Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 4 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 6 >
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.


Contents

[edit] November 5

[edit] Units of measurement in Soviet Russia

02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)199.30.0.49After watching "The Hunt for Red October" on TV, I noticed that the submariners used meters as their unit of measurement when piloting their sub. Did the Soviet Union use the metric system (at least during the late Soviet period, i.e. after 1984)? It says on the page for "Convention du Mètre" that the Russia Federation adopted the metric system in 1875, but did this continue through the Soviet years? Thanks! 199.30.0.49 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, why on earth would they have switched to a less logical system? And I doubt that the Russian Federation went metric in 1875 since it didn't exist then; the Russian Empire, yes. -- Arwel (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Less logical? Don't get me started on the inconveniences of the number ten. — D. Wo. 16:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
See 101st kilometre and Siege of Leningrad#Supplies. I'm sure that round numbers like those weren't converted from another unit. --Bowlhover 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that almost no countries use the Imperial system at this point, not even the English. By the 1980s (when the movie takes place) this was pretty much the case as well. When in doubt, assume a foreign country uses the metric system. --24.147.86.187 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What a bogus map that is. See Russ Rowlett's site on units for a brief statement of why it's bogus. --Anon, 23:27 UTC, Nov. 6.
Funny that 24.147.86.187 should claim that the English no longer use the Imperial system. Because when I was driving down the M1 the other day, I could have sworn that all the distances were in miles. Similarly, when I was in the pub last night, the beer was being served in pints. Odd, in a country that apparently does not use the Imperial system. 80.254.147.52 10:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then you should also know that the British are trying to adept to the metric system?--83.84.138.101 13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] navel

How come for some people when one fingers them in the belly button, it hurts and other it tickles?Jwking 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your query is a matter of physiology and would probably be better asked on the Science reference desk rather than here. -- Deborahjay 07:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot we don't know about tickling, an interesting article.--Shantavira|feed me 08:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habsburg and Valois

What impact did the lengthy struggle between the the Imperial Habsburgs and the French Valois have on international politics in the sixteenth century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.14.2 (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will this be on the midterm? Or is it an assignment? --Wetman 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It had a tendency to draw in other powers, lesser and greater, to the point were the dispute between dynasties looked to turn into a general European war. It made for strange alliances, with the Papacy, and even the Ottoman Empire. siding with the Most Christain King against the Holy Roman Emperor. It gave Henry VIII the opportunity to cut a figure in international affairs, dreaming vain dreams of another empire in France. The struggle between the two leading figures of Catholic Europe was to provide a great boost to the Reformation. Protestantism survived in Germany and the French gained a permanent hold of the fortresses of Metz, Verdun and Toul. With the Emperor and the King locked in struggle the Sultan extended his power across the Mediterranean and the Balkans. It changed the political and the religious shape of Europe. Clio the Muse 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder Plot

What was the catholic reaction to the news of the plot, disapointment or relief? Seems a fitting question for today of all days. Qurious Cat 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A single, "Catholic" reaction? What would that mean? What would assessing it have required? How could it be assessed in retrospect? --Wetman 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it fairly safe to assume that most English Catholics were in full agreement with the Archpriest George Blackwell, who, with the approval of Pope Paul V, issued a statement denouncing the Gunpowder Plot as "intolerable, uncharitable, scandalous and desperate." He was horrified to learn that a Catholic, Guy Fawkes, had been privy to "this detestable device." He went on to say that "private violent attempts could never be justified; Catholics must not support them in any way." When the Duke of Lerma, favourite courtier of Philip III, learned of the attempt he described the plotters as 'atheists and devils', hoping to hear that some of them were Puritans and not Catholics at all. Clio the Muse 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could any proper Brits (including, of course, the exquisite muse that is Clio) please give an unsophisticated Yank an idea of the kind of scope Bonfire Night has as a celebration in the modern UK. I saw the examples of fireworks and potatoes baked on a fire, but I'd like to know the general level of excitement the 5th of November evokes across the country. Sappysap 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You should have been here last night, Sappysap; you would have thought the country was at war! Yes, Bonfire Night is widely celebrated, and, yes, it causes a lot of excitment. Poor old Guy Fawkes has achieved the kind of immortality not usually given to ordinary mortals.
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up King and Parli'ment. Clio the Muse 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm smiling ear to ear. Thank you so much for allowing me to feel the excitement. Sappysap 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. Most people I know will have attended some fireworks event, whether it was a public event, a private party or just a few in the garden. I love going for a walk on bonfire night, watching everyone's displays. Guys don't tend to be widely burnt these days, but the bonfires and especially the fireworks are ubiquitous. I'd hate to fly a plane on the 5th. Mmmm, parkin and toffee and hotdogs (not the wimpy floppy things, real sausages) and tomato soup. Almost everyone I know will have waved at least one sparkler. You can just sit by a window, if you don't like the sound, and watch the sky light up all night (or all evening, anyway). I can never remember the rhyme past 'parliament' either, but given it's an oral tradition it varies anyway; I suppose I could just invent something plausible to teach small children... Skittle 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I used to live in a house in a suburb, and as soon as it got dark it was like World War III had broken out, with non-stop bangs, fizzles, and colourful rockets non-stop! Every family with children - and some without - fire off many fireworks, hold bonfire parties. There are also usually bigger organised fireworks parties you can go to as well. This year the celebration was rather spoilt by the 5th. of November being on a Monday: I noticed lots of people letting off their fireworks during the weekend evening. So Guy Fakes night is as important an event as Halloween is in the USA I suppose. What I find irritating about google dot co dot uk is that they ignore Bonfire night completely, while here in the UK have to endure many American celebrations that mean nothing to us. 62.253.48.73 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I find this quite awkward. In History class we learned facts for and against the actual existence of such a plot. It appeared that most facts actually contradicted such a plot. All the gunpowder in those days was in the hands of the government. Also, the "plotters" only admitted their role after inhumane torture. Can we even say for sure whether or not such a plot existed? For me, it seems like Hitler and his Reichstag, putting the blame on communists and other enemies of the State. Kardash83.84.138.101 13:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it existed alright. Clio the Muse 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aging-limitations on learning the arts?

I guess this could be either a science or a humanities question. I figured I'd post here since my main concern is arts-related.

How badly (or not-at-all) does aging affect one's ability to master an art?

Say I just begin learning to draw properly (as in, not drawing like a fifth-grader with Parkinson's, which is how I draw now at 27... just awful) at 35. Is there a certainty I will be just as good from 5 years of practice by the time I'm 40, as if I were to have started at 15 by the time I'm 20? What about learning to draw at 40 and your practice reflecting at 45?

I wonder this because I notice most successful artists' careers seem to take off when they're in their early 20's -- not just illustrators but musicians and such. Are there any instances of an illustrator or musician (or any other artist) who was a "blank slate" throughout the first 30 or 35 or 40 years of his or her life and then got into it, and then influenced the world late in their life? The only example I can think of is Rodney Dangerfield... didn't he take a 3-decade hiatus from standup comedy as a salesman before going back into comedy and being hugely successful? But that's comedy, an art that isn't as "motor skill" based as drawing or playing an instrument.

Anyway, I hope I can get some perspective on this. --75.165.55.66 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you gauge success by popularity then age has a big influence on how well you can make relatable material to the now generation... just another x-factor that might apply to your theory. Beekone 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
In general, brain plasticity is greater when one is younger than one is older. But there is some evidence that this might be partially culturally determined insofar as in youth a greater portion of one's life is spent learning new things (although there is a causation/correlation issue here). People who continue actively learning new skills and ideas have greater learning capability than people who do not (although there is, again, a causation/correlation issue at play). Donald Hosek 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Another factor is that people of 15 often have a lot more free time to spare to practice their skill than people of 30 or 35. Time spent in practice is vital in developing a skill, and the responsibilities of the world tend to crowd out the time available. SaundersW 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What one can often notice is that artists going into their 50's tend to get more sloppy and careless about their drawing and painting. In the field of comics (which, since you are talking I think about figurative arts, seems relevant), great draughtsmen such as Jean Giraud, Enki Bilal, Rosinski or Hugo Pratt (who might be considered an exception since he has always been playing with the sloppyness of his drawings often not penciling before inking) tend to apply much less care to their drawings. Wether this is due to boredom, failing eyesight or genuine physiological and neurological changes would be hard to say. An interresting example to have a look at might be that of Lucian Freud who might be considered to have been a poor draughtsman in his early twenties and then got gradually to be extraordinary in his thirties (talking here of technical aspects of his paintings not his qualities as a complete artist). A case could be made that the passion one can put in the study and practice could easely level the playing field accross the generations - a passionate 50 year old will do better than an unconcerned 20 something. I assume so anyway. There's no doubt that you will have a tough time though. Since drawing illustrations requires a high degree of organisation (pre-planning, composition, applying colors in the right order, etc) and there is a huge amount of concrete things to learn (tricks, and shortcuts to make your drawing look good, general knowledge about colours that can only be learned through practice) not to mention avoiding the last minute blooper that leaves a big smear of ink accros the whole page (happens more often than you would think) it might be that you will be at a disadvantage starting late. Your experience in other fields might come in handy. I'm not sure there is a quantifiable answer to your question but you can always remember that great artists are not necessarely great draughtsmen and that the artistery part of the mix comes from somewhere else. Best of luck for your plans anyways. ps I wish I could get tricks on how to have a steady hand and not do parkinsonian drawings, that seems the hardest to me. Maybe Chinese calligraphy? Keria 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Age and perceived drawing ability have nothing to do with it. I once did a short course based on Betty Edwards' book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. It was an eye-opener for this artistic troglodyte. I didn't pursue my artistic leanings, but I thoroughly recommend the book, which will help you approach drawing from an entirely different angle. -- JackofOz 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are only interested in a scientific answer to your question, and you plan to earn all or part of your living with what of drawing you master, what difference does it make? You are the age you are. If drawing interests you, take it up. With a very modest amount of practice, you will certainly be better than you are now. If you enjoy it, you will continue to do it, and continue to improve. I know an art teacher who recommends keeping a drawing pad and some good pencils on the front seat of the car. Every time he is stuck in traffic, is early for an appointment, or has to wait anywhere for anyone, he gets out the pad and makes a few sketches: a chair leg, the tsil tail light of the car ahead of him, a tree branch, the traffic lights, the corner of a building. You will be amazed how much better you get, how fast it happens and how much more sanguine you become about the small delays in life. Bielle 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, daily practice is essential to learning your drawing (I can't say how to draw, there are so many different ways of drawing and you can only ever learn your way). Then there is also the problem of what you want to draw. Do you want to draw from real life, draw things from reference, draw figurative subject from memory and practice as in comic books or cartoons or do you want to go for experimental or even abstract drawing/painting? These all require learning connected but rather different techniques and you would save yourself a lot of time by knowing which route you want to take (then of course not necessarely stick to it) before planning your exercises. Keria 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am appalled by Keria's blithe dismissal of Moebius'and others' middle-aged artistic output. There is NOTHING to suggest these artists weren't at the top of their form. Keria had better apply him/herself to actually studying these artists before pontificating on their fictional decline; then something of value might ensue from his/her ex cathedradamnations.

No, you can perfectly well learn to draw at age 40 +. Maturity and trained vision easily make up for any lack of native facility. I've seen it! Rhinoracer 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you disagree with me Rhinoracer. All I'm saying is that I think the recent output of these artists show in some aspects a lower quality of drawing and I don't know the reason for it. The drawings in the last installment of the Incal series by Moebius were disappointing [1] (2000) compared to his earlier work on the series as in the 1st volume, L'incal noir [2] (1981), the second, L'incal lumière [3] (1982), Ce qui est en bas [4], (1983) Ce qui est en haut [5] (these last pages adapted from his storyboard for George Lucas) (1985). The recent drawings (of which the only example I found is not very representative) show problems of human proportions and flattening of perspectives that are never present in the earlier books. That doesn't mean that the current drawings aren't very high quality, only that they do not show the same draughtsmanship as earlier works. I wouldn't only put this down to an "evolution of style" as they are recurrent with many artists and my criticism are on very specific aspects (inconsistent anatomy and awkward foreshortenings in particular). This is further reinforced in the observation that the line quality is actually tighter and more stressful than it used to be which would go against the idea of a fun or confident loosening of the drawing. Once again this is not criticizing the authors as artists but only focusing on their technical practice of drawing. Some of the loosest or "badly drawn" images in comics are often the most effective as in contemporary popular works by Lewis Trondheim, Joann Sfar, Blutch, Baudoin, Larcenet and others. Another sign of rigidification in the drawings is the systematic use throughout the comic of the same character poses and angle of faces (sometimes even reducing the number of different angles used in a whole book to 3 or 4), a aspect you din't find in earlier books. The counter-argument for this would be that as illustrators get more efficient and aware of the most effective angles for the face they only use a reduced palette of these to better effects. I think the wide diversity of angles drawn worked in their favour and were very effective at the time. This phenomenon of repetition is easy to see in the recent output by Bilal (altghough the online examples I found were limited). La foire aux immortels[6] [7] (1980) seems to me highly superior in terms of draughtsmanship to his more recent work such as his last tétralogie, Sommeil du monstre vol.1 [8] (1998)Sommeil du monstrevol.2 [9] (2002), the third volume Trente deux décembre[10] and a fourth Quatre[11] (2007). Again I would disagree with someone who would say that it is an evolution into a looser style as there is no contradiction in having a loose style and good proportion and varied poses and face angles (see Hugo Pratt in most of the Corto Maltese series and especially in West of Eden - A l'ouest d'Eden, Jesuit Joe and Macumba de(l) Gringo). Rosinski is also an example of lowering quality in both drawings and paintings read the last Thorgal to be convinced of it. Early Thorgal drawings (80's) [12][13] (~1988) and paintings Les yeux de Tanatloc ('86) [14] La cité des dieux perdus ('87) [15] are so much more precise and the colours ring so much truer than the recent work such as La vengeance du Conte Skarbek vol.1 (2004) [16] vol.2 (2005) [17] (even if here there has been an obvious deliberate change of style) or the last Thorgal Thorgal Le sacrifice (2006) [18] [19]. I would think artists that use (feigned?) sloppiness or carelessness in their works to start with take a better advantage of this evolution that could be seen as a refinement of their style (see Hugo Pratt's Saint-Exupéry and Mü). Thank you Rhinoracer for enjoining me to study these authors closer, it's something I have had the occasion to do when I was a teenager learning drawing and part of my occupation was to copy for myself drawings by Moebius and Pratt but also Peyo and Hergé as a way to understand where their pens had been in order to create these great drawings, a way of retracing their steps if you will. I'm sorry if you think my comments about these comics artists (well Bande Dessinée authors) were too harsh. I didn't feel I was "dismissing" them when I said that they applied less care to their drawings. Whatever the care they put in they are likely to be great drawings. It doesn't change the idea that one could get great insights from studying how the style of an artist evolves through time especially past their 50's. I don't know what the result would be if this was applied to great masters of the past (the ones who do their own paintings anyway) but I think it is a good way of helping a contemporary artist and illustrator to gain insight into his own evolution and help him steer it the way he wants. I would love to see works by artists who started drawing and painting late in their life, it must be most interesting. Keria 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champions league

What is more important ex European Champions Cup or todays Champions league??

Because,in Champions Cup,there were less games,but only real champions of countries were in it,while now,theres more games,but some teams never even won their own countrys championship?

So ,whats greater achivement,winning old Champions Cup or new Champions league?

77.105.13.56 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Hey, It's not really any difference, only the name is different. There are the same "amount" of prestige in both CC and CL since it is in truth the same competition, just given a new name and expanded into containing more teams. I'll give you an example of my team that i am familiar with, Liverpool won Champions league recently in 2005, and they're among the most succesful teams in CC/CL's history. for they have won it five times. i think only Real madrid(9 times I THINK) and AC Milan(6 times I THINK) have won more times. and my point is that back when Liverpool won CC/CL in the seventees and eightees (1977, 78, 81 and 84) then it was the competition was called Champions Cup, but now when they won in 2005 it was called Champions League, and we just now today count it as if they have won the Champions league (or CC if you prefer) 5 times throughout the history ever since CC was founded.

Same thing goes for what was called the Cup-winners cup in the past, today it is called the UEFA-CUP. ofcourse u already know this i think, but its the same thing with this cup and there is no different in how great the achievement was.

However, if u think about it, in the past, only ONE team, the league-winner in its country could partake in the next year's CC so it was more difficult to enter the competition but "easier" to win it becoz there were fewer teams. Today, you can come 3rd or 4th in the biggest football-country's leagues and still come into CL, so it is easier to enter the competition today, but probably harder to win it becoz there are more teams and more matches. And another thing is that modern football is probably more even and the teams are more equal to each other than they were 20-30 years ago when the biggest clubs were far better and bigger than the others. That claim of mine can be backed by the fact that the biggest teams often won several years in a row or many times over only few years. Like when Liverpool won 4 times in a eight-years period (77-84), leaving little doubt who was the kings of europe at that time. Today however, you rarely see a team win CL so frequently. Maybe becoz its harder competition..?

But still, the prestige is the same really.

Hope I gave an satosfactory answer to your question ;) Krikkert7 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A fistful of useless dollars?

In 1952, U.S. President candidate Eisenhower made some "Eisenhower Answers America" TV ads. In one ad, a hired woman holding a grocery bag said it costs her US$24.

How could anyone in the early 1950s pay $24 for a bagful of ordinary foods? -- Toytoy 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the bag was a metaphor for the entire grocery trip? I remember learning about that ad campaign in History class in high school, btw Beekone 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eugene lanceray sculpture

i have a signed bronze sclpture by lanceray. I shows a russian man and 2 horses looking forlorn and seeming to return from war. do you have any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.136.157 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ArtPrice shows Lanceray bronzes currently (2007) selling at auction for around $US10,000, depending on size, condition and provenance. Yours sounds like one of several he did with figures of two horses. If you have the dimensions of the piece, I can likely find out more. Bielle 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Indians

Are the Jumano Indians extinct? Do they still exist?; If so where are they located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.45.211 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See Suma-Jumano, which links to this page, where you can get the address of someone claiming to represent the tribe in 1998. According to our article, some still-existing tribes such as the Havasupai have been refered to as Jumanos. Wareh 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FANTASY NOVELS & LITERATURE for me

hey.

I am extremely interested in FANTASY. However, unfortunately my experiences with it are *mostly* through computer-games. And I seek to read more novels of the genre. I have read very few books/novels and I find it difficult to find quite what I am after, or what i believe i am after. (you might say i never know before i have read a book whether it is good or bad)

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (D&D), and escpially the fantasy world FORGOTTEN REALMS are one I am very familiar with as most of my fantasy-"experiences" has been in that world. I am also a little familiar with other D&D-worlds like GREYHAWK, EBERRON, DRAGONLANCE and the likes, and my impression is that it is very very very difficult to find fantasy-novels that does NOT take place in any of the D&D-settings. I have read only a few novels from these worlds, and I have read reviews and such things about the works of well-known authors of the genre like Ed Greenwood, R.A Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham and so forth and it just seems to me that so much of the D&D-literature is too heavily based on the early rules and works of the old miniature wargames/boardgames that D&D were based on from the beginning, way back. I hope whoever answers this is a little bit familiar with D&D, or else you may not know what I talk about. But it just seems that the whole rule-system and statistics and so forth from the old games are brought INTO the novels, influencing the way the authors write too much and it kind of ruins the story-telling - for ME, and many others too after what i read. I feel that Fantasy, as a literary genre, is so prone to being amateurishy written dreck. many novels shows its roots at the Dungeon's and Dragons table (you can practically hear the dice-rolls), and as such lacks any clear narrative thrust.

The few novels i have read have been like that, and the reviews i read tells me that many other books, and possibly even most of them are like that too. This makes it very difficult to go on and actually buy these books/novels when the reviews tell me what they do, and past experiences with the few books I already have read only adds to it.

So i guess i dont really know what answer to expect from anyone by asking this. I guess i just hope that someone that shares my love of fantasy knows a little bit about this and even if they dont know much about D&D (which as i said seems to me to be mostly the only setting/world from which fantasy-literature comes) maybe they still have some knowledge about fantasy-literature that i don't have, and that they know what to look for and where. Even direct suggestions for good titles would be very welcome.

And jsut so i've made it clear, so that anyone that may answer this doesn't think that by FANTASY i mean Science-fiction or horror or something, for i really don't. I talk about fantasy that has Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Goblins, wizards, warriors, sword and shield etc. all set in a medieval-like world you know. Maybe that is "High-fantasy" to some... i don't really know the difference.

Any guidance or suggestions from a bookworm or two would be welcome, even though i'm not sure what kind of answer i expect or hope for. I just grow frustrated not to find quality-fantasy that i really would believe is out there to be found.

thanks, Krikkert7

Krikkert7 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are umpteen gazillion non-D&D fantasy novels. An awful lot of those gazillions have elves and orcs, rather too many for my liking, and aim to be High Fantasy (Epic Pooh as someone once said) without coming remotely close. Michael Moorcock's Elric books are fantasy, with weird beasties, and lots of death and destruction, including the end of everything, but nothing like D&D. Grunts by Mary Gentle is almost the antithesis of a D&D fantasy novel ("Pass me another halfling, this one's broken" is a great line). Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stuff has been ransacked by modern pulp fantasy writers, but the originals are much better. Conan books won't be everyone's cup of tea, but they do sell well it seems. Elric and Fafhrd are probably the safest bets and are usually available in multi-novel volumes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Back in the late 70s/early 80s I used to read a lot of the kind of fantasy that you're looking for -- before the D&D novels took over the market -- though these tend to be a little short on orcs and elves and such. I was a big fan of the Deryni novels by Katherine Kurtz (the first two published trilogies, beginning with Deryni Rising and Camber of Culdi), as well as the first cycle in The Chronicles of Amber. I also fondly remember a novel called Master of the Five Magics. The series that began with Lord Foul's Bane was pretty interesting, though some of my friends hated it. The Sword of Shannara series was an amiable Tolkien ripoff, if you insist on dwarves and elves. —Kevin Myers 00:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well let's see. You could start with the grandaddy of them all, the Lord of the Rings. The works of David Eddings and Raymond E. Feist are worth a look possibly. Terry Pratchett is fun if you like seeing the conventions of fantasy turned on their heads. Terry Brooks has done many different works too - the Shannara and Landover series for a start. Have fun! Exxolon 02:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a great number of excellent fantasy novels out there if you know where to look. I agree with all the suggestions above but also suggest a few others: The Majipoor series by Robert Silverberg (sort of science fiction, sort of fantasy, but all around great), the The Prydain Chronicles series by Lloyd Alexander (supposedly for kids but fun), The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley (Arthurian legend), The Crystal Cave (and three other books in the series) by Mary Stewart (Arthurian legend), The Once and Future King by T. H. White (by now you can be sure I read a lot of books based on Arthurian legends in my younger days), the Empire Trilogy by Raymond Feist and Janny Wurts (oriental-ish "universe"), Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart (set in ancient China). And then there are the many excellent novels by Steven Brust including the ones about "Vladimir Taltos" and my favorites of the bunch, the Khaavren Romances inpired by the Three Musketeers. Stardust (novel) by Neil Gaiman is luscious, I hope the movie they are making of it does it justice. If you can tolerate something a bit less medievalish, the the "Elemental Masters" series by Mercedes Lackey is generally pretty good as is the "Free Bards" series (a bit more medievalish). Lois McMaster Bujold writes a mean fantasy novel as well, without a hint of a dice roll. Recently I found Poison Study by Maria Snyder to be interesting and original. Oh, and classics not to be missed include the Martian (Barsoom) books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. And don't forget Glory Road by Robert Heinlein, and much of Andre Norton's output (not that the two authors works are very similar). And try to find the Earthsea books by Ursula K. Le Guin. So many books, so little time, but that's all that spring to mind at the moment. . . . Hope this helps get you started. Crypticfirefly 06:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There's Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter; his stuff is mostly shorter pieces, all magnificent. Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast "trilogy" has been described as a tour-de-force of Gothic fantasy, but I think it's more fantasy than "Gothic" (the third one is not to everyone's taste). The Well at the World's End by William Morris is good. The prequel, if you will, to Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, was a pleasant surprise for me; it reads like mythology. --Milkbreath 11:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Many of the authors of that era were republished in the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series... AnonMoos 10:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And for some comic relief, should you feel the need for it, there's The Tough Guide To Fantasyland.--Rallette 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot go wrong with Jack Vance. His The Dying Earth, and its sequels, set the bar as high as it may go. Equally wondrous is his Lyonesse trilogy. Rhinoracer 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

tnx guys, a whole lot bigger respons than i could have hoped for. tnx again :) Krikkert7 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that D+D wasn't a miniature or a board game. It was a mind game. My group never used miniatures even when we partly adopted the "Advanced" rules. Rmhermen 16:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Some reading lists you might want to check out:
Also, if you have an interest in humor, I can't recommend Terry Pratchett's Discworld series enough. A good starting point is Guards! Guards!.
Good luck! --KNHaw (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I really enjoy Katherine Kerr's Deverry series, starting with Daggerspell Steewi 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
A few more, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength, The Worm Ourobouros, Mistress Masham's Repose. Xn4 12:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of very good suggestions above, but I have to point out another. I love fantasy novels and have high standards. I can't recommend enough The Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Before I was halfway through Wizard's First Rule, the first book of the series, I had already purchased the next two books in the series. I knew I wanted to read more. Before I had finished the third book I had purchased the next seven books in the series. That is how much the story grabbed me. It was one of those series that I was sad to reach the end of because I wanted more, more, more! Try Wizard's First Rule and see if it doesn't hook you right in. 152.16.59.190 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TTC Route

Hi there, I am not sure if this the right place to ask but my question is: I live in Crescent Town Road and I am going to middle school called D.A. Morrison, located at 271 Gledhill Ave, next year, after I graduate from grade 5. My problem is that which TTC subway and TTC bus do I take to go to that middle school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.130.191 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be less than a mile, so you could walk. Search for both addresses on this route map for more options, and also see the TTC website. Wareh 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The subway station is Woodbine Ave on the Bloor-Danforth line, from whence you go south to Danforth Ave (about 100 feet) and then east (left) to the next traffic lights (Gledhill Ave)and turn left (north). You can see the school from the corner. Bielle 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wareh has answered you anyway, but in general, 76, it would be kinder to the people you asking for help from, if you indicated what town, or even what country, you were asking about! --ColinFine 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
While you are quite right, ColinFine, Wareh and I both recognized the vocabulary, and I had a cousin who lived in the neighbourhood about four decades ago. I may have made a mistake, however, if there are two schools on Gledhill now. The one I knew was at the corner of Danforth and Gledhill, but used to be called, I think, Gledhill Public School. Apologies, 76.64..., if I have led you astray. Bielle 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

D.A. Morrison school is on Gledhill between Lumsden and Cosburn, not at the corner of Danforth. If you live near the west end of Crescent Town Road, I think the easiest way to get there by TTC would be to take the 23 Dawes bus south on Dawes Road and ride to the end of the line at Main Street subway station. Then take the 62 Cosburn bus and get off at the stop nearest Lumsden and Gledhill.

If you live nearer the east end of Crescent Town Road, it is probably easier to walk to Victoria Park subway station using the footbridge over Victoria Park Avenue; then take the subway westbound one stop to Main Street, and the 62 Cosburn bus as above.

In either case, both bus or subway rides are quite short and when you consider that you will have to wait for the bus or subway each time, you may find it easier to walk the whole way.

Coming back from school there is a more direct route, the 404 East York community minibus, but it only runs once every 75 minutes. You can board it on Cosburn at the eastbound stop nearest Gledhill (currently the last three trips of the day are at about 2:40, 3:55, and 5:10 pm), and it will take you directly to Crescent Town Road in about 15 minutes. You can't use this to go to school because it doesn't start running until after 9 am.

--Anonymous, 07:07 UTC, November 6, 2007.

Well done, Anonymous! I shouldn't ask others to rely on what I remember from 40 or 50 years ago; it may not be even wise to rely on it myself. Thanks for staightening me out. Bielle 07:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Mornington Crescent SaundersW 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that myself! --LarryMac | Talk 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power of US States Over Actions of Federal Govt. within State

Hypothetical situation: a hijacked airliner lands at a US air force base in, say, California. What could the state government do (if anything) to ensure that what goes on inside the base regarding the terrorist suspects is to their liking? Can the state government exercise jurisdiction over the land a military base occupies? Could the Federal Government keep representatives of the state government off the base so they can't interfere with whatever is going on?

No political soapboxing please, thanks. Danthemankhan 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the Air Force base. Many air force bases are federal enclaves, under military jurisdiction. There are also bases on which state and federal government exercise concurrent jurisdiction. The matter of jurisdiction is determined by law (see [20] for an example) and any conflicts over jurisdiction would presumably be settled in court rather than an impromptu shoot-out. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)