this dad’s no square

my world's on fire, how 'bout yours?

ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT MICKEY AND MINNIE ARE THE FIRST BOOK ACCURATE JONMINA IN AN ADAPTATION

ALSO WHY IS THE NEW COPY $250???????

Anyway, you definitely won't find those we're mentioning to read here. I recommend Frankenstein, too. It's a bit silly but wonderfully drawn.

But my personal favorite is the one from I TL 3070-1P, that frustratedpker did an amazing job with the scan/translation. It's a must read.

Each of the lyrics comes from an old-time hickory song for fiddles, and is a lyric from that corresponding song.

"Fire on the Mountain" --> "Fire on the Mountain, run boys run"

Fire On The Mountain - Fiddle Player POV

"The House of the Rising Sun" --> "The Devil's in the house of the rising sun"

House of the Rising Sun

"Ida Red" --> "Chicken in the bread pan peckin' out dough"

Ida Red - Bob Wills & His Texas Playboys

"Granny Will Your Dog Bite" --> "Granny does your dog bite? 'No child, no'."

FTC #149 Granny Will Your Dog Bite

And for your furthered education, The Mountain Whipporwill.

in a time before things like radios and record players, every time you heard music was because there was somebody in the room with you playing an instrument. and many, many, many social events involved dancing, which requires music. so, if you're planning any kind of gathering in the american south or appalachia, you need to find a fiddler. and the fiddler's job is to play music that everybody knows and likes and can dance to.

the mistake The Devil makes in his bet with Johnny is that he misinterprets the contest as being about technical ability, so he has this big flashy song. he plays fast and impressively with a band of demons playing unfamiliar instruments in unfamiliar rhythms. he's definitely more skilled at playing than Johnny, and thinks he has it in the bag.

WW2 Pacific theater, there was different ways of doing it.

Had the refrigerated barge for one,

then we had bomber ice cream.

Source they linked for that here

And another

One documentary I watched had someone quoting Napoleon I think it was at one point, short version of the quite was something along the lines of.

'wars are won or lost through logistics'

Our industrial output could not be matched.

And then after it was all over the Berlin Airlift managed to eventually get stalin and the rest of the soviets to back off on trying to claim the whole city for themselves, because starving people out wasn't going to work, we'd managed to move more supplies into the city than should have been possible.

Fat Electrician has a good video on that.

Biggest Logistical Flex Of All Time - Berlin Airlift

Someone [American] asked why do you like us? We dropped 2 nuclear bombs on you. You should definitely hate us.

The Japanese overwhelmingly told stories of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami. The American military showed up and kinda bullied the Japanese into taking help. There are stories of soldiers getting an entire airport up and running in hours. Of the USS Ronald Reagan (an Aircraft carrier) and her support fleet having the port operational upon arrival. Of Air Force helos calling "weight emergencies" to the tower to force landings in unauthorized areas where people were still trapped in order to drop off supplies.

One of them said Japan appreciated all the help. It was great. But it was absolute proof Japanese can never win a war against the United States. He pointed out the Japanese government and defense ministry hadn't gotten anything mobilized when the US military had air, land, and sea control in under 48 hours.

Japan didn't ask for aid.

Brought to you by a conversation I was having with @elucubrare and also by me currently reading Ann Leckie’s Radiant Star, which is not fantasy, but AL has always got me when I need political complexity. Is the Radch a monarchy? That’s an etymologically loaded question. But the Republic of Two Systems certainly isn’t.

Theories I consider when there is kings:

The author is an actual monarchist. Are you literally Tolkien? If not, I have a weird sticker to sell you.

The author is not really that interested in their world’s political system and kingship just feels like the default, unmarked case for the genre. They are probably not wrong about that. But why is it the unmarked case? And why not make something of your world’s political system? Or if you truly just need a vaguely powerful figure to send your heroes on quests why not at least call them the Consul or the President of the Council or something? Well, possibly because…

The author thinks it feels more historical. Subtypes: The author thinks the only options for political systems are Stereotypical Medieval Europe or Contemporary American Democracy, in which case read more history, and The author is specifically modeling their world after a specific historical kingdom, in which case I hope you are portraying all its problems too. If you are doing medieval England for instance you do not have an absolute monarch, you have one afflicted with Barons. So many barons. If you do not have barons in rebellion every five seconds you are not doing medieval England. So in this case also read more history. It is full of fun plot material.

The author does not want to create like 50 different government characters instead of 1 all-powerful king. I do kinda sympathize with this if your main characters are not interacting with the government very much. But you could also just have them talk to one government spokesperson for narrative convenience. The Minister for Dragons or whatever. On the other hand, if your main characters are deeply involved in government, then possibly…

The author wants the problems of the realm to be caused by and/or solvable by one single person. Narratively attractive but unrealistic. I wish things worked like this. Related/possibly overlapping:

The author is not sure how to write government by collaboration, compromise, or consent; autocracy, or even palace intrigue, is easier. It’s complicated. What do politicians talk about? How do they get things done? Do they ever? In our world, they often don’t. But can’t fiction give us the opportunity to think through alternatives? I say this as someone who can’t really write committees or debates or palace intrigue. But I like all of them as a reader. Not just palace intrigue around an autocrat. I see the appeal of that: you are a writer, you are good at making characters matter, the king’s character matters. But I have faith in you, writer. I have faith that you can write characters who matter without any one of them having to be The Character Who Matters.

The author thinks kings are glamorous. I have basically no respect for this but also I am clearly not the target audience. Things are allowed to not interest me. Next.

The king is the bad guy and we are doing a Rebellion. Hurrah! What are we rebelling for? I know what we’re rebelling against. Yes it is very oppressive. What are we rebelling for? We have a goal right? Even if it’s just “bread.” What are we going to put in place when we win? The characters may not have thought that far (rebels often don’t - but sometimes they do - or gather around an existing alternative institution like Parliament in the English Civil War) but surely you the author have? Right?