The planter took it personally and sent his [relations] and ordered them to nail up the doors and windows of all the churches in which Kay preached. Originally condescension was supposed to be a polite way of showing respect those who were socially inferior to you; our modern use of the term probably says a lot about what Virginians actually did with it. In a lot of ways, Virginia was the opposite of Massachusetts. Their homicide rate was sky-high, and people were actively encouraged to respond to slights against their honor with duels for the rich and violence for the poor.
Their cuisine focused on gigantic sumptuous feasts of animals killed in horrible ways. There were no witchcraft trials, but there were people who were fined for disrupting the peace by accusing their neighbors of witchcraft. Their church sermons were twenty minutes long on the dot. The Puritans naturally thought of the Virginians as completely lawless reprobate sinners, but this is not entirely true. Virginian church sermons might have been twenty minutes long, but Virginian ballroom dance lessons could last nine hours. They would encourage and reward children for being loud and temperamental, on the grounds that this indicated a strong personality and having a strong personality was fitting of a noble.
When this worked, it worked really well — witness natural leaders and self-driven polymaths like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. More often it failed catastrophically — the rate of sex predation and rape in Virginia was at least as high as anywhere else in North America.
The Virginian Cavaliers had an obsession with liberty, but needless to say it was not exactly a sort of liberty of which the ACLU would approve. I once heard someone argue against libertarians like so: even if the government did not infringe on liberties, we would still be unfree for other reasons.
If we had to work, we would be subject to the whim of bosses. The Virginians took this idea and ran with it — in the wrong direction. Needless to say, this conception of freedom required first indentured servitude and later slavery to make it work, but the Virginians never claimed that the servants or slaves were free. Freedom, like wealth, was properly distributed according to rank; nobles had as much as they wanted, the middle-class enough to get by on, and everyone else none at all.
And a Virginian noble would have gone to his grave insisting that a civilization without slavery could never have citizens who were truly free. C : The Quakers. Where the Puritans seem like a dystopian caricature of virtue and the Cavaliers like a dystopian caricature of vice, the Quakers just seem ordinary. He believed people were basically good and had an Inner Light that connected them directly to God without a need for priesthood, ritual, Bible study, or self-denial; mostly people just needed to listen to their consciences and be nice.
And since the Quakers were among the most persecuted sects at the time, they developed an insistence on tolerance and freedom of religion which unlike the Puritans they stuck to even when shifting fortunes put them on top. They believed in pacificism, equality of the sexes, racial harmony, and a bunch of other things which seem pretty hippy-ish even today let alone in Born to the nobility, Penn distinguished himself early on as a military officer; he was known for beating legendary duelists in single combat and then sparing their lives with sermons about how murder was wrong.
He gradually started having mystical visions, quit the military, and converted to Quakerism. Upon his release the King liked him so much that he gave him a large chunk of the Eastern United States on a flimsy pretext of repaying a family debt. His recruits — about 20, people in total — were Quakers from the north of England, many of them minor merchants and traders. They disproportionately included the Britons of Norse descent common in that region, who formed a separate stratum and had never really gotten along with the rest of the British population.
They were joined by several German sects close enough to Quakers that they felt at home there; these became the ancestors of among other groups the Pennsylvania Dutch, Amish, and Mennonites. In a gang of pirates stole a ship in Philadelphia and went up and down the Delaware River stealing and plundering.
The Quakers got in a heated but brotherly debate about whether it was morally permissible to use violence to stop them. When the government finally decided to take action, contrarian minister George Keith dissented and caused a major schism in the faith. Fischer argues that the Quaker ban on military activity within their territory would have doomed them in most other American regions, but by extreme good luck the Indians in the Delaware Valley were almost as peaceful as the Quakers.
As usual, at least some credit goes to William Penn, who taught himself Algonquin so he could negotiate with the Indians in their own language. But they were such prudes about sex that even the Puritans thought they went too far. Quakers had surprisingly modern ideas about parenting, basically sheltering and spoiling their children at a time when everyone else was trying whip the Devil out of them.
He broke in upon them like an avenging angel, stopped the dance, anddemanded to know if they considered Martin Luther to be a good man. The astonished youngsters answered in the affirmative. William Penn wrote about thirty books defending liberty of conscience throughout his life. The Quaker obsession with the individual conscience as the work of God helped invent the modern idea of conscientious objection. Quakers were heavily and uniquely for their period opposed to animal cruelty.
When foreigners introduced bullbaiting into Philadelphia during the s, the mayor bought a ticket supposedly as a spectator. When the event was about to begin, he leapt into the ring, personally set the bull free, and threatened to arrest anybody who stopped him. On the other hand, they were also opposed to other sports for what seem like kind of random reasons.
The Pennsylvania Quakers became very prosperous merchants and traders. They also had a policy of loaning money at low- or zero- interest to other Quakers, which let them outcompete other, less religious businesspeople. They were among the first to replace the set of bows, grovels, nods, meaningful looks, and other British customs of acknowledging rank upon greeting with a single rank-neutral equivalent — the handshake.
Pennsylvania was one of the first polities in the western world to abolish the death penalty. The Quakers were lukewarm on education, believing that too much schooling obscured the natural Inner Light. Pennsylvania was very successful for a while; it had some of the richest farmland in the colonies, and the Quakers were exceptional merchants and traders; so much so that they were forgiven their military non-intervention during the Revolution because of their role keeping the American economy afloat in the face of British sanctions.
But by , the Quakers were kind of on their way out; by , they were a demographic minority in Pennsylvania, and by they were a minority in its legislature as well. In Quakerism was the third-largest religion in the US; by it was the ninth-largest, and by it was the sixty-sixth largest. What happened? The Quakers basically tolerated themselves out of existence. They were so welcoming to religious minorities and immigrants that all these groups took up shop in Pennsylvania and ended its status as a uniquely Quaker society.
The most famous Pennsylvanian statesman of the Revolutionary era, Benjamin Franklin, was not a Quaker at all but a first-generation immigrant from New England. Finally, Quakerism was naturally extra-susceptible to that thing where Christian denominations become indistinguishable from liberal modernity and fade into the secular background. But Fischer argues that Quakerism continued to shape Pennsylvania long after it had stopped being officially in charge, in much the same way that Englishmen themselves have contributed disproportionately to American institutions even though they are now a numerical minority.
The Pennsylvanian leadership on abolitionism, penal reform, the death penalty, and so on all happened after the colony was officially no longer Quaker-dominated. In the middle of the Puritans demanding strict obedience to their dystopian hive society and the Cavaliers demanding everybody bow down to a transplanted nobility, the Pennsylvanians — who became the thought leaders of the Mid-Atlantic region including to a limited degree New York City — were pretty normal and had a good opportunity to serve as power-brokers and middlemen between the North and South.
Although there are seeds of traditionally American ideas in every region, the Quakers really stand out in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of thought, checks and balances, and the idea of universal equality. It occurs to me that William Penn might be literally the single most successful person in history. He started out as a minor noble following a religious sect that everybody despised and managed to export its principles to Pennsylvania where they flourished and multiplied. Pennsylvania then managed to export its principles to the United States, and the United States exported them to the world.
D : The Borderers. None of this makes sense without realizing that the Scottish-English border was terrible. In response to these pressures, the border people militarized and stayed feudal long past the point where the rest of the island had started modernizing. Life consisted of farming the lands of whichever brutal warlord had the top hand today, followed by being called to fight for him on short notice, followed by a grisly death. The border people dealt with it as best they could, and developed a culture marked by extreme levels of clannishness, xenophobia, drunkenness, stubbornness, and violence.
By the end of the s, the Scottish and English royal bloodlines had intermingled and the two countries were drifting closer and closer to Union. The English kings finally got some breathing room and noticed — holy frick, everything about the border is terrible. Sometimes absentee landlords would just evict everyone who lived in an entire region, en masse , replacing them with people they expected to be easier to control. Many of the Borderers fled to Ulster in Ireland, which England was working on colonizing as a Protestant bulwark against the Irish Catholics, and where the Crown welcomed violent warlike people as a useful addition to their Irish-Catholic-fighting project.
But Ulster had some of the same problems as the Border, and also the Ulsterites started worrying that the Borderer cure was worse than the Irish Catholic disease. So the Borderers started getting kicked out of Ulster too, one thing led to another, and eventually , of these people ended up in America. By contrast, the great Puritan emigration wave was only 20, or so people; even the mighty colony of Virginia only had about 50, original settlers.
Except, of course, the Quakers. The Quakers talked among themselves and decided that these people were also Children Of God, and so they should demonstrate Brotherly Love by taking them in. At the time, the Appalachians were kind of the booby prize of American colonization: hard to farm, hard to travel through, and exposed to hostile Indians. The Borderers fell in love with them. They came from a pretty marginal and unproductive territory themselves, and the Appalachians were far away from everybody and full of fun Indians to fight.
Soon the Appalachian strategy became the accepted response to Borderer immigration and was taken up from Pennsylvania in the north to the Carolinas in the South a few New Englanders hit on a similar idea and sent their own Borderers to colonize the mountains of New Hampshire. So the Borderers all went to Appalachia and established their own little rural clans there and nothing at all went wrong except for the entire rest of American history.
Some Borderers tried to come to America as indentured servants, but after Virginian planters got some experience with Borderers they refused to accept any more. The Borderers were mostly Presbyterians, and their arrival en masse started a race among the established American denominations to convert them. Borderer town-naming policy was very different from the Biblical names of the Puritans or the Ye Olde English names of the Virginians.
The overall aesthetic honestly sounds a bit Orcish. One of the first Borderer leaders was John Houston. On the ship over to America, the crew tried to steal some of his possessions; Houston retaliated by leading a mutiny of the passengers, stealing the ship, and sailing it to America himself. The great family feuds of the United States, like the Hatfield-McCoy feud, are a direct descendent of this tradition. This led to the modern stereotype of Appalachians as inbred and incestuous. Although the Borderers started off Presbyterian, they were in constant religious churn and their territories were full of revivals, camp meetings, born-again evangelicalism, and itinerant preachers.
Eventually most of them ended up as what we now call Southern Baptist. Also, blacksmiths protected themselves from witches by occasionally throwing live puppies into their furnaces. Other beverages were regarded with contempt. Other traditional backcountry sports were sharpshooting and hunting. The justice system of the backcountry was heavy on lynching, originally a race-neutral practice and named after western Virginian settler William Lynch. This may be the origin of the popular slur against Americans of Borderer descent, although many other etiologies have been proposed.
Andrew Jackson became the first Borderer president, behaving exactly as you would expect the first Borderer president to behave, and he was followed by almost a dozen others. The Borderers really liked America — unsurprising given where they came from — and started identifying as American earlier and more fiercely than any of the other settlers who had come before. They also also played a disproportionate role in westward expansion. It was the Borderers who were happiest going off into the wilderness and fighting Indians, and most of the famous frontiersmen like Davy Crockett were of their number.
This was a big part of the reason the Wild West was so wild compared to, say, Minnesota also a frontier inhabited by lots of Indians, but settled by Northerners and Germans and why it inherited seemingly Gaelic traditions like cattle rustling. This is all interesting as history and doubly interesting as anthropology, but what relevance does it have for later American history and the present day?
Such a merge would combine the Puritan emphasis on moral reform, education, and a well-ordered society with the Quaker doctrine of niceness, tolerance, religious pluralism, individual conscience, and the Inner Light. In particular, how were places like Alabama, Mississippi, et cetera settled?
In particular, why are they so Southern Baptist and not very Anglican? And what happened to all of those indentured servants the Cavaliers brought over after slavery put them out of business? What happened to that whole culture after the Civil War destroyed the plantation system? This is a map of voting patterns by county in the Presidential election. The ones in the Midwest are mostly big cities. Aside from those, the only people who vote Democrat are New England very solidly! In fact, you can easily see the distinction between the Delaware Valley settled by Quakers in the east, and the backcountry area settled by Borderers in the west.
One anomaly in this story is a kind of linear distribution of blue across southern Michigan, too big to be explained solely by the blacks of Detroit. In the s and s migrants from New England began moving to what is now Michigan in large numbers though there was a trickle of New England settlers who arrived before this date. Due to the prevalence of New Englanders and New England transplants from upstate New York, Michigan was very culturally contiguous with early New England culture for much of its early history…The amount with which the New England Yankee population predominated made Michigan unique among frontier states in the antebellum period.
Due to this heritage Michigan was on the forefront of the antislavery crusade and reforms during the s and s. We see a strong focus on the Appalachian Mountains, especially West Virginia, Tennesee, and Kentucky, bleeding into the rest of the South. Aside from west Pennsylvania, this is very close to where we would expect to find the Borderers.
Could these be the same groups? Meanwhile, here is a map of where Obama underperformed the usual Democratic vote worst in These maps are small and lossy, and surely unhyphenatedness is not an exact proxy for Border ancestry — but they are nevertheless intriguing. Maybe I should. But I also think we can posit complicated interactions between these ideas. Consider for example the interaction between race and class; a black person with a white-sounding name, who speaks with a white-sounding accent, and who adopts white culture eg listens to classical music, wears business suits is far more likely to seem upper-class than a black person with a black-sounding name, a black accent, and black cultural preferences; a white person who seems black in some way listens to hip-hop, wears baggy clothes is more likely to seem lower-class.
I think something similar is probably going on with these forms of ancestry. The education system is probably dominated by descendents of New Englanders and Pennsylvanians; they had an opportunity to influence the culture of academia and the educated classes more generally, they took it, and now anybody of any background who makes it into that world is going to be socialized according to their rules.
Likewise, people in poorer and more rural environments will be surrounded by people of Borderer ancestry and acculturated by Borderer cultural products and end up a little more like that group. As a result, ethnic markers have turned into and merged with class markers in complicated ways. Indeed, some kind of acculturation process has to have been going on, since most of the people in these areas today are not the descendents of the original settlers.
But such a process seems very likely. Just to take an example, most of the Jews I know including my own family came into the country via New York, live somewhere on the coast, and have very Blue Tribe values. And Barry Goldwater , a half-Jew raised in Arizona, invented the modern version of conservativism that seems closest to some Borderer beliefs. All of this is very speculative, with some obvious flaws. What do we make of other countries like Britain or Germany with superficially similar splits but very different histories? Why should Puritans lose their religion and sexual prudery, but keep their interest in moralistic reform?
There are whole heaps of questions like these. But look. Meanwhile, now I learn that the North was settled by two groups that when combined have emphasis on education, interest in moral reforms, racial tolerance, low teenage pregnancy, an academic and mercantile history, and were the heartland of the historical Whigs and Republicans who preceded the modern Democratic Party.
And I wrote about another stratum centered in the South marked by poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high teenage pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, country western music, and support for the Republican Party. And now I learn that the South was settled by a group noted even in the s for its poor education, gun culture, culture of violence, xenophobia, high premarital pregnancy, militarism, patriotism, accent exactly like the modern country western accent, and support for the Democratic-Republicans who preceded the modern Republican Party.
If this is true, I think it paints a very pessimistic world-view. We grudgingly acknowledge these features when we admit that maybe making the Middle East exactly like America in every way is more of a long-term project than something that will happen as soon as we kick out the latest dictator and get treated as liberators. Part of us may still want to believe that pure reason is the universal solvent, that those Afghans will come around once they realize that being a secular liberal democracy is obviously great.
This has led to reasonable speculation that some aspects of it might even be genetic — something which would explain a lot, though not its ability to acculturate recent arrivals. But it becomes doubly unpleasant when we think about it in the sense of our neighbors and fellow citizens in a modern democracy. What, after all, is the point? Just two groups competing to dominate one another, with the fact that the competition is peaceful being at best a consolation prize. Push it under the rug? Start researching genetic engineering? Maybe secede?
No way. Zakharov for President! Domai will just outpopulate and out-produce everyone anyway. Just pop-boom with him, play coy while you do so, and win. I just happened to be playing it this weekend; found a version on GOG that easily installs and runs on my Win7 machine. SMAC is still one of my all-time favorite computer games, precisely because the factions really feel so different vs. The tenth amendment says powers not delegated to the national government go to the states or people.
Radical decentralization is constitutional, radical centralization is not but has happened despite that minor setback. Doctor Mist: That meaning arguably goes back to the emergence of the Federal form in contrast to the original Confederation. For all the efforts to limit it enumerated powers, Bill of Rights, separation of powers, etc. Certainly the Federalists were accused sometimes with reason with wanting as big, powerful, and controlling a federal government as they could contrive, for as long as they were a going concern. A bunch of little countries committed to common defense, with a single shared currency and freedom of movement between them.
In other words pretty similar to the EU, down to the point that the federal government was mostly unelected with senators and presidential electors chosen directly by state legislatures. Rather than having to fight out every cultural issue on the national level, the two can agree to disagree and maintain independent state cultures which better match their ethnic preferences. There was an amazing amount of legal and social effort to try to make that split remain functional while it lasted. And the problem of irreconcilable conflict has gotten worse. In the case of the US civil war, the differences could not be reconciled in part because southern states expected their laws concerning slavery to be upheld when slaves fled to free states, and people in free states were not willing to uphold those laws.
One can draw an obvious comparison to gun rights vs. Another big factor in the US civil war was free trade vs. One can draw a lot of comparisons to the modern situation in terms of the free trade situation being basically reversed, and also the different views on immigration. Your examples — prostitution, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana — are probably some of the least pressing differences between blue tribe and red tribe.
I agree those are mostly no big deal though legalization of marijuana would have some similarities to the situations with gun control and slavery. I would argue that of those issues only gay marriage is a Blue rallying point. And look at what happens when minor Reds off in backwoods Redland oppose that position — see Kim Davis and the cake debacle. The fact that they disagree is the only reason it was ever a major national issue.
We were very close to getting a whole different law there, though, where anyone living together with a partner of any gender would receive the right tax benefits etc.
Book Review: Albion’s Seed
Then in ! This, however, had an interesting result: now that same-sex marriage was officially exactly like any other marriage, this also meant gay people had the right to a church wedding. That said, you have a good point. The US government gradually took on more and more powers between its founding and the Civil War, which made it a critical cultural battleground. It might not be possible to set up a stable system where neither side feels threatened by the existence of the other while remaining in the same country.
Or at least it might end up looking more like the Ottoman Millet system than American federalism. Then again the Swiss seem to have done an alright job at it. I meant, due to greater interconnectivity, there are now many conflicts which once might be contained in the past, but in the near future may rise to becoming irreconcilable. For example, right now in the US, the gun-ownership debate is at a low level. The way you do it is the swiss way. The american constitution did a number of things right in terms of establishing stable republican government, but it utterly failed to prevent the continual growth of federal power because it has no mechanisms that encouraged the reduction of federal power.
The swiss did or at least did it better , with their referenda that could repeal laws, but not pass them. You need to make it easier to reduce federal power than increase it, because if doing either is just as easy, as it is in the US, the temptations of centralization ensure a ratchet effect. You can pass laws by popular vote via changing the Constitution just fine in Switzerland…. Interestingly, Switzerland had a civil war within a couple of decades of the ACW, which resulted in the federal government becoming much stronger and the cantons becoming much weaker.
On the other hand, it lasted 26 days and caused a total of 86 deaths. The civil war kicked off because the south, a legitimately hatable political entity, rigged the Constitution to give them disproportionate political power. This worked for generations, until social change was enough that the north elected one president.
The south knew that this president was unfriendly to their economic and social interests, and rather than deal with it for four years and then try to win the next election, they opted to secede. The north refused to permit this, and continued to insist on the illegitimacy of secession until the south opened fire. Like claiming that WW2 is a story of American disrespect for European sovereignty. You mean like the way the north almost did during the war of ?
And how, again, is secession evil? The South feared that a northern president would renegotiate the deal, so they decided to end it. They did not march on the north to impose their social system. Before about , slavery was a nigh universal human institution that no one had ever questioned the basic justifiably of. Interesting idea about the senate. But looking at the population numbers, in the slave states had average population about thousand fairly evenly distributed , while the free states had average population about thousand with more small states, but pulled up by New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
The deal was cut in , not If any rigging was done, it was based on the status quo then, not unknowable future numbers. And as brad points out, you need to adjust for slaves. If slaves were counted as whole persons that would have meant more votes for the south, not less. Which is what the free states wanted.
Receiver of Many (Hades & Persephone #1) by Rachel Alexander
Actually, the South would have been fine with that. Except that the North insisted that the Southern states be taxed per capita including slaves. They were far more insistent at including slaves for taxing than the South was for including them for representation. At least as far as I know. I find it odd to think that the north would have rather tax as slave as capita instead of capital in trade for giving the south disproportionate political power.
One time, years ago, some people who were obviously hypocrites about self-determination tried to use the rhetoric of self-determination and secession to defend an evil institution. However, the fear is that the future-blue tribe and future-red tribe could see each other as equally evil, as the north saw the south.
It still seems quite frighteningly likely that if we manage to successfully create strong AI without letting it destroy us, it may be because we recreate the corrupt social world of the Virginia planters, with humanity as the master race and the robots as slaves. Or, separating this out from the issue of whether such robots would have subjective conscious experience, their highest goal would be to make us happy.
It is not clear, to put it mildly, that engineering an intelligent being to like being a slave is an ethical thing. The relevant SF here, if memory serves, is S. If that would not be OK, why would it be OK to do the same to an intelligent robot? By all accounts, the Draka people are cartoonishly evil moustache-twirlers. The problem, from the perspective of the masters, is that slaves work much more inefficiently than free workers and keep them in constant fear of slave rebellion. It would be in the interest of both parties.
I think most people would object to engineered Draka slaves because altering a race as a whole is unethical even if all individual members of the race post-alteration grew up liking slavery and were not altered within their own lifespan. The unethicalness of modifying the race carries over to the unethicalness of using members of the modified race as slaves. AIs designed from the ground up to want to serve humans would not fall under this. Besides, who said anything about altering a race as a whole? It just means that their unaltered ancestors need to consent instead.
And we should precommit to treating the use of slaves created in such a manner as unethical. Only with recent technological advances e. Is that enough? Or do I need to take a poll of the fellow members of my race? SF for the next step: Cordwainer Smith re giving them hands and teaching us to better speak their language. You also have some obligations towards your descendants which include not deliberately altering their development in a manner that would be considered undesirable by them had their development not been altered.
This obligation only applies to major alterations, but making someone enjoy slavery is a major alteration. Note that most people who are not EAs differentiate inaction and action, so you may have more obligation to avoid actively making them X than you have to prevent them from becoming X. The other question is, is it unfair to take a whole species and never allow it to achieve what good it can for itself — never create art, never create music, never write memoirs, never create government … none of the things that we value about being human?
I never thought of it that way. The only way we could bring everybody to the table in the beginning was by agreeing to a government that was just hodgepodge of disjoint entities in the Articles of Confederation. This naturally developed into a constitutional state through the need for a more centralized power, but only if slavery was off the table and only if we made the federal government reeeeally restricted. But just looking at the state of the federal government during each century seems to paint a very clear picture of progression towards a unified nation state.
The german states had agreed to pool their militaries under the leadership of the best one, Prussia. Bismark then went hunting for wars to fight as a means of bringing political unification out of military unification. It worked on the first try. The best way to increase ingroup loyalty is to have that scale of an outgroup. The Americans had that under the Articles of Confederation. The central government was weak with no president, agencies, powers of taxation or judiciary, and although it could request money from the states, the states almost never gave it any money, forcing it to borrow heavily and print currency in order to pay for the war.
The army was perpetually short of provisions and underpaid as a result. It surprised me to learn that James Madison was pushing for an even stronger federal government at the convention, one that would have for example a direct veto power over state laws. A few years after the convention, when the Federalist Party took control of the government, Madison switched to insisting that state law was supreme and nullification was a valid practice. Anyway my point was Detroit and Flint were quasi-independent communities with politics very different from that of the rest of the state. Those two communities have recently fallen on hard times and are now looking to the state to bail them out.
Possibly, but all the cities that were heavily based on manufacturing are doing pretty badly. Rather, insofar as Detroit was independent and the rest of Michigan independent of Detroit it is now less independent because the state is stepping in to mitigate the failure of the city government. Too many people and resources would be in the city-states and not enough in the vast rural rump states. Suburbs are big, important, and divided. The federal government could still stay the exact same. Personally, I have my doubts. Bill Bishop in The Big Sort states that people move to communities not states.
Seems to me the solution here is not less federalism but more. Letting the blue cities in red states run their own shows and live by their own rules would resolve a lot of political conflicts. This sort of thing goes on all the time under the status quo—LGBT kids from the sticks go to cities with LGBT communities, Californian engineers move to DFW or Flagstaff and buy suppressed SBRs—and it seems to work out OK, except insofar as newcomers threaten to change the character of the larger polity they move to.
Which, again, seems like a problem to be solved by decentralization—let Boulder and Austin govern themselves and leave the rest of their respective states alone. I think that the ideal structure is likely to be power resting with the national government and the municipalities. Less power to the states, more to both the towns and the federal government. Municipality line drawing is very important — almost outcome determitive on a lot of issues.
With strong municipalities and weak states how does that get hashed out? I agree that that would be an important issue. In many places, the existing lines might well work out OK. When I look at the health-care system that the blue-state government here in Massachusetts saddled us with, I thank my lucky stars that the federal government…. Which is a fair objection to the idea that federal power will check all local abuses.
Which is why the idea of the entire US be that entity makes no sense to me. The northern areas of Mississippi and Alabama are part of the Appalachians and thus have a large amount of scots-irish blood. They also have a decent amount of mild or low class english, and some cavalier elite.
This can partially be seen imo by the rise of the ku kluz clan, while it did have vaguely royalist titles like king etc. Kentucky, West Virginia, West maryland, etc. Upstate regions of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessew, etc. Often were dominated by pro-unionists as well. I think the failure of the Southern Episcopalians in war and the devastation afterward has a lot to do with the decline of southern influence.
In some ways Amglicanism was arguably stronger from , maybe even after in the north than in the south. Many people who were rich or self-made men joined Episcopalianism in the north from other denominations to join the high-class or prestigious society, from Dutch reformed, presbyterians, even some Congregationalists and jews. Remember that both Ivey leauge schools Columbia kings college originally and U Penn were set up as Anglican schools. Brown was Baptist but also had a decent amount of Anglicans and other influences, open to many Christian religions from very beginning.
Harvard and Yale started as Puritan theological schools obviously, and Princeton was started by and originally for Presbyterians. For most of the existence of the Democratic Party, Catholics were solidly Democrats. They were all in on the New Deal coalition of labo r, blue collar, anti-communism, but I think were also fairly socially conservative.
Can they be solidly red tribe while also being crucial to the New Deal Coalition? Remember that Southern whites used to be part of the New Deal Coalition too. Episcopalians were always socially acceptable to the top crust in the 19th century. There were regional alternatives — such as Catholic in Baltimore, or Congregationalist in Boston, but Episcopalian was the elite denomination.
These discussions always seemed overly determinative to me because they basically treat people from different parts of America as characters from a lazy fantasy novel where people from X are nearly always Y in a certain trait. The old Planet of Hats trope. I kind of agree. Or even Connecticut? I expect humans are no different — but — modern humans live in groups with more porous boundaries and more diversity in the gene pool in many parts of the world.
These sorts of theories act as a political and social just so story. For most people they serve as comforting means of explaining why things are and why who are or are not getting your way. Real life is more complicated though. The different nations theory rarely take African-Americans or post-Independence arrivals like my family into account.
African-Americans might have adopted Cavalier speech patterns but they do not have their folkways or Scots-Irish folkways as far as I can tell. Why do virtually all Americans speak English, despite English-speaking ancestry being a comparatively small minority? Founder effects, and the fact that all the later arrivals trickled in slowly and got assimilated to the dominant culture, while the early arrivals, even if few in number, created the dominant culture.
As for the waves of immigration, I think you see that effect more strongly in cities than in the country. People want to move into areas which are an acceptable match for them culturally, so you can see immigration reinforce existing differences. But if you cross off industry mecca cities — e. Hartford for insurance — or cities defined by a large employer who moved all their staff to the town — e. Instead, Sowell argues that the black ghetto culture is in fact a relic of a highly dysfunctional white southern redneck culture which existed during the antebellum South.
Go down a level. And Mexican and Asian settlement complicate things. But I think historical patterns of migration do a pretty good job of explaining the differences in the dominant cultures of, say, shall-issue CCW counties vs no-issue CCW counties. Substitute weed for shine and a good deal of the Sierra foothills and the Jefferson counties farther north start to look a hell of a lot like Appalachia. Although that substitution has already taken place in a lot of actual Appalachia if Justified is to be believed.
California has, or at least had , distinctive immigration patterns of its own. At the time of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo it was very sparsely inhabited, mostly by Indians and Mexicans, and the non-Indian parts were organized under a system of ranchos descended from aristocratic land grants before the Mexican War of Independence. Los Angeles and Oakland are notable exceptions. Each wave of immigration that followed was focused on a different economic sector and drew from a different set of demographics. At first these mostly centered around natural resources: oil deserves special mention, since the American oil industry got its start in Southern California, but agricultural land is just as important.
Later, industry became more significant: media showed up early, while aerospace and software are more recent examples. Finally, as the natural port of arrival for anyone coming to the States from the Pacific, California tends to pick up populations after every war and crisis in that area. A lot of GIs fought in the Pacific theater of WWII and contrived to miss the train home creating San Francisco gay culture in the process, though a complicated sequence of events ; later, refugee populations from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia showed up during and after the Indochina Wars.
I grew up in Connecticut. In my high school US History class, our teacher was demonstrating gerrymandering. He showed that the way Republicans would gerrymander the state would be to put all the lowlands in one district. This would be along the shore and up the Connecticut River valley.
The rest of the state, which is actually quite hilly with the edge of the Appalachians in the west would become four republican districts. The Democrats would simply cut the state into five vertical slices forgive me if I get the number of districts wrong , where the population of the low lands would swamp the population of the hill counties. Seems like a good fit to the whole story above.
Maybe the roughness of the land where you grow up has more to do with things than your ancestry. Western governments were perfectly capable of putting a bunch of conflicting tribes into countries like Nigeria and Congo without any straight-line borders. Obviously it adds some of the non-English migrations not discussed here. Thank you for referencing American Nations. Also these analyses fail to take account of race. Like Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, etc. I largely agree with you, but I think the Romney example is really muddled. For at least the last couple cycles, the Republican party has been going through a pretty significant coalition shift.
I would imagine the fact that he won the nomination has less to do with him representing the base and more to do with strategic concerns. Not to mention lack of an alternative: witness the parade of clowns Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry who were frontrunners before the base was reined in and Romney won the nom. To be clear, Romney won a larger share of the white vote than any Republican candidate since H.
Nixon in probably would have if not for Wallace running. Sure, but he still would have won every state but Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts. People appear as if they differ in traits but most are actually are just going along to get along in their particular culture. Or maybe it is the other way round and culture shapes founders as I argue in a somewhat lengthy comment below. I guess the ending remarks just reflect a sense of hopelessness when realizing the longevity of the differences. Their age implies permanence against what we, well, many of us, want to believe in: the end of history in a broad sense, a kind of convergence of ideas and conduct, at least to the point of allowing the amiable compromises a democracy is supposed to have.
The task of setting up constructive discourse is just so much harder than we thought. Yes, and in addition to what you said after that also the realization that the progressive culture is not all that special, the North has it not because they suddenly realized what a great honking idea it was, but because the colonists who settled there already had most essential parts of it.
Very roughly speaking and only to a certain extent, of course. Or to put it another way, it looks like Cthulhu swims left not through sending nightmares that psychically bend entire nations to its will, but via the spread of cultists intermarrying and outcompeting and spreading their values through immediate physical contact. On the other hand, Quakerism seems to have crushed Puritanism fairly quickly and easily. Maybe Puritanism is so utterly contrary to basic inborn human values that it was easy to lure people away from it. And since when do Quakers sound like normal people? Quakers sound like a weird but mostly-functional religious cult.
The type of weird but mostly-functional religious cult that I bet a lot of this comments section would join, but…. It depends on if you think that the left-wing social justice community is largely representative of modern progressives or not. Some of the defining traits of Quakers include: -Religious tolerance -Free enterprise — Abolitionism — Sheltering children -Modern romance albeit with that bureaucratic weirdness tacked on. Obviously the Quakers were a bit more prudish than many Americans, and more pacifist as well.
Ghatanathoah — the thing with the Quakers is that they adopted all those ideas when they were unpopular, and did so because they built a society that radically elevated individual conscience — by the standards of their time certainly, and even by the standards of our time in the degree to which they thought about it, discussed it, and built the institutions of their society around it.
Fox always wanted some degree of respectability and widespread acceptance for his sect; Nayler straight up reenacted the arrival of Christ into Jerusalem. The Quakers had the insane idea that the right way to handle criminals was to put them in solitary confinement for years, where the prisoner could be alone with God and their conscience, in order to meditate about what they had done wrong.
Think about cognitive biases. We can read about how biased we all are all the time and how true rationality is nigh impossible. The biases are a problem, but less so if we make ourselves aware of them. The way to combat it is also the same. Trying to understand the worldviews of others have certainly helped me, for one.
The existence of an invisible world-creating spirit is not so much a fundamental premise as a conclusion or a lemma. The real difference is how one views knowledge, how to get it, what counts as evidence, what the purpose of a worldview is, reliance on mentalistic vs mechanistic cognition etc. John Nerst Trying to understand the worldviews of others have certainly helped me, for one. I have had that reaction for many decades.
But we can step outside them by articulating their premises, making them explicit…. I used religion as an example because the sort of kill-the-outgroup belief system is very different from the prevalent views here, and even in our culture in general. Yet nowadays, it would be relatively easy to have a conversation with such a person over the Internet, and to have them explain exactly why they think the outgroup should be killed. I recently heard an interview with a Western journalist released from being held in North Korea. He was talking about how his captors believed all Western journalists are spies for the CIA.
But that seems to be a dead-end. Not even in the cliche of being a first step, since that step runs into a wall. Again, you can obviously not talk to someone who refuses to talk. Just look at this place compared to most comment sections, for example. For example, the slave-holders in the South had a very clear world-view about racial issues, and overall the abolitionists did not reason them out of it. I tend to think that dispassionate reason works well with people who are interested in having a discussion about cultural issues.
But my personal experience is that those people are a tiny, tiny minority of the larger public. As soon as someone challenges their fundamental assumptions, they stop reasoning and start reacting emotionally, trying to end the discomfort as quickly as possible: usually through ad hominem attacks and appeals to their peers for emotional and social reassurance.
I gave up trying to have these discussions on Facebook or similar social platforms a long time ago. The likelihood of anyone being persuaded of a point is vanishingly small compared to the likelihood of being dogpiled and called a. Nevertheless, reason has been incredibly effective over centuries: the modern, post-enlightenment idea of individual rights and compassion even for the outgroup has grown out of the ideal of reason being in the water supply — people may not want to reason, but at least they dress up their argumentation in a reason-costume because we do feel we need to pretend to be reasoning and using argumentation instead of weapons.
I think, over time, we might be able to push it further. That was a clear, unambigous, material conflict. A family size of 9. And Mencken said much of the planter aristocracy moved to the cities and to the North after the Civil War. Manhattan was very different in its political preferences from Vermont until the ss. It has some obvious flaws, and especially needs comparison to other countries like Britain or Germany with superficially similar splits but very different histories. Well, in part. But remember it was considered perfectly normal for the mother of the bride or groom to be pregnant.
Trump is winning a lot of Northeasterners. Trump is interesting. But Trump sounds like Gawker. Heart of the Establishment. Like Manhattan. Ohio is classic favorite-sonism, plus Bernie supporters voting for Kasich to stop Trump. His mother was born in the Outer Hebrides at the other end of Scotland from the Border.
Fischer leaves out the Scottish Highlanders, but they are pretty important in American business history. Scottish-Americans used to be famous as captains of industry e. That stereotype has faded, although the evidence remains that Scottish-Americans, as opposed to Scots-Irish, are considerably above average in wealth. Macdonald tended to be extremely earnest, but his whole life could also be interpreted as a heroic comic adventure. His background combines a whole bunch of aspects of America that Fischer left out of his book:. I have a similar ethnic background as Trump although the Scottish part comes from a border clan that apparently had a reputation for being unruly even for a border clan , which is not surprising in the least , and yes, this is the reason my parents settled on Scottish rather than English, Irish, etc.
If anyone is still on the fence about stereotype accuracy, my grandmother never even saw a computer, but bought Google at IPO. If Maine was a regular primary, he would have won Maine as well. Cavaliers, McCain but these also had other bases of support :. The Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina primaries are especially good illustrations of this.
For example, African-American culture is as borderer as it gets—indeed, some explain its character as a result of its regional origins in the southern US—yet African-Americans are also as solidly blue-tribe as it gets. Likewise with, say, Mormons—puritan in culture, yet heavily red-tribe politically. Both tribes include pairs of sizeable constituencies that generally loathe each other, but nevertheless join together in the same coalition because of the willingness of the whole to protect one or more interests the individual constituency holds dear.
They hardly show cultural coherence and continuity over a given 50 year period, let alone fidelity to the ethnic and cultural groupings of years ago. That secular urban or suburban white-collar whites and religious rural blue-collar whites seem to be acting as two warring cultures rather than as part of one unified white American culture. Mormons are arguably their own tribe, but the Jews I know are all culturally Blue.
Atheists usually follow their local culture, though Blues are more likely to identify as atheist vs. The fact that, now, at least, a young black person from Washington D. Culturally, I think they tend to be closer to some Red Tribe factions, albeit still very much their Own Thing. The red and blue tribes are actually political coalitions, not cultures, and each consists of numerous cultures and subcultures that have formed a broad alliance of convenience in the pursuit of greater political power.
But I think it still sheds more light than heat, understood properly. Democrat and Republican are political coalitions, and it would be misleading to map them to discrete cultures. Not many, but they exist. Blacks generally seem especially susceptible to race-based propaganda -how else to explain their astonishing approval of the Kenyan-American president and Queen Rodham?
The parties have coalitions, but you can see cultural coherence and decoherence and lots of continuity across time. This is the sense in which the Blue and Red tribes are fundamentally political, not cultural: their boundaries routinely cross cultural lines—or in this case, racial ones.
A diehard Blue tribe member would sooner disown his or her own Red tribe family members—cultural clones of themselves—than turn his or her back on an African American with whom he or she shares virtually no common culture. I do not believe that Blue Tribe embraces African-American culture in any but the most superficial ways, e. Nor does it really include any but the elite — you pretty much need a college degree to be a full member of Blue Tribe.
And I think they do sincerely believe that Black Tribe will eventually grow up to be junior members of Blue Tribe, once the evil Reds allow them a proper education and birth control and stop throwing all their men in prison. So, yes, you score Blue Tribe points by making a point of how you champion the interests of Black Tribe against their evil Red Tribe oppressors.
Culturally, they are a very good fit for Red Tribe. Black culture is different from white culture. The thing you mention, about Blue tribers tolerating African Americans more than Red tribers, I would say is true on the whole, though maybe not to the degree you assert it. For instance, they tolerate black individuals much more than black culture.
Blacks started voting Democrat in -while the South was still solidly Democrat. You make good points throughout your comment, but this is not one of them. In , many of them expressed that sentiment by electing overtly racist Democratic politicians. In terms of this article, Cavaliers systematically prevented Borderers from voting — literacy tests and poll taxes and the like resulted in poor whites being just as unable to vote as poor blacks.
When the voting rights act passed, Borderers began to vote, and to vote their own guys in. In terms of Texas, where people sorted themselves in a fascinating way, Houston is the Cavalier city, Austin is the Quaker city, and Dallas is the Borderer city nobody else would want to live there. Puritans mixed with Borderers in the rural areas, with Borderer attitudes dominating. But if you can express it without using party labels or obvious proxies for same, please do.
So—anybody want to try their hand at it? Who does the Red tribe consist of? The Blue tribe? Essentially, the idea of a natural aristocracy complete with responsibility to make sure their inferiors are both well-controlled and well-treated, with Red Tribers as upstart and ignorant fools who keep taking their rightful status as rulers and making a mess of things. Sometimes I wonder how you guys even manage to get up in the morning with so much seething resentment.
Go be a linguistic prescriptivist at someone else. Do you think you could pass an ideological turning test for — say — a typical Williamsberg, Brooklyn twenty something that voted for Bernie Sanders? Because I have extremely strong doubts. American politics as of or or was very different from today, with different issues, different priorities, different coalitions. Even the political descriptors we use today had different meanings then. Beware taking any old-time political speech at face value without knowing something about those differences.
Beware taking modern political motivations and attributing them to old-time people who had very different ideas and priorities. Alexander pulls this off with surprising tact, and there is a very good story behind this promise, which makes the story work so well. Very well-executed here, as well. Her research, and twists, are spot-on. And the erotic scenes between our dynamic duo Definitely swoon-worthy. I've read too many erotica scenes with cheesy descriptions and metaphors, but Ms. Alexander writes such scenes in such a steamy yet tasteful way that leaves the reader wishing that they were Persephone or Hades Nom nom nom.
I await with bated breath for the sequel. This is a beautiful story. The detail woven into the mythology and world building is simply exquisite, I was completely enthralled by it. I've read it many times and I cannot wait to purchase it. Apr 13, Bridget rated it it was amazing. This is an amazing book. The detail into the world is enthralling. Even more so because it takes so much from the original mythology that you want to believe this is the real deal. There are so many secondary characters that are just as compelling as the main ones, it feels more like a real world for it.
I also find that there is no "bad guy", there are character you wish not to run into again and there are characters whose wants and aspirations conflict with the main characters but everyone has This is an amazing book. I also find that there is no "bad guy", there are character you wish not to run into again and there are characters whose wants and aspirations conflict with the main characters but everyone has reasons for what they do.
I love stories that put more thought into a conflict than bad guy gets in good guy's way because they are bad guy. All the characters you meet are deep and compelling and you feel for them even if you don't agree with them. The story of Hades and Persephone has always interested me, but I've never found a telling quite like this. Persephone is not some naive little girl to be Stockholm syndromed and her "fate" and her world is a breath of fresh air to the normal patriarchal Greek mythology. A fantastic book I can't wait to start the sequel.
Oct 17, Theevilspoonoverlord rated it it was amazing. It's great both if you love Greek myths, and if you just like romantic stories. The characters are great, and very well written. Their interactions feel very real, and fun. You feel sorry for Demeter, and understand her struggle. Hades is both a strong, and weak in a very human way. You can really see him as a real person, not just a character.
Persephone has a lovely transformation from innocent girl to powerful Queen in a very fluid way. I really love that this is a story where the Amazing. I really love that this is a story where the female character is very strong. She starts out very innocent, as many people start out in their first relationship, and you get to watch her become confident and independent.
While the relationship is a big part of her, she is capable of standing on her own. It's clear the author knows how to write a good romance, because there is no uncomfortable power dynamic that leaves the heroine as just an object to tell the story. If anything it's her story about her finding herself, and the relationship is her way of gaining independence in a society where she'd have otherwise been losing it. The sex scenes are really well written.
There is nothing uncomfortable, or unnatural in the writing of them. The scenes help to tell the story, but remain entertaining to read. I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone. It had me on the edge of my seat, and it's probably the first book I've ever finished without being able to read the ending first. It had me reading it the whole night, and the entire next day. I didn't set it down until I'd finished it, then I read it again.
If the idea of sex scenes appeals to you, or at least doesn't turn you off to a book definitely read this. Erotica-romance in a historical setting. Literary allusions, excellent writing, complex plots and subplots, character growth, flawed and deep characters: this is why I am a reader. I read to be challenged and excited by something new and to be confronted with possibilities. Read this book and you too will fall in love with words and books and humanity all over again. Jan 13, Rosemarie Short rated it really liked it Shelves: fantasy.
I've always been a fan of Greek mythology. Receiver of Many brings the mythology to the pages in a very accessible, readable way. The romance is a gateway but this book is about much more than just romance. It boasts a strong cast of supporting characters both likable and not as well as a fascinating world to delve into.
The two main characters, Persephone and Hades, are a great couple. Whilst I felt that I would like a little more fleshing out of Hades character at times he felt like a sex-b I've always been a fan of Greek mythology. Whilst I felt that I would like a little more fleshing out of Hades character at times he felt like a sex-bot rather than a real boy - more on that later on I liked Persephone's journey from innocent girlhood into strong womanhood. Perhaps the depth of her experiences could have been more fully realized - but there's a sequel coming which I'm sure will assuage any niggling doubts I have on that front.
This is an erotic novel so it would be silly talking about the main protagonists without mentioning the sex. I think Rachel Alexander writes love scenes beautifully. She is very good at getting all the necessary elements, without making me feel like she's trying too hard. There's love, lust, passion and tenderness The only gripe I had was that there were perhaps a few too many of them I think four or five really well placed love scenes would have had more impact than the plethora that ended up making into the book.
Supporting cast are interesting and diverse. I thought Demeter was a really interesting antagonist, and Alexander doesn't shy away from humanizing the Goddess - even as Demeter time and again attempts to stand in the path of Persephone and Hades' happiness. I would have like more action from her perhaps - she does a lot of crying and withholding but her doing only really starts to be hinted at towards the end of the book.
Her love interest felt a little wishy-washy but I'd be on board for more development in the sequel. Other characters that intrigued me included Merope, Thanatos and Hecate. I wouldn't have minded if Alexander had traded one or two of those love scenes for some more interesting exploration of the characters mentioned above. I also think they could be pretty interesting plot elements - especially with upcoming events from Merope's past coming into play, it seems, in the sequel. Final piece of sequel bait - Kronos - has me very intrigued.
I'll definitely be back for Destroyer of Light - Receiver of Many was an intelligent, fascinating book with some really hot, really romantic sex. What more can a girl ask for? This is such an amazing retelling about the mythology of Hades and Persephone and I'm so excited for it to be published as a novel!!
I highly recommend it as a Fall must-read. I can't wait to finally have the novel in my hands! Feb 17, Kristin Campbell rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites. I adored this book! There was not one part of it that left me unsatisfied Well, except that I have to wait till the next one, but it's so worth it if the next is anything like this one!
Oct 05, Ri rated it it was amazing. I read this novel when it was still a fanfiction categorized under "Greek Mythology" on fanfiction. I don't remember too well the specifics, since it was quite a while, but I remember being enthralled by it and being unable to do anything until I finished reading it as I do when I'm enthralled by anything, really. The writing though a first draft was great and the plot definitely kept me drawn in at all times. The characterization and really the expansion on the characters of these mille I read this novel when it was still a fanfiction categorized under "Greek Mythology" on fanfiction.
The characterization and really the expansion on the characters of these millennia old figures was realistic and really painted a vivid portrait of these mythological gods and goddesses with more realness and fallibility to them. This is definitely a great read for those who enjoy Greek mythology and great stories.
Oct 13, PJ Taylor rated it did not like it Recommends it for: bored old ladies who just want to read trashy erotica. Recommended to PJ by: found the original book on a fanfiction forum. As someone who has previously read the both books in their entirety on a fan fiction website I can say it was alright. The characters were incredibly out of character with Kore seeming to be more like a simple minded ditzy disney princess then a goddess very Mary Sueish. Hades being a virgin for that long was a bit eye rolling.
I felt like I was reading a horrible porno half the time and even the erotic bits were very boring and sort of lacking in true depth. I think if the author would have per As someone who has previously read the both books in their entirety on a fan fiction website I can say it was alright. I think if the author would have perhaps published something different and not just copied and edited and republished something one could essentially have read for free on the internet she could have had something going.
The majority of these reviews are mostly from the fans of the fanfic. Save your money. This is a very masterpiece and I'm very happy for Rachel and for her book. Shelves: , guilty-pleasure , fantasy. If sexually explicit content makes you uncomfortable, I strongly advise you to stay away from it. It retains all the themes and imagery of the original myth - including discussion on fertility, sexual behavior, and assault. The book includes two rape scenes one of which was completely unnecessary in my opinion. Let me know if you would like me to point out the exact page they're on as they can be easily skipped when reading.
That being said I am honestly shocked by how much I loved this book. Given that I don't read romance and usually find sex scenes cringy rather than titillating, I went into this series fully expecting to hate it. Instead, I found myself hooked right from the start and devoured the entire duology in less than a week.
Best Grimdark Fantasy Books
In addition to the writing reading very polished for a self-published book even though I found several typos and the occasional misplaced word , the world building was stellar - and this is coming from someone who spent the better part of her teenage years studying the classics and pouring over Ancient Greek grammar manuals. Here on the other hand, Alexander took the time to fully flesh out their relationship and didn't shy away from exploring the more controversial points of the myth such as abduction and sexual abuse.
On top of that, all the characters were complex and realistic I still feel conflicted about Demeter! I have fallen hopelessly in love with Hades and Persephone, both as individuals and as a couple. Their humanity, inner strength, and commitment to their roles as gods are truly admirable. They've given me a bad case of heart eyes and I'm usually the coldest bitch in existence. If you're still unsure whether to read this book, let me just add that I'm fairly certain Sarah J. The similarities between the two novels are striking, but where Receiver of Many is deeply rooted in mythology and presents complex themes through a multi-faceted narrative, ACOMAF reads like a watered down, two-dimensional version of the original.
Let's hope the book community learns to give credit where credit is due. View all 5 comments. Oct 25, Aqsa is currently reading it. Here she is very shetlered due to her upbringing, but the makings of the future Queen are inside her already. The evolution of her character is not sudden, but gradual, as she is slowly changed by these around her and what happens to her. In this story there are no magical solutions and quick happy resolutions.
They are not immediately perfect with each other just because they love each other and at the beginning they even have problems building a normal, healthy relationship, because neither of them has any experience with this. Here her main motivation is still keeping her daughter safe from the world, but there is a good reason - from her perspective!
Believe me, there are scenes that will have you almost crying and howling or laughting and jumping in joy along with the characters. Author really made sure that things are historically acurate and grounded in the original mythology. If you are a history geek or mythology nerd you will be loving every minute of it. View all 4 comments. Nov 16, Alexandra rated it it was amazing Shelves: , virgin-or-celibate-hero , owned-books , , favorites , romance-read , re-reads , heroes-of-my-heart , dogs , side-character-love. Reciever of Many is one of those rare books that has stuck with me long after I've finished them.
I read this book when it was still ongoing on the internet, and there are times, even though I read it 3ish years ago, where I'll be doing something totally unrelated and think "You know what was a good book That Reciever of Many Man that was a good book I need to read that again" So I've decided to bunker down and write a review for this masterpiece. There are very few books that I actually love Reciever of Many is one of those rare books that has stuck with me long after I've finished them. There are very few books that I actually love most of them are childhood reads because of the nostalgia factor but I love this to the moon and back.
I've always been a sucker for retellings and this one hits all the marks. She truly transforms like she did in the original myths, respected even more than her husband out of fear of facing her wrath Just look at the way she handles Sisyphus in book 2 , and most retellings don't even touch on her transformation at all or give it the credit it deserves. Their marriage is easily the healthiest out of all the Gods even in the original myths. You dislike her behavior but at the same time understand the motivation behind her actions Content Warning: there is a lot of sexytime in this book, so if that's not your thing or you're a minor maybe skip this and come back later or just skim over those parts because you won't get lost plot-wise.
Rachel Alexander has the Hades and Persephone dynamic down to a tee. In that, she maintains all the integrity of the original myth with thorough research and lovely prose - along with lots smut and fluff of course. Jul 14, Zuray rated it did not like it. The loss of potential just burned me so bad. Not all fan fiction translate to good reading. But for what it's worth, fan fiction is given lots more leeway than published stuff.
What this needed, was the benefit of a very good beta or an actual editor. On to the story: Dont get me wrong, I love female empowerment stories. But I hate when the p 1. But I hate when the power is imbalanced on the other side just to bring it about. Oh boy. I fully went in having read the first few chapters on AO3 expecting a solid 3 star read.
However, the characterization very quickly veers off into wish fulfillment tropes. Mind you this expectation only falls on poor Aidon. I kept trying to think why and what about her was bothering me so much other than her attitude towards Aidon like really? The tone kept shifting to modern day specially when it comes to Thanatos and some other character interactions. I will continue the second book and get it over with, with hopes that it may atleast go up to a 2 star rate. I'm gonna go read book two now A glimpse into the ancient world of pagan Greece and its debauched gods and goddesses.
It centers on the famous abduction story of the Lord of the Underworld and the innocent Kore a. Fantastically written and well researched telling of the Hades and Persephone love story. Persephone's character progression from maiden Kore to the Queen of the Underworld, Iron Queen, Praxidike and etc was great to read. It wa A glimpse into the ancient world of pagan Greece and its debauched gods and goddesses.
I didn't give 5 stars because I felt that Hades's character, in my opinion, was just a little too idealistic. Maybe it's just me. I can't really make a full character critique until the sequel comes out. I know he's a god, but Greek gods are hardly perfect. I've read "worse", lol. Back to the warnings. There is RAPE. There is a human sorcerer king having sex with with a female human priestess while wearing a bull mask in some creepy sexual rite.
And yes, of course, there is an orgy scene. Oct 15, Julia rated it it was amazing Shelves: writing-that-has-depth , heroine-id-like-to-strangle , paranormal , mc-mob-fighter-bad-boys , best-hero , instalove , best-heroin , safe , dark , ott-possessive-hero. One of the best books I've read this year for sure. At first I was dubious of the page count, because so few authors have the creativity to fill a page book and keep it interesting and not have the romance get stale all the way through.
But this did! The hero was One of the best ive EVER read.