It's starting to feel like this actually did hit HNQ, instead of just being linked from an HNQ. (And the comment is still voted higher than the question.)
Also, @Randal'Thor, Announcer worked, but the others didn't, otherwise I would have gotten a gold badge by now.
@Randal'Thor I got Announcer from linking to the Hobbes question with my link. My question has has 2700 views (I got the Popular/Notable badges only after it was linked). I didn't receive the Booster or Publicist badges.
This is not a bug.
Yes, your link won't count if people clicking on it are coming from a Stack Exchange site. But the only way for Stack Exchange to detect this is by looking at the Referer (sic) header that a browser sends with the request. But because some people feel that that header reveals ...
Announcing Unpaywall: unlocking #openaccess versions of paywalled research articles as you browse http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/04/04/announcing-unpaywall-unlocking-openaccess-versions-of-paywalled-research-articles-as-you-browse/
@doppelgreener ...so you're saying I'm a Shokh puppet?
@Shokhet I found one short story! 3 pages long. But I would appreciate if you still could ask a room owner, I will read more soon again and would appreciate recommendations from other users. Thanks — E.Bob9 mins ago
So...could a room owner (@BESW, @Randal'Thor) grant E.Bob access to the room?
@E.Bob Hello! This is the Reading Room, main site chatroom for Literature SE. Feel free to drop in here and ask for book recommendations - there are plenty of well-read folk around who I'm sure will be happy to help :-)
This resource on 'Ode to a Nightingale' by Keats says that the word "still" in stanza 6 ("Still wouldst thou sing") might have more than one meaning. However, I can't see it meaning anything beyond 'You would continue to sing'. Could there really by another viable interpretation?
Just wanted to let people know that Mythology is taking question on Blake's pantheon. (Might provide a different perspective from English Lit scholars)
@VicAche Why add [allusions]? The wiki excerpt says "Use this tag when asking for sources of a reference in books," which is not something that this question is doing. — Shokhet19 secs ago
...should I just remove the tag, or has the usage of allusions evolved beyond the wiki excerpt?
@Shokhet @Randal'Thor I'm starting to think that the solutions to tags like allusions and symbolism is to just not have these tags at all. Are there really experts in [symbolism]?
I'm fifteen years old and want to start reading either King or David. A few books of King's I'd like to read are It, 11/22/63, The Shining and Carrie. Baldacci's would be the King and Maxwell series or the Camel Club series. Will I not understand any of these authors' books? Heartfelt suggestions...
@VicAche ...the question had nothing to do with allusions, though. It had to do with meaning.
Even if your answer used the word "allusion," that doesn't define what the question is about
@Hamlet 1) There could be experts in [symbolism], I dunno 2) Is "are there really experts" the test that determines whether or not there should be a tag (not arguing, just wondering) 3) what do you think about meaning (I assume the same)
@Shokhet yeah, the tags are a little weird to me. just because a question is asking if a work makes a particular allusion, doesn't mean the question needs to be tagged with allusions
@Hamlet I think these kinds of tags are useful. As well as dividing literature into specific authors and works, things like symbolism and character-analysis define specific types of questions which can be asked about literary works.
Questions about symbolism, or questions about character analysis, form reasonably clearly defined subsets of all literary questions, which are worth demarcating with tags IMO.
I read this book some years ago, probably around 2010, though it was definitely older than that. It had a fairly short and simple title, of the kind one might expect to find on a fairy tale: "The Lost World" or "The Princess's Journey" or something in that vein. I thought it might have been writt...
I'd love to see more ergodic texts for adults that don't feel like they have to be complex mindtwisting masterpieces in order to overcome the sense that ergodicity is for kids.
(Pat the Bunny always made me a little uneasy; it felt far too much like an invasion of the bunny's personal space.)
For kids, it's often about learning manual tasks and/or about keeping them engaged. So we apply that concept to all ergodic texts unless they're super obviously not for kids at all.
Kinda like how it took Maus and Sin City and Harvey Pekar to expand the range of themes the American public might think of graphic novels as being capable of handling.
It's a picture book about a suicidally depressed detective and his partner who is a talking teabag (we are reasonably sure Brülightly is not actually talking and it is just Britten's cracking mind at work).