Humanities desk
< August 25	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 27 >

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.

August 26

slaughterhouse 5 and The Things They Carried

I recently finished reading slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut and I thought it was pretty great; however, I was struck by the glaring similarities between it and the things they carried by Tim O'brien. I haven't read the things they carried since my last year of high school (...so like, three or four years ago) so it could just be that I've totally misrememebred it, but it really seemed to me like O'brien had ripped off Vonnegut.

Some examples of what I'm talking about:

The self referential style where vonnegut/o'brien break the fourth wall (or whatever it's called in literature) and talk to the reader as themselves sort of assessing the story.

The repetition of some phrases, "so it goes" in slaugtherhouse and none come to mind in the things they carried but I remember the first chapter/story having a bunch.

The revision of stories.

Temporal disjointendness, in slaughterhouse this is used as a pretty major plot device, and in the things they carried it seems to be because time o'brien is a bad writer (ok maybe my highschoolness got the better of me, but I really just thought o'brien sucked as an author)

the whole "going back to where it all went down" thing

There were a bunch of other similarities that struck me in the moment but I can't quite recall all of them. I'm in the process of trying to find my copy of the things they carried so i can re-read it... so for now my question is pretty much thus:

I am reading to much into it or did Tim O'brien rip off Kurt Vonnegut? flagitious (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "ripped off". Look, all artists "borrow" or "pay hommage" to earlier authors; they use and reuse plot elements and themes all the time. Even Vonnegut himself did this early in his career: Player Piano, his first novel, is basically Atlas Shrugged with a little more humor. Regarding the O'Brien/Vonnegut connection: There are lots of disjointed war stories; predating Slaughterhouse 5 is Catch-22, which shares some of the same themes and absurdities regarding war, and is similarly told in a highly disjointed fashion. Vonnegut's contemporary Thomas Pynchon published Gravity's Rainbow a few years after Slaughterhouse-five, and again, you can see the similar influence. A more recent example is the film Jacob's Ladder. Some of this is because Heller and Vonnegut and O'Brien and Pynchon come from the same literary tradition; their style of writing is typical of the late 20th century American authors.--Jayron32 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok yeah, fair enough. Obviously all authors borrow from eachother, I just sort of felt that O'brien did a little more than borrow. But maybe I'm being too harsh. A re-read is definitely in order. I just definitely got the "haven't I read this book already" feeling within the first few pages of slaughterhouse 5, and I guess I never really shook it. 209.167.165.2 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Day Grand Tour

What is the modern day equivalent to the Grand Tour? That is which countries is an upper class Westerner (American or Brit) generally supposed to have visited in order to be considered worldly, knowledgeable and well educated? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say the former Warsaw Pact nations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is whether there is a modern day equivalent to the Grand Tour, rather than assuming that one exists. The closest modern equivalent I see is the gap year, but I don't think it matches very well to the notion of the "tour of all things civilized", nor is it a prerequisite to being considered well-educated, etc. Barring references to the contrary, I find the correct conclusion to be that there is no agreed-upon modern day equivalent. — Lomn 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that there exists some kind of list of places to have been, which one can tick off with a "been there" and then be rated as "traveled", is not an upper-class concept.--Wetman (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be. That's what the Grand Tour was all about. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

c.f. 1,000 Places to See Before You Die. --Jayron32 05:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of European people that do a "round the world" trip, lasting 3 to 6 months, during their twenties. They do this with a single airline ticket that allows you to stop as long as you want in all the places on the way. It is quite expensive, but it is not an upper class thing, as many middle class people can aford it and do this. --Lgriot (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Church and State

I know that in America, we have this ideal, and it's supposed to be upheld by the constitution. But some theists counter this by saying that no where in the constitution is Separation of Church and State mentioned. Is this notion merely derived from the 1st Ammendment or is there something more specific? 148.168.127.10 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on the separation of church and state lays out, the basis in the US is the establishment clause. The phrase itself is derived from Thomas Jefferson and has been used multiple times since by the Supreme Court. However, saying that "'separation of church and state' isn't found in the amendment, so the concept isn't there" is a gross fallacy. A comparable example is to note that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible -- and yet it's a core tenet of Christianity. — Lomn 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the Bible," you are of course referring to the "Christian Bible," also sometimes known as the "New Testament". You are of course, not referring to the Torah, sometimes referred to as the "Old Testament"—in the Torah there is of course no mention of "trinity." I just wanted to clarify that, as "the Bible" can mean more than one thing to more than one person. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, that paragraph was unnecessary. If "trinity" is in neither the New nor Old Testaments, then indeed it is "not found in the Bible", as Lomn said. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "the Christian Bible" is not "sometimes known as the New Testament": it incorporates the Old and New Testaments. Marnanel (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of driving this way off topic, no, the above "clarification" is not useful. Christians (substitute your own "encompasses the major traditions" definition here) subscribe to a definition of "Bible" that is not limited by "the New Testament". Theological justifications for the trinity are cited across the Testaments and in the Apocrypha as well, yet the word "trinity" appears in none of them. The overriding point, though, is to illustrate that concepts are not bound by the descriptive terms we assign them. If you prefer, I could also note that "veto" never appears in the US Constitution, and that hasn't kept scores of Presidents from vetoing legislation. — Lomn 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also, more specifically, Separation of church and state in the United States, especially this section and below. It is very clear that the Founders intended that the government and religion not be administratively intertwined. This was seen not as a slight against religion (though many of the founders were, at best, Deists, and would be barely recognizable as Christians in the modern US) so much as a protection for those of minority sects and against the possibility of state religion (which they saw as both detrimental to state and religion). Like nearly all Constitutional ideals, there is a small reference in the Constitution that was later elaborated upon greatly and through precedent. This is not unique. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some US states continued to have established churches for years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment was originially only a restriction on the power of Congress, and said nothing about state-established churches. The Bill of Rights was ratified and then basically forgotten for a century (its original advocates were really just trying to block adoption of the Constitution), and did not become judicially important until the 20th century. Separation of church and state did not constitutionally apply to the states until the 1940s (see incorporation of the Bill of Rights). Founders like Samuel and John Adams would have been horrified at the modern idea of separation of church and state, but it's what Jefferson and Madison wanted all along; see Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. —Kevin Myers 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

side discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a native speaker of English I don't know what "the Bible" is. There is too much leeway in that terminology. Much depends on context, such as who one's audience is. We are of a diverse background. I don't think it is sufficient to say "the Bible," assuming everyone knows what you are talking about. In fact the very notion of "Bible" implies uniformity of mindset. This is inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what it is, and yet you thought you'd tell Lomn what Lomn was referring to by use of the term? Marnanel (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marnanel—I hardly think I told Lomn what he was referring to. I should add that I agree with everything else Lomn has said. There was just one turn of phrase that I took exception to. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were soapboxing about your objection to the term "the Bible" in the way Lomn used it. Totally unnecessary and derailing; it was perfectly obvious what he or she meant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the way in which Lomn used the phrase "the Bible" contained a slight hint of "soapboxing." But my aim would not be to use language to enlarge a relatively small exception that I was taking to what was said, so I would not initiate the use of such a word as soapboxing. Nor do I think it was intentional of Lomn—one more reason why I would not refer to his turn of phrase as soapboxing. Again: this is a diverse population. It is to be assumed, at the least, that we do not all share a uniform understanding of what "the Bible" is. Let us not make mountainous terrain of molehill environs. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...found in the Bible -- and yet it's a core tenet of Christianity." Even if one wasn't sure what this meant, the context clue is obvious. As a Jew myself, I always think of the Christian Book when I hear "Bible". I read the Tanakh myself, also known as the Hebrew Bible to some. Considering there are 2,300 – 2,500 million Christians compared to 14–18 million Jews, it's clear I am in the minority. :) AFAIK, (few if any) other religions really use bible as a term for their holy books, instead having other names for them. Qur'an, Avesta, Tao Te Ching, Book of Mormon, etc. ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:23, 16 Elul 5770 / 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ennasis—"the Bible" can refer solely to the Five Books of Moses (and not include the New Testament or any other Christian text). That is how a speaker speaking from a Jewish perspective would probably be using the term. Such speakers do exist—Jews also use the term "the Bible," though I think they tend to use that terminology less frequently than their Christian counterparts. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Miners

I heard a news report saying authorities are withholding from the trapped Chilean miners the estimate that it will take four months to free them. What do you suppose are their motives for this course of action, and is it a good idea? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Í[reply]

This article says they have now been told, and the article discusses why the information had been withheld. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Tax Law

I was doing some research and have a question about UK tax law. In the United States, individuals and corporations are able to claim income tax deductions for charitable donations. Does the UK have the same sort of deduction? If so, how does it work? (I assuming that someone who knows the UK practice wouldn't know the US practice and vice versa, but if someone could make a comparison that would be awesome.) If not, is there a equivalent benefit for charitable contributions? TN X Man 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both individuals and companies can claim tax relief on gifts to registered charities. There is also a Gift Aid scheme, whereby qualifying recipients of such gifts can claim back the tax paid on them, increasing the real value of the donation. There's a good official summary of the rules here for individuals and here for businesses. Ka renjc 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TN X Man 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remember the name of a book...

This has been bugging me for the past ten years. When I was in third grade, my teacher had a little classroom library, and there was this one book in particular I absolutely loved. For the life of me, though, I can't remember the title or the author, not even what it looked like!

What I do remember is that it was a book about a family of ghosts that lived in this big old haunted house. There was the mother and father and two sons, and I believe they'd died something like 100 years earlier from a lightning strike? I'm pretty sure the main character was one of the two sons, probably the younger one. At the beginning, the two brothers went into town at Christmas and watched the Christmas lights being put up, and while the workmen were somewhere else, they finished decorating the Christmas tree (they were invisible, so it looked like the lights were flying). Later, the main character brother ghost met a (living) boy about his age, and ended up becoming friends with him. I remember he (the ghost) ended up going to school with the other boy. At school, for some reason he went out in the hall and just went through the wall, although he had to stop and use the door, because his books wouldn't go through. For some reason, there were some people who came into the haunted house and were going to measure the rooms and take pictures. The ghost family played tricks on them by appearing just as the camera's flash went off so they showed up in the pictures, but the photographer never saw them. The photographer, as I recall, didn't really believe the house was haunted, but thought the room got cold when ghosts were around and that ghosts looked like "cellophane" (I distinctly remember that word, as I didn't know what it meant then!). At some point, the (living) boy met the ghost boy's family (I think he complimented the ghost mother on her old-fashioned dress?), and for some reason the ghost parents rode in a car with someone (maybe the teacher from school), and the ghost mother was frightened because they went so fast (forty miles an hour, I think). The ghost boy also ended up appearing to the photographer, proving ghosts did exist.

The book itself I remember as being fairly old, maybe published pre-60s (the cover and drawings were oldish, I think, and some of the words were older, like "cellophane"). I believe it did have some illustrations, but it was a chapter book. I have a vague impression that the cover was gold, although that could be wrong.

I know this is kind of rambling, but this is all the little bits and pieces I remember! If it jogs anyone's memory--or you know how to Google it better than I did--your help is greatly appreciated! 24.247.162.139 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Ghosts Who Went to School? If not try searching in Google books. Ariel. (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thirty-two types of personality

Simplifying greatly, the Big Five personality traits imply that there are 32 different types of personality if people are crudely grouped as just being either above or below average in each of the traits. Is there any website that gives information about these 32 types, such as commonness, likely occupations, and so on? And where do various mental illnesses fit within this scheme? Thanks 92.28.254.27 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]