HILARIOUS.
Are you telling me we know about a specific guy who lived 5000 years ago, by name, because he was a huge asshole
More like 4000 years ago but yes. Ea-nasir and his dodgy business deals.
And we haven’t even touched on the true hilarity of the situation yet. Consider two additional facts:
- He wasn’t just into copper trading. There are letters complaining about Ea-nasir’s business practices with respect to everything from kitchenwares to real estate speculation to second-hand clothing. The guy was everywhere.
- The majority of the surviving correspondences regarding Ea-nasir were recovered from one particular room in a building that is believed to have been Ea-nasir’s own house.
Like, these are clay tablets. They’re bulky, fragile, and difficult to store. They typically weren’t kept long-term unless they contained financial records or other vital information (which is why we have huge reams of financial data about ancient Babylon in spite of how little we know about the actual culture: most of the surviving tablets are commercial inventories, bills of sale, etc.).
But this guy, this Ea-nasir, he kept all of his angry letters - hundreds of them - and meticulously filed and preserved them in a dedicated room in his house. What kind of guy does that?
[ source ]
There’s an extra piece to this story too. See, Babylonians didn’t engrave rocks for stuff like this. They used soft clay, which could be dried and kept temporarily. If you were done with a letter or something, you could just throw it into the river and let the words return to Earth, flowing away with the water.
The cuneiform tablets which still survive to this day were baked and hardened, which is how the writing was preserved. This mostly happened by accident, because random letters weren’t meant to be kept permanently. And a whole room full of these were baked all at once. I’m sure you can guess how that might have happened.
So not only did this guy keep an excessive number of these letters in his house, and not only was he widely disliked, but at some point his house burned down. Which I’m sure was completely accidental and unrelated to him being a crook.
i was ringing up a winter hat for a man the other day and i said “oh, it’s so cute! i love the pom-pom on the top.” and he smiled and agreed and a few seconds later he picked the hat out of the bag and said “you called this a pom-pom?” and i said yes, that’s what i call them, and he explained that he was still learning english before he touched the hat again and said “pom-pom“ in a fascinated voice
words that aren’t important for communication but which are important for FEELS
Storytime: when I was in my early twenties, I moved to a country whose language was not my own. I did have a reasonable grasp of it, but I clearly lacked a lot of vocabulary, and my accent wasn’t amazing. There was a small food shop down from my apartment, and the owner noticed quickly that I struggled with the names of foods. From that point on, every time I went and he checked out my bags, he did it slowly and pointing out loud every item he checked. “One carrot, two apples, a bag of pasta…” I can never thank him enough for how much I learnt from such a small gesture.
An group of elderly Vietnamese men come into my Starbucks a couple times a week and the other day one said to me “could I have-“ and mimed. I said “oh, a straw?” And handed it to him. He said “this is… a straw? Straw. Thank you.”
It’s not just that the leaves will break down on their own (and enrich the soil while they’re at it!). During the winter, all sorts of insects use leaf litter for shelter, and they’re the first food available to larvae in early spring. Leaves also insulate the plants under them during the winter, which is important if you’re in an area prone to frost heaving.
One of the best thing you can do for native pollinators in your area is Leave the Leaves!
[ID: Screenshot of tumblr tags reading “please op i am desperate for the context.” End ID.]
Sure, here ya go:
- Lord George Gordon Byron was an English poet in the early 1800s.
- He wrote several narrative poems that influenced the gothic genre and was a HUGE fucking slut. HUGE. This bisexual mess slept with so many fucking people it was insane, no gender was safe. Unfortunately that “no one was safe” mentality did not work out well for him bc there were a LOT of rumors that he impregnated his half-sister.
- His only child from a legitimate marriage was from his wife, Lady Anne Isabella Noel Byron, who straight-up left him after a year. You know how divorce was uncommon in the 1800s? His wife was just so fed up with him that she did not care and left when her daughter was five weeks old.
- This daughter was named Ada and would become known as Ada Lovelace.
- Byron signed the separation papers and then left the country to have sex elsewhere and would later die when Ada was eight.
- During that time if a couple divorced, usually the Dad would get full custody, so just in case he tried anything Lady Byron made sure to play the devoted and overattentive mother.
- Lady Byron was absolutely paranoid that her daughter would become an insane gothic mess like her dad so she decided the only thing to do would be to make sure she did not become a Poet™. So she heavily encouraged Ada’s interests in science and mathematics.
- Around the 1830-40s, Ada met Charles Babbage through a mutual friend and he showed her his prototype for a mechanical calculator. She got absolutely obsessed with this machine and began helping him out with it to the point where her notes on it became more extensive than his.
- She also added notes to a translation of a paper on this engine that is considered to be the first published algorithm.
- These notes on the engine and translation became the basis for computer programming.
- She’s considered The First Computer Programmer™
So, because Lord Byron was a little slut and his wife wanted their daughter to Not Be, we now have to deal with tumblr discourse. Thank you and goodnight.
Every now and again, my Tumblr queue gets full and I’m forced to subject you all to my bullshit in real time
Guys, guys, let’s get back into Animorphs!!!
They are all free to read with Applegate’s permission on the animorphs website!
Oh yeah babey
She has also written some absolutely amazing books recently.
These are just a few of them. I read The One and Only Ivan to my students every year (and there’s a sequel coming out in May!).
Every one of her books I’ve read has been beautifully written. Yes, they’re written for children, but you won’t regret reading a single one of them. Applegate is hands-down my favorite middle grades author.
Read. Her. Books.
Animorphs says trans rights
Getting pretty fucking tired of seeing this shit in my notes
Reminder that jkr basically funds a large portion of the terf movement in the UK and promoting harry potter and actively giving her money is helping fund that movement and is actively encouraging her and her followers because they see this as support
Stop adding in the tags for ways for people to engage in this content without giving her money when i explicitly stated that promoting harry potter also helps support this movement its really shitty to see people turn around and go “okay but you can still engage and promote this content but this way because were only helping it stay relevant and not giving her money”
Since I apparently wasn’t clear enough JKR will not be deplatformed as long as Harry Potter continues to remain relevant and people are still reblogging this with tags with ways to promote the series it’s really disheartening that a fucking book series is more important than the safety of trans people
JKR claims that the number of Harry Potter fans is proof of how many people support her transphobic views. Literally, any time you post HP content, JKR considers it a statement that you’re “team terf.” Do what you will with this information.
There’s a reason why the UK’s TERFs are the world’s most well funded TERFs. And why the UK has so damn many of them.
here’s a question: if vladimir nabokov’s “lolita” is truly the psychological portrait of a messed up dude and not the girl – let alone a sexualized little girl, as all of the sexualization happens inside humbert humbert’s head – then why do all the covers focus on a girl, and usually a sexy aspect of a girl, usually quite young, and none of them feature a portrait of humbert humbert?
here are nabokov’s original instructions for the book cover:I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. … Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.
and yet, the representations of the sexy little girl abound.
i became driven by curiousity. why did this happen? why is this happening?
i am not alone – there’s a book about this, with several essays and artists’ conceptions about the politics and problems of representation surrounding the covers of “lolita.” this new yorker article gives a summary of the book and its ideas, and interviews one of the editors:Many of the covers guilty of misrepresenting Lolita as a teen seductress feature images from Hollywood movie adaptations of the book— Kubrick’s 1962 version, starring Sue Lyon, and Adrian Lyne’s 1997 one. Are those films primarily to blame for the sexualization of Lolita?
As is argued in several of the book’s essays, the promotional image of Sue Lyon in the heart-shaped sunglasses, taken by photographer Bert Stern, is easily the most significant culprit in this regard, much more so than the Kubrick film itself (significantly, neither the sunglasses nor the lollipop ever appears in the film), or the later film by Adrian Lyne. Once this image became associated with “Lolita”—and it’s important to remember that, in the film, Lolita is sixteen years old, not twelve—it really didn’t matter that it was a terribly inaccurate portrait. It became the image of Lolita, and it was ubiquitous. There are other factors that have contributed to the incorrect reading, from the book’s initial publication in Olympia Press’s Traveller’s Series (essentially, a collection of dirty books), to Kubrick’s startlingly unfaithful adaptation. At the heart of all of this seems to be the desire to make the sexual aspect of the novel more palatable.
here’s a couple of kubrick inspired covers:
which very well could have, after tremendous sales, have influenced the following covers:
…straying so far from the intention of nabokov that the phenomenon begins to look more like the symptom of something larger, something sicker.
after a lot of researching covers, it was here, in this sampling of concept covers for the book about the lolita covers, that i found an image that best represents the story to me:
[art by linn olofsdotter – and again, this is not an official cover]
but why aren’t all the covers like that? even the ones published by “legitimate” publishing companies, with full academic credentials, with no intended connection to the film; surely they must have read nabokov’s instructions for the cover. and yet, look at the top row of lolita covers: all legitimate publishing companies, not prone to smut. and yet.
my conclusion is that the lolita complex existed before “lolita” (and of course it did) – a patriarchal society is essentially operating with the same delusions of humbert humbert. nabokov did not produce the sexy girl covers of lolita, and kubrick had only the smallest hand in it. it was what people desired, requested and bought. the image of the sexy girl sells; intrigues; gets the hands on the books.
as elizabeth janeway said in her review in the new york review of books: “Humbert is every man who is driven by desire, wanting his Lolita so badly that it never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh.”
isn’t that our media as a whole? our culture as a whole?
the whole lot of them/us – seeing the world through humbert-tinted glasses, seeing all others as Other and Object, as solipsistic dream-reality. as i scroll through the “lolita” covers i wonder: where’s the humanity in our humanity?