Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 15[edit]

Can anyone please put a name to the royal sword?[edit]

This image] (at royal.gov.uk) displays one of the five coronation swords. Does anyone know which one it is? I have established that it is not the Jewelled Sword of state (also known as the Jewelled sword of offering) as this one has elaborate Roses, Thistles and Shamrocks, worked into it. I personally lean towards (Great) Sword of State. I think it rather odd that the caption doesn't say, but there you go... Thanks for any help! --217.227.119.116 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, it's the Sword of State. See here. --Cameron * 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for book[edit]

I am currently writing a book that presents two fictional tales as translated historical texts (complete with a realistic preface and footnotes). However, I am trying to think of a way to convey the stories are fictional without sacrificing realism. I guess I could have a disclaimer in the front, but some people may skip over that. I would hate to be accused of trying to defraud the scholar community with forgeries. Thoughts? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a disclaimer in the front, you aren't trying to defraud anyone. If they don't read the disclaimer, it's their own fault. Dismas|^(talk) 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A genuine factual work (or good attempt at forgery!) would have more info on you as editor (rather than author) and the translators track records. I presume the bio about you on the inside back cover and other publisher publicity would be genuine: "this first novel by Ghist..." rather than faked? "Ghist's years of experience in the field of historical...". Thats where I would look to suss the book. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to have a look at a copy of Dictionary of the Khazars, a novel taking the form of a reference book. If you don't know it, I can recommend it. Your book sounds great too. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically what Umberto Eco did with The Name of the Rose and Baudalino. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dictionary of the Khazars page, my book is a type of metafiction false document. Since this will be my first novel, the flap and or book description would have to list my actual credentials and note the book is fiction, but presented as fact. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The publishers will have their own ideas about how best to market your book to a fiction readership. If they wanted to put it out in hardback only at $100 dollars a copy like an academic textbook, then I don't think you'd be best pleased. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, hardback followed by trade paperback is much better career and moneywise than mass market paperback. Mhicaoidh (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, thanks. I was thinking of hardback only. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See "The Princess Bride". It was marketed as a translation of the "good parts" of an older book. Nowhere in the book did it claim that there was no older book. Nowhere did it claim that the "translator" was actually the author. The only remote hint was the introductory bio about the translator - which was full of factual errors. Reviewers considered it a funny joke and got in on it by reviewing not only the translation but the original (non-existent) book and sometimes other work by the original (non-existent) author. In the end, writing false statements about history is common. I went through many years of back and forth with editors on a novel I wrote. It contained a lot of revisionist history to give alternate sources for events through the 60's and 70's. -- kainaw ™ 12:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You title it, "My wonderful book ... a novel" and leave it at that. If your audience is too daft to figure that out, well... compare with something like Nabokov's Lolita, which has an elaborate preface about "finding" the book or something along those lines, which is of course totally false. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do it in an artsy way, you could leave hints in the actual text of the book. For instance adding some elements of magical realism, writing in an unusual way, or writing about dubious historical events. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Preface to Gulliver's Travels, imitating similar prefaces in contemporary books of travels. The modern literary brouhaha over David Selbourne's alleged "translation" of a certain Jacob of Ancona's travels in C13 China, something you want to avoid, was lightly touched by Nicholas Kristoff in this NY Times piece].--Wetman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So as not to spoil the fun at the outset, you could try a disclaimer in an afterword (rather than in a preface), as Crichton did in Eaters of the Dead. Some folks will still be confused, of course, unless the fiction is blatant, as in the recent "biography" The Remarkable Millard Fillmore, which claims to be based on the 53 volumes of Fillmore's recently discovered journals (as well as his napkin doodles), and in an early footnote tells us that Millard rhymes with dullard rather than retard. —Kevin Myers 04:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there's any problem with a book pretending that the fiction is real and doing so all across the board. There's a world of difference between doing that and defrauding people; the book can still be marketed and sold as fiction, for example. It would be a different story if all marketing efforts and promotional material presented the material as non-fiction. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common path. I'm surprised we don't have a page on it -- oh, we do: False document. One of my favourites is the debut of Flashman: George MacDonald Fraser presented his first novel as papers found in a trunk in an attic, and fooled many of the American reviewers, see here. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordination[edit]

Hi. A friend of mine recently became engaged and, having watched an episode of Friends, asked me if I could investigate becoming ordained in order to perform the marriage. Now, first of all, I'm not sure if this is legal in our country, England, and wondered if anyone here could shed any light on the situation. Secondly, my family is Catholic, while his is Anglican. Therefore, by association, I would call myself a Catholic and he a Protestant but, since neither of us actively practise our religion, could I become a Cathgolic minister and marry him and his fiance in a Protestant Church? Thanks 92.2.122.213 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is impossible, but, unless your friend has a belief in really long engagements, the process that takes you to becoming a Catholic priest, which is, I believe, the lowest level at which marriage can be performed as a rite of the Catholic church, is likely to last longer than most marriages. There are courses for people to become Celebrants in the U.S. and Celebrants can perform marriages in some places, but the religious basis is not Catholic, Roman or otherwise. You could do what two members of my family have done: be married by a civil authority, quiettly, and then by an actor playing a priest/minister whatever in front of the massed crowds that seem to accumulate for such events. You could then be the actor. Just a thought. ៛ Bielle (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's really relevant to 92.2 (as it's pretty clear that in this country they're going to have to settle for one legal and one showy ceremony if they want to do this, meaning they don't need to be ordained), but a Deacon can perform the marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church. From the article Catholic marriage "In the Roman Catholic tradition, it is the spouses who are understood to confer marriage on each other. The spouses, as ministers of grace, naturally confer upon each other the sacrament of matrimony, expressing their consent before the church. This does not eliminate the need for church involvement in the marriage; under normal circumstances, canon law requires the attendance of a priest or deacon and at least two witnesses for validity (see canons 1108-1116).". 79.66.54.186 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online ordinations are usually by the Universal Life Church, which sued to be recognized as a real church in the US and can now do whatever they want. I'm not sure they would have any legal standing in England though, so they might be disappointed to find they aren't married at all. It would definitely have absolutely zero standing in the Catholic or Anglican churches. It shouldn't be too difficult to get married in an Anglican church in England, should it? I know the Catholic church makes it an enormous pain in the ass if both parties aren't practising Catholics, but do the Anglicans do that too? In Canada the usual compromise is to get married in a United church, but I don't suppose you have those over there. As Bielle said, getting married in a civil ceremony is simple and easy (and cheap!), you don't need a church involved at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Anglicans (in England) don't usually make a fuss about both parties being Anglican. Many don't worry about the religious beliefs of the couple at all. I think you will also find that you can't be married by just any old person who claims to have a religious qualification - they also have to be licensed to perform marriages.

If your friends really want someone not licensed for marriage to perform the ceremony what I would suggest is to have both a personal and a legal ceremony. In the personal ceremony you can do whatever you want, have it performed by anybody you like, and hold it anywhere. The legal part just consists of going down to a registry office, saying a few words in front of some witnesses and signing some forms. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly England doesn't currently recognise non-religious celebrants it seems. See [1] and [2]. In NZ, they do exist although it isn't something handed out like candy, see [3] and is not intended for someone who just wants to marry their friend. However there are courses you can do to help you learn how to conduct a ceremony [4]. It sounds like similar things are offered by the BHA although you could just design the wedding plan with your friends, perhaps together with an existing celebrant if you want it fairly formal and aren't sure how to go about it, instead of bothering with a course since your needs are fairly specific. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also bear in mind, that "dressing up" as a Catholic / Protestant / Rabbi / Mullah (as suggested by Bielle) may lead to some spectacular events if militant fundamentalist brethren of such denominations are present. User:Dismas may be able to shed light on the dim fate of his neighbour, whose life expectancy was adversely affected by such behaviour.

Mind you, if you want 92.2.122.213 to be a household name in two millennia, you may decide in favour of such thespian impersonations of ordained Gurus. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Game" by Neil Strauss[edit]

How will I know if someone trying to use this on me? What should I look out for if some guy is trying to use the the techniques in the book "The Game" by Neil Strauss?

If possible, please list examples. Thanks! --JennaHunter (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, the primary "technique" is to show disinterest in women you are interested in. Not exactly the secret of the ages—ever hear of "playing hard to get"?—but okay, I guess most men are unable and unwilling to pretend they are uninterested when they are, in fact, interested.

So yeah. Watch out for that. People who appear to be uninterested in you, but are probably actually interested in you. I guess. I really wouldn't fret over it much. If you're worried about doing something you'd rather not do, set ground rules ahead of time for your behavior and stick to them no matter what you might feel at the moment. If you're worried about disingenuous men, just take the time to get to know the person in question—authenticity is usually pretty clear where you find it, and superficiality is also pretty obvious if you are looking for it. Beware of "cool" that is not backed up with intelligence, a little earnestness, and respect. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, that article is a POS. "is a book of non-fiction which was among the first to expose the seduction community to the mainstream public". Say what? Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it pretty amusing. Does the guy really want to know why (some) girls seem interested in rock stars? I mean, it's not that hard to figure out. Money, fame, parties, etc... you don't need a "method" if you've got those! --140.247.241.142 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples listed in our article Seduction community, and there may be more in the references cited therein. You'll discover from that article that a guy who touches you or who engages in humorous banter might be trying to pick you up. I can inform you, however, that some of us do these things even without having read Strauss. It may be difficult for you to determine who's applying techniques from the book. Just out of curiosity, if you knew that someone were trying to use this on you, how would you react? JamesMLane t c 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when guys try to apply techniques (like touching) that they read somewhere, it can be just weird. Without having read any of this stuff at the time, I still recognised a clumsy attempt to manipulate when a guy did this to me. My reaction? Creepy loser. Which is a shame because he may have been a perfectly nice guy who just thought it would help at the beginning. But it gives me a gut reaction of the guy viewing women as lesser creatures, to be manipulated for pleasure. And gut reactions affect relationships. 79.66.90.252 (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globus cruciger[edit]

Hey it's me again! Does anyone know what the plural of globus cruciger is? Thanks, --217.227.119.116 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globi crucigeri. Deor (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these two orbs, is the british Sovereign's Orb? Is the other one the Small Orb made for Mary II? Thanks, --217.227.119.116 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orb 1, identifiable in the engraving by the amethyst on which the jewelled cross stands, is the "King's Orb", made by Sir Robert Vyner for Charles II and kept with the Crown Jewels in the Tower: ("The King's Orb"). "Orb 2" looks like a different, less accurate engraving of the same.--Wetman (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The amethyst not being octagonal and the shapes of the gems on orb 2 makes it appear to be a different orb. Maybe it is just a less accurate version...--Cameron * 08:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sallie Middleton "Red Throated Hummingbird" print[edit]

I purchased a limited edition numbered print by Sallie Middleton at a thrift store. It is entitled "Red Throated Hummingbird". Does anyone have any info on this print? Is it worth anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.171.155 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.salliemiddleton.com/current_values.html will give you some idea, albeit this may well be the artist/agent trying to talk up her work's market value. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-aged white rappers?[edit]

Are there any of note? I know Vanilla Ice is probably getting old now, but that doesn't really count. --81.77.168.61 (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beastie Boys are in their 40s, I believe. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everlast probably qualifies. The Beastie Boys certainly do. And actually, even Eminem is in his mid-thirties now, though I guess that doesn't quite count as middle-aged. There are probably others as well. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Rock is 37. (Both he and Eminem are from Michigan, which apparently now produces more middle-aged white rappers than it does cars.) StuRat (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35 is admittedly half way to 70 ("three score and ten"), but these days I doubt anyone gets called "middle-aged" till they're at least 50. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Harry is more than middle aged. Her rap song, which was also made into a video, topped the U.S. charts. Dismas|^(talk) 06:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debs raps on one (poss. two - been a while since I listened to it) song on the most recent Blondie album too. Which begs the question as to whether there are any other middle-aged white women who rap. I certainly can't think of any. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slug of Atmosphere is about to turn 36, MC Serch is probably nearly 40, Aesop Rock is 32, Mike Shinoda is 31, Necro is 32, El-P is 33, Ill Bill is supposedly 36.--droptone (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Middle aged" really means "at least ten years older than I am." OtherDave (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]