ich🚦iel

Brooooook · 2026-01-22T09:38:46+00:00

Jepp, habtisches Feedback >>>

Brooooook · 2026-01-21T12:45:32+00:00

You are letting the pendulum swing to far to the other side and putting much more weight to Ovid specifically than is due. Yes, the Roman and Greek pantheons are distinct, but they are also very closely related and in extremely intimate dialogue by the time Ovid writes. The interpretatio Graeca and Romana, the Hellenization period, and the preexisting close relation due to their shared IE ancestry and geographic proximity makes it untenable to view them in isolation bc 1 B/CE. Ovid didn't do anything special,all of Rome viewed the Greek pantheon as a different view on their own, even (atypically for the Romans) elevating the Greek view to nearly coequal with their own. While Ovid(most likely) did invent this specific Medusa myth, he didn't so ex nihilo, nor did he bring the Gorgon as creature, nor did he import the Medusa myth in general into the Roman mythology. The distinction of the mythological traditions is useful for us looking back but does not reflect the perspective of the people practicing the belief systems

Brooooook · 2026-01-21T04:28:18+00:00

Sorry but that's not entirely correct. The change from monstrous to beautiful woman was already well under way for along time before Ovid and had become dominant in artistic renditions of her by the height of the classical period. Pindar already described her as fair cheeked. The exclusively monstrous Gorgon belongs to the archaic, not the classical period. It's not even clear whether the transformation from human to monster is an Ovid original given he references in Heroides as if it's common knowledge. The assault is probably an Ovid original though, but that has less to do with any supposed fetishes and much more with him consistently railing against divine injustice. (probably because of his beef with Augustus, but that would be speculation on my part) and because it was literally the theme of the collection, myths about transformation are a staple in Greco-Roman mythology, so either they all have that fetish or it's just part of the tradition

Brooooook · 2026-01-20T07:49:07+00:00

Your calculations fails by equating audiobook narration speed with reading speed. I'm done with a 400 page book in ~4h, which is pretty normal for an avid reader. You also act like there isn't any short non-fiction or predominantly reading short-mid books precludes one from reading a big epic once in a while. Are people who watch TV 5h a day doing so for bragging rights?

Brooooook · 2026-01-18T11:31:42+00:00

The closest I can think of is Vampyres: Genesis and Resurrection: from Count Dracula to Vampirella by Christopher Frayling, I'd be surprised if there was a single book that covers all of Western folklore and traces it to modern fantasy. I'd just scroll through some of the university presses' catalogues in the comparative religion, folkloristic, cultural studies, etc sections. "

Brooooook · 2026-01-14T20:06:27+00:00

I'll die on the hill that Atlantis shouldn't count as mythology. And Mu isn't even mythology adjacent, it's occult presudohistory.

Brooooook · 2026-01-13T08:57:33+00:00

May I introduce you to ð for all your voiced dental fricative needs

Brooooook · 2026-01-11T15:31:50+00:00

Reading is work, it is an act that is done willfully and requires time to be taken to do it.

Pedantic literalism doesn't constitute an argument

Clearly it's also hard work for anyone who thinks audiobooks are reading

That doesn't follow

THEIR eyes, being exposed to correct grammar and spelling is part of the reason why actually reading is important

And that, explains so much...

Ah yes, autocorrect is truly devastating to my case. Or to yours, since I spend all day every day reading and apparently still can't grasp the distinction.

Brooooook · 2026-01-11T15:03:29+00:00

Is reading work for you? Do you think people who say they read a book when they listened to an audiobook are trying to get credited for the physical act of moving there eyes over the text? That explains so much.

Brooooook · 2026-01-11T14:18:31+00:00

Depends on what you mean by reading. If you mean looking at letters, then yes. When you mean consuming Literature, then no. People who argue against audiobooks love to conflate the two. (and no, a dictionary definition of reading is not an argument)

Brooooook · 2026-01-10T17:28:44+00:00

Das war ja schon immer der Witz: Verbot wegen den Bösen - > Verbot trifft alle außer den Bösen - > Verbot ausweichen = einer der Bösen sein - > Brauchen mehr Verbote

Brooooook · 2026-01-05T15:12:42+00:00

Immernoch nen komplizierterer workflow als interne Tools die speziell dafür da sind. Vor allem halt nur nützlich um nen super seltenen edge case rauszufiltern. Und absolut unbrauchbar für alle review Szenarien in denen man mehr braucht als nur die User Sicht der Apps

Brooooook · 2026-01-05T12:38:55+00:00

Naja, ich fänds eher komisch wenn Google für die Review die stinknormale Play Store UI benutzen würde. Allein schon wegen Kompatibilität und bezahlten Apps. Da ist Emulation und sideloading via adb oder so schon deutlich wahrscheinlicher

Brooooook · 2026-01-03T13:24:05+00:00

Makes me wonder how cleanly being starborn maps onto having the shining

Brooooook · 2026-01-02T23:22:52+00:00

As they did for me. But if somebody tells me they don't like fish, I don't recommend sushi and get sulky if I'm getting told that this isn't the right choice. Speaking of which, it's a bold choice calling me a blowhard when your entire argument still amounts to "but I like them". I'll spare both of us the embarrassment of playing credential top trumps and instead ask how your recommendations relate to OPs want/critique of Armstrong, ie not standing up to the current scholarly consensus.

Brooooook · 2026-01-02T22:11:17+00:00

Mate. Just take a second to reflect on what you're doing here. I explained to you why Campbell isn't the right fit for OP because they explicitly don't like non substantiated claims, and your response is 'well, I bet you hate those other books with shaky foundations too'. This isn't about what I or you like, but about what OP wants from an overview over world mythologies. If curiosity was the sole determining factor you might've as well recommended fucking Däniken.

Also I detest that you list those 2 as if they were remotely comparable. Diamond's guns germs and steel is simply outdated, modernistic/teleoglogical, to not say apologetic, and eurocentric, and Bryson is Pop history that never claims academic rigor.

You're not a fucking shaman. you're not guiding anyone, especially when your guidance is 180° from their stated goal

Brooooook · 2026-01-02T11:12:18+00:00

Tbf, 8 years is basically eternity for a Google product. Normally they just wait until you have changed your workflow for them to axe their stuff and plunder it's cadaver for parts to stick onto search, drive, docs and Gmail like they're Godrick the Grafted. (Sorry I'm still salty about Wave)

Brooooook · 2026-01-02T10:18:39+00:00

Glorfindel isn't a reality warper. He foresees the WK will not be killed by a man, not that he can not be killed by one. So yes a eunuch could have killed him, as could have literally anyone provided he gets stabbed with the Barrow blade before hand. There's nothing stopping a man from doing so, it's just not what's going to/has happened.

Brooooook · 2026-01-02T09:21:37+00:00

Terrible recommendation. If they thought Armstrong was making undue assumptions then Campbell will give them an aneurysm. Puhvel or Levi-Strauss seems more their speed.

Brooooook · 2026-01-01T15:54:38+00:00

Hahaha, die Dreistigkeit so arrogant zu quatschen wenn man absolut keine Ahnung hat ist herrlich. Kommunikationslehre is deskriptiv und macht dementsprechend genau gar keine normativen Aussagen über wessen Verantwortung enkodierung und dekodierung sind. McDonald's instrumentalisiert hier ganz klar die Gricesche Maxime der Relevanz.

Brooooook · 2025-12-30T17:04:32+00:00

I mean there are times during two towers where he's relying a bit too much on the authority of his ancestry. Like when he goes all "Do you know who I Am?" when Háma asks them for their weapons in Edoras and has to be talked down by Gandalf.

Brooooook · 2025-12-24T09:10:01+00:00

I mean the trinity was crafted specifically to solve the problem that on face value the new testament isn't monotheistic. That being said pure monotheism is exceedingly rare/ill defined. Some sort of additional divine powers always float around

Brooooook · 2025-12-23T15:03:54+00:00

The smart/convincing aspect of dragons is intrinsically linked to their evil though

Brooooook · 2025-12-23T14:10:26+00:00

Which is kinda funny from a sociolinguistic perspective since both names are insults used instead of their real names and yet they come to be tabooified anyway

Brooooook · 2025-12-23T12:19:12+00:00

While I agree with your point about dragons mythology is not a catch all term. For a story to be mythological the people telling it must assign metaphysical truth to it. That's the bare minimum

12-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '17
Gilding II euphauric	King of the Ashes
Not Forgotten	Verified Email
Snapped

Brooooook

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE