bresdegplantagenet - Tumblr blog

[bresdegplantagenet]

He was traumatised for life

I just rewatched Miloš Forman's Amadeus (1984) and one thing that always cracks me up is that poor priest and his utterly disturbed face after hours and hours of listening to old Salieri's deepest darkest thoughts. I mean, just look at this poor, pathetic, wet little guy:

Priest school definitely did not prepare him for this kind of thing.

[bresdegplantagenet]

Uh guys idk if u know but I heard this guy is kinda problematic....i saw some of u following him and I think you all should know :/ yeah it's for YouTube crimes

[bresdegplantagenet]

Things I look for in history books:

🟩 Green flags - probably solid 🟩

Has the book been published recently? Old books can still be useful, but it's good to have more current scholarship when you can.

The author is either a historian (usually a professor somewhere), or in a closely related field. Or if not, they clearly state that they are not a historian, and encourage you to check out more scholarly sources as well.

The author cites their sources often. Not just in the bibliography, I mean footnotes/endnotes at least a few times per page, so you can tell where specific ideas came from. (Introductions and conclusions don't need so many citations.)

They include both ancient and recent sources.

They talk about archaeology, coins and other physical items, not just book sources.

They talk about the gaps in our knowledge, and where historians disagree.

They talk about how historians' views have evolved over time. Including biases like sexism, Eurocentrism, biased source materials, and how each generation's current events influenced their views of history.

The author clearly distinguishes between what's in the historical record, versus what the author thinks or speculates. You should be able to tell what's evidence, and what's just their opinion.

(I personally like authors who are opinionated, and self-aware enough to acknowledge when they're being biased, more than those who try to be perfectly objective. The book is usually more fun that way. But that's just my personal taste.)

Extra special green flag if the author talks about scholars who disagree with their perspective and shows the reader where they can read those other viewpoints.

There's a "further reading" section where they recommend books and articles to learn more.

🟨 Yellow flags - be cautious, and check the book against more reliable ones 🟨

No citations or references, or references only listed at the end of a chapter or book.

The author is not a historian, classicist or in a related field, and does not make this clear in the text.

When you look up the book, you don't find any other historians recommending or citing it, and it's not because the book is very new.

Ancient sources like Suetonius are taken at face value, without considering those sources' bias or historical context.

You spot errors the author or editor really should've caught.

🟥 Red flags - beware of propaganda or bullshit 🟥

The author has a politically charged career (e.g. controversial radio host, politician or activist) and historical figures in the book seem to fit the same political paradigm the author uses for current events.

Most historians think the book is crap.

Historical figures portrayed as entirely heroic or villainous.

Historical peoples are portrayed as generally stupid, dirty, or uncaring.

The author romanticizes history or argues there has been a "cultural decline" since then. Author may seem weirdly angry or bitter about modern culture considering that this is supposed to be a history book.

The author treats "moral decline" or "degeneracy" as actual cultural forces that shape history. These and the previous point are often reactionary dogwhistles.

The author attributes complex problems to a single bad group of people. This, too, is often a cover for conspiracy theories, xenophobia, antisemitism, or other reactionary thinking. It can happen with both left-wing and right-wing authors. Real history is the product of many interacting forces, even random chance.

The author attempts to justify awful things like genocide, imperialism, slavery, or rape. Explaining why they happened is fine, but trying to present them as good or "not that bad" is a problem.

Stereotypes for an entire nation or culture's personality and values. While some generalizations may be unavoidable when you have limited space to explain something, groups of people should not be treated as monoliths.

The author seems to project modern politics onto much earlier eras. Sometimes, mentioning a few similarities can help illustrate a point, but the author should also point out the limits of those parallels. Assigning historical figures to modern political ideologies is usually misleading, and at worst, it can be outright propaganda.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Big theory" books like Guns, Germs and Steel often resort to cherry-picking and making errors because it's incredibly hard for one author to understand all the relevant evidence. Others, like 1421, may attempt to overturn the historical consensus but end up misusing some very sparse or ambiguous data. Look up historians' reviews to see if there's anything in books like this, or if they've been discredited.

There are severe factual errors like Roman emperors being placed out of order, Cleopatra building the pyramids, or an army winning a battle it actually lost.

When in doubt, my favorite trick is to try to read two books on the same subject, by two authors with different views. By comparing where they agree and disagree, you can more easily overcome their biases, and get a fuller picture.

(Disclaimer - I'm not a historian or literary analyst; these are just my personal rules of thumb. But I figured they might be handy for others trying to evaluate books. Feel free to add points you think I missed or got wrong.)

[bresdegplantagenet]

Reblog this if you had to learn cursive writing as a child

If you were ever told or were made to learn cursive writing when you were in grade school. I wanna see how many of you suffered like I did.

[bresdegplantagenet]

This is so interesting!

[bresdegplantagenet]

THIS

Shout-out to multilingual writers who are writing in their second (or third and so on) language.

The frustration of speaking it fluently, but still having to google basic words when you're writing.

The absolute joy of finding a word that sounds just perfect and conveys exactly what you mean.

Doubting all your grammar and being afraid to post it or even send it to a beta reader.

The euphoria of someone calling your use of this language, that is not your mother tongue, beautiful.

[bresdegplantagenet]

TYSM for the tag, @bythequeenmargaret !

Last song: Used to the Darkness - Des Rocs;

Currently watching: Better Call Saul;

Spicy/Savory/Sweet: Sweet :)

Relationship status: Single;

Current obsession: Jean-François Champollion + Epic: The Musical

No Pressuee Tags: @heemskerck, @fangirlsovertoomanythings , @arcangela06

was tagged by the lovely @starstrucksnowing for this latest tag game ⭐

Last Song: X by Poppy on my way home.

Favourite Colour: Pink 💗

Currently Watching: (on and off) Witcher S3 (it's so bad omg), Peep Show and rewatching the old 2000s sci-fi Andromeda that I used to watch as a kid.

Spicy/Savoury/Sweet: All of them! I want my foods to have taste. :)) (but not necessarily all at once)

Relationship Status: in a relationship

Current Obsession: whatever Bret Easton Ellis is up to in The Shards (many loltastic things! he is such a joker!)

Tagging (no pressure): @redrosesandcharmingsouls @ichooseviolence @hellshee @melodymidway @maidensfancy

[bresdegplantagenet]

Let writers ramble to you about their stories and they will forever love you.

[bresdegplantagenet]

Reblog if you think fanfiction is a legitimate form of creative writing.

[bresdegplantagenet]

THIS!!!!!

Marie Antoinette & Anne Boleyn are not 100% the victims nor 100% the villains. History is nuanced and should be studied as such.

Today on 'Iris is pissed off with the internet's perception of history': I just saw a tiktok about 'things every history girl has been obsessed with' featuring the tudors, Marie Antoinette, the Romanovs, and the Titanic and euughhrjfjrj. This is very dangerously close to just outright calling it 'girl history' and I'm really not a fan.

Tbh it goes along with a trend I've been seeing a lot that I like to call the 'coquette-ification' of history, in which what I presume to be teenage girls (with whom the 'coquette' trend has the most traction) fascinate over the presupposed 'femininity' and 'innocence' of female (usually royal) historical figures like Anne Boleyn or Marie Antoinette (obvs Titanic is an exception, I cba rn to try and analyse why that's considered 'girl history' but I think there's a reason). All of these fixations generally seem so focused on victimhood above all else rather than anything these historical figures actually did, which is something we really should've moved on from by now (did you guys not even see Six??? That was the whole message of Six!!!)

Anyway I could ramble for hours but the main point I want to hammer home is that history is so much more! From extremely niche details and people to broad systems of rule and oppression that we still see remnants of today! It is full of agents, from the average person to those famous historical figures like Anne Boleyn and Marie Antoinette who were their own agents, for better or worse, and weren't just subject to the actions of others! Just branch out, please

[bresdegplantagenet]

THIS!!!! And tbh, it's much more tragic in the book; because Dantès is in prison (and apparently dead after a while), she can't marry the love of her life. So she has to settle for that bitch Fernand.

Sure, Fernand would become rich (and eventually a nobleman), but say that didn't happened; she'd still be in a very difficult financial situation. But with Dantès, she'd have a comfortable life in an apartment in the city, not live in a hovel.

No Count of Monte Cristo adaptation I've ever seen has potrayed Mercedes as poor.

In the book, she lives in a hovel with a dirt floor, and she has so little that she doesn't even own the nets she uses to fish - she has to borrow them from Fernand.

Yet in every adaptation I'm aware of, she's portrayed as either middle class or upper class. The adaptations refuse to portray an impoverished woman as desirable.

I think this is also partly to do with the fact that Hollywood will allow stories of an underdog sailor courting a wealthy woman, but they're less inclined to protray a working class man's devotion to a working class woman who's even poorer than he is, let alone two men finding her desirable.

[bresdegplantagenet]

Update on Ancient Academia aesthetic proposition

It's slowly, but surely, becoming a WIP based off that aesthetic. It's set in a fantasy world (I LOVE fantasy), and the Alexandria of the story is a city named Harmatidia.

I don't have quite a lot of things about this in terms of plot, but I have a few ideas here & there, for characters, lore and such! :>

So far it's called 'The Great Library of Harmatidia'.

[bresdegplantagenet]

Chapters: 2/? Fandom: Ancient Greek Religion & Lore Rating: Not Rated Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Hades/Persephone, Hades/Original Character(s), Demeter/Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore)/Original Male Character(s) Characters: Hades (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Original Demigod Character(s) (Ancient Greek Religon & Lore), Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Demeter (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore) Additional Tags: Inspired by Hades and Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Drabble, Drabble Collection Summary:

A drabble exploring Hades and Persephone's mythos through the eyes of their son, Skotos.

[bresdegplantagenet]

He absolutely would've been one!!!!

Do you think Socrates would've been a weird little girl

yes.

[bresdegplantagenet]

We've all heard of Dark Academia, Light Academia, etc., but what about Ancient Academia???

The Ancient World was notorious for its libraries, the most famous being the Library of Alexandria. It was also notorious for their poets, mathematcians, all the good stuff. So why don't we celebrate this side of antiquity too???

Ancient Academia could be comprised of:

papyrus (rolls - books, ofc);

ancient roman tablets;

ancient greek and Latin texts;

people reading & writing;

libraries burning

Also, feel free to add some new elements :D

[bresdegplantagenet]

Chapters: 1/? Fandom: Ancient Greek Religion & Lore Rating: Not Rated Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Hades/Persephone, Hades/Original Character(s), Demeter/Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore)/Original Male Character(s) Characters: Hades (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Original Demigod Character(s) (Ancient Greek Religon & Lore), Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Demeter (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore) Additional Tags: Inspired by Hades and Persephone (Ancient Greek Religion & Lore), Drabble, Drabble Collection Summary:

A drabble exploring Hades and Persephone's mythos through the eyes of their son, Skotos.

[bresdegplantagenet]

Mine is William of Orange. And I have a good reason for that (I think): the way Mary II was rather submissive to him. I think he was a power motivated bitch, who just jointly ruled with Mary because "Oh, I'm a man & her husband, I CAN'T be inferior to her, who is the King's daughter, no...!"

The way I dislike him is unreal.

Do y'all ever just have that historical figure that you just don't like for really no reason at all? For me it's Emma of Normandy. I can't stand her and I just find her despicable for some reason, I don't know why. She just infuriates me for absolutely no reason and I think I'm losing it at this point.