Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 249 posts

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#71

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #50
jcranmer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even more complicated than that. The Byzantine Empire was conquered by a group of crusaders in the Fourth Crusade in 1204, with several rump states cropping up. The Empire of Nicaea reconquered Constantinople in 1261, so people usually call it the continuation of the Byzantine Empire. By the 1400s, this Byzantine Empire quite literally existed at the whim of the Ottomans, even if they only entered Constantinople…

so is "the one true UNIX" just history repeating itself?

That reminds me of Charlie Stross's metaphor of UNIX as religious sects: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/metaphor...

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#72

Post by drb91 »

smacktoward wrote: post #43

> The true “dark age,” of course, was the early 1940s when, simply as a side effect of industrial killing, great swathes of the past disappeared. One small yet major example—the extraordinary series of paintings of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, made in the 1170s either by the saint herself or under her supervision, disappeared in the general catastrophe that unfolded in Dresden in early 1945. We only know what…

This is a very specific, narrow interpretation of the dark ages. It is not a good term to use in any circumstance, which the article illustrates well.

Secondly, in the event of societal collapse, I'm not exactly looking for a great work of art. I image we lost far more texts through preventable destruction and lack of preservation than we lost novel texts written during the post-roman european collapse. I think the quote illustrates a meaningful parallel.

> But the loss of something that we know existed (and can even look at photographs of!) is very different than destruction so total that it even obliterates the possibility of remembrance.

Categorically different maybe, but consequentially equivalent. I can rattle off a ton of lost texts, but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#73

Post by ohaideredevs »

hluska wrote: post #57
gonehome wrote: post #19

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html I don’t get an intelligence vibe from this style of writing - it mostly just sets off my bullshit alarms.

I can’t claim to be a big fan of Fulcanelli’s, but in the same text, he talked about how philosophers would communicate with ciphers. I have absolutely no proof of this, but wouldn’t put it above Fulcanelli to embed coded messages in his writing, or to write in a way that suggests a cipher. Again, I have no proof, other than that he fancied himself the man who rediscovered alchemy in the 20th century and, since many…

It's a common theme - that it's all a very clever cipher - that the metals, planet alignments, etc are either code for chemical reactions or "transformations of the soul." I got into it as a teenager, but called it quits at some point, because while Fulcanelli is vague, he is at least a competent human being. That much can't be said for the authors of most "alchemical", and similar, texts.

Also, it's funny to track the biographies of the most commonly known Occultists; Crowley, Dee, Parsons - all accomplished before they got into the occult, and declining after.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#74

Post by maldusiecle »

gonehome wrote: post #19

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html I don’t get an intelligence vibe from this style of writing - it mostly just sets off my bullshit alarms.

There are people who talk like that. What's your problem with it in particular? I don't find any of its sentences especially difficult to parse.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#75

Post by ABCLAW »

EliRivers wrote: post #53
gonehome wrote: post #19

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html I don’t get an intelligence vibe from this style of writing - it mostly just sets off my bullshit alarms.

Having read the article, I disagree. What "style" of writing? The sentences aren't excessive, the language is all fairly common (the author even takes pleasure in simplifying "scramasax", clearly inviting us to take pleasure in it as well). What's wrong with it? It's not meant to be a list of purely literal facts. It's entertaining and a pleasure to read. As for Paul Graham's opinion piece; well, that's just silly. S…

The first paragraph of the quoted piece is a nightmare. The first sentence of the second and third paragraph are poorly drafted as well. In the rest, the verbose recounting fits the theme and does not distract from the point.

As a writing exercise, let me re-write the piece:

"What happened during the Middle Ages is unclear and the evidence we use to understand it is contradictory. Reviews depict the period as one filled with conflict and struggle, but artistic works dated to this period - from the calm, serene looking statues to the expansive, aspirational Gothic architecture - instead hint that they were created by happy people in a flourishing society.

Perhaps the lack of recorded history in this period is the result of peace and a lack of notable incidents rather than war, famine and disease."

The idea is interesting but bite-sized when stripped of the pomp.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#76

Post by foldr »

dpark wrote: post #60
coldtea wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should use those alarms on PG's writings: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm As for the particular author, he was born in another culture (not all cultures appreciate the matter-of-factness as-you-talk anglo-saxon style of writing, many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business"). He was also born in a whole other era.

> many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business" Snobs in general tend to look down on people who don’t place value on pomposity for its own sake.

Writing style is a matter of taste. The blunt "as spoken" style is just as much an affect as some of its more flowery alternatives.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#77

Post by foldr »

gonehome wrote: post #47
mikeash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s good advice but it’s also highly dependent on culture and time. It’s food advice because the English-speaking culture of today values writing that sounds like speech. It may not have been good advice at all for someone writing in 1920s France. And beyond that, it’s really hard to apply this sort of advice to a translation.

I’d argue it’s good advice for people that value clarity over sounding smart. I’d guess there were people that valued this in most times and cultures.

The quoted text isn't at all unclear (especially taking into consideration the fact that it's a translation).

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#78

Post by hodgesrm »

mjw1007 wrote: post #4
hodgesrm wrote: post #3

The Dark Ages are something of a misnomer but there does not seem to be any question that levels of literacy, trade, and social organization were lower than the preceding Roman era and than even the latter part of the middle ages after 1200 or so. Indeed much of the 'darkness' is the result of so few written records surviving from the era, which in turn points to far fewer of them being generated in the first place.…

I think "Late Antiquity" is common.

Late antiquity generally refers to the period around and after the emperor Constantine when the Roman empire started to fray around the edges. It includes writers like St. Augustine who IMHO was as good as any thinker before or after. Not to mention artistic creations like the churches of Ravenna and the laws of Justinian. It's quite different from the period that set in after the invasion of the Lombards (568 AD) and more particularly the Moslem invasions of Africa (630s AD), which severely disrupted communications in the Mediterranean.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#79

Post by colechristensen »

gonehome wrote: post #19

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html I don’t get an intelligence vibe from this style of writing - it mostly just sets off my bullshit alarms.

First, it is a century old translation from French. What might sound perfectly normal in French might sound silly in English if you do a literal translation. Matching the tone between languages might significantly change the message.

For example, to use the English versions of French words...

To say "I'm sorry" in French you say "I am desolate"

Talking about a broken phone or a stomach ache you would say they are deranged.

Much of French vocabulary came into English but very often with some distance in meanings and usage. Often in translating you have the option to use exactly the same word with maybe a small spelling change, but you end up sounding ridiculous because of the shift in meaning or intensity.

Second, essentially what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong. Not that I am saying you are directly or intentionally harassing someone, but (despite my distaste for how it is often used) things like this could be called microaggressions, making people uncomfortable using their language.

I experienced a lot of that growing up. In a place far from cities where people were generally less educated (and those that were left to find jobs) and I read a lot. I still struggle with the unconscious bias that people don't want to hear what I have to say or wouldn't understand or would respond with discouraging things.

Looking back, I'm not trying to say you are doing anything particularly negative, BUT be careful. Diversity can come in lots of ways, using language a little differently is one of them, and a little understanding (like how hundred year translations from French are going to sound a little … florid) helps with perspective.

Re: The 'Dark Ages' Weren't as Dark as We Thought

#80

Post by dpark »

foldr wrote: post #76
dpark wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business" Snobs in general tend to look down on people who don’t place value on pomposity for its own sake.

Writing style is a matter of taste. The blunt "as spoken" style is just as much an affect as some of its more flowery alternatives.

I'm assuming you're using "an affect" in the sense of "an affectation" or "affected" here, in which case, no. Plainness, simplicity, straightforwardness are words that would describe "as spoken" writing. They are also literally antonyms of "affect" in this context, which would mean pretentiousness, artificiality, pomposity.
Post reply on HN