#also fellow Peter enjoyers you know who you are. please add on to this.

[thebeanestbad]

from a peter enthusiast to another,,, my question would be: why >:) (in a why do you like him way)

for me i loveloveleovllvlevolev his character development. from eg to shadow of the giant he’s so bad at doing things its so endearing,, he’s simultaneously trying his best whilst somehow doing his worst,,, he either thinks he has no idea what he’s doing or he thinks he knows everything when the reality is always the opposite. and he’s funny. he’s the only character that OSC doesn’t take too seriously which makes the Weird Racist/Sexist OSC Opinions that come out of his mouth just that much more bearable

YES you get it omg. Like in Enders game he was an interesting character but not really a lovable character, if you get my drift. But then in the shadow series you get the experience of him slowly becoming the worlds most powerful leader while also being a desperate 20something who just wants his mom to say that she’s proud of him.

At the end of the day, most books in the series are about being Just Some Kid being put into the absolute worst situation of your life. And while EG is the pinnacle of that, Ender always has a bit of a Main Character Polish on him. He’s allowed to fail, he’s allowed to make bad decisions, and he’s allowed to be insecure, but Peter is allowed to be pathetic. Ender fails way beyond the point where most people would break— and to his credit, so does Peter. But while Ender goes semi-comatose in his military officer’s space barracks after being forced to unknowingly commit xenocide, Peter gets depressed after failing to notice that his guest was planning to murder him, and his parents have to drag him out of bed and pour water on him. And then they have to go live in Ender’s space barracks so Peter doesn’t get murdered by the guy he invited into the Hegemony compound (for… some reason).

Also, there’s something very… uniquely 20-something about Peter. He’s in the odd place of being able to choose what he wants to do, and basically be considered an adult, while also having the ever-looming sense of “who the HELL let me be in charge of ANYTHING”. He has a touch of relatability that’s missing from a lot of characters.

In addition to all of that I love to see a cringefail losing.

[hpoelzig]

Hurwitz on Classical Music

David Hurwitz is a music critic who currently has a YouTube channel upon which he presents his ever-growing body of reviews of recordings of classical music. I very recently discovered this wonderful resource, but I had known him over the years for his written reviews for High Fidelity, Fanfare, Amazon.com, and Classics Today (he’s a founder and executive editor). An ebullient curmudgeon with a rich vocabulary, Hurwitz presents his thoughts and feelings in an earthy, energetic manner. Clearly, he’s quite “well-listened”—and I’m curious as to how he currently evaluates recordings, whether he uses headphones or speakers and what sort of sound-reproducing facilities might be his “rig.” There are quite a few videos, with sometimes several added in a day, so I’ve yet to find whether he’s mentioned that somewhere amongst them.

Unsurprisingly, since Hurwitz resides in Brooklyn, over the decades we’ve both attended many of the same concerts. I lived in Manhattan for 35 years, near Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center, and was at many performances in those venues as was he. We’ve likely passed close to one another a number of times without meeting, a pity, since I suspect we’d enjoy hours of conversation about the music for which we both have such passion. I value that Hurwitz is a fellow musician (a percussionist—as was I in my early years of college) and he’s also a fellow tam tam aficionado—he mentions he has a collection of them amongst his personal array or percussion instruments (I’d love to spend some time with those!). He is deeply conversant with the scores for the works he’s discussing, and may even have played in performances of such pieces over his career. He also values many of the same mainstream composers I favor (including Mahler, Shostakovich, Dvořák, Haydn, Strauss, Sibelius, Brahms and Bernstein) and he has written “Owner’s Manuals” regarding their works. I’m now tempted to read those. He’s even done scholarly rebuttals to the folks who promote early performance practices regarding use of vibrato. Hurwitz, contrarily to most, contends it was commonly in use. He also shares my love for some lesser-known composers such as Nielsen, Leifs, Gillis, Lloyd, Englund, Koechlin, Pettersson, Raff, Shapero, Kalliwoda, and Magnard. 

From the episodes I’ve currently enjoyed, Hurwitz typically does not play examples of the recordings that he is discussing, and, to be fair, that would add a great deal of time to the video blog, so that’s not a problem. He may at times be speaking to the part of his audience who are also similarly well-listened, dismissing some performers who are generally considered to be weak in certain repertoire without necessarily making it abundantly clear why that would be the case. Those coming to this channel who are new to classical music might not at first grasp why he either raves for some or condemns others to the “schwach” bin. However, I’m discovering that his tastes frequently coincide with mine, as he has similar aesthetics about what qualities make for both exemplary music and performances of it. And, he’s made clear, both in the episodes and in the spirited comment stream for them, his perspective. These quotes from him in response to comments on his review of versions of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony (he wears a tie when discussing this work) make things abundantly clear:

“It's not wisdom, just experience, and there are many commentators who, I'm sure you will discover, also bring a useful fund of experience to bear on their judgments. There are also a lot of fakes and phonies, unfortunately, but that comes with the territory. If I may make one suggestion? Take your time, live with the music and your favorite versions, then perhaps sample another and see how it strikes you. There's no hurry—the point is that the experience should be as enjoyable as possible. I meant what I said originally—there is no performance out there that someone doesn't love, but if you want to try to get the "best" versions, more important than seeking out the advice of others is to know your own preferences, so you have a basis to judge what they say. Be selfish. It's your money and your time!

“Of course no hard feelings. You are more than free to disagree with me, and I respect that. Of course Karajan sounds different from Szell, and I greatly prefer Szell, but I chose Karajan not because I like him, but because he had a distinct point of view that he realized superbly in that recording, and I felt obliged to give credit where credit was due. That is the difference, sometimes, between criticism and mere fandom. I do feel an obligation to acknowledge different interpretations, take into account the general consensus, and consider other factors beyond my own personal preference. It may not exactly be "objective," but it isn't totally "subjective" either. I see it more as an aspect of professionalism as a critic. I take great pride in recognizing excellent work, whether I happen to like it or not, and telling listeners about it so that they can come to their own conclusions.”

I’ve been pleased to discover that Hurwitz shares my thinking about the quality of Rachmaninov’s Symphony No. 1 (his best—and we share admiration for Ashkenazy’s recording), but, in contrast, I do like the actual bell sounds in the first movement, which for me directly evoke Rimsky-Korsakov’s orchestration of the Boris Godunov coronation scene while Hurwitz prefers that passage to be less literal. My readers might know of my Mahler connection (including my years with the Gustav Mahler Society of New York which began in 1976) and I frequently find that Hurwitz knows and appreciates some of the more obscure Mahler recordings…Muti’s 1st, Slatkin’s 2nd, Barshai’s 5th. Our listenings and evaluations often coincide, but we don’t always agree. While he prefers the wind band arrangement, I love hearing the full orchestral version with choral parts for the Berlioz “Funeral and Triumphal Symphony.” Singing “Gloire et Triomphe” while conducting “air baton” always adds to my enjoyment of that splendid work. 

Hurwitz’s video blog reviews are definitely worth your while, whether you are beginning to explore classical music or are a seasoned aficionado. So far, he’s clued me in to some treasures that I’d not yet enjoyed, including Finn Mortensen’s splendid symphony and Fricsay’s superb reading of Dvorak’s 9th. Many of the recordings he mentions are currently posted on YouTube. While he doesn’t provide links, but you can easily find them, so you need not deplete your funds ordering hundreds of CDs. Do your listening and then you can purchase those CDs that intrigue you most. You’ll quickly get used to his raspy voice and cheerful monologue. The sight of his smiling face framed by the pagan halo of one of his substantial tam tams will be a welcome sight. 

For many, getting acquainted with classical music is a rather Hellish experience. I know, for I’ve spent decades assisting people to discover the glories achieved in that art form. There are centuries worth of material and thousands of performances of wildly varying quality, and that can be a formidable barrier. Would-be initiates to this vast repertoire often need a knowledgable guide. So, I suggest you let Mr. Hurwitz be Virgil to your Dante as you descend what might seem at first to be the nine circles of the abyss, but which will instead ultimately prove to be an opening of your ears to transcendent beauty. Queue Liszt’s “Dante Symphony”—with the optional fortissimo conclusion to the choral Magnificat—volume turned up!

—Peter H. Gilmore