3 ms·

Meta: it's kind of eerie to read an article like this that is obviously written by an 'outsider'. Although non of what's written is factually wrong (as far as I

by roel_v 3y ago

Meta: it's kind of eerie to read an article like this that is obviously written by an 'outsider'. Although non of what's written is factually wrong (as far as I can tell, I'm no historian), the specific way certain nuances are skipped over gives it an almost 'uncanny valley' feeling. Part of it is that it's written in English and certain nuances just don't exist (like his mentioning 'Lord of the Netherlands' vs 'de Nederlanden/Nederland', his strange 'Aux quatre vents' translation - yes I know it's correct literally, but it just feels so off compared to the idiomatic meaning), others skip over so much historical and current geo-political context that it seems tone-deaf to sensitivities ('the Dutch Republic (loosely modern Holland)'). I understand that for an article on an historical painter, you cannot go into details like this, what I'm saying is the choice of what the writer considered important and the way he skips over nuance makes it feel very alien. I guess this phenomenon is well-known by people who are from cultures that are usually written about by outsiders :) but I don't encounter it often and this specific article just evoked this really weird feeling in me. So many instances where I internally reacted with 'WFT is this guy saying' yet no actual factual errors that I can find.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
maybe it's not written by a 'person' as this seems to be a common experience when dealing with ML generated texts.
- roel_v 3y ago
  Haha I didn't want to go into accusations like that, since it does list an author at the bottom and this is apparently an excerpt from a book, but still.
allturtles 3y ago
It's not clear to me what the substance of your criticism is. What is the idiomatic meaning of "to the four winds" that's missed? What's wrong with "This division would eventually result in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (loosely modern Holland) and the Spanish Netherlands (loosely modern Belgium and Luxembourg)."?
- roel_v 3y ago
  You mean 'substance' as in 'objective fact'? Well there isn't, that was the whole point of the comment. Everything as far as I can find is factually correct, and yet how it's all woven together makes the narrative feel robotic and off tune. Like, another commenter brought up that it may have been ML generated, which I don't think it is; but it does give me the same feeling as, say, 95 to 99th percentile ML images - it makes you do a second take for no (prima facie) apparent reason. Then again, maybe I'm just a nitpicking weirdo. Although I've gotten enough upvotes by now that it seems that others have the same feeling. Maybe someone else can explain the reason for their subjective emotions upon reading this better.
  - allturtles 3y ago
    Substance as in "you say these things are 'off', can you explain why you consider them 'off'"? Based on the sibling thread about the geographic extent of the modern Netherlands vs. the post-revolt Dutch Republic, yes, to me it seems like you're nitpcking. The author is trying to give a rough reference point to readers not familiar with the details of the history or geography. Trying to enumerate the changes in borders would be tedious, beside the point, and go over the head of most readers (who wouldn't recognize the names of the relevant towns/regions/etc.) Edit: Though I'm defending the author on this point, I would agree that this isn't a great piece of writing. It's a "potted biography" that doesn't seem to have much of an overall point.
tremon 3y ago
like his mentioning 'Lord of the Netherlands' vs 'de Nederlanden/Nederland But Lord of the Netherlands was exactly the title used by Charles V in those days ("Landsheer van de Nederlanden"), and "de Nederlanden" was the customary name to refer to the region. What is it exactly that feels off to you? And the description of the Dutch Republic as "loosely modern Holland" seems placed to contrast it with the Flanders and Luxembourg areas -- it doesn't feel tone-deaf to me, other than that "Holland" itself in an antiquated term, but I'd think it permissible given that it's used in the context of the Dutch Golden Age (which is where that name gained prominence).
- roel_v 3y ago
  I guess my point on that was 'Landsheer van de Nederlanden' should today not be summarily translated as 'Lord of the Netherlands' since 'the Netherlands' has a current meaning, as opposed to in Dutch, where 'de Nederlanden' and 'Nederland' are immediately and obviously referring to political entities at different points in time, and with somewhat overlapping but still significantly different areas. Then again, I do know that Emperor Charles is referred to as 'Lord of the Netherlands' in English language history books, and I wouldn't easily know how to do it differently, but somehow there it's always more... padded in context? Likewise (although it may be the same issue underneath...), equating the area of the Dutch Republic with modern-day Netherlands (which I assume he's referring to but didn't want to use that because of confusion with the previous point?) is... rather simplistic. I mean, I guess it's something someone who's never left the Randstand wouldn't think twice about, but that doesn't make it true. But as I said, it's not like there are any factual errors I could find, and in any other writing I would have easily understood how difficult it is to convey all that nuance in a piece like this where, frankly, that nuance doesn't even matter. It's just that the combination of subtexts made the whole thing feel weird. To me. Maybe it didn't to you.
  - jorgen123 3y ago
    I would agree with you. In the first sentence the writer puts Breda in southern Holland in stead of in Brabant. That is just wrong to somebody from Brabant. This is something that I think most people recognize when they see journalism about a subject they know much about. Journalism often seems really limited and dumbed down when you know a subject and the journalistic piece is short. But then when you don't know a subject, it seems really good and valuable and you learn a lot (ignoring that it must seem dumbed down to somebody else).

by roel_v 3y ago

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

maybe it's not written by a 'person' as this seems to be a common experience when dealing with ML generated texts.

roel_v 3y ago
Haha I didn't want to go into accusations like that, since it does list an author at the bottom and this is apparently an excerpt from a book, but still.

allturtles 3y ago

It's not clear to me what the substance of your criticism is. What is the idiomatic meaning of "to the four winds" that's missed? What's wrong with "This division would eventually result in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (loosely modern Holland) and the Spanish Netherlands (loosely modern Belgium and Luxembourg)."?

roel_v 3y ago
You mean 'substance' as in 'objective fact'? Well there isn't, that was the whole point of the comment. Everything as far as I can find is factually correct, and yet how it's all woven together makes the narrative feel robotic and off tune. Like, another commenter brought up that it may have been ML generated, which I don't think it is; but it does give me the same feeling as, say, 95 to 99th percentile ML images - it makes you do a second take for no (prima facie) apparent reason. Then again, maybe I'm just a nitpicking weirdo. Although I've gotten enough upvotes by now that it seems that others have the same feeling. Maybe someone else can explain the reason for their subjective emotions upon reading this better.
- allturtles 3y ago
  Substance as in "you say these things are 'off', can you explain why you consider them 'off'"? Based on the sibling thread about the geographic extent of the modern Netherlands vs. the post-revolt Dutch Republic, yes, to me it seems like you're nitpcking. The author is trying to give a rough reference point to readers not familiar with the details of the history or geography. Trying to enumerate the changes in borders would be tedious, beside the point, and go over the head of most readers (who wouldn't recognize the names of the relevant towns/regions/etc.) Edit: Though I'm defending the author on this point, I would agree that this isn't a great piece of writing. It's a "potted biography" that doesn't seem to have much of an overall point.

tremon 3y ago

like his mentioning 'Lord of the Netherlands' vs 'de Nederlanden/Nederland But Lord of the Netherlands was exactly the title used by Charles V in those days ("Landsheer van de Nederlanden"), and "de Nederlanden" was the customary name to refer to the region. What is it exactly that feels off to you? And the description of the Dutch Republic as "loosely modern Holland" seems placed to contrast it with the Flanders and Luxembourg areas -- it doesn't feel tone-deaf to me, other than that "Holland" itself in an antiquated term, but I'd think it permissible given that it's used in the context of the Dutch Golden Age (which is where that name gained prominence).

roel_v 3y ago
I guess my point on that was 'Landsheer van de Nederlanden' should today not be summarily translated as 'Lord of the Netherlands' since 'the Netherlands' has a current meaning, as opposed to in Dutch, where 'de Nederlanden' and 'Nederland' are immediately and obviously referring to political entities at different points in time, and with somewhat overlapping but still significantly different areas. Then again, I do know that Emperor Charles is referred to as 'Lord of the Netherlands' in English language history books, and I wouldn't easily know how to do it differently, but somehow there it's always more... padded in context? Likewise (although it may be the same issue underneath...), equating the area of the Dutch Republic with modern-day Netherlands (which I assume he's referring to but didn't want to use that because of confusion with the previous point?) is... rather simplistic. I mean, I guess it's something someone who's never left the Randstand wouldn't think twice about, but that doesn't make it true. But as I said, it's not like there are any factual errors I could find, and in any other writing I would have easily understood how difficult it is to convey all that nuance in a piece like this where, frankly, that nuance doesn't even matter. It's just that the combination of subtexts made the whole thing feel weird. To me. Maybe it didn't to you.
- jorgen123 3y ago
  I would agree with you. In the first sentence the writer puts Breda in southern Holland in stead of in Brabant. That is just wrong to somebody from Brabant. This is something that I think most people recognize when they see journalism about a subject they know much about. Journalism often seems really limited and dumbed down when you know a subject and the journalistic piece is short. But then when you don't know a subject, it seems really good and valuable and you learn a lot (ignoring that it must seem dumbed down to somebody else).