tirsdag den 26. december 2023

Status And Subjection to the Principles of Victorian Morality

A pretty statue - some may even call it beautiful even though it doesn't quite fit our ideas of the looks of the one it depicts: Queen Victoria (24th May 1819–22nd January 1901) depicted by the sculptor as the 18 years old queen at her coronation. Victoria's reign ran for 63 years and 216 days, and one of the ultimate heydays of it was when The British Parliament granted her the additional title of Empress of India in 1877. Actually that seems to have been the doing of the wise Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1. Earl of Beaconsfield who knew that the queen just loved flattery and the new title of Empress certainly was flattering. 

Besides, knowing the queen as he did, he must have known that she wouldn't be too happy when her daughter and namesake, Victoria, came into her title as German empress which were bound to happen as her husband, Friedrich, was to inherit the title from his father. However, Vicky, as this English born German empress was called, didn't enjoy that title for long as her husband, Emperor Friedrich, died 99 days after becoming the emperor of Germany in 1888.

 

Vicky, Kaiserin Friedrich

Vicky took after her mother, but was prettier although not a raving beauty as one of her sisters, the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria: Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll (1848-1939). 

She, who was the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria, is the sculptor who made the statue of her mother as a young woman, ready to take on the obligations as a queen. It was erected in 1893 and received a grade II in 1969. Louise became a widow in 1914 when her homosexual husband, John Campbell, the 9. Duke of Argyll, died. There have been some weird stories of their ill-suited marriage which was more of convenience than anything else: He liked boys and men, and she had a fling with one of her art teachers. Times were different then and both of them had to dance to the pipes of morality.

Louise as an elderly, but still quite pretty woman 

 


https://www5.open.ac.uk/research-projects/making-britain/content/queen-victoria-becomes-empress-india 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

onsdag den 20. december 2023

Samson - The Biblical Superman Who Fell Victim To A Woman

Beautiful? Yes. Seductive and cruel? Well, so they say, and that's how modern people remember Delilah.

Even though being portrayed as some sort of Superman in The Old Testament (Judges 16) the Israelite Samson had the misfortune to fall in love with the seductive Delilah. What he didn't know was that she was a Philistine, had been paid to entrap him to reveal the source of his uncommon strength. 

As he was known to fight lions, hands to claws, and to always win all of his fights he was an uncommonly strong adversary who had to be curbed for the Philistines to win over the Israelites. Before these enemies of Israel came to think of Delilah and her use as a seductress many, according to legend actually an entire army, had been slain by Samson using nothing but the jawbone of a donkey. Everything about him seemed supernatural, but Delilah proved that when it came to love and sex he was not one of the most difficult men to handle. Was he naive when he revealed the source of his strength? Yes, definitely and very much in love although he, being born a Nazirite, was meant to live a chaste and law abiding life and certainly not marry a Philistine woman.

Eye to eye? Yes, but Delilah is out to cheat her lover, Samson into betraying his secret

When he told her that the source of his uncommon strength was his long, uncut hair, she took advantage of him. When he fell asleep she had a servant to cut off his hair. Also he was blinded by the Philistine who then used him as a strong, blind "working machine", forcing him to grind grain in a mill at Gaza. However, they forgot to keep an eye on his hair so they didn't notice when it grew out again, which according to legend was the first step in giving him back his lost strength. Well, before that he had the chance of proving a certain amount of slyness after having been such a fool with Delilah: The Philistine brought him into their temple of Dagon, and when he asked for permission to rest against the pillars they gave him leave to do so. Resting he prays to his god, Jahwe, and fast as lightning he regains his full strength, tears down the pillars of the Philistine temple, thus kills both himself and a lot of Philistines when the rubble hit them.

Wow, what a hero, but what about Delilah? What happened to her? It's not known which makes it even more ironic that she and her name is what have been remembered of the legend, and not as much the strongman, Samson. As it is most see her as the epitome of the sexy, treacherous and basically sinful woman although she is not the one who are being led by her sexual drive. It's very typical that the male's behavior which in this case means that he doesn't live up to his obligations as a Nazirite in the end is blamed on the woman. She is not the one being driven by sexual urges, he is, but she is blamed for making him feel what he feels. It's like reading about the way Middle East women are being seen by the men of their faith an nation ....

tirsdag den 12. december 2023

Playing by - Or Discarding - The Rules?

I know that's the general impression, and I admit that so much speak for it being the truth about a large part of this group of Trump-followers. However, I don't find this condescending statement to be the only "truth" about his boisterous and seemingly non-informed fans. 

From all that has been made known years ago about Donald J. Trump as a person, a public figure as well as a politician he is not someone one should expect to stand a chance of ever becoming the president of USA. Nonetheless, that's what happened and now he is desperate enough to opt for one more chance of gaining access to The White House and thus the "immunity" he needs. Everything considered the chances of that wish coming true ought to be slim, but after all, that's up to the voters. As it is, what strikes most of his non-followers as extremely strange is that not only has he fans, but they seem to adore him, yes, even think of him as some sort of "savior" which means that they will be voting for him. How is that even possible when he, to all accounts, is a sociopatic egomaniac who only thinks of himself and his own gains, neither his country nor his voters? Not even all of his followers deny that that's the case, but they don't seem to take the knowledge of his culpability to heart and back away from any association with him: WHY???????


This man is anything but a new "Jesus", and it's obvious to non-followers that he is not even a friend of people like the ones that appear at his rallies or who vote for him. Actually, before he gained his president status of power and importance, he has uttered contempt for people like those who now are following him and who aim to secure his position. For instance, he complained that they "looked poor" and poverty is something he abhors. To be poor to him means being what he shuns at all costs: One turns into a loser, a fool, and thus a laughing stock.

OK, Mr. Ex-president, follow your own advice on women and try to grab the feminine main symbol of America by the pussy as that's how you see your country

Well, one thing is what this man does both in his private life and in The White House, another is how his followers feel about him. Although they don't seem to be blind to his many flaws, I have a strong impression that they love him for them. That means that these flaws are something they like about him i.e. because they "translate" them into something they are not: A sort of "freedom fight". Seemingly he got away with a lot many of his followers got caught up doing and that's what they like about him. He is not even ashamed of what he is or has done: Normally people who have done what he has, both in his private as well as his political life feel ashamed at being caught in the act. After being caught these people blush, stammer, and excuse their misbehavior as best they can, but not Trump. No, normal excuses or explanations are not for him, as he just turns around and accuses those who exposed him and his various misdeeds. Actually, that's the tactic of Goebbels which he seems to have taken to heart and uses without regrets even when people prove that he is lying: He doesn't follow the rules, tacit or general, which proves that he doesn't feel they are his concern, and his followers love it.


All rules for socially acceptable behavior go on some kind of tacit adherence to the understanding of good-behavior in that country and time. In former times in our part of the world everything went by Christian doctrines that fenced in people and their lives: "You're a good person if you do this or that, but not if you do something else." Everybody knew these doctrines as they were common knowledge and thus their guidelines in life. However, in the recent centuries much of that has been assailed by new teachings that disrupt the impression of a safe world to many, and many individuals of today hate it. Somehow the philanderer, the (presumably) pedophile, the rapist, the fraud, the bankrupt "billionaire", the snob, etc., etc. has come to represent the opposite of what he is. People feel that he is their safeguard against all kinds of social changes which they fear as e.g. the freedom of women, abortion, non-religion, racial acceptance, etc., etc.. The so-called American school system have prepared them for someone who are more words than genuine promises of a better world, and it's very, very sad.

 

https://www.playbytherules.net.au/about-pbtr 

 

https://www.thinkingbusinessblog.com/2018/08/09/play-by-the-rules-but-be-ferocious/ 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/trump-supporters-republican-approval-cnn-town-hall/674142/ 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/10/18/the-biden-harris-campaign-already-has-more-followers-on-truth-social-than-the-trump-campaign/?sh=29e793bd139e 

 

Wikipedia

 

torsdag den 7. december 2023

The Presumed Honor of Being Sacrificed

 

A well-known scenery for Christians and others who know of the Christian religion: Crucifixion was a severe punishment, and two of these men, hanging on a cross, were considered sinners, i.e. thieves and robbers, who (more or less) deserved to be punished by death. The execution of them had nothing to do with a sacrifice to a god or anyone else which means that it had no special symbolic value as it was nothing but society getting rid of them. Actually, that also was the purpose of the execution of the third man, but he was neither a thief nor a robber. He was executed as another kind of criminal, actually a sort of social rebel who had set out to turn society upside-down by changing many of the ideologies it was run by. However, the death sentence of him is double- or triple-layered as his execution on the cross not only was a punishment by those in power, but something much more. As the presumed son of "God", i.e. Yahweh, he is not only a victim being murdered for his ideas by his superiors, no, he is a godly sacrifice no less. Someone who has been chosen by the ultimate figure of power in society: "God". Most often that is seen as a great honor to the individual who is sacrificed although his/her death in itself may be squalid and cruel.

                                    Yahweh on a winged wheel

In many, if not all, religions one meets the concept of "sacrifices" to the deity. Normally, that means that some hapless human or animal is killed to honor god, but not by their own choice. As to Jesus, hanging there on the cross, he is not only sacrificed by his presumed godly father, but he also plays along by allowing himself to be killed as a sacrifice. Something which in a way renders his  death meaningless as he chooses to die with a belief in his resurrection. One might say that all of this drama is a weird sort of playacting to the gallery.

"La Doncella" from Llullaillaco didn't die to honor Yahweh, whom neither she nor her Inka countrymen had ever as much as heard of, but sacrificed she was at the age of 15 sometime around 1500. Hopefully, she either knew and accepted her fate or she had absolutely no idea of what was in store for her and the two other children that followed her on that fateful journey up on the mountaintop. She was extremely well-preserved and still has an aura of her inborn personality: This is a person who lost her life at a very young age because she was chosen by someone else who sacrificed her in the hope that the gods (whom I don't know) would endow her family and countrymen with the luck they may have felt that they had lost or needed to secure. 

  The mummies of the three Inka children who were sacrificed together 

To me the main point of a sacrifice is who found someone - human or animal - and decided that his/her death would bring him- or herself luck or happiness as it would please his/her gods. I understand a self-inflicted sacrifice because then you yourself chose to give you as a gift to the god you believe in. However, it totally escapes me how the same effect in a supposed act of "pleasing god" is secured by killing someone else and call it a "sacrifice" because the one who is killed didn't chose that kind of death: In that case there is no sacrifice, but only a murder. Even though it was considered a great honor to die as a sacrifice to the gods and these children were surrounded by rich gifts in form of gold, shell and silver statues, textiles and pottery that doesn't bring them back to life so that they themselves may - or may not - chose to sacrifice themselves, e.g. in some brave act that might save their society.

 

That becomes very obvious when we take a closer look at another one of the three children of Llullaillaco, i.e. "El Nino". The eldest of them, the 15 year old "La Doncella", was heavily drugged and seems to have died in her drug induced sleep which after all is a merciful death, but not so with "El Nino". He was an approximately four year old boy who must have fought desperately to save his life as he was severely injured. Several of his ribs were broken and his hip was dislocated. As to the cause of his death he seems to have been strangled by the clothes he was wearing. 


This poor child was tied up which in my opinion is an indication that his untimely death was an assault which he did not participate in willingly. One shouldn't let oneself be deluded by the holy term "sacrifice" no matter whom does the killing to honor what god. The legend of Jesus makes him out to have chosen to let himself get sacrificed as part of his teachings, but - as I said - his death is meaningless as he is supposed to get resurrected. 

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/130729-inca-mummy-maiden-sacrifice-coca-alcohol-drug-mountain-andes-children 

 

Wikipedia


søndag den 3. december 2023

Zana - The Exploited Ape-Woman


When one reads or hear of mermaids, trolls or supermen and -women one knows that one has crossed the threshold to the world of myths and fairy tales. As to well-known figures like e.g. Bigfoot then he/she exists for those who believe in the possibility of his/her existence although he/she appears to be more of a mythical than a realistic figure. The same goes for ghosts who, just like e.g. Bigfoot, may or may not exist as realities. One thing is for sure: The BELIEF in them is what keeps them "alive" in our mind.

However, there are individuals/persons/creatures who once were a living part of our world, but who still seem to be someone out of a fairy tale. One of these creatures is The Ape Woman Zana, whose life and very existence is difficult to get hold of. Tarzan was called "The Ape Man", but he was nothing but a literary character, whereas Zana was a living, breathing being in the world of humans. Her descendants have been investigated, e.g. with eleborate DNA-studies, and we still don't know what and who she was. The Russian merchant, Edgi Genaba, who allegedly found and caught her in the 1870s in the frozen wilderness between Georgia and Russia where she seems to have lived all her life up till then, must have seen her as some kind of animal who, not being human, had no rights to preserve her freedom. According to legend she lived by herself, all naked, and although people of the area knew of her they didn't talk with her. Apparently she was covered in thick red hair, and she was very strong and muscular. Besides, at 6 feet 6 inches she towered over the local residents. When they gave her clothes, she would have non of that, but simply shred them. Her captor, Edgi Genaba, let people come and gawk at her for money, and at some point she was raped by locals and got pregnant at least six times when drunk. As two of her six children died when she went to the river to wash them after giving birth none of the surviving four children were allowed to stay with her. At that point she had become an abused alcoholic who may not have been able to fend for herself or her children. However, with time she became an "unpaid servant" - or rather a slave - who was kept drugged by alcohol to do chores and serve as a sexual outlet for men. Thus, with her the word "abuse" attains a special sombre tone ....
 

By now many scientists think that she was either some kind of "yeti" (i.e. a "Bigfoot") or a surviving Neanderthal, but nobody seems to know for sure what she was. However, also her descendants were uncommonly strong and muscular, but apparently not as hairy as she was. The legend has it that one of her sons was so strong that he might lift a chair with someone sitting on it, just using his teeth. Also he - and maybe more of her descendants, seems to have had an extra bone in his neck as well as very large eyes. In my opinion he is quite handsome and not more "ape like" than many modern men of e.g. Eastern Europe.

Zana and her eldest, surviving son, Khwith
 
The children of Zana talked and more or less found their way in society. She, on the other hand, grew more and more alcoholic, and eventually she died after 20 years of captivity and abuse. As was to be expected science has taken her life and case up in many studies, but without any clear conclusion.

One of the granddaughters of Zana
 

 

tirsdag den 28. november 2023

Relating to A Corpse

 

All are alike in death? Naaahhh, some were buried outside of the ordinary churchyard for being "bad", poor or just not part of what was considered socially acceptable. Many, many people lived hard lives, toiling for very little and they were scorned by society as such for being powerless in a world in which money, family and relationships were the general keys to respect. There they are, eternal witnesses to the abuse they not only saw, but endured in what in the most cases were short lived lives. Were they loved? Yes, maybe by relatives who shared their lives, but in the most cases they were just forgotten.

 
Embalming surgeon at work on dead soldier (WWI)
 
That was not an option that was open to poor people, but a wealthy family may pay to have it done, maybe to have their son brought home from where he died. They felt that he still was who he had been when alive ans this was a way to keep him with them. Very understandable, but what if he had looked like this? 

I take it that this is the beheaded murder victim that is under investigation by FBI or the like. It obviously isn't a fresh corpse, so this dead person has lost some of his normal human looks. Actually, that is part of what baffles me when it comes to corpses and the way living persons relate to them. For the police this is somebody who lost his life in a non-natural manner and they are to find out what happened as that's their job. He is a CORPSE and as such he is dissolving, changing and thus losing his personality. However, to the people who loved him when he was alive he may still be that person although he has changed looks, smells, is dissolving for their very eyes, thus becoming more and more an object of disgust to others. After all, corpses both are - and are NOT - whom they were before death ....

A woman moving to another village takes with her the bones of her dead son. (Balkan Front, June 1916) 

To me this is a touching as well as very, very strange photo. OK, the bones she is carrying are of her dead son, but it takes some imagination to see the face of the living in the skull of a dead man. He sure isn't what he used to be so what makes her recognize him in these dried and fragile bones? Is it some kind of wishful thinking that some day they shall be together, both of them "arisen from the dead"? I shouldn't be surprised if that's how she feels, but still it takes some imagination to see the person she obviously loved in his remains. Actually, I don't think many of us would feel that way: We may love someone who died and worship them by visiting their graves, but I think that's the limit for most of us ....


http://crossbones.org.uk/history/

 

Wikipedia

 

 

 

tirsdag den 14. november 2023

Writers And Money

Being an author leads to many weird situations that involves the critical or just curious eye of people who might consider buying your work. Some of it we, the writers, do a lot to direct as we want it to be seen: Entertaining, ingenious or "something new to this planet". We go from our solitary workplace by the computer, struggling to give life to fictional characters and plots of our own making to go craving for some kind of publicity. Without publicity the book will still be there, but only for our own personal enjoyment and without the stamp of success: Sales that prove that we were right in calling this, our work, our bosom baby.  

A lot of people know that this makes us vulnerable to scams that tear into our finances, robbing us without giving us what we were told that we were buying: Publicity, contracts with good and legitimate publishers or, for instance, screen writers, etc., etc.. A lot of disappointments may be waiting for the hopeful writer and it's not fair to us or the trade as such.

However, the publicity part of the game may be less burdensome moneywise if we involve ourselves in certain measures that we perform ourselves: 

1. I don't believe in listing people who might review our books for free, using emails to incite them to buy the book. To me that's looking unfair to those we approach as writers. However, honest reviews on platforms like e.g. Amazon and Goodreads are a wonderful boost to the sale process. Some writers may build a business partnership with other authors for cross-promotions or guest posts on each other's blogs.

2. Attend book conventions: OK, but that's not cheap. I's been invited to two conventions in Europe, but did not feel tempted to attend ....

3. a) Be a blogger or b) get someone who has a blog to read and review your book.

4. One may utilize platforms like e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to engage with readers. Maybe that strategy may even lead to the building of a community of followers, but that may be pushing one's luck too far ....

5. Some writers participate in book club discussions of various art. 

And what have I done up till now? Not much, even though I, who have a long list of self published works, ought to do something about the actual promotion of my works. Well, sometimes I do sell something, but I wouldn't be able to make a living by writing books which also goes for many other authors: This is not an industry for most of the people who are out to get riches. Some do, but not most of us ....



mandag den 13. november 2023

"Crooked Joe" or "Crooked And Culpable" Donald?


Is President Biden a disaster in his job, is he "Crooked" as Eks-president Trump calls him? No, neither the one nor the other, he is toiling along as best he can, but he is not showy: No extreme utterings, no blatant threats or insane plans for the future like his adversary.


To be "showy" like Trump doesn't turn anybody into "Hitlers", but words count, and he has said a lot of things that's beneath the allowable in normal conversations of normal people and it should be remembered. However, somehow it seems that he is mimicking Hitler by uttering plans and ideologies that means abuse of power, cruelty to innocent people, etc., etc. and his followers don't hear what he is saying just like many Germans in the 1930s-1940s. To talk about "freeing Germany of Jews" was said over and over, but seemingly these utterances weren't taken at face value. The speeches were just words to many and they might not have been able to envisage the possibility of coming to see them being turned into realities.


Who would have thought that USA would have had a president that might get accused of any of these felonies or childish (???) traits? America had dignity, but sadly enough it seems gone with this blatant blemish on the list of presidents. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-used-to-keep-a-book-of-hitler-s-speeches-by-his-bed-according-to-his-exwife-a6765391.html?utm_source=reddit.com 


lørdag den 11. november 2023

The Political (Ab-)Use of Religion


 

Well put - and that was even before Christianity won the game of becoming the very best and extremely useful tool for those in power. 

As we know it also works very well for those who are seeking power, like e.g. Donald Trump who all of a sudden is flaunting Christian beliefs he has never before exhibited any trust in. Smart? Yes, up to a point, but that trick only works in certain contexts and societies ....

I didn't know that about Thomas Paine, but I fully agree, especially in one aspect of the quote: Those who preach religious doctrines may not have chosen to do so in order to suppress others, but those doctrines - which they may or may not have believed in themselves - always have served that purpose. It's smart to team up with the ultimate authority which many see as the deity we in The West inherited from The Middle East: Yahwe. Up till now this planet has seen c. 4000-6000 "gods" (that we know of as there may be many more!!!), but somehow we, who are not desert people like the Jews, decided that the legend of the former war god, Yahwe, was the one we would adhere to. Former times worshipped other gods:


I find that extremely interesting historically and philosophically, but very, very Christian people hate to see this. For instance, many/most don't seem to understand that the so-called "Mother Goddess" was GOD and not only the consort of some male god.  


When politicians nowadays claim being "God's people" who "speak for God" I find that both preposterous, hypocritical and sacrilegious. To be a proclaimed Christian isn't the same as being the authorized mouthpiece of the god they say they are serving. I've always felt - and said - that Americans have a way of confusing their god with Santa and that goes for most of these so-called American, Christian politicians. 

 

fredag den 27. oktober 2023

Should Teachings About Paradise Be Changed?

Relatives of dead people often talk of their sorrow as something that their own death will remedy: They are looking forward to meeting the deceased in an afterlife in "Paradise"/"Eden". When I see interviews with these people I feel sorry for their loss, but also for their - in my opinion - false hope of being reunified with the lost ones. To believe something like that one must have a faith in eternal life that makes it plausible. The same people who believes this also are dreaming of a resurrection like the one they think Jesus had. All of it dreams and hopes of millions of people that keep them in place, so to speak: Flimsy hopes turn into the glue that keep the structures of society together and makes genuine social changes difficult or even impossible.

As to the Paradise that is supposed to give the souls of the dead a new habitat then it's nothing less than "the garden of God (or Eden)", and, what's more, it didn't start out as something up in the sky, but was "down to earth", so to speak: "The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia." (Wikipedia) I've never heard of anybody finding the geographical area of Paradise, but I'm sure many have been looking for it, both as an area on this planet and as a metaphysical picture of eternal bliss. However, when the war god, Yahwe, became the main - and solar - deity he and his godly garden were set in the sky. To me that signals a mind-over-matter fight of some kind which may have its roots in the ideological battle of female and male deities. The idea of the omnipotent "Sky Daddy" was born and has been with us ever since, just like the belief in a heavenly "garden of god". 

To hear bereaved relatives talk about their belief in future meetings with those they lost to Death is difficult when you are not a believer. You don't believe in the Biblical Paradise, the afterlife nor in the chance of these people ever coming to see their lost ones again. Actually this should be what was taught in school - or taught in another manner. The teachers should go from telling tales of never proven, and extremely unsubstantial Biblical myths to telling the truth about their historical changes through the ages of human life. Or they should never tell these tales of Biblical events and characters without adding the word "myth" - and that goes for ALL tales of a Biblical nature ....

 

Wikipedia

 

tirsdag den 24. oktober 2023

Body Bizarre

 

I take for granted that this man is very proud of his "adornments" which I find hideous. Maybe this is a "Each to one's own taste"-case as there aren't any fixed rules when it comes to looks? Well, I think there are natural, i.e. in-born expectations to the looks of humans and these expectations constitute our concept of "beauty".

The body of this young lady will be considered "perfect" in Western countries of 2023, but some will mourn her tatooes and see them as disfiguring. Well, I for one don't like tats which in my opinion all too often turn into something that look like patches of dirt. They may be political or maybe even religious statements and I suppose that they as such should be respected, but I shall never see them as adornments.

The tatooes and needles of the persons above were chosen by the users, but what about those weird body deformities that were not chosen, but which in many ways come to represent the personality of the individual? A human, born as e.g. a midget, is something more than an uncommonly small person, but still that's what he/she is seen as: A midget is a midget. But what if one looks at a well-known midget like e.g. Henri Toulouse Lautrec? What describes the best the best? Is he first and foremost an artist or a midget to most people? Or put it in another way: Is he more of a midget than of an artist?

Small he was, but as an artist he was large and no one can deny it although they may not like his harsh paintings of "The Merry Life" of Paris, the prostitutes, alcoholics, etc..

He didn't live by his disabilities, but some did, like e.g. the twin girls that were born by the unmarried and poor, English woman, Kate Skinner in 1908. Maybe she never intended to keep them even if they had been perfect as she, being unmarried, might have known that she couldn't take the financial responsibility of their upkeep. Well, actually she ended up earning money by selling the twins to a woman who exhibited them as what they were considered at that time: Monsters or Freaks. These children were innocent victims of the early 1900-ideas about valid human looks. Being conjoined they were not accepted as anything but "bizarre" or "inhuman".

The woman who bought them was Mary Hilton whom they were to call "auntie" and they are known by her surname of Hilton: Daisy and Violet Hilton. As such they were taken on tours, just exhibiting their "weirdness" or performing in some way. It's a sad fact that they referred to this "auntie" and her daughter as their Owners. Something like that didn't interest the audience because the only thing they saw was their looks. However, in their life time they went from "sideshow performers" and "vaudevillians" to "film actresses" as they came to appear in some movies, "Freaks" and "Chained for Life". Something which just were another way of keeping them in their assigned rôle of side show freaks.

Both of them married, but whereas the marriage of Violet lasted for 10 years, the one of Daisy lasted 10 days.

Defined by their looks ever since their birth they never really left the "freak"-life that was assigned to them by those who paid to look at them. To me that's the real freakishness of the matter ....

  

https://www.healthline.com/health/pycnodysostosis

 

https://wellcomecollection.org/works/sctkmtb4 

 

Wikipedia

 

 

lørdag den 21. oktober 2023

The Shady Publishers of Today

When I started publishing, i.e. in my native tongue of Danish, I took for granted that the publishers that I approached - or who approached me -  were what one might call "reputable". To me that meant that they were of a standard that made publishing with them a kind of "stamp of approval" which guaranteed that my book was worthwhile for buyers and readers: It was QUALITY and should be recognized as such as it presumably had been through a validation process by what was considered expert editors. On top of that the publishers were supposed to make an effort to make the book sell by PR via ads in newspapers, magazines, etc..

A book was always physical, hardcover or not, and it was sold at good, reputable bookstores, it had reviews, etc., etc.. There might have been "scammers" even then and some publishers were anything but reputable, but that wasn't a grave problem as one simply kept away from these "bad eggs" of the business. 

Now, the process of publishing and the obligations of the publishers have changed in so many ways that it's hard to keep track of what's going on. First of all, an agent has become a necessity because most of those so-called reputable publishers will not accept a script from the author without one. I suppose this trust in agents is a remnant of the old validation system by the editors of the individual publishers, but how trustworthy is this agent-based recommendation? Contrary to the old system with presumably non-biased editors who were engaged by the publishing houses each of these agents works for themselves and their clients. I take for granted that big publishing houses still have editors who may - or may not - have an eye for what's good enough to be published by them, but if that's the case why then not skip the agents and negotiate directly with the writers?   

Our days' market of books have moved in several directions and I must say I have a nostalgic longing for the old hard cover books, but at the same time I acknowledge that they seem to be vanishing as they have lost out to the electronics of today. However, this has given writers new possibilities of publishing that I too have enjoyed. As far as I can see the only problem with self-publishing e-books, as I've done on several occasions, is the lack of a "stamp of recognition" by agents, editors, etc.: The public may not take the author's words for it that these books are worthwhile.

OK, now the situation is changing rapidly and it's difficult to find one's way in the publishing swamp of today, but right now I feel that we as writers should not go exclusively after the by now more or less out-dated agent-publisher-system. Presumably it offered safe publishing, guaranteeing one's royalties, PR, etc., and when it worked it was nice for the author, but is it realistic to expect now? Also, much of what kept this system going was a kind of snobbery that I, not being a snob, find unpleasant as well as illusory. Actually, writers chasing the high-class, so-called reputable publishers have exposed them as the genuine "vanity press" of the market ....

There must be a way to take advantage of some of those publishers who set out to scam or even abuse us by not fulfilling the obligations they use to lure us in with. To read about some of them one would think they were angels sent to protect and lead writers to fame and fortunes beyond belief and, sorry to say so, they are not. No, they keep one hanging with fees, the necessary PR, keeping tracks of royalties, etc., etc.. Also they have a way of robbing one of one's copy right, but, as far as I know, it's possible to regain it by changing the ISBN No. Besides I'm sure that traffic goes with the reputable ones as well. 

Scammers are scammers, gloating in their frauds, but still, one may get them to publish one's books and there should be a way based on the law to make them keep their promises. We need law makers who will set up rules that mow out the worst sharks among them. Everybody may publish, but it's obvious that what used to be free, is changing into something one might call more or less disguised "fees-based". In any case, to hook up with any of these well-known shady publishers is dangerous business, but these days the borders between them and the reputable ones have become quite blurred. 

Right now, as I'm preparing the publishing of some new books I've made a very tentative approach to one of the shady ones, simply to sound it out. I may go through with it, but only if I keep my copyright ....

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2023/10/publishing-modern-way.html 

 

mandag den 16. oktober 2023

Publishing The Modern Way

I'm not into making drawings or paintings myself, but still, I did make this quite nice picture which may end up as an illustration for one of the children books I'm working on at the moment. How is that possible when I haven't even attended art school? Well, with the new tool Al many things that weren't possible now are becoming everyday events. Atthe moment I'm not able to explain what Al is, but still I use it for pictures. Being a writer who enjoys the process of writing I may  also try my hand at Al-writing and publishing, but that's not my first priority: I write, thus I'm a WRITER, should I use Al for writing I would feel that I lost my right to identify as a writer. However, I'm not blind to the fact that modern times also mean modern measures, and Al seems to have come to stay with us, writers or not.

Writing may be a job like other jobs or it may be something more personal. To me it definitely is personal, although I feel more for some of my writings than for others. In that respect one might say that I'm like a mother with favorite children.

When I approached AuthorHouse and ended up publishing four books with them I had no idea of their somewhat shady reputation as a "vanity publishing firm". Would the knowledge of this have stopped me from choosing them as my publisher? No, I wanted to steer the wheel so to speak as these four books weren't in my native tongue, Danish, but in English, and I didn't have the connections In England as I had in Denmark. Did I get to steer the wheel? Both yes and NO.

The books themselves were all right as to looks, but not in an outstanding manner. That didn't worry me as I was more interested in the fact that I had had them published than in their looks. However, there was one thing I resented, i.e. that some people stressed the point that AuthorHouse was called a "Vanity publishing house" because the authors who published with them were supposed to publish out of vanity paying for their services. The old kind of publishers, which I knew from Denmark and the books I had published there, paid me, not the other way around. That, in itself, was seen as a sort of hallmark of quality, classifying the individual books as good and worth while for the reader, not "mere pulp fiction".

To publish something like this - which I did - exhibits just as much "vanity" as publishing something with a so-called "vanity publisher" like e.g. "AuthorHouse". I may prefer the order of a main stream publisher, but that's all the difference of these publishers is to me.

Published with LULU 

It has been said that the difference of publishing with "Vanity Publishers" or start self-publishing as I did with LULU and SAXO is that one keeps one's rights to the works: The copyright. I'm not sure that goes for all self-publishing companies, but one do keep the control of the book in other ways. However, that also means that one has to do all the PR work oneself which isn't as easy as one might wish for. However, when I shall publish my next book - and that's what I'm planning to do some months from now - I shall think carefully of the choices I see now: Self-publishing with e.g. KDP, LULU or SAXO? Or should I venture into the swamp of the so-called "Vanity publishing" once more? 

I've read the warnings of the diligent and very, very knowledgeable Victoria Strauss on her "Writer Beware"-blog, and it was made clear to me that "Vanity presses" and the like are dangerous dancing partners. Many/Most (???) of them only focus on their chances of bleeding the author and forget all obligations toward him or her. In my opinion that doesn't mean that we should give up on them here and now. Knowing what they do and how they are there must be a way to keep the steering wheel and co-operate with them for those who find all other ways to publish overwhelming. What is needed is a sort of acceptable "Deal with the Devil". Had it been easier to find good agents and reputable mainstream publishers I would never have thought of "making deals with the Devil", but the situation being what it is I'm rethinking our possibilities as writers.