I'd definitely recommend SPQR as a starting point then, it really helped me put the pieces together later when references to Roman history came up in what I was reading, and there's a lot about the politics in it.

Religion as you mentioned above, a lot of writers in the Western canon are coming from Christian traditions, from Chaucer's corrupt and model religious officials in The Canterbury Tales, to vice, virtue and hypocrisy in Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, to Dickens' redemption of Scrooge in A Christmas Carol, to Trollope's examination of different approaches to Christianity in The Barchester Chronicles and also some of the Palliser series (which is more about the contemporary political structure. Trollope himself had tried to become a MP). Honestly, if you read just Anne Bronte's Agnes Grey, which is pretty short, think about how Agnes relates to contemporary ideas of Christian virtue (Anne especially is interested in these ideas, her sisters less so but it's still an aspect, they were the daughters of a clergyman) and about women's role, I'd guarantee you'd learn more than Peterson will ever teach you about how women actually lived (if reading fiction, don't forget to notice lower class women, who may not always feature prominently. Men too).

Life of Pi is a contemporary novel that's significantly about faith and its importance to people, and very quick to read - it can also be interpreted in terms of Jungian archetypes. Jungian models are much better for analysing literature than real people, though. I'm going to see the play streamed to cinema next month, and there's also a movie adaptation.

Big topics! He's not going to teach you about those things - he can be criticised on purely factual grounds. If you just read fiction from different time periods you'll soon see what Peterson is claiming plain isn't true (this isn't about political divides, rightwingers here in the UK would extremely rarely be taken in by him, just because here we tend to be exposed to more history), and I think you'll learn about people, too.

If the references to mythology Peterson makes appeal to you, then it may also help you start picking more of those up, and you could read about it directly. Maybe even a book about Roman civilisation - I wanted to know more about that and felt a bit confused/overwhelmed, found SPQR is really accessible while containing loads of information.

Maybe you can narrow the topics down further, to a specific area of interest?

A better room-tidying book is Decluttering at the Speed of Life. Otherwise, what were you wanting to learn/why were you interested?

Those aren't necc. any less confusing, for someone who doesn't really get to use French much day-to-day. I find modern slang to be a bigger pain than archaisms in an otherwise straightforward sentence, personally, it's just look up that one word and carry on. And if classics are what someone is interested in reading, they're going to be better off just doing that, than something more modern that will have vocabulary and phrasing the older texts won't use while lacking some of those they do.

Harry Potter in French is very straightforward for learners with a lot of useful vocabulary, but think OP is past needing to read that if something else appeals more.

Your native language is English? Then, if you try and find you can't read in French, it's time to be realistic about how much French you actually know. It's not possible for someone who actually does know both languages not to be able to read in it. Pure guesswork will tell a native English speaker what absurd amounts of the vocabulary means even if they've spent no time studying French, because our language is in fact mostly French. If you've done this before with other languages you remember how, right?

Then there's online dictionaries, built in ones on Kindle. Cakewalk.

Edit: Seeing you write about the passage, it's very obvious you can do it. Practice will improve speed, it'll be fine.

Ah, see, this is why I'm interested in the topic. It might be triggering to some and wouldn't want to judge that, but often find that those who do have experience with suicidal ideation tend to be more interested than squeamish about it, if that makes sense. Some find it helpful: the approach in some countries is more to allow than shut down discussion of it, including allowing the idea that it's a completely valid option.

Oh, maybe I should then as I'm particularly interested in this theme. I don't understand why it would be dark or why it's even still taboo at all, it's especially an Anglosphere thing I think.

It was part of why I wanted to read The Satanic Verses: it didn't go into it as much as I expected but definitely had a sense of accuracy to it. The Sorrows of Young Werther, absolutely loved that one, it's different in that Werther seems to have been depressed for a long time, but the psychological realism is what makes it stand out and part of why it's still a classic. Edith Wharton's >!The House of Mirth is less direct, it's presented as a possible 'accident' but a character clearly doesn't interpret it that way!<. Trollope's scene in The Prime Minister is amazing for the shift in the reader's perspective: also stands out that it was written by someone who'd actually experienced suicidal ideation. I appreciate novels capturing that it's not necessarily easy for a character to do, and that there can be a suddenness to it.

I'd honestly have more confidence looking for beta-read fanfiction than expecting niche genre fiction to have been edited with a significant commitment to improving it. Maybe I'd see the perspective looking at your examples more deeply, but usually, the concept is flawed (the genre itself essentially is) and it can't be fixed, the writer may be inexperienced, the audience may just prefer the trashier narrative choice, the editor isn't there to rewrite the entire thing. (I actually dropped The Fifth Season very quickly and would put it firmly in the unfixable category, equating racial discrimination with lethal superpowers just never makes for nuance and sane motivations, I was done after the first unjustified massacre) I'm not sure I'd distinguish between the idea of it being bad, and being like an earlier draft, unless there were relatively simple ways to adjust it - otherwise the amount of work to do is rewriting, not editing, the writer didn't write something that just needs polishing if it's that much of a mess and they lack the ability to fix it, they're just a bad writer.

I was surprised by repetition that may have been accidental and unconventional grammar (though, that can be valid, from a Sri Lankan writer in English) in The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida, but that was presented as a literary novel that won the Booker Prize (imo it is not literary, it is a supernatural thriller).

One immortal woman, the others are entirely normal women, and not an unreasonable number, just typical college student lifestyle. I absolutely think the depiction of the mercenary culture was a mistake, but it's not really these aspects in and of themselves that make it border on either wish-fulfillment or a possibly misguided attempt to play with the conventions of the genre.

No. I don't like the aspects complained of, either, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean they needed editing out or even that there isn't a reason for them - it's absolutely crystal clear from the start that what you're getting is the main character telling the real (though still possibly exaggerated) version of how they became a figure people are telling these conventional epic fantasy stories about. So it's one case where complaining about genre conventions, even those bordering on wish fulfillment, doesn't automatically fit because that's the point, and we were all warned going in. (also the 'sex goddess', more a Circe figure, and the main character is really just acting like a normal enough college student: I think it stands out genre fans jump to complain about this aspect, over points where the main character is far more clearly exaggerating his abilities) Does remain to be seen whether Rothfuss ever can or will do anything with that playing with and commentary on genre, not holding my breath he'll even ever write another book.

But maybe give the first one a go, rather than reading up and having aspects spoiled? What I really like of Rothfuss' is the novella, The Slow Regard of Silent Things, think it stands out as better written than most fantasy (though that would be a low bar) and more magical realism-esque, but it does concern a character from his main series so not fully stand-alone exactly.

I expect them to have been properly proofread (typesetting, spelling), I'm genuinely unsure why you'd expect any guarantee of them being any good? Especially genre fiction, especially fantasy, which (sure, with exceptions) hardly has a reputation for literary quality. Publishers want it to sell, which might overlap with a certain standard but isn't the aim, they'll continue to publish books that are actively bad if readers prefer it, and readers of fantasy often do, such as in wanting wish-fulfilment. If queer fantasy emphasises romance that sounds like literary quality isn't even the point.

I think a further problem is that these books aren't just impacting individual patients who choose to read them, the views spread, they can promote/justify ableism, and it's difficult to get an ableist to take responsibility for the harmful impact of their views/actions.

I'm a victim of medical negligence and have every reason to distrust the medical system itself, but more scientific understanding is definitely the answer, not less. It's not even just the most obvious crystal healing stuff, psychology as a field is horrific for woo, and still, despite a history of medical abuse, holds the influence to be more widely harmful. Having a bunch of misplaced pins through my spinal canal, possibly splitting the cord, and severe life-altering neuropathic pain incl intense burning, I'd at least be tempted to watch the writers of some of these books be added to the pyre and sweetly ask them 'Have you considered that pain is all in your head?'.

Setting aside questions of whether we should literally support book burning, I'd suggest A Tale of Two Cities (and Carlyle's fake history, which it's in part drawn from). Yes, it's much loved in the Anglosphere, it can be very moving (Wilde may scoff, Dickens is good at cheap emotional manipulation), and makes it so easy to gloss over the completely explicit xenophobia that even Orwell seemingly forgot in his essay, not to mention which side our own sane class interests actually fall (the very wealthy middle class readers are not so inclined to forget). This is why it's such an effective work of propaganda, continues to perpetuate misconceptions, and make them darn near impossible to eradicate. And the thing is the reality of this period, the Enlightenment philosophy, the political thought, is still such a live-wire, radical and relevant, capable of blowing the English Establishment sky high, if we were instead getting at it. I honestly think this book has helped contribute to holding us back centuries (if only we had instead absorbed Mercier's idea of a united Franco-Anglo revolution).

I'm not actually saying we should burn it when the revolution comes, that would be less than ideal. But I couldn't be bothered to be all that sorry had it vanished last century, either.

I'd love to at least pass on my education and raise children to improve on it, but disabled women like me struggle dating, and while I wouldn't dream of blaming it for all my problems, on a societal level, it's partly because people are ableist eugenicists.

Also 'mental health' has come to mean shut up and put up, don't express 'toxic' dissatisfaction with the status quo, obligatory happiness, if you hate being underpaid or otherwise mistreated it's an individual problem, definitely don't be neurodivergent and want to burn the ableist status quo to the ground.

Society is not, though, or there would be more focus on disability inclusion, over the active discrimination which is still a very significant factor in why children, and adults, with disabilities suffer. Here in the UK, we don't even do anything to prevent systemic medical negligence disabling children, multiple known scandals incl. with babies who ought to have been healthy, and the individual cases still treated as isolated incidents with no examination of the system and no justice. There is also currently a campaign against adequate pain relief (some people are opioid addicts therefore people in pain should suffer), and disabled people are still forbidden from deciding they want to end their lives, unless they attempt to do it a way that has a high risk of failure and further disability.

Really important to note, as a disabled person who was casually and out of nowhere asked if I'd abort a child like me, that there is no screening test for most conditions. I'm also disabled as a result of severe medical negligence not my original condition. It can cause cleft palettes, which might however be picked up on a scan.

Ableism is also not identical to ideas of eugenics. The focus is on getting rid of conditions deemed disabilities, rather than aiming at positive traits, and neurodivergence (which has links to physical conditions, including connective tissue disorders like mine) is worth considering here.

Wonder how many philosophers have been neurodivergent, and that has been a factor in their philosophy? Some are certainly thought to have been.

Edit: Oh, and connective tissue disorders and hyperflexibility? They carry a risk of injury, not everyone would be capable, but ballet, gymnastics, you'll find those with them among those excelling there.

The site Operavision has a changing selection of free opera, if you'd like to have a look and just see if anything sounds interesting (that's how I got into watching it, during the pandemic). Puccini's Tosca, La Bohème, Bizet's Carmen are 'safe' classics but sometimes people (like me) end up loving the weird stuff, so it can be hard to say.

That's very interesting, is comfort with the language a factor in selecting conductors, do they learn multiple languages like singers often do?

Eighteenth French complaints about opera can tend to focus on the idea of whether the language fits the medium and wanting the words to be understood, and the culture puts a lot of value on clarity and accurate enunciation when speaking so I've tended to see that as an aspect often emphasised in French opera.

(And the Puccini double bill sounds amazing btw, not as common to get to see those two of his!)

You might like to have a look at the site Operavision, see if anything appeals to you - free opera, new ones added each month and stay up for a time. I got into it by watching things on there during the pandemic, those suggested are a good place to start, but what people like can be unexpected too - I fell in love with Janacek while still pretty new to it (one up on Operavision now, In the House of the Dead, is def. not the most accessible though) and find it thrilling to see a brand-new opera even if I end up thinking it's awful.

>reinforces all the banal pressuppositions of our rotten society

Depends, from the UK he sounds like a far right lunatic, and I'd vouch for France on that too.

>

Depending on the ideology, the idea individuals mattered less would tend to be an inherent contradiction, certainly to leftwing movements that are intended ultimately to benefit a people consisting of individuals. If said 'individuals' actually means 'clear enemies who are outright trying to destroy the progress and murder those trying to establish it', then it's only leftist movements that seriously get blamed for this and it has darn all to do with those making such accusations thinking it just went ideologically 'too far', and everything to do with thinking they had no right to try to oppose the status quo to begin with, it's just a bad faith conflation. It's not that individuals matter less than some kind of assumed-abstract ideology in such a case, if the ideology was supposed to benefit the majority and not the minority totally deliberately trying to sabotage its application.

No - genuine believers may be around, but are then up against the opportunists, the people who are just bad/inexperienced at applying an ideology, consistency issues that already existed, legitimate differences in ideology that may be hard to resolve, the weight of the status quo, all the mistakes and pressures of the situation itself, the people behind deliberate internal and external opposition, and likely do not want to be an authoritarian even if they could. So the explanation for what went wrong was still not the typical lame accusation of 'ideological purity': the people who were ideologically at least fairly consistent may not have stood a chance. Which does not make them wrong nor the aim of consistency wrong, it just suggests it's hard, which is more the actual problem imo than anyone ever being overly ideologically consistent on any scale. If more aim for it, it may get easier for others to do, ie. veganism again.

>Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?

Possible but I've more often seen the reverse argued. Whether a specific action was just a bad idea/misguided/stupid is a somewhat different question.

But exactly - it's easy to come up with examples of deliberate exploitation, human error/idiocy, impossible circumstances and simple panic, not so much of bad outcomes originating from someone sincerely trying, sticking to principles and expecting a good outcome with legitimate reason for that expectation. Almost like maybe it doesn't actually happen and supporters of the status quo just claim it does to try to undermine positive change - and I think we should be clear this accusation gets thrown at the left, not the right, despite the ideology frequently having then being accepted with time.

Using authoritarianism would often intrinsically represent a failing in belief, not consistency. Although another accusation thrown at the left is that of being authoritarian just for defending their position against the status quo and reactionaries.

Think Nazism is likewise different to your original point though, because as well as the deliberateness, there is a lack of cohesiveness to the ideology, making it more of an excuse for what was done than an example of what can unexpectedly happen if following ideology -that was mentioned in the first post I think-, it was with considerable public support, not just imposed from above.

Lack of coherence and consistency suggests lack of sincerity - eg. demands for pre-marital chastity combined with a sexual double standard where all the emphasis is on the demand that women should be modest, but intimate examinations are apparently acceptable, and rapists are enabled. People may not think of themselves as the bad guys but that's not what good faith looks like either.

That's not a specific example of an ideology being adhered to the point of unexpected bad outcomes, though. Nazism had the bad outcome built in and intended, so do theocratic governments.

>ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.

Again would need an example because cannot think of any: only of supporters of the status quo claiming it's the case. Us vegans are always getting accused of somehow pushing veganism on people despite evidently possessing vastly less influence and access to power than the animal ag. industry. Usually what it actually means is 'vegans made me think about how my actions aren't in accordance with my beliefs and that made me feel bad some I'm going to blame them and call them pushy'.

Rousseau is not nearly as idealistic as he gets accused of being - he suggests people will act in self-interest and is not expecting perfection, or even, on the worse side, that means of control like religion aren't useful. It is the eighteenth century, I'm never sure why anyone expects idealism as some might mean it today from it. Which, in terms of arguable improvements, suggests 'idealists' have a point. This debate could easily be had about slavery using worryingly similar language to that applied to the oppression of non-human animals. Leftists assume the system creates the bad outcomes, not inherently the people.