Humanities desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 11[edit]

Historical fiction about young 19th century Highlander and University of Edinburgh[edit]

This is a long shot, but I'm hoping someone who frequents this area will recognize the book I'm trying to find. It might be called Scottish historical fiction, and I can remember neither the title nor the author, but I remember the early portions of the story line very clearly.

The protagonist is a Scottish lad who is sent by his grandfather, who had instructed him in Latin and Greek and the Bible early on, to further his education in law and theology in Edinburgh. He is dispatched from the family croft in the west of Scotland with his traditional multi-yard belted plaid, a haggis, a small herd of cattle, and a highly intelligent and experienced cattle herding dog, to proceed to a cattle market many miles away. The destination is reached (by which time the herd has been mysteriously enlarged here and there in traditional Highlands fashion) and he finds a buyer for his cattle. He attaches a bundle with the agreed-upon portion of the earnings to the dog's neck scarf, bids him go home and fare well, and himself proceeds to Edinburgh where he finds lodgings and tutors and begins student life. It takes place in the 19th century, I think, though I could be wrong and it's late 18th century, and as the story begins the boy is in his early teens, younger than we expect university students to be but that was then and this is now. – Athaenara ✉ 04:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we be thinking of KIDNAPPED by Robert Louis Stevenson? 82.34.1.33 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks for giving it a try. Stevenson's protagonist was older and there are no kidnappings or conscriptions in the book I'm looking for. Still hoping someone will recognize it. – Athaenara ✉ 09:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara: Something of Scott's, perhaps? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One might think so from my inadequate description, but it was written by someone who lived at least a century later and may be still living. – Athaenara ✉ 09:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it doesn't seem to be any of Scott's Tales of a Grandfather. If you can remember any of the characters names that might help with web searches. 73.71.213.123 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more about this, my recollection is that he was at the University for a few years, becoming more interested in mechanical engineering, science, and the law, and less interested in his grandfather's plan for him to be a church minister. He completed his studies and returned to the croft, where as his grandfather had died someone else in the family was established. I think he emigrated to America, either directly or after some time in northern Ireland, and the story continued there. – Athaenara ✉ 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! After investing a few hours a day for two days in finding and studying lists of books set in Scotland, something in the deep back storage areas of my brain began to stir, and after searching in Arthur Herman's How the Scots Invented the Modern World and Jack Repcheck's biography of James Hutton, The Man Who Found Time, I finally opened the right book.

The story is not a book in itself: it opens "The Trace" (the Natchez Trace), Part V of James Michener's Texas. The young man is Finlay Mcnab, who is 10 years old in 1802 and in his 14th year when he reaches the University of St Andrews in Fife. He finishes up there at 18, returns home, then to northern Ireland, to Bristol in England, to Baltimore and finally Texas in North America.

Thank you to those who responded, and thank you to all who maintain the reference desks. – Athaenara ✉ 10:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lose hope of finding it though. I once saw a late night film when I was younger. I wondered about its name for years. The one day, I stumbled across the article 10.5: Apocalypse. Despite searching google for key words, I hadn't found it. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US custody battles where both parents lost[edit]

Have there been any publicly-reported child custody cases in the US where both parents sought primary custody, and where the judge ultimately ruled against both parents, assigning custody to a third and more distant relative (bonus points if that parent spent less money on lawyers than either parent) or to foster care? Neon Merlin 06:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked before: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 August 3#Custody battles lost by both parents. 81.147.142.158 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the same user, in fact. --Viennese Waltz 14:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

African, or European? μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of actors by medium[edit]

I feel a little inaccuracy when using the term "film" in this context: When we categorize the actors by medium, I expect some hierarchy like this: I feel a little inaccuracy when using the term "film" in this context: When we categorize the actors by medium, I expect some hierarchy like this:

Screen actors
- Television actors
- Cinema actors
Stage actors

Actually, I didn't expect to encounter "Film actors" when categorizing by medium, unless a film is to be interpreted as a thin plastic tape, rather than a moving picture or a movie. In other words theater and film are the developed "products" for Stage or Cinema "media".

Some related things to check:

Film is art...
Stage vs Screen...
The lead description of Category:Spanish actors, appears to use my expected format: "actors and actresses of stage, cinema and television ".

Notes:

Sorry, I am neighter a native speaker of English derivatives nor a visual artist.
Considering the above item, the "film actor" might be an established, wellknown and irreplaceable technical term in the field an I may have missed to know that.
I might be wrong in thinking that film and theater are just products for their respective medium, they might actually be the medium itself.
But currently..., the "film" as a subcategorization branch has been widely used under "by medium" criterion in many languages of wikipedia.Alfa80 (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, "screen" by itself (or "big screen") means films/movies, while "small screen" (never just "screen") means television. Second, I don't know about the UK, but in North America we never say "cinema actor". So, IMO actors are classified by stage, movie/film and television. It used to be stage actors looked down on their movie counterparts, and both sneered at those who toiled in television, but that's mostly fallen by the wayside now. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cinema actor" is correct in British English and others, see: Haji Agha, the Cinema Actor. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify one issue mentioned by Clarityfiend, a film generally refers to what is also called a movie. It often includes straight to video/DVD/internet streaming (see Direct-to-video) as well as made for TV movies (see Television film). It doesn't generally include television serials/series etc. The terms are still normally used like that regardless of the media used for recording. So for example, if the movie is shot digitally, or on video or whatever it's still a film. If the television series is shot on film or with the same digital cameras used for some fancy movie or whatever, it's still not likely to be called a film. As with most things, you do get borderline cases, e.g. a pilot for an eventually successful TV series can be made and shown like a movie and so may fit some definitions of 'film'.

The meaning of these terms crosses into their usage as an adjective. So a film actor is someone who acts in films/movies. It doesn't matter if all those films were shot on video or digitally and little or no film was used in the production of those movies. Someone who has only acted in TV series (especially ones without any parts that may be called movies) is not likely to be called a film actor even if all they ever acted in was shot on film.

Practically, any actor with more than a few roles is likely to have been in both film and television. (Probably a bit more common that a film actor may have never been on television although it's fairly likely their movies were broadcast on television somewhere.) I imagine even many bit part televisions actors have at least had some minor role in an independent film in addition to their 'dead person 15395 in CSI', 'terrorist number 201 in 24' 'Valyrian slave 591' roles. The terms often refer to where their most prominent roles have been, if there is a clear distinction.

AFAIK as per my earlier comment, this generally applies to TV movies as well. An actor who has only ever been in made for TV movies is still more likely to be considered a film actor and less likely a television actor. (Some may call them both. Especially since in the US for example, they may be eligible for a Primetime Emmy Award. And not an Academy Award, although then again nor would direct to video etc stuff.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for great elaborations. To conclude, what is the better fit for medium-based categorization? Film actor or Cinema actor? Alfa80 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that both "film actor" and "cinema actor" are used in the UK (e.g. "British film actor who became a typical Hollywood bad guy" in The Guardian) and we already have Category:British film actors, so the former. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]