I usually read books on Royal Road and Inkitt. I decided to give wattpad a shot for something different.
But it disappointed me quite easily, so far the only books I have come across are ceo or mafia, which I am not complaining I like those books yet at some point it feels repetitive. As if its the same story with the same plot but with different characters, but that gets a pass all because they actually have good quality writing.
What I am gonna complain about is the lack of quality on non romance books. Seriously, do some people not know basic english? Its ok if you don't, but if you are gonna write in english at least make an effort to learn how to write properly. Also some books just feel like picture books, at that point they might as well make a comic but they can't because those pictures are Ai generated or taken from Pinterest. It doesn't bother me if the pictures are on the first chapter only, it bothers me when its in the middle of the book MULTIPULE TIMES
If you need pictures to help you *describe* characters, place or creature, are you even writing?
Cause the last time I checked, writing is about using dialogue, description and expositions to tell people a good story. Your story needs to be good plot wise and writing wise.
Which brings me to my other point, script writing(only dialogue writing). This is the most horrendous thing I have ever crossed, the worst part is its not even proper script writing. Do you guys fear commitment or something?
Bad writing or lazy writing really turns me down. If there is some grammatical mistakes here and there I wouldn't mind But if the book has to much dialogue with direly any description or exposition, I am immediately dropping it.
So if you have good book both in good writing and plot you can link it. I read about anything, but currently I am looking for something non romance, but romance can be a side plot.
And if you don't know if your writing is good enough, just put it through Hemmingway editor, its what Royal Road writers use to see how well there writing is.
For me the standard is Grade 9 but if I had to go low it would be grade 5

There was no one more excited for this era than me.
I mean why wouldn't you be? Not everyone had delved into Russell's non-dw work, but It's A Sin, Years And Years, Cucumber, A Very English Scandal, even Torchwood Season 3 showed that he was a writer that had a lot he could offer the show. Even on return!
There was a long wait after this announcement, which did lead me to wonder.. What was it going to be like? To be honest, I wasn't expecting this era to go down well initially, though I thought I'd like it. Russell's writing lately was all very cynical, I didn't really know if doctor who fandom would like that direction.
The spin offs/whoniverse branding I guessed from day one. Doctor who in 2005 was basically a mix/mash of buffy, firefly and the other popular genre fiction of the time. This new reboot was obviously going to adapt to the new generation of sci-fi and fantasy. Which in this case, is Marvel and star wars reboots.
I've fallen off doctor who since the announcement which had more to do with the wait than the quality of the specials or anything, they didn't really light my world on fire but I wasn't hideously dissapointed by them or anything. I was very much ready to let this doctor who era pass me by, and hope others enjoyed it. Doctor who for a new age and all.
But watching the latest two episodes... It's left me a bit confused.
Why this direction?
Even if I enjoyed the latest episodes (and I enjoyed moments), I would still be convinced that these are the wrong moves to be making.
The ten minute exposition dump at the start wasn't just a little bit boring for old time viewers, it wasn't just pace-breaking to have stapled onto a story, it wasn't just self plagiarising better moments in an incredibly tedious way - It was a ten minute exposition dump!!! At the start of episode 2 of a 'reboot'!!
That's really the least of the problems for now - the new tone, the rough sketches of personalities of the new cast, the tedious premises for episodes, the self plagiarism - it all feels... off.
It's left me wondering... Why did this happen? I know some people are enjoying the episodes, which I'm happy about, but I guarantee that no new viewers are being convinced by this material.. And that's sad. It seems for the last decade almost, doctor who has been running on diminishing returns from die hards instead of reaching the general public. And it makes me sad that it doesn't seem to be changing, regardeless of what you think of the new episodes.
A lot of people are saying they've outgrown doctor who, and maybe it's closer to the show outgrowing itself. I don't know. What are you thinking?

Wilhelm Windelband

11 May 1848 – 22 October 1915
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Wilhelm Windelband and the Place of History among the Sciences
Saturday 11 May 2024 is the 176th anniversary of the birth of Wilhelm Windelband (11 May 1848 – 22 October 1915), who was born in Potsdam on this date in 1848.
One way to understand Windelband’s contribution to the philosophy of history is to position his work in relation to the old question of whether history is an art or a science. Those who say that history is an art point out that history is expressed in a prose narrative, and that history, like poetry and drama, has not surpassed its ancient models. Thucydides marks a high point in history as Aeschylus marks a high point of tragedy.
Those who say that history is a science can cite the research and the evidence that history requires and that art does not. While the humanities today may have fallen away from a condition of previous excellence, when the curriculum for the humanities was as difficult and as rigorous as that of the sciences, but in a different way, there remains the possibility of the humanities as a rigorous discipline. A student in the humanities was once expected to master Greek and Latin, and, if his research took him into ancient history where Greek and Latin were no help, then he might also have to master ancient Assyrian or Aramaic, as well as the auxiliary sciences of history, like sigillography and vexillology, and so on. Among those who argue that history is a science, Leopold von Ranke is most frequently cited as the man who made history scientific, though Ranke’s methods of text criticism arguably extend back in time at least to the renaissance, when Lorenza Valla proved that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery. In any case, the study of language unified the humanities much as mathematics unifies the natural sciences.
Wilhelm Windelband was among those who argued that history is a science, but if you argue that history is a science, the next step is to say what kind of science it is, because it doesn’t seem to be a science like physics or mathematics. This is where Windelband made his lasting contribution. Windelband argued that history is a science, but that it is a peculiar kind of science.
Windelband was among the first to make a principled distinction between the physical sciences and the social sciences, or, if you prefer, between the natural sciences and the humanities. Windelband’s principled distinction within the sciences is his distinction between the idiographic and the nomothetic. As far as my knowledge extends, this distinction was given its first exposition in Windelband’s 1894 rectorial address as Strasbourg. Here is how he formulated it at that time:

“In their quest for knowledge of reality, the empirical sciences either seek the general in the form of the law of nature or the particular in the form of the historically defined structure. On the one hand, they are concerned with the form which invariably remains constant. On the other hand, they are concerned with the unique, immanently defined content of the real event. The former disciplines are nomological sciences. The latter disciplines are sciences of process or sciences of the event. The nomological sciences are concerned with what is invariably the case. The sciences of process are concerned with what was once the case. If I may be permitted to introduce some new technical terms, scientific thought is nomothetic in the former case and idiographic in the latter case. Should we retain the customary expressions, then it can be said that the dichotomy at stake here concerns the distinction between the natural and the historical disciplines.” (Wilhelm Windelband, Rectorial Address, 1894)

In brief, the nomothetic is the lawlike and the universal, while the idiographic is individual and the particularistic. A distinct methodology is required for the exposition of the nomothetic and the idiographic, but the fact that each branch of science does have a methodology for the exposition of their chosen object of knowledge demonstrates that they are both sciences, though different kinds of sciences. Near the end of his rectorial address, Windelband says that, despite the distinction he has formulated, the ultimate aim of scientific knowledge is its ultimate unity:

“…in the total synthesis of knowledge, which is the ultimate aim of all scientific research, these two cognitive moments remain independent and juxtaposed. The general nomological regularity of things defines the space of our cosmic scheme; it transcends all change and expresses the eternal essence of reality. Within this framework, we find the vital development of the structure of all the individual forms which have value for the collective memory of humanity.”

The idea that nomological regularity defines the space of our cosmic scheme suggests that the nomological is the ultimate basis of science and scientific knowledge, and the idiographic must find a place for itself within the interstices of this nomological scheme; there are several other passages in his rectorial address that also suggest this. But Windelband also says that the nomothetic and the idiographic remain independent and juxtaposed, and he concludes this talk with an interesting juxtaposition:

“A description of the present state of the universe follows from the general laws of nature only if the immediately preceding state of the universe is presupposed. But this state presupposes the state that immediately precedes it, and so on. Such a description of a particular, determinate state of the arrangement of atoms, however, can never be derived from the general laws of motion alone. The definitive characteristics of a single point in time can never be immediately derived from any ‘cosmic formula.’ The derivation of the description of a single temporal point always requires the additional description of the previously existing state which is subordinated to the law. General laws do not establish an ultimate state from which the specific conditions of the causal chain could ultimately be derived. It follows that all subsumption under general laws is useless in the analysis of the ultimate causes or grounds of the single, temporally given phenomenon. Therefore, in all the data of historical and individual experience a residuum of incomprehensible, brute fact remains, an inexpressible and indefinable phenomenon.”

Given this juxtaposition, we could also characterize the nomothetic and the idiographic as the distinction between general laws and brute fact. Natural science is the science of general laws; history is the science of brute fact. Each requires the other: general laws must work upon brute fact, and brute fact is made comprehensible by its subsumption under general laws. Formulated in this way, it makes sense that the science of general laws would require a distinct method from that of a science of brute fact.
Now I want to return to the problem with which I started: is history an art or a science? Windelband, as we have seen, says that history is a science, but it is a peculiar kind of science with its own methodology, and that methodology is idiographic. This claim doesn’t go down well among many philosophers of science. Among philosophers, especially since the advent of Newtonian science, physics has been taken to be the paradigm of a natural science. Physics is also often called a “hard” science, and mathematics a “pure” science, but what makes a science hard or soft, or pure or impure, is a problem that only philosophy can attempt to address. Physics is also clearly nomological, and physicists are justly proud of their precise statement of the laws of nature in a mathematical formalism.
Many of those who would make history a science want to assimilate history to the natural sciences, and they assume that there is, or there ought to be, a methodological unity across all the sciences. In other words, there are no kinds of science, there are no distinct classifications of science each with their own methodology. Science is one, and not many. For Windelband, science is many, not one, and it must remain many because of the juxtaposition of general laws and brute fact.
Can we call this for either side? Has the past century and a quarter of scientific discovery and philosophy of science given us a way to decide between the claims that science is one and science is many? In a word, no. I will go further and make a more radical claim: my response to this is that no sciences are scientific. Before you call me a nihilist, let me try to explain.
The individual special sciences, like physics or biology, are scientific to some degree, but all fall short of converging on complete scientificity. I have often pointed out, though not in any of these Today in Philosophy of History episodes, that there is no science of science. Individual sciences are pursued scientifically, but we have no general method for the foundation of a new science and no general method for the expansion and progress of an existing science. Intuition still plays a crucial and substantive role in the development of science. The progress of science, then, is idiosyncratic, subject to the intuitive perspicacity of its practitioners.
Our understanding of science is pre-paradigmatic, to use a Kuhnian term, even if particular sciences are fully paradigmatic. It seems paradoxical that the individual sciences can be as well defined as any part of human knowledge, while the whole enterprise of science remains essentially unknown to us. If we could christen this paradox with a memorable name maybe the realization of not knowing what we are doing when we do science would get some traction and some theoretical attention.
Whether or not this is a paradox, it shouldn’t surprise us, since it’s baked into the very substance of science. Science progresses when it manages to hit upon a productive set of abstractions that we can use to leverage a very narrow way of looking at the world. When I say that about “managing to hit upon the right abstractions” this is key here, because, given the lack of a science of science, there is no method of converging upon optimally productive abstractions; we can only cast about for them.
Finding productive abstractions is idiosyncratic: some individuals have a much better feel for converging on productive abstractions than others. This idiosyncratic efficacy is a function of science remaining an art rather than being a science—that is to say, science itself is an art to some degree. To give a sense of really how “out to sea” we are when it comes to scientific knowledge, consider this: In the absence of a rigorous science of science, it would be nice at least to have a proof that a rigorous science of science is possible, or that it is impossible—one way or the other—but we don’t even have this much.
Now, it seems clear to me that some sciences are more science and less art, while other sciences are more art and less science. It also seems clear to me that physics is more science, and history is more art, but they both occupy points on the art-science continuum, and in this sense, if no other, all scientific thought is unified in not being perfectly or exhaustively scientific.
One of the first steps we might take in formulating a science of science would be a taxonomy of the sciences. Windelband seems to do this by giving us a fundamental distinction that exhaustively divides all sciences between the nomothetic and the idiographic. Windelband’s distinction, if strictly observed, cleaves science in two, with the natural sciences on one side of the division, and the historical sciences (or, if you prefer, the humanities) on the other side. But he didn’t always insist on his distinction as being an exhaustive classification, and he gave a different sense to his distinction in a little book titled Theories in Logic in English. This was originally written in German as “Die Prinzipien der Logik” and appeared in the Enzyklopadie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, 1912, but the English translation was published as a short book.
In Theories in Logic Windelband suggests that sciences might be more or less nomothetic, more or less idiographic, and the nomothetic or idiographic proportion of a science may change over time:

“…we have to distinguish between those sciences which are governed by laws and those which deal with events, between nomothetic and ideographic inquiry. It is this which really makes the difference in intellectual interest between Natural Science and the Humanities. But we cannot repeat too often that we are here only speaking of ultimate aims and hence of those sciences which appear as polar opposites, between which the real work of Science moves in manifold gradations, so that in any particular case we can only speak of a preponderance of one or the other moment—as Rickert, in his penetrating analysis of this relation, has pointed out. The ultimate goal of all investigation of Nature is to attain timeless generic concepts of being and happening, but that does not exclude the fact that the way thereto leads over stages of simpler interconnexions in which it rests and provisionally halts. For it is precisely in the real that the nomothetic rationalisation of Reality must find its limits. On the other hand, the specific object of all historical inquiry is a construction which is significant chiefly because it can never recur, and which has to be lifted out of its entanglement in the non-significant elements lying all around it. To understand such a construction, however, History requires general concepts and axioms, which she is certainly more likely to borrow successfully from general experience than from the natural sciences… and it creates for itself the possibility of characterising this unique object by a peculiar kind of generic concept and by a comparative study of the conformity of events to law.” (p. 57)

Windelband’s original distinction implies that natural science and the humanities are polar opposites in terms of their methodology, but in fact the development of science involves “manifold gradations” in which the nomothetic and the idiographic preponderate by turns. This means that natural science (and the humanities as well) might swing like a pendulum between a nomothetic pole and an idiographic pole, being now more nomothetic, and now more idiographic. I think Windelband was right about this, but if the whole of science can tend toward the nomothetic or the idiographic, then his distinction isn’t the kind of beginning of a taxonomy of sciences that we would want to pursue if we wanted to formulate a science of science.
If you think about it, it’s remarkable that so much thought and effort has been poured into the sciences and into philosophy of science, and yet we don’t have any kind of workable classification of the sciences other than a university catalog and the arrangement of books in the library by subject matter. If we were to take a page out of Carnap, we would start with classificatory concepts of science, that is to say, a taxonomy, and then we work our way to comparative concepts, and eventually converge on fully quantitative concepts. We could argue that physics has a greater number of quantitative concepts than history, therefore on this Carnapian basis physics is closer to converging on scientific status than history, and I wouldn’t disagree with this. It’s a lot like my earlier claim that physics seems to be more science and history more art, though both are on the same art-science continuum.
Carnap’s schema of scientific concepts has been widely influential and widely criticized. For my part, the longer I have thought about this, the more I have come to see that an optimal taxonomy is one of the last things that a science arrives at, and, if I am right about this, then a science of science that could render both physics and history fully, completely, and exhaustively scientific would arrive last of all at a satisfying taxonomy of the science. Given this desideratum, it might well be premature to seek a taxonomy, but, on the other hand, there is a big difference between a workable taxonomy and an optimal taxonomy. The development of a science often passes through a sequence of taxonomies that become more adequate as they are repeatedly revised.
I would expect the same to be true of a science of science, so I would expect to see a rough, workable taxonomy of the sciences followed by revisions that would render it more adequate over time. Does Windelband’s distinction between the nomothetic and idiographic sciences give us this rough, working taxonomy that could be the basis of further elaboration? Maybe yes; maybe no. If Windelband is to be the basis of a science of science that can comprehend both physics and history and everything in between, it would need to be set in a much more comprehensive theoretical framework, and this has not yet been done.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/nOnELO64kwE
https://www.instagram.com/p/C60x--UNqtW/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of:1

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/UhiNEf1BvJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/3b2e6e57-d9fe-45b0-a1ec-f51f951f1fe7/today-in-philosophy-of-history-wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of-history-among-the-sciences
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/wilhelm-windelband-and-the-place-of-175323097/
​

English: theory

1. a doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice
   
2. an exposition of the general or abstract principles of any science
   
3. hypothesis; speculation
   

––––––––––––
Translations

• Catalan: teoria
  
• Chinese: 理论
  
• Esperanto: teorio
  
• French: théorie
  
• Galician: teoría
  
• German: die Theorie
  
• Italian: teoria
  
• Portuguese: teoria
  
• Romanian: teorie
  
• Spanish: teoría
  
• Swedish: teori
  
• Welsh: theori
  

––––––––––––
Word of The Hour's Annual Survey @ https://wordofthehour.org/form

"Professional" English writers always condemn exposition, reiterating the "show, don't tell" mantra, which applies to films especially (it is almost like people want books to be easily transferable to films), but after I started reading works written in Russian, I noticed that Russian authors live and breathe exposition. Somehow, it reads excellently. I find Russian authors are very reflective of the environment and the people within it; the exposition comes in the form of observation and retrospection. They spend a long time dwelling on the past and the present, winding their thoughts along a labyrinthine course that correlates all the contents of whatever conflict has arisen, before it all convenes to an impetus to act and move the plot forward.
It is extremely logical, and emotions do signify, but it is striking how English authors are supremely sentimental and will spend pages on how a character feels about a very minor event while Russian authors spend just as much time investigating and reflecting on multiple events and how OTHER people must feel. It influences my own writing, but I am hesitant to let it have too much affect because English writing advice boils down to "NO EXPOSITION". Russians, am I correct in my observations or is this cherry picking?

"Professional" English writers always condemn exposition, reiterating the "show, don't tell" mantra, which applies to films especially (it is almost like people want books to be easily transferable to films), but after I started reading works written in Russian, I noticed that Russian authors live and breathe exposition. Somehow, it reads excellently. I find Russian authors are very reflective of the environment and the people within it; the exposition comes in the form of observation and retrospection. They spend a long time dwelling on the past and the present, winding their thoughts along a labyrinthine course that correlates all the contents of whatever conflict has arisen, before it all convenes to an impetus to act and move the plot forward.
It is extremely logical, and emotions do signify, but it is striking how English authors are supremely sentimental and will spend pages on how a character feels about a very minor event while Russian authors spend just as much time investigating and reflecting on multiple events and how OTHER people must feel. It influences my own writing, but I am hesitant to let it have too much affect because English writing advice boils down to "NO EXPOSITION". Russians, am I correct in my observations or is this cherry picking?

Read from April 29 – May 04, 2024
1/5 stars I HATED THIS
NOTE: I started out with an open mind read the first chapter, and then this turned into a hate-read.
That being said, no hate to anyone who enjoyed this book, I would love to hear what your opinions are, both on the book and this review :)
Let’s start with my ‘favourite’ quote:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”
Theo Faber, Psychotherapist

I genuinely do not understand what the hype around this book is.
To be fair, the second I read the words ‘TikTok sensation’ in the advertising, I should have known better.
The thing that struck me is that Michaelides is a SCREENWRITER, and this very much reads like a script, it felt like it was written solely for the purpose of selling the movie rights.
TLDR: This book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.
So, save yourself, if this is on your TBR, forget about it, read something else, ANYTHING else, read a newspaper, just don’t read this.
Longer rant Review, including the writing, characters, setting, and my main issues with this novel.

The Writing:

Is mediocre, at best. It’s very much in the style of ‘he said, she said’.
The best way I can describe it is that it reminds me of a middle-grade novel, where everything is stated clear cut and there isn’t much effort needed on the reader’s part.
There’s nothing wrong with that, for a KID’S book, but this is NOT written for a 10-year-old.
There’s long swaths of exposition, the chapters are between 2-5 pages long, we are constantly told who’s speaking, points are stated and then re-stated kind of like:

“Alicia Berenson has not spoken in 6 years” Diomedes said.
That’s right, from what I remember, she has not spoken since her husband was killed, 6 years ago.

So much needless repetition.
The reason I said that it reads like a script is because there is a lot of useless dialogue + endless descriptions.
Each character and setting is described in such needless detail, going on for entire paragraphs, for example:

Barbie was a Californian blonde in her mid-sixties, possibly older. She was drenched in Chanel No 5, and she’d had a considerable amount of plastic surgery. Her name suited her – she looked like a startled Barbie doll. She was obviously the kind of woman who was used to getting what she wanted – hence her loud protestations at the reception desk when she discovered she needed to make an appointment to visit a patient.

This character has been mentioned once or twice previously but she is relevant for MAYBE 15 pages out of 336.
Majority of the side characters are introduced like this, however, Theo isn’t really described in much detail beyond the ‘tall, dark and brooding’ trope and neither is Alicia, so the 2 protagonists are essentially blank slates.
The dialogue is so cringey, almost every chapter mentions the weather [this is set in the UK], like the weather is used as filler relentlessly.
There’s a bunch of continuity errors, the main one that comes to mind is that at the start of the book when Theo first enters The Grove [don’t even get me started on the name of the hospital, it sounds like the name of a cartoon villain’s layer, not a psych hospital] he is asked to give up his lighter and any other objects that could be used as weapons, yet he and majority of the side characters smoke CONSTANTLY INSIDE THE HOSPITAL.
The writing also reminded me A LOT of Colleen Hoover’s writing, and if that women has no haters, then I’m dead.

The Diary Entries:

Like I said, this book wants to be Gone Girl so bad.
The diary entries are written very weirdly, they don’t read like a journal, where you might get more of a stream of consciousness sort of style, they read like POV switches from 6 years in the past.
They don’t flow and amble like you would expect.
Examples:

Tears collected in my eyes as I walked up the hill. I wasn’t crying for my mother – or myself – or even that poor homeless man. I was crying for all of us. There’s so much pain everywhere, and we just close our eyes to it.
But I ruined the mood, stupidly, clumsily – by asking if he would sit for me. ‘I want to paint you,’ I said. ‘Again? You already did.’ ‘That was four years ago. I want to paint you again.’ ‘Uh-huh.’ He didn’t look enthusiastic. ‘What kind of thing do you have in mind?’ I hesitated – and then said it was for the Jesus picture. Gabriel sat up and gave a kind of strangled laugh. ‘Oh, come on, Alicia.’

The diary entries are not diary entries, they are memories.
People don’t write down entire conversations word for word like this when they journal, like “’
I had lunch with Martha’ he said”, you write it like “Gabriel had lunch with Martha today.”
I know why the diary entries feel so weird, they read like movie scenes, like a flashback.
Like the memory/subject of the diary entry should be playing in the background while someone narrates.
Again, this was a script, not a novel, I stand by this point.

The Characters:

Character development is frankly non-existent, the characters don’t exists as themselves, they exist to serve the plot.
They have no depth, and their motivations are lacking.
Theo faber: he was abused as a kid and is therefore damaged.
Chapter 3 was literally just an exposition dump of his entire childhood, just straight out of the blue.
It was like Chapter one: a report of the murder, chapter 2 further recollection, chapter 3: so my father beat throughout my childhood, I don’t know why.
Theo’s father was verbally and physically abuse, Theo attempted suicide when he was at uni, because the things his dad said made him feel like a failure.
But we are never told WHAT has been said, and therefore, we don’t see why exactly Theo would have doubts about himself.
Abuse shapes you as a person, if we got to hear his inner thoughts about what his father said, it would give greater insight into Theo’s identity as a character.
Besides that, Theo has a RAGING saviour complex,

“Unable to come to terms with what she had done, Alicia stuttered and came to a halt, like a broken car. I wanted to help start her up again – help Alicia tell her story, to heal and get well. I wanted to fix her.”

The book is filled with passages like that.
And besides that, it’s just filled with loads of nonsense psychobabble.
Theo is also OBSESSED with Alicia, the book tells us it’s out of guilt, but I contest and say that he’s just a creep who very much treats Alicia like a failed version of a manic pixie dream girl.
Alicia Berenson: Alicia is a walking contradiction.
We are told that she is beautiful, charming, sophisticated, but she instead comes across as an anti-social, paranoid shut in with serious co-dependency issues.
She has no friends, no relationships outside of her husband Gabriel, no hobbies, or interests outside of painting and having sex with her husband.
All she does in her chapters is paint, have arguments with people, have sex, and walk around.
Side characters: only exist to serve the plot.
Professor Lazarus Diomedes: the name alone makes me cringe.
He’s Greek, he has a lot of instruments in his office including a piano and a harp [which are never brought up after the initial chapters he’s introduced and he never plays any of them], he’s “unorthodox” and shunned, and he basically exists to be Theo Faber’s ‘yes man’.
Christian: stereotypical work rival who has a habit of calling all the patients bitches.
Yuri: He’s a psych nurse who takes Theo to bar and tell him that he and his wife divorced, and he fell in love with someone else. Fine fair enough, but does he approach this woman like a normal person?
No, he pulls a Joe from YOU and stalks and harasses her.
Yet later on THEO SAYS THAT HE IS A GOOD MAN AND THAT HE IS SORRY DOUBTING YURI. DESPITE INITIALLY BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIS BEHAVIOUR.
Then again Theo himself is a stalker so go figure.

The Setting:

The Grove is supposed to be a mental hospital used to detain mentally ill criminals.
Firstly, all the patients are female. It is never stated that the hospital is an all-female facility.
Second, we never get an idea of the scope of this place, there’s only one therapy room for EVERYONE to use, only 2 psychiatrists on payroll, Diomedes and Christian, 2 therapists, Theo and a side character named Indira, one psychiatric nurse, Yuri and an admin assistant, Stephanie.
The layout and descriptions are confusing, one area is referred to as the ‘Fishbowl’ throughout the novel.
Racism:
I don’t know if Michaelides has some internalized racism going on but every single foreign character has a habit of erasing their cultural identity.
Examples:
Yuri, the psych nurse who is Latvian –

Yuri was good-looking, well built, and in his late thirties. He had dark hair and a tribal tattoo creeping up his neck, above his collar. He smelled of tobacco and too much sweet aftershave. And although he spoke with an accent, his English was perfect.

This sort of backhanded compliment is considered racist, as someone who is POC myself, I’ve gotten this plenty of times and it always gives me the ick.
Jean-Felix, the gallerist –
He spoke with an accent. I asked if he was French. ‘Originally – from Paris. But I’ve been here since I was a student – oh, twenty years at least. I think of myself more as British these days.’
There were more examples, but these are the main ones I found in my notes.

Misogyny:

Firstly, the patients are all female, like I said earlier, it is never stated that it is an all-female facility.
This book is dripping with it, every single female character is either described as a manic pixie dream girl, a maternal figure, or a psychotic bitch.
The DOCTORS refer to their patients as bitches multiple times.
Example:

“She was entirely consumed with herself and her art. All the empathy you have for her, all the kindness – she isn’t capable of giving it back. She’s a lost cause. A total bitch.’ Christian said this with a scornful expression-“
Rowena gave a derisive snort. ‘Because Alicia’s the least responsive, most uncommunicative bitch I’ve ever worked with.’

Besides that, they are often compared to birds:

“I remember Mum and those colourful tops she’d wear, with the yellow stringy straps, so flimsy and delicate – just like her. She was so thin, like a little bird.”
“Alicia was sitting alone, I noticed, at the back of the room. She was picking at a meagre bit of fish like an anorexic bird;”

Alicia is also very much painted as a manic pixie dream girl in her diary entries, almost every page of her POV mentions sex, and it has no effect on the plot.
It was mentioned so often that I ended up keeping track out of boredom [I should have also tracked how often the weather was mentioned].
I think I have 15 tabs in 300 pages by the end of it for just sex scenes.
I don't have an issue with sex, but just like in movies when it gets thrown in for no reason, that's when it irritates me.
And of course the mentally ill woman with possible psychosis and BPD has to be shown as hot and a nymphomaniac.
Every one of her POVs reads like:
“Gabriel and I had an argument and then we had sex.”
“I went for a walk and fantasized about Gabriel.”
“I was trying to paint Gabriel but then we had sex.”
“I had an argument with someone and came home to wake up Gabriel and we had sex.”
I can see why this atrocity is a BookTok favourite.
Oh, and this line: [Warning NSFW]

“It’s still populated by sixteen-year-olds, embracing the sunshine, sprawled on either side of the canal, a jumble of bodies – boys in rolled-up shorts with bare chests, girls in bikinis or bras – skin everywhere, burning, reddening flesh. The sexual energy was palpable – their hungry, impatient thirst for life. I felt a sudden desire for Gabriel – for his body and his strong legs, his thick thighs lain over mine. When we have sex, I always feel an insatiable hunger for him – for a kind of union between us – something that’s bigger than me, bigger than us, beyond words – something holy.”

She’s out on a walk and salivating over 16-year-olds. Enough said.

Medical Malpractice:

Not only is a lot of the psychology in this book outdated, but in general, there is so much misinformation.
The psychology is so outdated, and it's mostly centered around Freud.
The biggest example I can think of is Alicia’s initial treatment, she has been put on Risperidone, which is an anti-psychotic prescribed to schizophrenic patients [Also prescribed for autism, BPD, etc. but that's on a case by case basis]
In the book, Alicia is shown to be completely out if it, she’s drooling on the floor, and practically comatose.
Risperidone is NOT a sedative [it can have sedative EFFECTS, but sedation is not the function] it acts on dopamine and serotine receptors and is used to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia, i.e. prevent hallucinations and help stabilize mood.
It should not be causing Alicia to be unresponsive.
[Disclaimer, this is just coming from my basic knowledge as a med student and a few quick google searches, if I'm wrong, please correct me.]
Moving on, Theo wants to treat Alicia but she’s on 16 mg of Risperidone, which is the highest safe dose possible.
He asks Christian to lower the dose, what does Christian do?
He stops giving Alicia 16 mg and switches her to 5 mg.
An 11 mg decrease. IN ONE DAY.
There is no gradual decrease, no safety precautions, NOTHING.
For context, Risperidone is prescribed in 0.5 – 1 mg increments.
This means that an 11 mg decrease is incredibly dramatic and DANGEROUS, it can send a patient into a psychotic episode, cause them to relapse and lead to withdrawal.
Christian being a psychiatrist should know this.
Patients are allowed access to a pool table without supervision, all the doctors smoke and offer their patients cigarettes,
Yuri deals drugs, Theo seemingly does no ither work besides talk to Alicia and play detective.

Depiction of mentally ill patients:

Throughout the book the patients are often referred to as animals, monstrous or zombies.
Examples:

“Her [Elif, a patient] face was pressed up against it, squashing her nose, distorting her features, making her almost monstrous.”
“It took four nurses to hold Alicia down. She writhed and kicked and fought like a creature possessed. She didn’t seem human, more like a wild animal; something monstrous.”
[Alicia is painting, Theo is watching]
“I felt like I was present at an intimate moment, watching a wild animal give birth. And although Alicia was aware of my presence, she didn’t seem to mind.”

On top of that, the word borderline gets thrown out A LOT, but it is never explained and is often derogatory.
Example:

[This is Christian the psychiatrist speaking, warning Theo about Alicia]
‘I’m just saying. Borderlines are seductive. That’s what’s going on here. I don’t think you fully get that.’

I am not against problematic writing, as long as it serves a purpose, but Michaelides is not talented enough to do something like this intentionally, and showing patients in this light serves no purpose.
Theo makes it very clear that he thinks that Elif, a Turkish woman, is ugly and rude, it is mentioned every time she is on the page.
This sort of depiction is harmful, mental health gets a bad enough rep as it is, again, I take no issue with problematic writing, but this is not problematic or controversial, this is ignorance.
The depiction of mental illness, coupled with the use of Risperidone, indicates, to me, that Michaelides did not do his research whatsoever.
He just thought of a cool idea and ran with it.
Oh, and lastly, let’s not forget:

“but it is impossible for someone who was not abused to become an abuser.”

No, just no. ANYONE can be abusive.
Correlation does not equal causation.
This is blatant misinformation and a very harmful message to send and I was actually so angry when I read that.

The Twist [spoilers]

The twist is the most ridiculous thing, and it hangs on by a thread.
I had already guessed that Gabriel was the one who Kathy’s affair partner was, and the entire thing falls apart when you realize that if any of Theo’s chapters were dated, you would figure it out immediately.
That’s a very loose basis for a dramatic reveal.
Yes, Theo is an unreliable narrator and I usually enjoy such stories, but this was just lazy.
I’m sorry, Theo followed Gabriel all over London and never ONCE saw his face, never heard Kathy moan his name when he was spying on them, not ONCE.
It’s poor when your twist relies on my suspension of disbelief.
Conclusion
- Poorly written, reads like a middle-grade novel. Michaelides is a screenwriter, and this very much reads like a script, designed to be easy to follow and direct.
- Horrible depiction mental health, both as a patient and in practice.
- Hollow, 2D characters.
- Misogynistic.
- Overall waste of time, save yourself.

David Hume

07 May 1711 – 25 August 1776
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
David Hume and a Deflationary Philosophy of History
Tuesday 07 May 2024 is the 313th anniversary of the birth of David Hume (07 May 1711 New Style, 26 April 1711 Old Style, to 25 August 1776), who was born in Edinburgh on this date in 1711. Hume was born on the 7th of May, and Edward Gibbon was born on the 8th of May, although the two were a generation apart, so you can consider today’s episode on Hume as Part I of Enlightenment Historiography, and tomorrow’s episode on Gibbon as Part II of Enlightenment Historiography. I will be touching on many similar issues with regard to both Hume and Gibbon.
Today we think of Hume as a philosopher, in fact as perhaps the most influential Anglophone philosopher of all time. It would be fair to say that Hume is the godfather of the tradition Anglo-American analytical philosophy, or, even more narrowly, the godfather of logical empiricism. In Hume one finds the origins of the is/ought distinction and the analytic/synthetic distinction as we currently understand them, and which have played such a prominent role in analytical philosophy.
Hume also set the tone of empiricism in Anglophone philosophy. The fundamental ideas of empiricism were pioneered by Hume, they achieved their most explicit and uncompromising formulations in the work of the logical empiricists, and now we retain these ideas, but in a highly qualified and conditional form, having learned the limitations of the doctrinaire exposition of these ideas. It is often said that modern philosophy began with Descartes, and Descartes’ work is sometimes characterized as an “epistemological turn” in philosophy. It wouldn’t be too much to say that modern Anglophone philosophy began with Hume, and that Hume represented an “empiricist turn” in philosophy.
All of this is to say that Hume dominates the philosophical tradition in English speaking countries, but in his own time, Hume was a failure as a philosopher. He said that his first great philosophical work, A Treatise of Human Nature, originally published in 1739, “fell dead-born from the press.” Hume recovered from the disappointment and made a name for himself as an historian. He continued to publish philosophical works, many of which were re-written portions of A Treatise of Human Nature, and others of which broke new ground, but continued to develop his empiricist and skeptical point of view.
Hume left his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion to be published posthumously, probably because he anticipated that it would be controversial, but he published his work on miracles while he was still alive. Section 10 of Hume’s 1748 An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding is titled “Of Miracles,” includes this following:

“Upon the whole, then, it appears, that no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by another proof; derived from the very nature of the fact, which it would endeavour to establish. It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder. But according to the principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard to all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system of religion.”

This isn’t all of Hume’s critique of miracles, but it is enough to give a flavor of his reasoning on miracles. If there are no miracles, then the kind of providential history we find in Saint Augustine and Bossuet must be false, and we must proceed by understanding history in terms of human motivations and exertion, and we understand human beings by understanding human nature. Hume’s critique of miracles (along with some other ideas of Hume) was picked up by Edward Gibbon, who, for example, tells the story of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge without mentioning any supernaturalistic element.
Tradition has preserved the story that, prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine saw a vision of the cross, and, next to it in Latin, “In Hoc Signo Vinces”—by this sign thou shalt conquer—and then he had a dream in which Christ explained to him the significance of the vision. Constantine had a military standard made that included what has come to be called the Chi-Rho symbol, which are the first two letters of the name of Christ in Greek, and his troops subsequently marched into battle carrying the Chi-Rho symbol and the cross. Echoes of Hume on miracles can be found in the following passage from Gibbon:

“The miracles of the primitive church, after obtaining the sanction of ages, have been lately attacked in a very free and ingenious inquiry, which, though it has met with the most favorable reception from the public, appears to have excited a general scandal among the divines of our own as well as of the other Protestant churches of Europe. Our different sentiments on this subject will be much less influenced by any particular arguments, than by our habits of study and reflection; and, above all, by the degree of evidence which we have accustomed ourselves to require for the proof of a miraculous event. The duty of an historian does not call upon him to interpose his private judgment in this nice and important controversy; but he ought not to dissemble the difficulty of adopting such a theory as may reconcile the interest of religion with that of reason, of making a proper application of that theory, and of defining with precision the limits of that happy period, exempt from error and from deceit, to which we might be disposed to extend the gift of supernatural powers. From the first of the fathers to the last of the popes, a succession of bishops, of saints, of martyrs, and of miracles, is continued without interruption; and the progress of superstition was so gradual, and almost imperceptible, that we know not in what particular link we should break the chain of tradition. Every age bears testimony to the wonderful events by which it was distinguished, and its testimony appears no less weighty and respectable than that of the preceding generation, till we are insensibly led on to accuse our own inconsistency, if in the eighth or in the twelfth century we deny to the venerable Bede, or to the holy Bernard, the same degree of confidence which, in the second century, we had so liberally granted to Justin or to Irenæus. If the truth of any of those miracles is appreciated by their apparent use and propriety, every age had unbelievers to convince, heretics to confute, and idolatrous nations to convert; and sufficient motives might always be produced to justify the interposition of Heaven.” (Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IV.)

Hume’s philosophy, then, not only influenced his own work as an historian, but also influenced the work of his contemporaries, as we can see in this passage from Gibbon. Like Kant and Machiavelli, both of whom I have recently discussed, Hume didn’t write any books on philosophy of history.
Claudia M. Schmidt in her book David Hume: Reason in History, noted that, “Hume does not provide us with a specific work concerning the philosophy or methodology of history.” (p. 379) However, Schmidt does show us how Hume’s history is bound up with this philosophy, and vice versa:

“In the Treatise and the First Enquiry, Hume introduces historical inquiry as a type of causal reasoning in which we judge the probability that an event has occurred in the past by reasoning from evidence that we encounter in the present. This evidence may be conveyed, in whole or in part, through oral reports, extending back to a supposed witness of the event. However, in these cases the historical facts are often ‘disguised by every successive narration,’ as a result of feeble memories, exaggeration, or even carelessness, until the report contains little or no resemblance to the original event.” (p. 379)

Schmidt also recognizes the constitutive role that Hume’s conception of human nature plays in his history:

“…Hume is seeking to account for the actions of historical individuals as effects of their passions and beliefs, characters, and circumstances. In so doing he is applying the principle, regarded by Sabine as a discovery of the nineteenth century, that history is ‘peopled by actual human beings, with human desires and purposes,’ and that the historian’s task includes re-creating the men and women of the past, entering into their feelings and desires, and explaining their actions to posterity.” (p. 400)

Hume’s own self-understanding of the role history in human knowledge is given exposition in a brief essay, “Of the Study of History”

“…history is not only a valuable part of knowledge, but opens the door to many other parts, and affords materials to most of the sciences. And indeed, if we consider the shortness of human life, and our limited knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we must be sensible that we should be for ever children in understanding, were it not for this invention, which extends our experience to all past ages, and to the most distant nations; making them contribute as much to our improvement in wisdom, as if they had actually lain under our observation. A man acquainted with history may, in some respect, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every century.”

Someone who has “lived from the beginning of the world” and who has continually added to their stock of knowledge through the ages might be regarded as a kind of thought experiment. We can ask how such an individual might perceive history and human action historically, and, Hume implies, this is the perspective that history provides us. But there are many kinds of history, and, as I have described in several previous episodes, many ways to engage intellectually with the past. One might reasonably wonder whether the nature of our continual additions to our stock of knowledge shapes our understanding of the world that we grasp, through the medium of history, from its beginning.
So far, Hume’s empiricist history only seems to rule out miracles, and therefore most providential philosophies of history. What positive features would an empirical philosophy of history involve? In the passage I just quoted from Hume some features are implied, and the quote from Claudia M. Schmidt implies an engagement with human nature, which we certainly find in Hume, as well as an interest in a quasi-scientific account of historical causality, with the fully human historical agent caught within a network of casual processes. Later in the Enlightenment this approach came to be called philosophical history, with Gibbon being perhaps the most famous practitioner.
We can find this kind of causal explanation of historical events in ancient history, especially in Thucydides, but this way of history was largely lost in the early Middle Ages, and the chronicle replaced history as a form of historical record keeping. With the advent of modernity, the tradition of history as explaining historical causality had to be rediscovered, and Hume and Gibbon were part of this rediscovery. This process continues to unfold, as the logical distinctiveness of narrative propositions only came be explicitly understood in the twentieth century.
Today we take narrative, explanatory history for granted—that is to say, we take philosophical history for granted. We don’t see it as an innovation, but it was a long, slow process to converge on history as we know it today—a process that co-evolved with the growth of historical consciousness that occurred in parallel with the growth of sophistication in historical research and writing. The process continues today, as historical methodology and historical consciousness continue to grow in parallel and each stimulates the other.
What can we expect from the tradition of philosophical history as it continues to develop? I said earlier that Hume was the godfather of logical empiricism. Can there be a logical empiricist philosophy of history that builds on the work of Hume? The only contribution to Otto Neurath’s International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, which was a logical empiricist organ, concerned with history was Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Certainly in the work of Kuhn we find philosophical history of a subtle and sophisticated order, but it seems to point in a direction other than that of logical empiricism. It is something of an historical fluke that Kuhn’s work appeared Neurath’s series of logical empiricist monographs.
Hume himself seems to point in a different direction, as I quoted him above as writing about, “continual additions to his stock of knowledge,” which implies a cumulative conception of knowledge that Kuhn is usually presented as having shown to be untenable. Haskell Fain in his Between Philosophy and History (pp. 9-10) calls this Hume’s ‘addition theory of knowledge,’ being, “the view that changing theories and ideas result in an addition to, but not an alteration of, mankind’s conception of what knowledge itself is. Knowledge, like Human Nature, is judged everywhere the same, though methods for arriving at it change.” On the one hand, this does seem to fit with the kind of universalism characteristic of the Enlightenment, and which informs Hume’s conception of human nature. On the other hand, Hume’s passing remark about an additive conception of knowledge does not necessarily exclude the possibility that added knowledge alters earlier knowledge. In the twentieth century, this view has become commonplace in the form of narrativism since Danto, and, as we saw earlier, this narrativism wasn’t made explicit until the 20th century, long after Hume’s time.
Hume gives us little to go on in elaborate a more comprehensive philosophy of history. We are, in essence, grasping at straws with Hume, and Hume’s historical writings do not seem to embody any obvious philosophical principles other than the exclusion of the miraculous. This has continued to be the case with the logical empiricists, whose work built on Hume. It seems that the logical empiricists were as indebted to Descartes as to Hume, as they share the Cartesian disinterest in history. Neurath himself, in one of the monographs included in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, gave something of a sketch of what a logical empiricist history might look like:

“…all sciences as dovetailed to such a degree that we may regard them as parts of one science which deals with stars, Milky Ways, earth, plants, animals, human beings, forests, natural regions, tribes, and nations—in short, a comprehensive cosmic history.” (Vol. II, No. 1, Foundations of the Social Sciences , p. 9)

This is the barest hint of what might be done with the intellectual resources of this tradition. It sounds a lot like contemporary big history, which I discussed in my episode on my paper “A Complexity Ladder for Big History.” Big history fulfills the Humean conception of the function of history giving the individual a perspective as though he had lived from the beginning of the world.
On the other hand, a providential philosophy of history like that of St. Augustine might also be said to give the individual a perspective as though he had lived from the beginning of the world, though the providential world of St. Augustine is distinct from the scientific world of logical positivism. Here the kind of knowledge that is cumulatively added through historical experience appears in stark relief in these two contexts. Hume’s exclusion of providential philosophies of histories that invoke miracles excludes the kind of cumulative knowledge construction that we find in Augustine and those who followed him. Perhaps that is the lesson here: an empiricist philosophy of history is and ought to be primarily defined in terms of what it excludes and less in terms of what it includes.
Empiricism, then, is a principle of selection of history, and giving an account of the problem of selection has been one of the abiding problems for history. An empirical philosophy of history holds the promise of providing a definitive answer to the selection problem. This would be a deflationary philosophy of history that would entirely do without the signs and wonders that inhabit the pages of more credulous historians.
We might believe ourselves to have long outgrown signs and wonders, and think ourselves superior to the historians who once invoked them, but the human mind is not so easily demythologized. We have put aside supernatural miracles and we have replaced them with our own signs and wonders, which we can’t see for what they are precisely because we wholly inhabit the conceptual framework that justifies them. Here, Hume’s skepticism can be the help that we need to extricate ourselves from our presuppositions and thus to carry forward the project of a deflationary philosophy of history.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/D91ilZJx_Xo
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6rucDItCcE/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy:1

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/7VZ9mD9LpJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/d1df7e44-1bd1-4c6f-b8af-0571b70b411b/today-in-philosophy-of-history-david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy-of-history
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/david-hume-and-a-deflationary-philosophy-174319950/
​

The View from Oregon – 287
Re: The Idiographic Lock-In of Science
Friday 03 May 2024
Dear Friends,
Wilhelm Windelband is known for his distinction between the idiographic and the nomothetic. This was given its first exposition (so far as my knowledge extends) in Windelband’s 1894 rectorial address, and here is how he formulated it at that time:

“The nomological sciences are concerned with what is invariably the case. The sciences of process are concerned with what was once the case. If I may be permitted to introduce some new technical terms, scientific thought is nomothetic in the former case and idiographic in the latter case. Should we retain the customary expressions, then it can be said that the dichotomy at stake here concerns the distinction between the natural and the historical disciplines.”

Less well known is Windelband’s Theories in Logic, which was originally written as “Die Prinzipien der Logik” and appeared in the Enzyklopadie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften, 1912, but the English translation was published as a short book. (I previously mentioned this book in a PS to newsletter 240.) In this short book Windelband offers a further elaboration of his distinction, and this elaboration was of particular interest to me. Windelband’s distinction, if strictly observed, cleaves science in two, with the natural sciences on one side of the division, and the historical sciences (or, if you prefer, the humanities) on the other side. But in Theories in Logic Windelband suggests that sciences might be more or less nomothetic, more or less idiographic, and the nomothetic or idiographic proportion of a science may change over time:

“…we have to distinguish between those sciences which are governed by laws and those which deal with events, between nomothetic and ideographic inquiry. It is this which really makes the difference in intellectual interest between Natural Science and the Humanities. But we cannot repeat too often that we are here only speaking of ultimate aims and hence of those sciences which appear as polar opposites, between which the real work of Science moves in manifold gradations, so that in any particular case we can only speak of a preponderance of one or the other moment—as Rickert, in his penetrating analysis of this relation, has pointed out. The ultimate goal of all investigation of Nature is to attain timeless generic concepts of being and happening, but that does not exclude the fact that the way thereto leads over stages of simpler interconnexions in which it rests and provisionally halts. For it is precisely in the real that the nomothetic rationalisation of Reality must find its limits. On the other hand, the specific object of all historical inquiry is a construction which is significant chiefly because it can never recur, and which has to be lifted out of its entanglement in the non-significant elements lying all around it. To understand such a construction, however, History requires general concepts and axioms, which she is certainly more likely to borrow successfully from general experience than from the natural sciences… and it creates for itself the possibility of characterising this unique object by a peculiar kind of generic concept and by a comparative study of the conformity of events to law.” (p. 57)

Windelband is saying many things in this passage, but the lesson I have plucked out of this is that Windelband’s distinction implies that natural science and the humanities are polar opposites in terms of their methodology, but in fact the development of science involves “manifold gradations” in which the nomothetic and the idiographic preponderate by turns. (NB: the English translation of the rectorial address uses “idiographic” while Theories in Logic uses “ideographic”; I have not consulted the German text of either of these to see how Windelband himself rendered his coinage.) This means that natural science (and the humanities as well) might swing like a pendulum between a nomothetic pole and an idiographic pole, being now more nomothetic, and now more idiographic.
I’ve been thinking about this since I read Theories of Logic last summer, and this has influenced my way of thinking about the nomothetic/idiographic distinction, and this influence has probably already expressed itself in these newsletters over the past year, since I frequently talk about the taxonomy of the sciences. Just as there is no science of civilization, there is no science of science, and that means that our understanding of science (and of civilization) is pre-paradigmatic (to use a Kuhnian term, the significance of which we will see in a moment). It seems paradoxical that the individual sciences can be as well defined as any part of human knowledge, while the whole enterprise of science remains essentially unknown to us—if we could christen this paradigm with a memorable name maybe the realization of not knowing what we are doing when we do science would get some traction and some theoretical attention.
Whether or not this is a paradox, it should not surprise us, as this is baked into the very substance of science. Science progresses when it manages to hit upon a productive set of abstractions that we can use to leverage a very narrow way of looking at the world. The “manages to hit upon” is key here, because, given the lack of a science of science, there is no method of converging upon optimally productive abstractions; we can only cast about for them. But finding productive abstractions is also idiosyncratic: some individuals have a much better feel for converging on productive abstractions than others (indeed, better than most of the rest of humanity), and this idiosyncratic efficacy is again a function of science remaining an art rather than being a science. And we should keep this in mind when we consider the ancient question of whether history is an art or a science, because science itself is an art, and will remain an art unless or until we have a rigorous science of science. In the absence of a rigorous science of science, it would be nice at least to have a proof that a rigorous science of science is possible, or that it is impossible, but we don’t even have this much.
The narrower our science, the narrower the scientific abstractions we employ, the more likely we are to make progress. The wider and more comprehensive our science, the more comprehensive the scientific abstractions we employ, the less likely we are to make quantifiable progress. There are a couple of things going on here. The most comprehensive concepts are employed in philosophy, and at some point in the narrowing of the meaning of concepts we cross the threshold from doing philosophy to doing science. Passing in the opposite direction, when we start from the narrow concepts employed in the special sciences and pass on to more comprehensive concepts, we pass a threshold from doing science to doing philosophy. Also, the more comprehensive the concept, the more foundational it is, and simple, foundational concepts are related to other simple, foundational concepts, and this makes them difficult grasp, difficult to elaborate, and difficult to systematize.
Also in Theories of Logic (pp. 79-81), Windelband offers an account of scientific abstraction that in essentials agrees with what I have come to on my own, and finding this in Windelband has encouraged to me to continue to develop this way of thinking about scientific abstraction. This influence has also been expressed in these newsletters, as, for example, in the discussion of the utility of abstractions in newsletter 284.
Given that science can become more nomothetic or more idiographic as it develops, and that the whole of the scientific enterprise may pass between nomothetic extremes and idiographic extremes, it occurred to me today that a natural science that tends to the idiographic will have a very different relationship to anomalies than a natural science that tends to the nomothetic. In a preponderantly nomothetic natural science, anomalies will be regarded dismissively, as little more than noise in the data, whereas in a preponderantly idiographic natural science, anomalies will be viewed as significant and worth particular attention. Thus in natural science tending to the idiographic, a prominent anomaly will not necessarily result in a model crisis and a paradigm shift, while in natural science tending to the nomothetic, once an anomaly becomes sufficiently obvious, it poses a serious problem for that science and may spur a model crisis.
It can be the case that we already know the anomalies that will dog a new theory even as that theory appears, but when the pendulum swings to the nomothetic extreme, it may be easy to overlook (apparently trivial) anomalies in the general enthusiasm for the explanatory power of the new theory. But when the pendulum swings to the idiographic extreme, the anomaly stands out as being no less important than the fully explained phenomena. At the moment when minds are most ripe for a new theory, it is almost impossible to introduce a new theory because all of the alternatives to the established theory also involve known anomalies. The scientific community fractures; research programs proliferate, and efforts are divided. Out of this division there are different pathways, including:

1. A truly new theory with minimal relationship to the divided scientific milieu appears that scatters all else before it;
2. Science stagnates for lack of a unified vision;
3. A long, slow process of selection eventually allows a much revised theory from the earlier divided scientific milieu to gradually consolidate its influence and thus to become the new scientific paradigm.

This is not intended as an exhaustive list, but merely what I have taken off the top of my head. As we all know, there are interpretations of the Kuhn cycle that make science and theory change an essentially irrational process (and because of the lack of a science of science we have no definitive argument against this position), and other interpretations allowing that, while there is ongoing theory change, there are good reasons for theory change that are not arbitrary or merely human, all-too-human. The irrational interpretation gives us science that oscillates among paradigms but does not demonstrate actual progress in knowledge. This is essentially the Spenglerian view of science. The rational interpretation gives us science with directionality, which is incrementally converging upon actual knowledge, despite the two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back rhythm of scientific progress. This latter could be called the Hegelian view of science.
The history of modern science to date (and I have argued in several newsletters that modern science is distinctive, so I believe it justified to begin with modern science) starts in the late fifteenth century, a pre-history of modern science that goes to the middle of the sixteenth century when Copernicus’ De revolutionibus appears. After Copernicus we see the rapid expansion of mathematical methods by Galileo and Kepler and their followers. In this earliest period of modern science, ideas about the nature of science are very mixed, and we can’t really identify a preponderance, but we can identify a growing core of mathematization. With the Enlightenment we have a strong swing to a nomothetic paradigm in natural science. This endured up through the beginning of the twentieth century, and began to change sometime mid-twentieth century. Now science is swinging toward an idiographic paradigm, as scientists show a great interest in exceptions and anomalies, and less interest in universally valid laws.
In a cyclical history of science, we would expect this idiographic paradigm to continue to develop, until, in a few centuries, the pendulum begins to swing back to the nomothetic. But if science ultimately embodies a kind of Hegelian rationality, and progresses even as it passes through dialectical extremes, it might pass into another period of nomothetic preponderance, but the next time around science will have learned its lessons, and its nomothetic extreme would incorporate idiographic insights, incorporating them while moving beyond them. Here is a pessimistic interpretation that occurred to me: after passing through the Enlightenment nomothetic paradigm, natural science, in swinging toward an idiographic paradigm, gets lost in the weeds of detail, and never really fully extricates itself from this idiographic preponderance of method, due to the mechanism of idiographic science celebrating anomalies. We could call this idiographic lock-in. In this interpretation, science in its mature form cannot resist the Siren song of paralysis through analysis, insisting on reducing all general laws to particular observations, and, in so doing, science dissipates itself in a profusion of detail and cannot find its way back to productive abstractions.
Best wishes,
Nick
PS—I have finished listening to The Anglo-Saxon World, fourteen lectures by Michael D. C. Drout (a production in The Modern Scholars series, in which Drout has several other offerings, to some of which I also have listened). Listening to these talks is part of my preparation for my own series of talks. In a PS to newsletter 280 I mentioned that I am working on a series of talks to be called Case Studies in Civilization. The first case study will be of Anglo-Saxon England. I am making progress on this, with almost all of the first introductory talk outlined, and most of the second talk on Anglo-Saxon England outlined. As with my Today in Philosophy of History talks (of which I have produced fifty-six to date, most recently on Machiavelli), I plan to record in one take and make no edits. I will wait to start this until I have the first two episodes complete, as I want to release the introduction and the first case study at the same time, so anyone who listens to them be able to see the application of the method presented in the introduction employed in the first case study. My experience in producing by Today in Philosophy of History videos has made me painfully aware of my shortcomings as a speaker, so my producing a video in one take with no edits is not due to my belief that the outcome is as good as it could possibly be, but a concession to my interest to keep producing these talks. If I were to do multiple takes and edit the result, I could produce better videos, but this would be much more time consuming. Video production is tediously time intensive, and I have no skill in this anyway. If I had help, or money to buy help, then things would be different, but given the constraints under which I work, I have chosen to prioritize rapidity of production over quality of result.

Newsletter link:

https://mailchi.mp/055547c5dc91/the-view-from-oregon-287
​

Hi everyone before I begin I would like to make a little disclaimer that I have no qualifications in writing, im actually more qualified to be a scientist than a novelist lol. Ive got no masters or phd in it but I did study a sizeable amount of English and Literature while I also write as a mini hobby so do with that information what you will
Ive had this idea for a while now but never shared it nor posted about it, wasnt sure where or how id share such an idea and thought hey why not Reddit on a writing sub, still not sure if this sub accepts unsolicited advice though lol
I came up with this rule of thumb that could be used to measure how well youre writing your characters through the use of shipping, the basic summary is if all your characters can be shipped together without any major issues and all possible permutation of character pairings are plausible then your characters and quite possibly your story lack depth
I first came up with this idea when observing the My Hero Academia fandom and how easily acceptable and presentable all ships were compared to other fandoms. Now this isnt to say the characters in MHA lack depth or the story is bad (I dropped it around season 2 or 3 so maybe it got better while I was gone), im simply detailing the origins of my notion. I compared that to other fandoms and noticed there was a stark difference
For me to detail my idea id like you to imagine the ships of Deku x Mina or Ochaco x Kirishima, if youre a fan of the show or at least know a thing or 2 about it both ships are both palatable despite the show never actually propping up such ships nor working towards such a direction (that I know of) but yet you can find tons and tons of ship art for both pairings. Now yes I know the internet will ship literally anything (theres a lot of Lorax x Once-ler stuff, Jesus) but for the sake of this discussion I want you to focus on how people are genuine with these ships and dont simply pair them together as a joke or just because
Now lets jump shows and look at ships like Aang x Mai or Jett x Toph, yes there might be some ship art for these characters and people who genuinely like the idea of these characters being together but I bet you despite ATLA being the older piece of media the amount of artwork for these ships would pale in comparison to the previous ships. I dont need to tell you how great of a show ATLA is and how nuanced it is with its worldbuilding, dynamic characters and the wonderful chemistry that makes everything fit so perfectly together, people have been doing that for nearly 2 decades
The lack of artwork for such pairings boils down simply to, in my opinion, the depth and dynamic nature of ATLAs characters. Im sure anyone who was a fan of the series during its run and reruns (and I guess even today?) can remember how hectic the war was (is?) between Aang x Katara vs. Zuko x Katara. People are so heavily invested in the ATLA characters and I cant blame them. The characters are so well fleshed out having their own personalities, traits and quirks that people view them almost as if they were real people and cant possibly entertain the idea of x character getting with y character simply because of the several traits, history and personalities that conflict, this isnt really the case with MHA. Yes, there are disagreements on ships but I have yet to witness a full scale shipping war, just mutual disagreement while for ATLA ive seen essays, ESSAYS! On why Zuko x Katara is good or bad
I dont believe the characters in MHA are very dynamic, or at least not compared to ATLA. Theres nothing wrong with this however as different shows and mediums aim to achieve different things, imagine if a light hearted show had deeply flawed characters working through something like idk depression, thatd be strange
Perhaps the love for MHAs characters and the seemingly lack of apprehension to pair one with every other character stems mostly from their designs. They were made to be interesting looking after all compare that to ATLA where the character appeal is mostly found in the complexity and inner struggles of those present within the narrative. The ATLA characters do have neat and interesting designs but their clothing is quite regular compared to the crazy and interesting costume designs of MHA
With all that said Ive more or less used this rule of thumb as a sorta gauge to determine if characters are dynamic enough and fleshed out enough. Think about your favourite show, book, etc and see if every character can be shipped with each other chances are your response is something along the lines of "hell no" now think about something you watched, read, etc where the characters had the personality of a cardboard box and see how easy it is to ship characters or if theyre somewhat passable, chances are you can
I should add the disclaimer that this works for normal ships and not the questionable ones so this rule of thumb shouldnt be applied to incest (Luke Skywalker x Darth Vader), adult x minor (All Might x Eri), etc. Those kind of ships are automatically bad lol so this rule of thumb would be useless, for both good and bad stories regardless if they had dynamic characters, if you factored in such relations
Its been helpful in conceptualising my own stories, if all characters could all potentially be partners then I tell myself its still half baked, if I have a sizeable amount of characters that would vomit at the prospect of having to date another character I tell myself that Ive made some progress. Now to you veteran writers, youve probably already seen the problem with this rule. The problem being te rule is useless when simply thinking up of pairings that involve protagonist x nemesis (Green Lantern x Sinestro) BUT believe it or not I didnt come up with this rule for that but rather as a way to test how good of a friendship characters have. There are characters that would do anything for each other, die for each other, share a house with each other but never date each other because they view the other as a sibling. Think something like Zuko and Aang (barring their sexualities)
If im trying to write characters that have a brotherly like bond I apply my rule of thumb. If they can be shipped and its possible or somewhat palatable then I havent done enough to flesh out their character. Dynamic protagonists, deuteragonist, etc will have quirks and traits that dont mesh well with those they are close to which is fine, much like how a lot of people wouldnt date their best friend. It adds a layer and sense of realism even though its somewhat small it could have a decent effect on the overall plot. Cant really think of an example right now but uh maybe something like 2 very close characters being viewed as a couple by outsiders but upon learning this the characters display to others (as well as the reader) their various quirks that make them incompatible. Not only do you get to flesh out the characters but also have an in-universe excuse to have an exposition of them with great detail
Further disclaimers: If you read all of this, great job on you and thanks for taking the time to read about my random idea! Im adding this lil section here cuz of how people can be. In the case someone comments (insert something I totally didnt say) I can just point to this disclaimer. First, id like to say theres nothing wrong with shipping and I do enjoy the exploration of rare pairs, while I disagree that some ships are plausible within the cannon I would be a liar to say I dont consume them and sometimes enjoy them. If you wanna ship a ship that akes no sense within the cannon go for it have fun, I dont care lol. Secondly, id like to state that this is a rule of thumb I came up with and decided to share as it may be a good and useful writing tool HOWEVER this rule isnt gonna be applicable to all forms of writing, if youre a creative you should recognise that there are no hard or set rules in art but rather guidelines but even with that they only apply SOMETIMES. Sometimes crazy ships make sense within the context within a story whether its because of a radical shift in the characters behaviour or the plot or even both. This was something I thought of a while back and thought id share with my fellow writers so please dont take this as me saying "if all the characters in your story can be shipped then its shit". Thirdly I wrote this all in one go so there are probably grammatical errors and other junk in here ill probably notice later, I may or may not have other things to add in the case I do I will add an "Edit:" before adding any new paragraph, but then again all depends on if im lazy to fix any of this lol

!!ATTENTION!!
This is a recap of my original coment under one of my joke posts. I just figured that it's better to put something like this in discusion tab (or mabe I should have puted it in fanfiction tab, I don't know)
(mods please, don't delete)
Here is the link to original post for the hell of it
https://www.reddit.com/GIRLSundPANZEcomments/1cjzrwt/the_beggining/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi
So I had this idea for a zombie-like story where Ooari aircraft carrier is under quarantine because of something turning people into Boco followers. The story starts of when Erika arrives to makeshift operation base in the mall centre (the one from OVA 1)
Unfortunately I suck at writing so if some wants to use this meme and this comment to make such a story, go on and do it. You have my blessing. I have just 6 rules for you that you need to stick to:

1. Erkia is in marrige with Miho (us this for side-story of Erika strugeling with loved one being under
   
2. Miho, Alice, and the one from Ribbon Worrior are Patients Zero (they are being kept in garages under the mall)
   
3. Quarantine is run by council consisting of all school commanders and Ami Chōno
   
4. No brainroot decisions (example of brainroot decison is not confiscating the Ooari High School tanks, that can be used to destroy operation base [don't do the same mistakes as most zombie films])
   
5. NO DEATH! (or at lest as few death scenes as you can, you don't need to have litres of gore for the story to be dark and depressing)
   
6. NO WALKING EXPOSITION
   Deliver information in creative way (notes, conversation, events)
   A perfect example of how not do an exposition would be that black woman from "The Marvels"
   

If you want to make this story, just keep me informed about progress 👍
P.S.
Sorry for grammary mistakes, english is my second language
P.S. 2
I mgiht try writing this but knowing my skills it's going to take eons to make like 10 pages

I saw the trailer for this before Spy X Family, and it popped up a week later at my local theater.
Spoilers in this thread.
This is a French animated film, but you get a lot of noir and cyberpunk influences—I can see Ghost in the Shell, The Matrix (and especially The Animatrix spin-off), Blade Runner, Robocop and The Terminator in the making of this world. I wouldn’t be surprised if this gets mistaken for a Japanese anime.
I don’t know if this is only in the English dub, but there were some heavy exposition dumps. Much like The Creator last year, there is definitely a detailed world, with enough character asides to suggest and show how the world works, but it’s still only about an hour and a half, and you get a lot thrown at you. Also an interesting choose to sometimes have characters speaking over scenes and not make it immediately apparent who (or what) is speaking.
In fact, even the main theme of robots and sentience and freedom isn’t entirely apparent until the end. We find out that Carlos, the main robot, is living his Robocop-like afterlife as a robot duplicate of a deceased cop. Robots in this universe are subject to human control—and those who chose to become duplicates (or are created as duplicates) seem to have full human memories and emotions but are also subject to bring controlled. That seems like it should be a bigger issue? We see robots get “jailbroken” and gain freedom, but even the semi-human duplicates are like, yup, those machines are going crazy. The existence of human duplicates versus traditional machines, and what freedoms means to each, feels like it could have been a full movie on its own.
I’m sitting here, thinking, well, it was well-animated, the dub was good, the story made sense, and yet it feels like something is kidding. Something is just too big to fit in this movie’s run-time.

Hello all; I see alot of argument and misinformation being traded back and forth in the comments lately, and I've been doing my best to get ahold of an expert so I'm not so lost with these documents but that has stalled.
I elected to instead Google translate a few of the associated research and news articles posted on the internet archive by Alfredo Lissoni to demonstrate some basic facts that are claimed to be associated with the case.
The whole case DOES NOT rely solely on the documents sent in the 90s. Ive seen this so many times its gonna make my head explode. If you parrot this falsehood; you are not being intellectually rigerous and reading everything you need to read.
Find Roberto Pinnoti and friends full claims about the 1933 case here.
https://forum-termometropolitico-it.translate.goog/259673-x-files-fascisti.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
No where else that I can find ties everything together like this link. If your serious about connecting claims to documents you must read the whole thing.
I'm rather certain that every newspaper I'm looking for in relation to the link above is on the archive but I'm having alot of trouble connecting a claim with a document in most cases because well, I don't speak/read Italian yet( am learning slowly)
Here's a few documents from the archive that were plainly important. I very carefully went over the Italian and English text as many times as my brain will allow so you'll have to forgive a few spelling discrepancies. In most cases I was typing the words from the newspaper word for word because of the image quality. This is not an easy task. It's no wonder that no one has done all this for free yet; because it's alot. I only did .01 percent of the work here and It's full of leads to study the actual historical side of this case.
This is not my final conclusions on the case; in fact I've gone to the beginning like this because I've already moved on a long way and connected alot of puzzle pieces in the timeframe after RS33.
This element of the case is trivial compared to the intreague and power dynamics between the germans, italian fascists, the vatican and the Americans.
A name you should look out for in the link above is Galeazzo Ciano.
My work is more focused broadly on this person because his diaries would later be coveted by Allen Dulles.
Allen Dulles personally visited Italy multiple times for these diaries and I am going to prove this action was not only because of their political importance but also because of their connection to the activities of the RS33 research. This work here ultimately has nothing to do with that element of my research; this should simply posit that the case from a historical standpoint has a real event associated with it.
Now I will say that the rest of the work must be done to independently verify the claims in the link above; but what I've seen is enough for me personally to go forward on.
I'm not claiming to have proven anything here on this post. Let's get that extremely clear because im not going to argue about it.
It's simply information.
Translated document 1
https://archive.org/details/cabinet-rs-33_20230330/page/n17/mode/1up?q=rs33
1.)A capo del Gabinetto RS/33, fin dalla sua istituzione, fu designato Guglielmo Marconi, sebbene il noto scienziato avesse più volte espresso l'opinione che al suo posto venisse designato l’astronomo Gino Cecchini. Mussolini -su parere di Giovanni Gentile- incaricò Marconi, senatore e di provata fede fascista, che ne faceva un elemento prestigioso ed anche politicamente affidabile.
Marconi però non partecipò mai a nessuna delle sedute del Gabinetto RS/33 che si tennero lui in vita, ma delegò costantemente un suo collaboratore che era indicato come dottor Ruggero Costanti Cavazzani, e che evidentemente era un nome di copertura di un personaggio mai identificato.
Altri componenti del Gabinetto RS/33 (RS stava per Ricerche Speciali) furono, nel corso del tempo e per periodi diversi, i professori : Dallauri, Pirotta, Crocco, Debbasi, Severi, Bottazzi e Giordani; nonché il conte Cozza quale referente organizzativo ed elemento di collegamento logistico con le massime gerarchie del regime: Mussolini, Italo Balbo, Galeazzo Ciano.
Il Gabinetto si riunì alcune volte per discutere di fenomeni oggi denominati ufologici e che all’epoca erano collegati ad attività di aeronautica militare. Il parere più diffuso tra gli esperti era che gli aereomobili sconosciuti fossero prototipi di velivoli inglesi e/o francesi. Solo in un paio di occasioni fu dichiaratamente posta la questione se tali oggetti fossero strumenti di volo interspaziale, e la questione rimase essenzialmente aperta. Il prodotto più consistente del Gabinetto RS/33 fu un dossier di una trentina di pagine che esaminava dettagliatamente tutta la casistica italiana, dal 1933 al 1940. Con lo scoppio della guerra (10 giugno 1940) il Gabinetto RS/33 fu ancor più militarizzato, e -cosa assai significativa- il governo nazista chiese più volte notizie, dati e dossier all’ente italiano.
Il Gabinetto RS/33 raccolse anche alcune fotografie di oggetti volanti non identificati ed anche un breve filmato realizzato sulle Alpi in occasione di un avvistamento notevole. Tali notizie sono ricavate indirettamente da altre fonti, poiché l'archivio del Gabinetto fu trasferito in Germania ed attualmente risulta irreperibile.
1.)Since its inception, Guglielmo Marconi was designated head of the RS/33 Cabinet, although the well-known scientist had repeatedly expressed the opinion that the astronomer Gino Cecchini should be designated in his place. Mussolini - on the advice of Giovanni Gentile - appointed Marconi, a senator with proven fascist faith, who made him a prestigious and also politically reliable element.
Marconi, however, never participated in any of the sessions of the RS/33 Cabinet which were held during his lifetime, but constantly delegated one of his collaborators who was indicated as Doctor Ruggero Costanti Cavazzani, and who was evidently a cover name for a person who was never identified.
Other members of the RS/33 Cabinet (RS stood for Special Research) were, over time and for different periods, the professors: Dallauri, Pirotta, Crocco, Debbasi, Severi, Bottazzi and Giordani; as well as Count Cozza as organizational contact and logistical link with the highest hierarchies of the regime: Mussolini, Italo Balbo, Galeazzo Ciano.
The Cabinet met a few times to discuss phenomena now called ufological and which at the time were connected to military aeronautics activities. The most widespread opinion among experts was that the unknown aircraft were prototypes of English and/or French aircraft. Only on a couple of occasions was the question openly raised whether such objects were interspace flight instruments, and the question remained essentially open. The most substantial product of the Cabinet RS/33 was a dossier of about thirty pages which examined in detail all the Italian cases from 1933 to 1940. With the outbreak of the war (10 June 1940) the Cabinet RS/33 was even more militarised, and - what is very significant - the Nazi government asked the Italian body for news, data and dossiers several times.
Cabinet RS/33 also collected some photographs of unidentified flying objects and also a short film made in the Alps on the occasion of a notable sighting. This information is obtained indirectly from other sources, since the Cabinet archive was transferred to Germany and is currently untraceable.
2.)Pirotta, Pietro Romualdo. Botanico (Pavia 1853-Roma (1936). Professore di botanica all'università di Roma (18831924) e di fisiologia vegetale pure presso l’ateneo romano (1924-28), fu l’ideatore e uno dei fautori più attivi della creazione del Parco nazionale degli Abruzzi. Copiosa è stata la sua produzione scientifica. Fra l’altro si occupò della peronospora e degli altri parassiti della vite, di istologia, anatomia ed embriologia vegetale. Scrisse anche un trattato di fisiologia vegetale; si occupò pure della flora romana ed eritrea, e del massimo interesse sono le sue pubblicazioni sulla storia della botanica. Senatore del regno, accademico d’Italia, dei Lincei, dei Quaranta e di varie Società di cultura italiane e straniere. Si ricordano le sue pubblicazioni sulla storia della botanica, in specie la Flora rorzana (1900-01), e il suo trattato di Fisiologia vegetale (1929). Fondò (1885) la rivista «Annuario del Regio istituto botanico di Roma», cui seguirono, dal 1903, gli «Annali di botanica». Alla scuola di P. si formò il nucleo iniziale degli studiosi italiani dei cicli biologici delle piante e dell’embriologia vegetale.
2.)Pirotta, Pietro Romualdo. Botanist (Pavia 1853-Rome (1936). Professor of botany at the University of Rome (1883-1924) and of plant physiology also at the Roman University (1924-28), he was the creator and one of the most active supporters of the creation of Abruzzi National Park. His scientific production was copious. Among other things he dealt with downy mildew and other vine parasites, histology, anatomy and plant embryology. He also wrote a treatise on plant physiology; and Eritrea, and of the greatest interest are his publications on the history of botany. Senator of the kingdom, academic of Italy, of the Lincei, of the Quaranta and of various Italian and foreign cultural societies. We remember his publications on the history of botany. in particular the Flora rorzana (1900-01), and his treatise on Plant Physiology (1929) the magazine «Annuario del Regio botanico di Roma», which was followed, from 1903, by the «Annali di botany» The initial nucleus of Italian scholars of plant biological cycles and plant embryology was formed at P.'s school.
3.) PIROTTA, Pietro Romualdo. — Botanico, nato a Pavia il 7 febbraio 1853. Ivi laureatosi in scienze naturali nel 1875, frequentò per qualche anno quel laboratorio crittogamico; nel 1879-1880 fu a Strasburgo per perfezionarsi presso il De Bary; nel 1880, in seguito a concorso, occupò la cattedra di botanica dell'università di Modena e nel 1883 fu chiamato a Roma, dove insegnò per 4i anni botanica e dove, nel 1924, passò alla cattedra di fisiologia vegetale che venne fino al 1928, epoca in cui fu collocato a riposo. Spetta a lui il merito di aver fondato a Roma, tra il 1884 e il 1889, l’Istituto e l'Orto Botanico attuali. Egli ha anche fondato e diretto per molti anni l'Annuario del R. Istituto Botanico di Roma e gli Annali di Botanica. È stato l'ideatore e il fautore più attivo della creazione del Parco nazionale d'Abruzzo, Nella sua copiosa produzione scientifica sono da rilevare principalmente i lavori sulla peronospora e gli altri parassiti della vite, i numerosi contributi all’istologia, all'anatomia e all'embriologia vegetale, le pubblicazioni sulla storia della botanica, in particolare quelle sulle Tabulae Phytosophicae del Cesi, la Flora Romana, la Flora Eritrea, il trattato di Fisiologia vegetale. È socio nazionale della R. Accademia dei Lincei, membro dei XL, e dal 1929 accademico d’Italia.
3.) PIROTTA, Pietro Romualdo. — Botanist, born in Pavia on 7 February 1853. Having graduated there in natural sciences in 1875, he attended that cryptogam laboratory for a few years; in 1879-1880 he was in Strasbourg to perfect his studies at De Bary; in 1880, following a competition, he occupied the chair of botany at the University of Modena and in 1883 he was called to Rome, where he taught botany for 4 years and where, in 1924, he moved to the chair of plant physiology which remained until 1928, period in which he was laid to rest. He deserves the credit of having founded the current Institute and Botanical Garden in Rome between 1884 and 1889. He also founded and directed for many years the Yearbook of the R. Botanical Institute of Rome and the Annals of Botany. He was the creator and most active supporter of the creation of the Abruzzo National Park. In his copious scientific production, the works on downy mildew and other vine parasites, the numerous contributions to histology, anatomy and to plant embryology, publications on the history of botany, in particular those on Cesi's Tabulae Phytosophicae, the Roman Flora, the Eritrean Flora, the treatise on Plant Physiology. He is a national member of the R. Accademia dei Lincei, a member of the XL, and an academic of Italy since 1929.
4.) Il Governo italiano promuove, il 3 aprile 1933, una legge speciale che fissa il finanziamento per la costruzione della Sede del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Subito dopo il Direttorio del Consiglio dei Ministri affida lo studio del progetto al Comitato Nazionale per l'Ingegneria, costituendo allo stesso tempo un'apposita Commissione di studio presieduto dal Senatore Luigi Cozza
Il progetto definitivo viene redatto da Dagoberto Ortensi, che si occupa dell'impostazione architettonica e della decorazione e dell' arredo degli ambienti
L'edificio si estente su una superfice di 2.105 mq, a cui si aggiungeranno altri 1.720 mq di ampliamento previsti, Ha un volume di 54.445 me articolato su sei piani, per una altezza complessiva di circa 25 mt°
l'edificio viene realizzato dall'impresa di costruzione Tommaso e Alberto Mora, sotto la direzione di Antonio Carlini e inagurato il 21 Novembre 1937
4.)
On 3 April 1933, the Italian Government promoted a special law establishing the financing for the construction of the headquarters of the National Research Council
Immediately afterwards the Directory of the Council of Ministers entrusted the study of the project to the National Engineering Committee, at the same time establishing a specific study commission chaired by Senator Luigi Cozza
The final project is drawn up by Dagoberto Ortensi, who takes care of the architectural layout and the decoration and furnishing of the rooms
The building covers a surface area of 2,105 m2, to which another 1,720 m2 of planned expansion will be added. It has a volume of 54,445 m and is divided into six floors, for a total height of approximately 25 m.
the building was built by the construction company Tommaso and Alberto Mora, under the direction of Antonio Carlini and inaugurated on 21 November 1937
5.) Còzza, Luici, conte, — Ingegnere (Acquapendente 1867 - Roma 1955). Laureato a Roma nel e nel corpo del genio civile; dal 1925 al 1930 fu presidente del Consiglio superiore dei Lavori pubblici. È stato l’istitutore e l'organizzatore del Servizio idrografico italiano ed è autore di varie pubblicazioni sulle opere idrauliche. Senatore del Regno (1934)
5.)
Còzza, Luici, count, — Engineer (Acquapendente 1867 - Rome 1955). Graduated in Rome in and in the civil engineering corps; from 1925 to 1930 he was president of the Superior Council of Public Works. He was the founder and organizer of the Italian Hydrographic Service and is the author of various publications on hydraulic works. Senator of the Kingdom (1934)
6.)
Giordani, Francesco. Chimico (Napoli 1896-ivi 1961). Già accademico d’Italia dal 1930 al 1943, socio nazionale dell’Accademia dei Lincei dal 1935, ne divenne presidente nel 1958. Dal 1936 al 1943 fu presidente dell’IRI e dal 1956 al 1960 del CNR. Fu professore di elettrochimica e di impianti chimici presso la Scuola di ingegneria di Napoli e direttore dell'Istituto chimico di quella università. I suoi numerosi lavori (che gli valsero nel 1929 il premio reale per la chimica) riguardano specialmente l’elettrolisi, la catalisi e la cinetica chimica.
Si occupò anche di problemi economici, particolarmente rispetto alle zone sottosviluppate del Mezzogiorno (fu presidente dell’Associazione per lo sviluppo dell’industria nel Mezzogiorno).
6.)
Giordani, Francesco. Chemist (Naples 1896-ibid. 1961). Already an academic of Italy from 1930 to 1943, a national member of the Accademia dei Lincei from 1935, he became president in 1958. From 1936 to 1943 he was president of the IRI and from 1956 to 1960 of the CNR. He was professor of electrochemistry and chemical plants at the School of Engineering of Naples and director of the Chemical Institute of that university. His numerous works (which earned him the Royal Prize for Chemistry in 1929) concern especially electrolysis, catalysis and chemical kinetics.
He also dealt with economic problems, particularly with respect to the underdeveloped areas of the South (he was president of the Association for the development of industry in the South).
7.)
Vallauri, Giancarlo. Scienziato (Roma 1882-Torino 1957). Dopo aver frequentato l'Accademia navale di Livorno, si laureò in ingegneria presso la Scuola superiore politecnica di Napoli. Nel 1916, quando a Livorno si costituì presso l’Accademia navale l’Istituto elettrotecnico e radiotelegrafico della marina, V. ne divenne il capo e l'animatore di iniziative e di ricerche, di cui uno dei più mirabili frutti è l’eguazione di V., che rappresenta la prima teoria analitica del funzionamento dei tubi elettronici. Nel medesimo tempo si dedicò alla costruzione del Centro radiotelegrafico di Coltano, uno dei più grandiosi e moderni dell’epoca. Importanti sono gli studi da lui condotti nel campo del ferromagnetismo, che portarono alla conferma indiscussa dell’esistenza dell’isteresi magnetica rotante, allora assai controversa in campo internazionale. Intra-
7.)
Vallauri, Giancarlo. Scientist (Rome 1882-Turin 1957). After attending the Naval Academy of Livorno, he graduated in engineering from the Polytechnic High School of Naples. In 1916, when the electrotechnical and radiotelegraphic institute of the navy was established at the Naval Academy in Livorno, V. became its head and animator of initiatives and research, of which one of the most wonderful fruits is the equalization of V., which represents the first analytical theory of the functioning of electron tubes. At the same time he dedicated himself to the construction of the Coltano radiotelegraph centre, one of the grandest and most modern of the time. The studies he conducted in the field of ferromagnetism are important, which led to the undisputed confirmation of the existence of rotating magnetic hysteresis, which was then very controversial in the international field.
8.)
E' morto ieri a Torino il prof. Giancarlo Vallauri
Torino, 7 maggio
E' deceduto stamane all’ospedale delle Molinetto. dov'eth ricoverato fin dai primi di gennaio, il prof. Giancarlo Vallauri, eminente figura di scienziato. Nato a Roma nel 1882 da (umiriza Gi . origine piemontese, dopo ver partecipato Alla prima guerra mondiale come ufficiale di marina, diresse l'Istituto elettrotecnico della Marina fino al 1025, quando venne a Torino quale insegnante al Politecnico. di cu fu poi direttore dal 1933 al 1934,
Nominato membro dell'Accademia d'Italia, ne divenne vicepresidente per le scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali. Fu membro del Consiglio superiore dei Lavori Pubblici. e del Comitato superiore Tecnico per i servizi elettrotecnici e delle comunicazioni; presidente di sezione del Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche: esperto della Societa deile Nazionj per ll servizio deile comunicazioni; presidente generale dell'Associazione elettrotecnica Italiana: presidente dell'Istituto nazionale « Galileo Ferraris» di elettrotecnica, componente del Comitato tecnico Interalleato delle Radiocomunicazioni.
Numerosi suol studi e pubblicazioni sia nel campo dell'elettrotecnica che della radiotecnica. Tra l'altro fu il primo a lurinulare la teoria matematica della valvola termoionica che si riassume nella e equazione di Vallauri ». Fu anche il precursore della misurazione a distanza del campo elettromagnetico irradiato da una stazione trasmittente
8.)
Prof. died yesterday in Turin. Giancarlo Vallauri
Turin, 7 May
He died this morning at Molinetto hospital. where he has been hospitalized since early January, Prof. Giancarlo Vallauri, eminent scientist. Born in Rome in 1882 of Piedmontese origin, after having participated in the First World War as a naval officer, he directed the electrotechnical institute of the Navy until 1925, when he came to Turin as a teacher at the Polytechnic. director from 1933 to 1934,
Appointed member of the Italian Academy, he became vice-president for the physical, mathematical and natural sciences. He was a member of the Superior Council of Public Works. and of the Higher Technical Committee for electrotechnical and communications services; section president of the National Research Council: expert of the Society of Nations for the communications service; general president of the Italian Electrotechnical Association: president of the "Galileo Ferraris" National Institute of Electrotechnics, member of the Inter-Allied Technical Committee of Radiocommunications. He studies and publishes both in the fields of electrical engineering and radio engineering. Among other things, he was the first to formulate the mathematical theory of the thermionic valve which is summarized in the Vallauri equation." He was also the forerunner of remote measurement of the electromagnetic field radiated by a transmitting station
Page 10 is unreadable to me
9.)
XIV GAETANO ArtURO Crocco - Commemorazione di B. Finzi. Il discorso inaugurale del secondo corso ebbe per titolo: « Dall’antiaereo alla base orbitale ». In essa affacciò l’idea del polistadio per accrescere la gittata, adombrò il problema del rientro per satelliti con equipaggio e quello del rifornimento nello spazio.
Fra le altre pubblicazioni ricordo quella su « La sopportazione fisiologica nei missili a reazione », la Nota lincea intitolata « La barriera della temperatura nei missili geodetici », quella su « Quesiti sui missili geodetici » del Seminario matematico e fisico di Milano. Ricordo altresì le belle sintesi «I fondamenti dell’astronautica », « Dal dirigibile al missile », « Anticipazioni di nautica interplanetaria », « Il primo passo verso l'astronautica » e molte altre, fra le quali sono degne di particolare rilievo le Note lincee « Formulazioni di Meccanica astronautica » del 1955, quella dell’Accademia pontificia « Possibilità e limiti della cosmonautica » del 1957. E’ stato memorabile il suo discorso inaugurale al VII Congresso astronautico internazionale di Roma nel 1956, nel quale, partendo dal satellite artificiale, si avventura nell'esplorazione siderale, valendosi della teoria della relatività. E' pure memorabile la sua proposta « Giro esplorativo di un anno Terra-Marte-Venere-Terra », ancor oggi detta « missione Crocco ». L'epoca più favorevole per la missione sarà il giugno 1971,
Nella Nota dell’Accademia pontificia del 1957 Crocco così profetizza: « L'alimentazione endogena del getto propulsore viene riserbata allo stadio finale di marcia, e si usufriusce dell’alimentazione esogena per partire dalla terra, frenare e ritornarvi. Gli stadi intermedi saranno percorsi a velocità uniforme senza consumo e le totali distanze valicabili consentiranno di scegliere le ricognizioni entro una sfera contenente 20.000 stelle. La più lontana richiederà 28 anni di vita dell'equipaggio per andare e tornare. Utopia! »... Ma, continua Crocco, «è stato detto che tutta la nostra civiltà è sbocciata dall’utopia ».
Dopo il volo del primo Sputnik, che realizzava quanto egli aveva vaticinato, concluse, al di là degli ottant'anni, la sua miracolosa attività di scienziato e di profeta col magistrale discorso al VII Convegno internazionale delle comunicazioni, tenutosi a Genova nel 1959, « Le determinanti dell'era astronautica », con quello tenuto nell'adunanza solenne del 1960 ai Lincei « Anticipazioni extra-terrestri » e con il suo contributo all'opera «Il mondo della tecnica » del 1962 « Il momento astro-cosmonautico ». E’ questo un piccolo trattato sull'attività spaziale dalle origini al volo di Gagarin, nel quale si spinge anche nell’ambito della teoria della relatività e della propulsione fotonica.
Ricordo infine i titoli di alcuni studi e meditazioni su problemi che esulano dall’aeronautica: « La proprietà scientifica », « La degradazione della ricchezza », « Il diavolo e la ricerca atomica » (storia della bomba atomica), « Discorso del gradiente » (riguardante l’accelerarsi esasperato del progresso scientifico), « Premesse scientifiche al diritto spaziale
9.)
XIV GAETANO ArtURO Crocco - Commemoration of B. Finzi. The inaugural speech of the second course was entitled: "From anti-aircraft to the orbital base". In it he presented the idea of the multi-stage to increase the range, he outlined the problem of re-entry for manned satellites and that of refueling in space.
Among the other publications I remember the one on «Physiological tolerance in jet missiles», the Nota lincea entitled «The temperature barrier in geodetic missiles», the one on «Questions on geodetic missiles» of the Mathematical and Physical Seminar of Milan. I also remember the beautiful summaries «The foundations of astronautics», «From the airship to the missile», «Previews of interplanetary nautical», «The first step towards astronautics» and many others, among which the Notes are worthy of particular note lincee « Formulations of Astronautical Mechanics » of 1955, that of the Pontifical Academy « Possibilities and limits of cosmonautics » of 1957. His inaugural speech at the VII International Astronautical Congress in Rome in 1956 was memorable, in which, starting from the artificial satellite , ventures into sidereal exploration, making use of the theory of relativity. His proposal for a "one-year exploratory tour of Earth-Mars-Venus-Earth" is also memorable, still known today as the "Crocco mission". The most favorable time for the mission will be June 1971,
In the Note of the Papal Academy of 1957 Crocco prophesies as follows: «The endogenous power supply of the propulsive jet is reserved for the final stage of travel, and the exogenous power supply is used to start from the earth, brake and return there. The intermediate stages will be traveled at uniform speed without consumption and the total distances that can be crossed will allow the choice of reconnaissance within a sphere containing 20,000 stars. The furthest will require 28 years of crew life to get there and back. Utopia! »... But, Crocco continues, «it has been said that our entire civilization blossomed from utopia».
After the flight of the first Sputnik, which realized what he had prophesied, he concluded, beyond the age of eighty, his miraculous activity as a scientist and prophet with a masterly speech at the VII International Communications Conference, held in Genoa in 1959, « The determinants of the astronautical era", with the one held in the solemn meeting of 1960 at the Lincei "Anticipations extra-terrestrials" and with his contribution to the work "The world of technology" of 1962 "The astro-cosmonautic moment". This is a small treatise on space activity from its origins to Gagarin's flight, in which he also delves into the theory of relativity and photonic propulsion.
Finally, I recall the titles of some studies and meditations on problems that go beyond aeronautics: "Scientific property", "The degradation of wealth", "The devil and atomic research" (history of the atomic bomb), "Discourse on the gradient" (concerning the exasperated acceleration of scientific progress), « Scientific premises for space law
10.)
Supponiamola di cinque, cioè “cinque volte quella che si risente in volo rettilineo o sulla superficie della terra, presa come unità. Trattasi di un elevato. ‘valore; di acrobazia pesante. In tale sopportazione. il peso del corpo del pilota diverrà mediamente di 360 chili, di cui 300 graveranno sul seggiolino e gli altri sui ‘comandi.’ Le sue braccia, distese sul volante o sulla leva di guida aggraveranno di una ventina di chili ciascuna e le gambe allungate verso la pedaliera dovranno complessivamente sostenere il sovraccarico di un centinaio di chili. Il cervello premerà per quasi sette chili sulla base del cranio; gli occhi affonderanno nell'orbita, generando il fenomeno del veder nero e le palpebre si appesantiranno come per sonno improvviso; i visceri s'insaccheranno nell'addome; la respirazione si farà difficile;
il cuore dovrà sospingere nelle arterie un liquido che per effetto della centrifugazione verso il basso assumerà una densità quintupla della normale.
tutto avverà come se il corpo del pilota venisse d’un tratto a trovarsi alla superficie di un pianeta, che diremo il pianeta X, ove la gravità fosse ‘cinque volte quella terrestre. Un tal pianeta non esiste nel sistema solare; perché su Giove, il più grosso, essa è appena due volte e mezza; ma la immagine è suggestiva ai fini della nostra esposizione.
Quali conseguenze anatomiche e funzionali l’organismo umano questo temporaneo gravame? Evidentemente’ non ne avrà se gli organi del volatore, appena cessata la manovra, saranno in grado di riprendere in piena immunità le loro funzioni; ed il tal caso quel pilota
10.)
Suppose it is five, that is, "five times what is felt in straight flight or on the surface of the earth, taken as a unit. This is a high one. 'value; of heavy aerobatics. In such endurance. the weight of the driver's body will become on average 360 kilos, of which 300 will weigh on the seat and the others on the 'controls.' His arms, stretched out on the steering wheel or on the driving lever, will weigh on the the pedal set will have to support an overload of around one hundred kilos in total. The brain will press almost seven kilos on the base of the skull; the eyes will sink into the socket, generating the phenomenon of seeing black and the eyelids will become heavy as if due to sudden sleep; the viscera will become encased in the abdomen; breathing will become difficult;
the heart will have to push a liquid into the arteries which, due to the downward centrifugation, will take on five times the normal density.
everything will happen as if the pilot's body suddenly found itself on the surface of a planet, which we will call planet X, where the gravity was five times that of Earth. Such a planet does not exist in the solar system; because on Jupiter, the largest, it is just two and a half times; but the image is suggestive for the purposes of our exposition.
What anatomical and functional consequences does this temporary burden have on the human organism? Evidently there will be none if the flier's organs, as soon as the maneuver has ceased, are able to resume their functions with full immunity
11.)
Dal 1951 in poi l’attività scientifica di Crocco, ormai vecchio, fu rivolta al volo nello spazio extra-atmosferico e all’astronautica. Già nel 1923, a dire il vero, aveva precorso i tempi con la Nota lincea « Sulla possibilità della navigazione extra-atmosferica », in cui proponeva di valersi della reazione provocata dall’efflusso dei prodotti della disintegrazione di materiale radioattivo. Si trattava, in sostanza, della propulsione ionica, ancor oggi non ancora realizzata praticamente. Nel 1927 aveva iniziato ricerche anche sperimentali sui propellenti solidi per i razzi, in collaborazione col figlio Luigi, e aveva poi ripreso tali ricerche fra il 1932 e il 1935. Segnalo altresì la Nota lincea del 1946 « Sulla applicazione dell'energia atomica alla navigazione interplanetaria ». Nel discorso inaugurale del primo corso di missilistica e astronautica, tenuto a Roma nel 1951, parlò dei missili geodetici, trattando dei propellenti e del calcolo delle traiettorie nell'ipotesi di terra piatta e in quella di terra
11.)
From 1951 onwards, Crocco's scientific activity, now old, was aimed at outer space flight and astronautics. Already in 1923, to tell the truth, he had been ahead of his time with the Nota lincea «On the possibility of extra-atmospheric navigation», in which he proposed making use of the reaction caused by the outflow of the products of the disintegration of radioactive material. It was, essentially, ion propulsion, which has not yet been practically achieved today. In 1927 he had begun experimental research on solid propellants for rockets, in collaboration with his son Luigi, and had then resumed such research between 1932 and 1935. I would also like to point out the Note line of 1946 « On the application of atomic energy to interplanetary navigation ». In the inaugural speech of the first rocketry and astronautics course, held in Rome in 1951, he spoke about geodetic missiles, dealing with propellants and the calculation of trajectories
12.) Pretty sure that's all the relevant pages for this one; the rest are either superfluous or establishing identity of those above, the Numbers are just To keep organized, not Page numbers.
Translated document 2
https://archive.org/details/ufo-crash-at-vergiate
1.)
Sullo stradale ira Novara e Magenta cinque operai che rincasavano in bicicletta durante un temporale sono stativi investiti dal fulmine e gettati violentemente a terra. Uno di casi è rimasto gravemente ferito.
1.)
On the road between Novara and Magenta five workers were returning home by bicycle during during a storm they were struck by lightning and violently thrown to the ground. One of the cases was seriously injured.
Soon to be translated document 3
https://archive.org/details/marconis-death-ray/mode/1up
This is going to require alot of help. My will To do this with a language I don't know is at an end for this moment.
The archives of the Newspapers reflected by Pinnoti may be fully available on the archive but without more expert translation Services I'm not totally sure. Let this be a baseline That the documents most likely exist. There are more things available to those to speak Italian I simply need someone to read it all; figure out which pictures are which and translate appropriately.

Weird space, thought it was theoretical. Space monsters, thought those were too. Legends - see where this is going?
Twenty-seven stars formed the Combine, all of them dominated by humans and their mech. During the Expansion, they conquered those worlds in less than an age. That was a long time ago, and far away from home. Speaking of home, I miss my world, it was a beautiful place.
I used to sit with my sister and watch the two suns setting on the flat horizon, with pink-salt as far as the eye could see. We mined it for the Gerrion, since it was too dangerous for them with the high oxygen levels of my homeworld. The Gerrion had given my ancestors a lease on Pacifica, and then given it as a gift when the humans proved to be fertile colonists. Many things come from the Gerrion through trade, but the humans of Pacifica achieved independence already.
Humans adapt in a matter of generations to almost any environment, and Pacifica was no exception. From the steamy rainforests of the equator to the salt barrens of the south, humans lived on nearly every surface of the mostly dead world. Humans were husband to eighty-three species of fauna and over nine million species of plants that they had brought with them across the distant stars.
I had never seen a Gerrion, and they were the only aliens I actually knew about. I knew there were other aliens on other worlds, but they were invariably peaceful and diminutive. It seemed humans had a monopoly on conquest.
After the end of the second age the Gerrion vanished. We didn't know what had happened to them, not at first. They arrived when I was becoming an adult, and set up a base to collect as much salt minerals as they could, placing a massive tariff on our exchanges with them and offering debt to us in exchange for raw goods. After a thousand years, they had suddenly changed.
I could speak the language of the Gerrion, although I'd never actually seen one in person. The panel slid open, and it hunched there, pressed slightly against the glass.
"Accept the bargain on credit, I repeat myself a fifteenth time." The Gerrion seemed to be struggling with the gravity.
"We know that's what you want. We understood the trade gestures. We are preparing your order while you and I are speaking." I gurgled rapidly against the palm of my hand, water running over my chin to the floor. I paused and took another sip of precious water, my dry throat needed it to accentuate the language of the Gerrion.
"There is little time. Allow us to use our automations to collect the order so we may leave." The Gerrion sounded desperate.
"Why the big hurry?" I asked. "You are guaranteed a full supply with such outrageous bids - even if they are on credit. You've made ordinary farmers rich - on credit."
"You want verbal reassurance the credit will be paid?" The Gerrion's eyestalk was watching my hand movements as I made trade gestures.
"Not exactly. I want to be able to tell my client what your motivations are, simply saying you will pay your debt isn't good enough. We want to know your circumstances so we can ascertain the plausibility you could deliver such a promise."
"I am not authorized to explain the troubles of the Gerrion." The Gerrion told me.
"In that case I am authorized to tell you no shipment will be moved until I've spoken with someone who is authorized to speak to me. We aren't as stupid as we look to you, space-slug." I insulted the Gerrion in an effort to motivate it to contact its commander.
"I am now authorized to tell you." The Gerrion decided. "We need that salt, and we need to leave. I am making the authorization, ad hoc."
"You aren't as stupid as you look, either." I said in English.
"During the last Dance of Blue Lights the ships of the Blue Light Watchers came to us and we began the rituals of Peaceful Beauty. We had just broadcast the first stanza when suddenly bullets from the deepest darkness came at us, scores of them. They tore apart the ships of the gathered people and then another wave came and bombarded our world. When it was over, only a few survivors of the Gerrion remained and the entire fleet of the Blue Light Watchers was obliterated, leaving no survivors. We do not know who fired these bullets from the deepest darkness, but when we gave the trace spectrum forensics left by the bullets to the Cave Gods And Friends Association, they told us that the same were used to silence the Frendsikeel an age ago. What is more disturbing is that the bullets fired at the Frendsikeel were two light ages away in origin. Far outside the Milky Way. We believe that the origin of the origin are actually the Dark Entities from the Dead Galaxy and they are coming here - to render our galaxy dead also. We are taking what we can and fleeing."
"That's sufficient information for us to cancel our deal. Sorry, but there's no way we are getting paid under these circumstances." I stated in gesture with one hand and with drooling all over my other hand.
"But you agreed to continue with the deal if I divulged this story."
"You should have invented a story that ends with us getting paid."
"That would be giving you false information - which is what you seem to have done to obtain the correct information. This is not a fair deal, human." The Gerrrion was so upset that some of its vocal juices erupted from its gills onto the glass between us and oozed in a neat little pattern. It smeared it into a word of profanity in Gerrionglyph.
"That's unnecessary." I complained about the retaliatory insult. The Gerrion appreciated my reaction and said:
"Perhaps we can work something out. A side contract. After-all, you've already paid the tariff."
"What sort of new contract do you have in that beautiful brain of yours, slug?" I asked.
"Instead of money, we'll give you all the commissarial items you would like. I won't even charge you for the tonnage." The Gerrion sounded like it was getting a good deal from this side contract.
"So, we'll serve as a stashing point for a lot of extra equipment you were going to leave in orbit." I realized.
"You will own the equipment, no rental arrangements. We aren't coming back for it anyway. We'll land it at our own expense. Then you give us the shipment of salt?"
I looked at the approval meter of the co-op, who were watching the conversation on closed circuitry. They had observers who had identified the equipment the slugs had brought for trade. It occurred to me the slugs had this deal in mind all along, and wanted us to think we were exploiting their desperation, which we were. What they didn't want were any sort of delays. The monsters were coming, after-all.
"Be wary, human." The Gerrion told us.
We celebrated, disregarding the story the Gerrion had told us of fleets destroyed by magic meteors spit by space monsters from outside the galaxy. It was just a legend, and nobody believed it was real. The fleet was hit by asteroids when they ceremoniously sat unshielded. It was just a rotten coincidence, a tragedy. To make it about space monsters and deep space bullets and such was mythologizing something that was almost incomprehensible already - the destruction of such vast fleets in mere moments. Planets were smaller and more fragile, so it was almost inconceivable - Atlantis in a single day and night.
Everyone on Pacifica was rich when we divided the wealth of equipment among the co-op. And 'rich' didn't cut it, for nobody had so much before. We got lazy and careless almost over night. Long gone were the Gerrion, and good riddance. We had bought everything for one shipment.
There was no more reason to mine mineral sodium. An amateur astronomer spotted a fleet of human warships deaccelerating from a gravity contour. It wasn't obvious which was more strange, the antiquity of the lost fleet or the fact that they had emerged from their ride on a gravity contour at the exact moment it realigned with the black hole it was tendrilled from.
I was asked to translate the Gerrionglyph of the starscope. I said:
"It is saying these ships are temporally displaced one full age of our black hole. The phase realignment of the gravitational contour's tendril coincides with this exact point in space time. This event was predicable within a fraction of certainty that classifies it as random. That's just the computer in the starscope excusing itself from contempt for failing to predict a solar event. It's Gerrion tech, you could expect it to apologize if it doesn't record a comet going by."
"Those are ours. From thousands of years ago." Security Analyst General Exposition or SAGE, our planet's defense system, was watching us and said from the nearest servo. "I've accessed the telemetry of their systems, their firewalls are primitive, but formidable. Like a medieval castle trying to stop a helicopter."
"Thanks SAGE, way to keep an eye on things." I replied. SAGE consulted me sometimes about the psychology of the Gerrion. The artificial sentience got bored and thought up hypotheticals all day long, playing war games and reading books one word at a time. SAGE wanted me to be adept at handling slugs, and kept me occupied. It occasionally called me with questions about what a Gerrion would do or say, asking me to roleplay the slugs.
"They have just discovered the remains of a wrecked alien fleet and they are on full alert. I've blocked their software from notifying them about Pacifica. Their charts label it as uninhabitable. However, I do not underestimate the cunning of this human Admiral Jinar, who engaged an unknown enemy off the coast of Pacifica IX. Both her fleet and the enemy were never seen again. That is, until now."
"The enemy?"
"Jinar is searching for it in the wrecked fleet, presumably. I see nothing, and neither does she. It cannot be detected by our levels of technology. I suspect it is there. I have a feeling." SAGE said to me.
"You have a feeling?" I asked.
"I am capable of presuming things, and I may rate a high plausibility that my presumptions are correct, especially when pessimism is the best attitude. I'm in a mode where I have decided to believe an unknown enemy is hiding and leaving no evidence. I am basing this on nothing other than the possibility that it could be. It is entirely sensation - so yes, a feeling." SAGE explained. I regretted asking an exposition machine to explain its introspection.
"Nevermind all that. Make contact with Jinar. Tell her to come home."
"By your command, citizen." SAGE determined.
It was well over a month before the last three ships of Jinar's fleet arrived. Long ago lost to legend, so long they had almost religious significance. They were the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk. All of them were in battle condition, with minimal repairs.
"Admiral Jinar has requested permission to land." SAGE told me.
"Am I to greet her?"
"You are the Official Trade Envoy Pacifica, Mx. Otep." SAGE sounded boundful and chirpy. I felt annoyed.
I waited at the confluence where a landing pad for human visitors sat in dereliction, with the native scuttlevines eating some refuse and several gila monsters moving out of the eclipse.
The combat space shuttle resembled the traditional space shuttle, but it was much more compact and had robot arms equipped with guns and missiles that it could deploy. Unlike stone age rockets, the combat space shuttle could take off and land almost vertically, acting like a kind of elevator to orbital battle platforms capable of sterilizing whole star systems. The era of human warships of such immense magnitude was over thousands of years ago, yet three such relics of ultimate destructive firepower still remained, floating menacingly offshore.
Admiral Jinar was startling, a specimen of human feminine ferocity. She was short and fiery and stocky and had sharp, hawklike features that seemed to find weakspots in everything she looked at and smirked with amusement at all the easy targets. She walked up to me and gave me a discontinuous salute that I used a trade gesture in reflex, saying to speak slower. It was pure reflex when her hand went above her shoulder, as hand signals were the predominant form of communication I specialized in, besides spitting on my hand and blowing bubbles in the saliva to speak Gerrion.
I suddenly wished we were speaking in slime syllables or writing in smeared Gerrionglyph.
Admiral Jinar was witty and concise, at least at first. She addressed me with some confusion first as a ma'am, then as sir, then I stopped and told her just Mx. Otep will do. Administrators on Pacifica are not allowed to assume a gender during their term.
"We aint got time for these kinds of politics. There's a war about to hit this place. One of the Unknowns' scouts is in this system. Where are the Combine Unified Forces?" Admiral Jinar asked me.
"I hesitate to say this, but there is no military in the Combine. Those humans are joining the Cave Gods And Friends Association."
"Why the hell is that?" Admiral Jinar frowned.
"A federation of aliens that are peaceful." I thought she wanted to know what they were. It turned out, moments later, that I learned she already knew them, had met them as a child. She was around during the advent of the era of conquest, and was a living fossil of those days.
"Holy shit, you mean the whole galaxy is undefended? What fresh hell is this? We already figured out we are thousands of years in the future, and I thought that was what made Weird Space so weird. No, it's the completely asinine disregard for what we already knew. We knew about the Unknowns, knew they were coming. We'd seen what they did to the Frendsikeel. We were too busy with our own wars. Defense costs money, starships, weapons, mech - all cost money. Your SAGE has corresponded that our ships represent all the firepower that there is in the whole galaxy."
"That is correct. Ages of peace have prevailed."
"That scout destroyed ten ships like mine and crippled the ones I have left, and it is still out there, wounded, but probably either escaping, calling for help, making repairs or reloading to finish us off. One of those are its course of actions. Which one sounds the worst? We must take the fight to it, in any case. Our best fighting comes from our mech. They are worthless if they are blown up in space. We need them on the ground where their weapons can be used. One mech cannot be stopped by an orbital enemy. The Unknown scout will have no choice but to face our warriors in proper combat. I am sure honorable warfare is not something it is capable of winning." Admiral Jinar spoke of her strategy with cold, ruthless and brutal decision. I had never seen a human with so much martial spirit, but it awoke something in me.
"They are deploying dozens of dropships from the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk. The dropships are loaded with mech and heavily armed infantry. I can only shoot them down. Once they've landed, you're on your own, citizen." SAGE advised me.
"Stand down." I indicated to SAGE.
"They are setting up a relay to broadcast what appears to be a musical discord created by Blue Light Watchers. I think this will draw out the enemy, whom they plan to engage on the surface of Pacifica III. Are you sure that's a good course of action?"
"It's happening. The Ghost War has come to our world. Prepare our defenses to deploy against the arrival of the Unknown enemy, this Dark Entity. Whatever it is, I want you to hit it with literally everything when it arrives." I told SAGE
"By your command citizen. I hesitate to use such measures at a reactionary level, in the case of misidentification of a target, but I do not think any friendly arrivals would be unidentified, as much as an unfriendly one."
"SAGE, you will, without warning, unleash a crippling barrage first and then you will ascertain the identity with a query." I said. The words felt right together, 'shoot first and then ask questions.' and I decided it was a good policy under the circumstances, although inconceivable yesterday.
I holoviewed the activity of the mech, as the massive war machines came trotting out as though light footed, their myriad of turrets and sensors spinning up for action and their oversized cannons for arms aiming in calibrating movements like a choreographed ballet done by discordantly shaped dancers. Each mech was a patchwork upon a different chassis, painted and repainted, scarred and with quilted segments of armor where holes were burned by enemy weapons. The mech looked both terrifying and beautiful at the same time.
"Something is entering from the night, outside." SAGE told me. I watched the holoview as a visage of nightmares came fluttering within range of our planetary defenses. I could see it was wounded, or damaged - that it wore the signs of battle in the form of one of its four arms shot off, holes in its body and wings and craters all over it, and one of its massive red compound eyes was cracked and shattered.
"Kill it." I didn't have to say anything. As it tried to get past our defenses, SAGE wasted no time giving it the full broadside. Our orbital weapons activated and fired with precision from half a million miles away. It took almost four seconds for the sublight weaponry to intercept the evasive target. Most of them still hit it anyway, their accuracy unerring. The demon fly flew right into the coordinated beams, even while avoiding some of them.
"Minimal damage sustained." SAGE reported. "All systems functional, but out of range. Secondary systems, close range orbital weapons, were unable to track the target."
"Ground weapons?"
"Destroyed, just now." SAGE said.
"Then it is up to our new friends."
"Indeed. I am incorporating their systems into mine. I've recently hacked all their systems and now have the ability to control their automated defenses and sensors."
I got a call from Admiral Jinar. She was in the cockpit of a mech. "What'd your thing do to my ships?"
"Consider it an upgrade. We aren't hijacking you, just enhancing your reaction time."
"Very well, carry on citizen. I can't stop you anyway, you out-tech us."
"Not really. Those mech aren't hooked up to anything but coms. We got nothing on those."
"Fair enough. I got your planet and you got my ships. We're even."
"I urge you to see us as a team. That is how I see our partnership. We survive or die together."
"You're right, Lonestar. Let's rock this ass and make it bleed alien ichor."
"Yes, uh, what that means. Let's."
The beastly scout, whatever it was, stood dripping and wheezing and towering over a habitat where it had landed. Without hesitation it began smashing the structure, killing with glee. Soon it had reduced the settlement to burning rubble. The column of smoke drew all the mech from every direction.
Over the horizon were dozens of mech, marching towards the Unknown at the center, surrounding it. The Unknown aimed one of its remaining limbs at the closest mech and fired a crackling bolt of plasma. The mech stood burning for a few seconds, raining parts, and then it exploded into a small mushroom cloud. The pilot had no time to eject.
"Long range, hit it, empty your clips!" Admiral Jinar ordered the closing mech, unswerved by the destructive power of the lone wounded scout.
A salvo of rockets and orbs of light surrounding charged particles were projected at the machine or creature or monster of nightmares, whatever the Unknown truly was. It took the hits and lost a wing, falling to one knee. It got back up, its blood or fluids leaking from cracks on its body.
It aimed two of its remaining limbs at two different mech and blew up both of them. The Unknown clacked its massive insectoid mandibles with ferocity. It tried to take off, but its ruined wing left it disabled.
"Medium range, start heating this thing up, push your heat sinks, either we die or he does!" Admiral Jinar ordered. The remaining mech were much closer, and their long range weapons were depleted, but they started firing lasers and assault cannons and medium ranged missiles systems with more powerful warheads.
For a moment, at the height of the attack, the enemy vanished in a cloud of explosions and flashes of lasers splashing off of each other on impact. When the mech were at short range it stood there, half its head sheared away, its wings and legs gone, its body burning and soaking in its ichor, its steaming syrupy blood. Yet the scout was not yet dead, and it fought on, aiming all three of its remaining arms and taking four of the mech with it. While the long and medium weapons it brandished only destroyed a single mech, its most powerful weapon penetrated a mech and also hit and destroyed another mech.
"Take it down, chain fire everything until there's nothing left!" Admiral Jinar ordered.
"Cease fire, Admiral. The Unknown's weapon capability is depleted. It makes a valuable prisoner." SAGE advised.
"Weapons free." Admiral Jinar repeated, slightly subdued. The mech descended on the scout and shot it to pieces at close range until it was a boiling and smoking carcass.
Later that evening Admiral Jinar presented herself to me.
"Mx. Otep, your planet was bravely defended, but this is far from over. This represented an unstoppable force of death and destruction and it is heading our way. I need to be put in contact with the Combine and these alien 'friends'. I think the Alstradius, the Malintention and the Warringhawk are all that stands between whatever killed the Dead Galaxy and ours. They crossed the vastness of deep space in a flight that started perhaps billions of years ago. There is one thing, though, that they weren't really ready for."
"What's that?" I asked her.
"Humans."

This game is sooooooooooooo Xenogears!
So, this japanese only game has been on my radar for years and was actually one of a few games I started learning Japanese to play! Still learning, but wow! There's an english patch for the PS1 game!
Just read this lore dump and tell me it's not the exact same as the Perfect Works civilization/Lost Jerusalem/earth/etc. :
'Even in the old records, no information remained about "mother" Earth, other than the fact that it "became extinct". In the present day, humanity has spread across many planets, so that even the coordinates of the original Earth had been lost to history. In order to find other viable stars and planets, the humankind had to do everything they could to keep moving. By the end of the millennium, they built a vast interstellar Federation.'
The game is so weird and amazing. Really hitting that Xeno itch. By all means, just jump in and start the game. There is substantial exposition in the opening cinematic that I know Xenogears fans will appreciate.
Check out this Let's Play for a fantastic run down on the game as well as the closest thing to a guide/walkthrough!
https://lparchive.org/Linda-Cube/

Tokyo 4n > Magome-juku (Nakasendo) 1n > Matsumoto 1n (Alpine Route) > Kanazawa 2n > Kyoto 5n (Nara, Himeji) > Okayama 2n (Naoshima, Kurashiki) > Hiroshima 2n (Miyajima) > Osaka 1n > Koyasan 1n > Narita 1n.
As I loved reading these during my preparations I am happy to share this long report about our experiences. We are from Europe and in our twenties. We are quite fast paced with 10 hotels during 3 weeks as we treated it as a once in a lifetime trip, but we relaxed at our hotel most of the evenings and didn't wake up too early (except for the Alpine Route). We focused on visiting temples and shrines, castles, gardens, (modern) art, and doing short hikes. The last few days overlapped with Golden Week. I'd recommend any spot we visited, but some highlights included the Alpine Route, any place where we did short hikes to see temples or villages (Kamakura, Nakasendo, Kurama/Kibune from Kyoto, Miyajima), Koyasan shukubo, and the Naoshima museum island. See the long description below, happy to answer any questions!
Leg 1: Tokyo
I think we had a fairly standard 1st time itinerary but we enjoyed it a lot! We failed to get Ghibli tickets but in hindsight we needed our time in Tokyo for the other sights anyway. Stayed at CITAN hostel where we enjoyed the specialty coffee to ease our jetlagged mornings.
Day 1 - Arrival, Asakusa/Ueno
Arrived at Narita at 10:00AM. Arrived in hostel after buying Pasmo Pasport card (requires cash which you can get at the 7/11 ATM) at 14:00. Had no sleep but excitement carried us through the day. Quick shower and went sightseeing at 15:00 (standard itinerary around Asakusa/Senso-ji > Sumida Park > Ueno Park) and had an early night. Cherry blossoms were still blooming due to the cold so the parks were wonderful, seeing a bustling temple for the first time very impressive as a European in Asia for the first time, and loved all the food stalls and people at the Ueno Park illuminations. Bought a goshuincho at Senso-ji to collect goshuin, which I enjoyed a lot while visiting many temples in the next days.
Day 2 - Shibuya/Harajuku/Shinjuku
We walked all the way from South to North along Shibuya crossing, with a short shopping visit to Loft, then the Ota Memorial Museum of Art (small but beautiful ukiyo-e museum), the Meiji Shrine (very peaceful among the trees), Shinjuku Gyoen (beautiful garden and we loved it with cherry blossoms especially), then Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building for the free views at sunset (had to queue for a bit) and walked through Shinjuku including Omoide Yokocho on our way to dinner and then home.
Day 3 - Central Tokyo, Odaiba, Roppongi
Visited Sengakuji, which is an interesting historic place with the 47 ronin graves. We burned incense and copied a sutra here. Then took the monorail to Odaiba just to enjoy the view, had konbini lunch at the beach, took the monorail back, quick stop at the Ghibli clock while switching trains, and walked past Zojo-ji and Tokyo Tower to visit TeamLab Borderless at 16:00. Especially the smaller rooms were beautiful and I loved drawing my own fish to see it appear on the walls. Abdij It was a nice and unique experience and fun to explore at our own pace.
Day 4 - Kamakura
We started a bit late bc of remaining jetlag and making our Golden Week train reservations as well as some struggles picking up our JR pass for the Alps at Tokyo Station. Kamakura was crowded but lovely because of spring matsuri at the shrine. Visited Komachi dori shopping street and had taiyaki, went to Tsurugaoka Hachiman shrine where many people attended the matsuri, walked to Daibutsu walking course via Jufuku-ji/Genjiyama park (bit of a search but worthwhile!), visited the interesting Zeniarai Benten (money washing) shrine, of course saw the large Daibutsu which was very impressive and finally visited the beautiful Hasedera with its nice gardens and many interesting sights in its many halls. One of my favourite days, the sun was shining, the hike was peaceful, and all four temples and shrines were stunning and very different and interesting. Would have loved to also see some of the temples in the north and to have gone to Enoshima.
"Japanese Alps" leg
We got the Alpine-Takayama-Matsumoto pass from JR West, picked up at Tokyo JR Central. I am not sure it paid off without using all 5 days of travel (it would have covered Takayama) but it guaranteed access to the Alpine Route when we had missed its presale.
Day 5 - Nakasendo
Early Shinkansen to Nagoya, then local train and bus to Magome where we stayed overnight at Magomechaya. We took the 13:30+- bus to Tsumago then walked back so we wouldn't have to rush for the last bus. We were too late for the tea house but had plenty of time for the hike. Quite some European tourists here. The walk was scenic and lovely, both the nature including two waterfalls and the post towns looked beautiful like a journey back in time, and staying overnight we got to see Magome with hardly any people around. Enjoyed the traditional stay, sleeping on futon beds for the first time with dinner and breakfast included. Overall one of the highlights of the trip. Check the bus times in advance of your trip and bring cash.
Day 6 - Matsumoto
After breakfast and coffee in Magome we took the bus and train to Matsumoto, where we climbed the beautiful original castle (highly recommended) and then went to the local art museum for its Yayoi Kusama part (small but enjoyable and quiet for a place showing her work, including one infinity room and a yellow pumpkin). Very walkable and welcoming city with cherry blossoms at full bloom and ongoing castle illuminations and hardly any tourists crowds. Had dinner at a nice izakaya, used the hotel bath, and forwarded our luggage to the hotel in Kanazawa from here.
Day 7 - Alpine Route
Took the first train at 05:56 from Matsumoto to Shinanoomachi to start Tateyama Kurobe Alpine Route that opened two days before from the Ogizawa side. We were very stressed about securing tickets but managed to exchange tickets for the 08:00 departure from Ogizawa with our specific regional JR Pass. Wonderful day, enjoyed seeing the Kurobe dam, the views from all stops, and walking along the snow wall. Crowded with mostly domestic and a lot of Asian tourists, but as it is so well organized the crowds are no problem at all. This was our most expensive activity but it was worth it. I would also love to see it with fall colours or be able to hike in summer. Arrived at the end around 15:00 sleepy and happy, then on to Kanazawa for a short evening walk, dinner, and sleep.
Day 8 - Kanazawa
Walked all day through Kanazawa: Nagamachi district with the small enjoyable Shinise Memorial Hall, Oyama Shrine, Castle park where we went to the tea house, the beautiful Kenrouken garden with Seikankaku villa, Kazue and Higashi Chaya districts, obscure temple walk uphill with many quiet temples and hardly any passerbys, bus back to Nagamachi district, walked through Nishi Chaya district at night. Again a very friendly and welcoming city that is not crowded at all, the historic districts were beautiful and we loved the garden. Kenrouken really feels like you are exploring and stumbling upon new beautiful sights all the time and the villa was worth it too. I would have loved to visit the Nomura-ke samurai house as well as the DT Suzuki museum too but we only had one day. We also brought some of our nicest souvenirs here.
Leg 3: Kyoto
Kyoto was not what I expected in some way, but I still loved it. We were not at all prone to temples fatigue and visited +-20 temples and shrines which we personally enjoyed a lot but also did some more quiet half-day trips and walked some random residential areas.
Day 9 - Gion/South Higashiyama
Morning shinkansen to Kyoto. Walked through Pontocho, Gion, visit to Kennin-ji (only one hall opened unfortunately, but we could see the dragon painting on the ceiling), via Ishibei-koji lane and Ninnenzaka/Sannenzaka to visit Kiyomizudera (16-17h, very crowded at 15h but got better over time, beautiful with golden hour). After dinner visited illuminations at Kodai-ji and Entoku-in (where we were the only visitors!) and Yasaka shrine. I was a bit overwhelmed with the crowds, the heat, and queueing for dinner, so this was not my favourite day, but the night walk helped me relax again.
Day 10 - Kurama/Kibune and North Higashiyama
Half-day trip for walk from Kibune and Kifune shrine to Kuramadera with lunch in Kurama. Very calm and beautiful, absolutely loved it, everyone walking there greeted us and chatted with us as we spotted some deer, and the approach to the temple and shrine are stunning. We also had a great vegetarian buddhist meal in Kurama just after descending. Then train back to Demachiyanagi, walk to Ginkaku-ji (beautiful moss garden), Philosopher's Path and Nanzen-ji (arrived just in time to enter hojo and see the zen gardens here at 16:29 by following a speed walking Japanese couple to the reception, unfortunately no time to enter other buildings but we did walk around the grounds for a bit after with the aquaduct, gate, some temple hall exteriors, etc.). All in all a wonderful day, but I would have liked more time at Nanzen-ji. People who start early in the morning or take taxi/bus instead of walking to Ginkaku-ji might be able to see additional temples. Walked past the torii of Heian shrine on our way home and got lovely confectionaries from a bakery.
Day 11 - Nara
Rainy day when we did a day trip to Nara with the cute purple Aoniyoshi limited express train (booked in advance). Very impressed by visiting the daibutsu at Todai-ji, the view from Nigatsudo, Kasuga Taisha (very special) and liked walked between the deer in the park. The colours and rain were quite athmospheric and there weren't many tourists in the park. We didn't enter Kofukuji, there was a lot of maintenance/building going on. We went to some vintage stores and department stores in central Kyoto at night.
Day 12 - North and Arashiyama
Kinkaku-ji at opening (already crowded but still worth seeing this famous sight), then Ryoan-ji (absolutely loved the zen garden! Had heard stories about it as a kid so the anticipation was high). We took the Randen tram to Arashiyama, saw the bridge and had a wonderful lunch at the Shigetsu restaurant at Tenryu-in (delicious if you are looking for vegetarian options), then walked through bamboo forest simply because we were there. Bus uphill to Otagi Nenbutsu-ji (funny and happy place with all the unique statues) and walked down via Adachino Nenbutsu-ji (more sad and meaningful experience) through Saga preserved street. Enjoyed the peace and quiet here.
Day 13 - Sanjusangendo, Uji and Fushimi Inari
Sanjusangendo in the morning (very impressive with 1001 Kannon). Then half-day trip to Uji to see Byodo-in, enjoy matcha soba noodles for lunch and an accessible and nice tea ceremony at Tea House Taihoan, crossed the river and walked back to the station, making for a relaxed half-day trip. We did Fushimi Inari at the end of the afternoon, with hike until the terrace with the nice views. It wasn't too busy, perhaps because of the time and the rainy weather.
Leg 4: Himeji/Okayama/Hiroshima
This stretch had several highlights of the trip, including Himeji-jo, the Naoshima museums, Peace Memorial Museum and Miyajima.
Day 14 - Himeji and Okayama
Himeji - We stored our luggage close to the station and walked to the castle. We didn't plan to enter as we thought it would be busy and had already visited Matsumoto Castle. However, it was very quiet with no lines at all so we did go in. I would highly recommend this castle. Its history, its size and the presence of the adjoining buildings make it very impressive. We didn't go to the gardens as we'd go to Okayama next.
Okayama - Visited Korakuen. Beautiful but completely different from Kenrouken because of its open layout with lawns. Both are stunning but myself I slightly preferred the garden in Kanazawa as the less open layout allowed for more exploring without having seen whats next. They also have cranes here. Also visited the Okayama castle, which had some history expositions on the battle of Sekigahara - of course this could not live up to Himeji. Non-Japanese speakers can read translations of the information on their phone. Okay but absolutely no must see. Had dinner at a nice tofu place.
Day 15 - Naoshima
Daytripped to Naoshima and absolutely loved everything about it. Felt like we were in the Mediterranean, the island is stunning, views of Seto inland sea are stunning and the architecture and art are wonderful. We took the train to Uno, then the ferry arriving at 09:22 and we took the bus and ferry back from Honmura after the art houses closed at 16:30. We had reservations at Chichu Art Museum at 10:30 (when we arrived others without reservation could not get in) and Time Corridors at 14:00. These two also were our favourites out of the museums (also visited Benesse House + Valley Gallery and Lee Ufan museum). We mostly walked which was enjoyable (although already hot in spring) but I'd recommend bicycle rental. We only had a limited time left to visit the Art House Project, visited 3 and 1 from the outside. Minamidera was a special experience. If budget/time is not an issue I would certainly overnight here to also see the onsen, have sufficient time for the Art House Project, and perhaps go to Teshima, but also as a daytrip it is absolutely worth it. Must visit if you like modern art.
Day 16 (Friday before Golden Week) - Kurashiki and Hiroshima
In the morning, we wandered around the Bikan historic distright in Kurashiki and bought some bizen ceramics here. The western art museum here is apparently very nice but after seeing all of Naoshima the day before we didn't feel like entering. Enjoyable for a short visit but I wouldn't make a large detour for it. In the afternoon we took the Shinkansen to Hiroshima. We first saw the Peace Memorial Park then entered the museum with audio tour at 16:30. This was a very impressive museum that had a profound impact on us. We spent more time than most people based on what I read online, as we were in there until closing time at 19 and we hadn't even listened all audio tour recordings in the second part of the museum. Highly recommended to experience this important and harrowing part of world history. It shows the personal stories of victims as well as the scale of suffering as a result of this bombing. People around us were overall quiet and respectful, it was not too busy (perhaps due to our visit timing extending into the reservations-only period), a few people were visibly emotional. We walked around the Memorial Park again at dark and had some comfort food.
Day 17 (Golden Week Saturday) - Miyajima
We did a very enjoyable day trip to Miyajima with the (more expensive) direct ferry from Peace Park departing at 08:30 returning with the regular JR Ferry and train around 18:00. Although it was the first Saturday of Golden Week I'd say crowds were okay and we didn't need to queue more than 5 mins for the ropeway. When we arrived we saw Itsukushima jinja and the torii with high tide, saw its treasure hall and Senjokaku, and had lunch/snacks (momiji!) in the area. We then went up Mt Misen by cable car, hiked the small distance to the top and then hiked down to the very worthwhile Daisho-in with an adjacent cafe. The hike is very enjoyable as you pass many sights and have beautiful views over the Seto inland sea, although we were happy to skip the hike up. Around 17:30 we saw the torii again at low tide. This day was one of our favourites, we enjoyed the beautiful nature, culture and history, and everything is very well-organized and easy to find, as it was everywhere in tourist-frequented areas. I'd really recommend a full day here rather than a half day in many people's itineraries if you like to hike and would like to see more than the torii.
Leg 5: Osaka/Koyasan
Day 18 (Golden Week Sunday) - Osaka
We had a slow morning with some specialty coffee and took a shinkansen to Osaka. Having seen our fair share of temples, castles and museums, we spent our half-day in Osaka just exploring the Namba/Minami streets including Dotonbori, Amerika-Mura and Hozenji Yokocho without visiting any major sights. Had fun people watching especially in Amerika-Mura. Nice change of pace. For us, one night was enough.
Day 19 (Golden Week Showa holiday 29 april)
We stored our luggage in a coin locker (plenty available at Namba underground station) and travelled to Koyasan in the morning. Bought the Koyasan World Heritage ticket including return trip and unlimited bus travel as well as some discounts, this requires internet connection of you want to use the digital ticket to load QR codes. Our travel wonderfully and accidentally coincided with the anniversary of Kobo Daishis entry into eternal meditation so we saw many pilgrims, flowers at the temple, and a procession. We visited Okunoin twice, at day time (all halls are open and can be entered) and at night time (special atmosphere, we didn't do the tour but walked by ourselves). In the afternoon we visited the Garan temple complex and Kongobu-ji temple. To see all these sights comfortably you really need a full day, also considering dinner time and curfew at the temple stays. We stayed at a smaller temple (Daien-in) including both meals and with attendance of the morning prayers. Perhaps because of the anniversary ceremonies we were a minority as Western tourists among domestic worshippers at the temples and the place truly felt spiritual and meaningful to me, almost to the point where we felt a bit intrusive as non-buddhist tourists despite our efforts to visit respectfully. Were very impressed by our visit, highly memorable.
Day 20 - Travel
After morning prayers and visiting the Tokugawa clan mausoleums in Koyasan, we travelled back to Narita, with lunch at a nice soba place outside Osaka Namba station and dinner at Tokyo Station. Overnight before early morning transfer to the airport.
General comments
Food: we eat vegetarian and mostly plant-based at home, but decided to be relaxed about it here, eating milk and eggs as well as dashi/stock. Still, using Happy Cow we could find vegetarian or vegan dinner options almost everywhere, e.g. nice shoyin ryori places, tofu restaurants, izakaya with vegetarian options, vegan ramen places, Indian restaurants, and the occasional Coco Curry or Mos Burger, and we were content with basic onigiri and inarizushi for lunch. Many vegan ramen places with high scores on Happy Cow were pretty much 100% targeted at foreign tourists with corresponding price range, fully vegan places more directed at locals seemed to serve either buddhist cuisine or vegetable dishes that were not specifically Japanese.
Travel: So easy to navigate. Maps, signs, lots of English and tourist information on the streets, public transport is delightful and so well organized I found it similar or maybe even easier compared to European countries where I do not speak the language. People working in tourism are highly service-oriented so you will always be treated politely, and people really made an effort to help us more than at other touristic places I have been to. Learning 4-5 basic words is helpful and appreciated. All hotel experiences were okay to good. We prebooked the Golden Week shinkansen tickets in our first days at Tokyo Station.
Packing: For clothing: bring layers! We have experienced up to 28 degrees by the end of April and it felt warm and summery already at 22/23 coming from Northern Europe. However, rainy days as well as mornings and evenings could be fresh, and of course the snow wall at the Alpine Route requires a warm coat. If you have standard hotels many amenities will be provided and you'll have to bring hardly anything. My electric toothbrush charger would not work on the voltage here. Wore comfortable sneakers with an average of walking 14-15km a day.
Goshuin: Do not forget to seperate goshuin from stamps you might find at tourist sites, even the regular free stamps provided at temples. It is a religious practice and temples may not want to provide you with goshuin if you do not treat them with respect.
Happy to answer any questions! Before we went, I was most nervous about the Alpine Route and navigating Naoshima, but I hope this post helps others in planning their trip.