Some Cask of Amontillado

I would say that the greatest danger to humanity is always its own stupidity. If humans don't go extinct by their own fault - climate change, pollution, or war are probably the most likely causes - then I see a much less spectacular and long-winded (and boring) end for the human race: that in a few hundred millennia evolution has done its job and our species can no longer be strictly considered homo sapiens. Maybe those post-humans will look back and be embarassed that we had the audacity to claim we were the beings in possession of sapientia. And they would be so right.

Yes, drugs can destroy your DNA. If you are one of the many persons to snort plutonium. Basically, Alyxx is right, marujuana isn't addictive physically. But this doesn't mean that you can get addicted psychologically. And, believe me when I say I have seen it too often, long-term marijuana use in higher doses and frequencies than your Friday-evening joint can heavily affect one's body and mind. I knew people smoking marijuana like regular cigarettes, and they were pretty wasted at all times. Anyway, it doesn't sound like the consumption of your friends has escalated that far, so I would say there is nothing to worry about, as long as they don't get poisoned buying the really cheap stuff. And I think you shouldn't simply stay away from people that do drugs. If they are seriously addicted they need help - addiction is an illness, and very few people can fight that ilness without the help of others. Best, Simon

You're totally right, a big part of causing us to have sex with each other is our sexual drive. But that's not all: when we're talking about love we shouldn't forget that it is pheromones who give you the feeling of being attracted to somebody. And I think this attraction is the basis for love. Although, of course, the way most people understand nowadays means a social construct built upon this attraction. And from that point on - as with all social constructs - it gets really complex. Best, Simon

Well, of course it's natural to be in love. It's nature's way to get us to jump on each other and procreate. Of course it's a nice feeling and all, but when at the end of the day it's one of our main incentives for sex; and we have made a huge (and incredibly flawed) social construct out of it. And why should nature require us to procreate? Because without new births and death evolution would make neither sense nor work. Best!

Yes, lazy and stupid. Just imagine the earth itself being that lazy and ceasing turning. It would be the end of the world. Think of the unthinkable consequences! Or...

I myself am comfortably bisexual. As it is written: he who fisheth in all ponds catcheth the most fish. Regarding Jek Jek Roo's comment about bi- or homosexual people being "unnatural," I just want to remind everybody that among our peers in nature homosexual acts are quite common and normal. So the good ol' "that is not the way nature intended"-argument isn't working. (Apart from that of course nature intends nothing, but that's a completely different topic.) On a philosophical level, and taking the behavior of other animals into account, I would argue that most people who consider themselves "completely" straight or homosexual are actually only about 70-80% one of those. The rest is still open for the other sex. I think if you see it that way it explains why so many people feel bi-curious at times, but decide on one way later. Also, this allows an explanation for people being "prison gay." Best, Simon

Enjoy! Best, Simon

Just the right thing for the bad weather here... g30k0wOIBi4

After some more time than I had hoped, finally another set of German subtitles. Enjoy. Best, Simon

Okay, seeing that I've been registered for a few weeks now and mostly kept to myself in the German subtitle section, I think I'll also introduce myself. Me llamo Simon, I'm from Germany; and I usually look and feel older than I am. Fun fact: my friends sometimes call me the cantankerous Hobbit. Except from the hairy feet part a pretty fitting description. Best, Simon

Yeah, and why shouldn't they? It's a great tradition to fight wars over Poland for diminuitive reasons (farmland, cities "being historically ours", world domination... you get the idea). But for what it's worth: I'm more than a bit put off by the way a single (in my eyes exaggerated) complaint about a badly chosen (though generally legit) term derailed to people basically going "Your people are stupid"-"No, yours are"-"Ain't"-"Are"-... I mean, get your act together; there's no point in simply throwing insults and stereotypes at each other. Anyway, the first step to overcome your stereotypes is to acknowledge, that you have them. Obviously, you got there. Go on, then. Best, Simon

Well, if you take into account how long England was ruled by a French nobility, it's really no wonder that Google translator is capable of more or less correct translations between those two languages. Though, technically, English is as closely related to French as it is to the Polish language.

I don't have problems with any of them, British or American, but if you get more in-depth into the linguistics it gets tricky.

Getting frustrated learning the phonetic differences between American and British English. So I'm watching The Daily Show now... go team procrastination.

So, yet again another subtitle by me. If you'd like to know something about my approach to translate these little darlings, I left a short note in my introductory post for episode 4. Or, of course, you can ask me. As always: feedback would be appreciated very much. Best, Simon

Society is changing, sadly for worse. Imagine you'd be at Anytown University in the 70's and someone would show you a video by Lady Gaga (she, of course, is an extreme example). You would be outraged (if you're not really right-wing) by this sexism and objectification of women. Today everybody just looks at it and says "yes, it's pop music." I have to say, the '68-generation and their followers took the fight against sexism and other topics worth fighting against to absurd extremes, but they did that because they were idealists. Maybe you have noticed that idealism isn't really the spirit of our time. I don't want to discredit every form of pragmatism, but people saying "sex sells, that's human nature" are taking it too far. So it would really require not to change society but human nature. Because we are all evolutionary conditioned to reproduce. There are few people, I'd say, who realize that, and even fewer that keep that in mind (knowing they are not better than anybody) and willing to act differently. Because that is the only way to solve the problems something that lies so deep in human nature causes. You have to be critical of your own behavior, at all times. And that's mighty difficult. Best, Simon

I'd say that you really need to rearrange your paragraphs. Merge some, add some. The general rule for well-structured academic writing (which I've been doing for a few years now) is that the first sentence of a paragraph introduces a new idea and then the rest of the paragraph explains this idea. I always felt that this is a very agreeable rule for fiction, too. Although, of course, in writing fiction you maybe should rather see it as a guideline than a set rule. Next, I'm a fan of brevity. This, for example, should be one single sentence, if you ask me. These two sentences seem rather redundant to me. But of course, with this being a first-person narrator, you can always say "That's just the way Thomas talks." Blame it on the integrity of the character, so to speak. This. I would say that the message is completely sufficient, the "my name clear as crystal." is nothing but verbal dead mass. Besides brevity I also promote directness. Don't say "one-finger salute." That's just an unnecessary euphemism. All in all I got the feeling that the last paragraph was somehow not as refined as the first part. I don't know if it's just me, or if you wrote this one some time after the rest, or if you revised it (I assume you did that) at a different time, but the language there seems rougher (lacking a better word). So much for my stilistic advice. Contentwise: seems like a quite familiar setting to me, "a guy wakes up in a strange room, leaves it and searches for answers." Though I have to say, I don't think you should change something about that. It is totally acceptable to do something old in a new, interesting way - and as far as I can see, you are on your way to do that. Novelty really isn't critical. So, keep up the interesting work and please do post some more of your work. Wow, people studying literature always think they know what makes a good story...I'm sorry if all this came out a bit smart-assed. Best, Simon

Well, this afternoon I leafed through the forum and thought: what a shame that there are just so few German subtitles. So I sat down and started where others left off. As the last posts in the German section were made quite a while ago (and I am completely new here), I don't know how many of the people that created the first few German subtitles are still around here. I hope they are, because I'd really like some feedback. And I'm almost certain that I made a few spelling mistakes and stuff, everybody does. Anybody reading through my subtitles will see that I at times deviated quite a bit from the English original, but I tried to keep these instances to a minimum. Generally, I tried to give a translation that closely resembles the speech a German would use on the street, including all those slang expressions and the (at times) fucked up grammar. As I said, I'd apreciate feedback very much. I hope I got the technical requirements right. I'll do my best to keep my output high, but I can't promise anything. Best, Simon German Subtitles Ep.4 - 1st draft