Transgender rights discussion

[NotThatSoph]

Ok I see your point here. It's not exactly the same thing but it's generally the most common argument that's used on the other side of the debate to there being more than two genders, whatever number that may be.

As for the second point, No I don't think the fact that trans people do get harassed means that people who believe there are two genders don't get cancelled. Why would one scenario happening mean that the other can't happen? I believe harassing someone for being trans or non-binary is wrong, as is cancelling someone for their opinions on how many genders there are is also wrong.

That's not what I said.

Your first post in this thread said that you can't disagree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled. Your evidence for this is that people who say that there are only two genders receive insults. Likewise, people who say that non-binary people are real receive insults.

If people receiving insults for saying that there are only two genders show that you can't disagree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled, then surely people receiving insults for saying that there are more than two genders show that you can't agree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled either. Everyone's getting cancelled?

 

[DatIrishFella]

Herself and Graham Linnehan defintely have a whatsapp group. I wonder what other geebags are in it

 

[santeria13]

But if, as I think I saw you say in another post, you accept that gender is a social construct, saying you don't agree with gender identities other than man and woman doesn't make a lot of sense. If you're signed up to gender being a social construct, you should be quite comfortable with the idea that concepts of gender will differ between different cultures and social groupings. We see this even between and within cultures who sign up to binary gender (for example, the social expectations placed upon men and women in one culture, or amongst members of a particular generation within a culture, will differ wildly from the what is expected of them in another culture, or by a different generation within that same culture). Going beyond that, there are various examples from across the world of societies where gender identities other than man and woman existed for a very long time, or where they used to exist before being scrubbed out by (usually religious) people whose world view they didn't fit into.

So with all that in mind, how do you reconcile believing in gender as a social concept, but also only accepting the validity of binary gender? Most people who do the latter (Rowling is a good example), tend to downplay the existence of gender as a concept altogether to avoid this very problem (although in doing so they experience a variety of other pitfalls).

Well, yeah I think that gender in general is a socially constructed concept, however that allows people to invent and define as many gender identities as they wish. This is why, as you say, the widely accepted concepts of gender identity will differ depending on culture and generation.

At the same time, since it is a socially constructed concept, that allows the freedom to interpret gender identity to the individual. Sure, you could believe in the widely accepted concept of gender identity in your current generation and culture, but at the same you can personally believe there are just two genders, where other people will choose to believe there are more than two, whatever that number may be. Technically, you could also believe in just one gender or even zero genders, such as Rowling, if you so choose to do so. Even the concept of 'binary' genders in the first place is a social construct.

Personally, I believe there are two. That's all. But I also believe that whatever your views on the subject are, you don't deserve to be cancelled, insulted or harassed for the opinion. On the basis that it is a social construct, the individual is free to interpret or understand said construct as they choose to do so.

 

[Tarrou]

Ok I agree that was an exaggeration but then below in other replies I also further explained my view on why I think cancelling anyone who believes there are two genders, is wrong. Again, it's just my opinion and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong but I do think it makes for an interesting discussion.

Yeah I don't think too many reasonably minded people would disagree with that opinion. I think you're completely ignorant if you think that, but I don't care if you hold that opinion unless you're voicing it in a way that's disrespectful.

 

[santeria13]

That's not what I said.

Your first post in this thread said that you can't disagree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled. Your evidence for this is that people who say that there are only two genders receive insults. Likewise, people who say that non-binary people are real receive insults.

If people receiving insults for saying that there are only two genders show that you can't disagree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled, then surely people receiving insults for saying that there are more than two genders show that you can't agree with the woke narrative without getting cancelled either. Everyone's getting cancelled?

Yes, people on both sides are judged and belittled based on their opinion, which is wrong. I made this particular example with gender because there seems to be a common misconception that because you believe there are two genders, you are 'transphobic' and sexist' which is the common label thrown at people who believe so, and it's simply not true.

There is a slight difference in that in one case, someone is being insulted and harassed for their opinion being different to the person they are targeting. While in the other case, they are directly insulting someone for being non-binary or transgender, which isn't a difference of opinion but hating and insulting someone based on how they identify. That is discriminatory and I actually think that's worse.

The reason I brought up the hate on someone over an opinion is because I think it related well to the backlash Rowling got for her particular opinion.

 

[Carolina Red]

Saw this on Twitter and it made me think of this thread.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[hobbers]

There's no way Smegma the Gender Goblin isn't also a parody account, right?

 

[Carolina Red]

There's no way Smegma the Gender Goblin isn't also a parody account, right?

Man, your guess is as good as mine. Apparently the person disabled their account after this went viral.

 

[Jippy]

Saw this on Twitter and it made me think of this thread.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Titania McGrath is in a similar vein to Ann Lesby.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Is she related to that famous Irish painter?

 

[NotThatSoph]

This is so good.

 

[KirkDuyt]

When checking the etymology of woman (it's not womb-man sadly) I came across another great one. History, coming from his story. Also not true, but eh, would've been cool.

Woe-man is even better, because you know, bros before hoes and stuff.

 

[maniak]

Womb-man

 

[The Corinthian]

No womb man no cry.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

This is so good.

Whilst I disagree with the tweet I kind of want Marvel to bring out a Womb-Man movie now.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Whilst I disagree with the tweet I kind of want Marvel to bring out a Womb-Man movie now.

 

[maniak]

What have I missed? Why is Mbappe in the thread title?

 

[horsechoker]

What have I missed? Why is Mbappe in the thread title?

Mbappe is rumoured to be dating/dated a trans woman.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

don't want it anymore

 

[Charlie Foley]

Were The Spice Girls talented musicians?

What I mean is that she doesn't seem to be talented at writing prose and I don't enjoy reading the sentences she constructs.

I thought this was kind of accepted?
She did a good job of creating a world (granted some plot holes and the mother of all plot armours) and getting her readers emotionally invested. It’s a good hero’s journey. That much is clear. She can’t write like Tolkien though.

 

[Withnail]

I thought this was kind of accepted?
She did a good job of creating a world (granted some plot holes and the mother of all plot armours) and getting her readers emotionally invested. It’s a good hero’s journey. That much is clear. She can’t write like Tolkien though.

Perhaps it is. I wasn't aware as I'd never read any of it. My initial post was merely remarking on that.

 

[Wibble]

What's the 'woke narrative these days?'

"I need more melatonin" perhaps?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I thought this was kind of accepted?
She did a good job of creating a world (granted some plot holes and the mother of all plot armours) and getting her readers emotionally invested. It’s a good hero’s journey. That much is clear. She can’t write like Tolkien though.

Tolkien was a bad writer. He was great at world building but at the actual craft of writing he was poor. Far too overly descriptive, not powerful on a sentence level like a Cormac McCarthy and most of his characters were paper thin stereotypes. Rowling, while still no legend or great novelists, is a better writer than Tolkien was.

 

[Wibble]

Tolkien was a bad writer. He was great at world building but at the actual craft of writing he was poor. Far too overly descriptive, not powerful on a sentence level like a Cormac McCarthy and most of his characters were paper thin stereotypes. Rowling, while still no legend or great novelists, is a better writer than Tolkien was.

And the terrible songs and poems. The best thing the films did was cut out Tom Bombadill.

 

[Cascarino]

Tolkien was a bad writer. He was great at world building but at the actual craft of writing he was poor. Far too overly descriptive, not powerful on a sentence level like a Cormac McCarthy and most of his characters were paper thin stereotypes. Rowling, while still no legend or great novelists, is a better writer than Tolkien was.

While actually agreeing with your criticism you've outlined regarding Tolkien, I still have him far above Rowling when comparing the two writers, especially as bar the first those criticisms apply to Rowling's work to a greater extent than Tolkien's.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Is she related to that famous Irish painter?

distantly

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

While actually agreeing with your criticism you've outlined regarding Tolkien, I still have him far above Rowling when comparing the two writers, especially as bar the first those criticisms apply to Rowling's work to a greater extent than Tolkien's.

I agree to some extent since many of her characters are not very complex but at least she wrote both female and male characters who make decisions that matter, unlike Tolkien who couldn't write a woman to save his life so she takes it for me (although I wouldn't put either among the best fantasy/sci-fi writers).

And the terrible songs and poems. The best thing the films did was cut out Tom Bombadill.

Indeed. I had to skip over those parts as they were really bad.

 

[Cascarino]

I agree to some extent since many of her characters are not very complex but at least she wrote both female and male characters who make decisions that matter, unlike Tolkien who couldn't write a woman to save his life so she takes it for me (although I wouldn't put either among the best fantasy/sci-fi writers)

That's actually a very good point

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I agree to some extent since many of her characters are not very complex but at least she wrote both female and male characters who make decisions that matter, unlike Tolkien who couldn't write a woman to save his life so she takes it for me (although I wouldn't put either among the best fantasy/sci-fi writers).

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Rowling's writing of female characters is no better by the standards of the 90s/2000s than Tolkien's was by the standards of the 30/40s.

I'm not a massive advocate of Tolkien as a writer, but I'd say that Eowyn's plotline and character journey in Lord of the Rings, whilst obviously not amazing or perfect, is more carefully thought out than anything Rowling does with any of her female characters. Outside of Frodo and Sam's ones, it's actually probably the one which feels the most personal to Tolkien.

Eowyn's arc is that she lives in a culture (roughly based on the culture depicted in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, but it's sort of a metaphor for early-20th century militarism) which values glory and honour in battle (an exclusively male activity) above all else. She starts off accepting that glory and honour in battle is what is most important, and therefore aspires to go to war instead of staying home and doing the unsung stuff her society expects women to do (which is basically to enable the men go off to attain glory and honour in battle by doing everything else).

She rejects the role she's given and goes off to war secretly, attaining glory and honour in battle by killing the Witch King. But having done that, she realises that glory and honour in battle is what her society values rather than what she values. Her arc ends with her rejecting the expectations of her militaristic society entirely in favour of choosing to spend the rest of her life doing something which falls completely outside of the roles her culture assigns to men or women (which is reflective of Tolkien's pacifistic streak, he sees the best possible thing for a character to be doing is to try and fix the awful things done in war, like Sam with his gardening and box of soil from Lorien).

On the other hand, in Harry Potter the matronly mother figure who spends most of the series nagging people, knitting them ugly jumpers or crying calls someone a bitch at the end.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Rowling's writing of female characters is no better by the standards of the 90s/2000s than Tolkien's was by the standards of the 30/40s.

I'm not a massive advocate of Tolkien as a writer, but I'd say that Eowyn's plotline and character journey in Lord of the Rings, whilst obviously not amazing or perfect, is more carefully thought out than anything Rowling does with any of her female characters. Outside of Frodo and Sam's ones, it's actually probably the one which feels the most personal to Tolkien.

Eowyn's arc is that she lives in a culture (roughly based on the culture depicted in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, but it's sort of a metaphor for early-20th century militarism) which values glory and honour in battle (an exclusively male activity) above all else. She starts off accepting that glory and honour in battle is what is most important, and therefore aspires to go to war instead of staying home and doing the unsung stuff her society expects women to do (which is basically to enable the men go off to attain glory and honour in battle by doing everything else).

She rejects the role she's given and goes off to war secretly, attaining glory and honour in battle by killing the Witch King. But having done that, she realises that glory and honour in battle is what her society values rather than what she values. Her arc ends with her rejecting the expectations of her militaristic society entirely in favour of choosing to spend the rest of her life doing something which falls completely outside of the roles her culture assigns to men or women (which is reflective of Tolkien's pacifistic streak, he sees the best possible thing for a character to be doing is to try and fix the awful things done in war, like Sam with his gardening and box of soil from Lorien).

On the other hand, in Harry Potter the matronly mother figure who spends most of the series nagging people, knitting them ugly jumpers or crying calls someone a bitch at the end.

Not buying it. Eowyn is one of the few females in the entire series that gets more than a sentence or two and her arc is extremely minor overall. She might have played an important minor part in the plot but she isn't written very well nor frequently compared to all the main characters. I remember being quite underwhelmed by how little attention is really paid to her and her arc although it was more interesting than a lot of the hobbit stuff so it would have been nice to get more pagetime.

Also, it's a bit unfair to just pick one female in Rowling's world the way you did. That would be a valid criticism if Rowlings only had 2-3 females across the saga like Tolkien but when she writes about a wide range of women from Hermione to Tonks to Minerva to Luna, I don't think it's even comparable. Rowling's females span the range of different types of people and they all play just as important roles in the plot compared to Tolkien who has what, 2 or 3 women in the entire trilogy that even get more than a passing mention and even then Eowyn is just about the only one that does anything (Galadriel is a joke and Arwen doesn't really do anything in the books).

So yeah, Rowlings > Tolkien when it comes to female-male character balance and qualities.

Although, for reference, both GRRM and Rothfus do quality female (and male) characters better than either Tolkien or Rowlings iMO

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Not buying it. Eowyn is one of the few females in the entire series that gets more than a sentence or two and her arc is extremely minor overall. She might have played an important minor part in the plot but she isn't written very well nor frequently compared to all the main characters. I remember being quite underwhelmed by how little attention is really paid to her and her arc although it was more interesting than a lot of the hobbit stuff so it would have been nice to get more pagetime.

Also, it's a bit unfair to just pick one female in Rowling's world the way you did. That would be a valid criticism if Rowlings only had 2-3 females across the saga like Tolkien but when she writes about a wide range of women from Hermione to Tonks to Minerva to Luna, I don't think it's even comparable. Rowling's females span the range of different types of people and they all play just as important roles in the plot compared to Tolkien who has what, 2 or 3 women in the entire trilogy that even get more than a passing mention and even then Eowyn is just about the only one that does anything (Galadriel is a joke and Arwen doesn't really do anything in the books).

So yeah, Rowlings > Tolkien when it comes to female-male character balance and qualities.

Although, for reference, both GRRM and Rothfus do quality female (and male) characters better than either Tolkien or Rowlings iMO

Obviously I'm not going to argue that Tolkien has better gender balance than Rowling, or that the women he does deign to include get more "screentime" than Rowling's women. I think the criticism of Tolkien for not including more female characters is fair play. However, I do think the criticism he gets for writing female characters 'badly' is really odd. Eowyn isn't a late 20th century woman living in something akin to late 20th century England, like Rowling's characters are. She's a woman in a book stylistically and thematically inspired by mythology and epic poetry (so most characters don't get any inner monologue, and most are there to either further a plot point, or showcase a theme/message), living in a society loosely based on those portrayed in Anglo-Saxon epic poems of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the conceit of the book is that she (like some of the other characters) is speaking a heavily accented version of what is her second language, which is rendered to the reader as a stylised form of Modern English. I'm not sure by what measure you can say that she's "badly" written, or at least, by what measure you can say she's written any worse than anyone else. I'd actually argue that her and Faramir get the most significant and fleshed out character arcs of any non-Hobbit, and some of the best dialogue.

And yeah I was being tongue in cheek when I referenced Mrs Weasley, but I think the point stands more broadly. Rowling's idea of writing well-rounded female characters is basically to write caricatures, and then give them the odd moment where something sad happens to them, or where they play against type, to hint at depth which simply isn't there. Although, it's fair to say that that's Rowling's approach to writing people generally.

Going off topic, but I'm interested to see Rothfuss cited as someone who writes women well. I've always though the women in Kingkiller Chronicles are purposefully written in a way which implies an unreliable narrator (i.e - Kvothe is telling the story and he's depicting women as they appeared to him as a horny teenage boy, rather than exactly as they were).

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Obviously I'm not going to argue that Tolkien has better gender balance than Rowling, or that the women he does deign to include get more "screentime" than Rowling's women. I think the criticism of Tolkien for not including more female characters is fair play. However, I do think the criticism he gets for writing female characters 'badly' is really odd. Eowyn isn't a late 20th century woman living in something akin to late 20th century England, like Rowling's characters are. She's a woman in a book stylistically and thematically inspired by mythology and epic poetry (so most characters don't get any inner monologue, and most are there to either further a plot point, or showcase a theme/message), living in a society loosely based on those portrayed in Anglo-Saxon epic poems of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the conceit of the book is that she (like some of the other characters) is speaking a heavily accented version of what is her second language, which is rendered to the reader as a stylised form of Modern English. I'm not sure by what measure you can say that she's "badly" written, or at least, by what measure you can say she's written any worse than anyone else. I'd actually argue that her and Faramir get the most significant and fleshed out character arcs of any non-Hobbit, and some of the best dialogue.

And yeah I was being tongue in cheek when I referenced Mrs Weasley, but I think the point stands more broadly. Rowling's idea of writing well-rounded female characters is basically to write caricatures, and then give them the odd moment where something sad happens to them, or where they play against type, to hint at depth which simply isn't there. Although, it's fair to say that that's Rowling's approach to writing people generally.

Going off topic, but I'm interested to see Rothfuss cited as someone who writes women well. I've always though the women in Kingkiller Chronicles are purposefully written in a way which implies an unreliable narrator (i.e - Kvothe is telling the story and he's depicting women as they appeared to him as a horny teenage boy, rather than exactly as they were).

That's a fair criticism of Rowling's work but I don't think it makes a difference regarding Tolkien's fault at not writing female characters and females being not just practically irrelevant in his world but also in his writing. Part of why I say he can't write female characters well is quite simply because he doesn't. You can't just ignore how many females Rowlings writes and develops compared to Tolkien or saying Tolkien can't/doesn't write female characters. I can't tell you how many woman I've met in the last 20 years that have been Harry Potter fans and inspired by a female character in the series. I don't think I've ever met a woman who has been inspired by one of Tolkien's very few female characters who are all also caricatures (even more so than Rowling's).

Eowyn is such a minor character with so little pagetime in the grand scheme that I don't think that makes him even decent at writing female characters. He has two female characters that do next to nothing and are paper-thin stereotypes and then Eowyn, who gets a little more agency but it's hardly anything extraordinary or complex and comes off as very token and box-checking.

Tolkien wasn't an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon poet, he was a 20th-century novelist and literature professor at one of the most esteemed universities in the world. I would expect far better from someone in that position than an 8th-century poet. No matter what his inspiration, he should be judged by what he produced, which is a 20th-century novel. Even if we just compare him to a fantasy contemporary, CS Lewis (and not even the great novelists of his era), Lewis does a better job at writing female characters with agency than Tolkien and they were both inspired by older myths and writing in the same era.

Re: Rothfus,
That is kinda the point. Rothfus is writing on multiple levels and despite that obvious unreliable perspective, a reader can understand the females in Name of Wind as more complex and intriguing than anything in LotR because they are seeing them through a character's eyes which is a higher level of writing than what Tolkien does with his few female characters.

Anyway, I'll just end with this bit of fun. I do think the comment here on Tolkien applies: "all your bad guys die, your good guys survive, we can tell what's going to happen by page and age five"

 

[jeff_goldblum]

@oneniltothearsenal - all fair points I think.

I guess I'm trying to judge each author by the yardstick of what they are trying to do, as opposed to what readers expect from a novel. I don't think Tolkien (outside of the hobbits) is trying to write characters we recognise and can relate to, he's writing characters whose arcs, like in Beowulf or the Iliad or mythology generally, embody a theme or moral lesson. And it's on that basis I'm trying to judge the likes of Galadriel and Eowyn, as opposed to whether they are realistic women I can imagine meeting. Book-Aragorn isn't a realistic man I can imagine meeting either, he's an Arthurian warrior-hero figure.

Rowling is clearly trying to write relatable, positive female characters, so I can't help but judge her unfavourably when she writes them unrealistically/stereotypically, doesn't give them significant character arcs, or when their only function in the story is as a sidekick/support/love interest to the main dude. I also can't help but judge her unfavourably when her female baddies are almost universally stock sexist archetypes (big fat aunts, jealous, shrewish sisters, obsessive lovestruck maniacs).

I agree on Rothfuss. With the female characters in the Kingkiller books I always get the sense that there's depth to them which Kvothe skips over or doesn't quite understand, which is impressive given that he's only using Kvothe's voice to get that across.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

@oneniltothearsenal - all fair points I think.

I guess I'm trying to judge each author by the yardstick of what they are trying to do, as opposed to what readers expect from a novel. I don't think Tolkien (outside of the hobbits) is trying to write characters we recognise and can relate to, he's writing characters whose arcs, like in Beowulf or the Iliad or mythology generally, embody a theme or moral lesson. And it's on that basis I'm trying to judge the likes of Galadriel and Eowyn, as opposed to whether they are realistic women I can imagine meeting. Book-Aragorn isn't a realistic man I can imagine meeting either, he's an Arthurian warrior-hero figure.

Rowling is clearly trying to write relatable, positive female characters, so I can't help but judge her unfavourably when she writes them unrealistically/stereotypically, doesn't give them significant character arcs, or when their only function in the story is as a sidekick/support/love interest to the main dude. I also can't help but judge her unfavourably when her female baddies are almost universally stock sexist archetypes (big fat aunts, jealous, shrewish sisters, obsessive lovestruck maniacs).

I agree on Rothfuss. With the female characters in the Kingkiller books I always get the sense that there's depth to them which Kvothe skips over or doesn't quite understand, which is impressive given that he's only using Kvothe's voice to get that across.

I'm going to edit my response a little to get back to the main point.

Rowling is, just as much as Tolkien, writing to embody a theme or moral lesson so if that factor can excuse stereotypes or thin characters for Tolkien it also 100% applies to Rowling as well (she was writing YA not adult fantasy like GRRM). I don't see the hobbits as recognizable or relatable either, they were all also caricatures and thin stereotypes.

I think with some of the backlash to some of Rowling's tweets, people forget what an achievement she made. She was the first to really bring fantasy up to date (albeit YA fantasy) by including a full roster of female characters from the protagonists to antagonists to supporting in a way that no fantasy writer has really done before her in such a successful way. I don't agree that her female antagonists were almost universally stock sexist archetypes either (Bellatrix, Malfoy's mum, Fleur, etc all had more depth than that). It was truly remarkable and for the first time, you would see huge amounts of female fans of fantasy instead of what you'd usually see (90%+ males). I think it's clear she succeeds at writing female characters to some degree more than Tolkien even if she isn't as adept as adult novelists like Jennifer Egan or Megan Abbott.

Tolkien also had a big achievement: world-building. For western writers, he pioneered a form of world-building that was much deeper than seen before (although I would argue that Asian wuxia writers were doing just as deep world-building before Tolkien and contemporary to him such as Wang Dulu & Jin Yong). But Tolkien lacked in many aspects of the actual craft of writing so even with her flaws, I think Rowling is the superior writer even if we take into account what they were intending to write.

 

[Donaldo]

Referencing Bellatrix, Malfoy's mum and Fleur as characters with any depth isn't helping your argument mate.

 

[Donaldo]

And as a womban I'd expect her to have more experience with womben than a horny geriartric.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I think with some of the backlash to some of Rowling's tweets, people forget what an achievement she made. She was the first to really bring fantasy up to date (albeit YA fantasy) by including a full roster of female characters from the protagonists to antagonists to supporting in a way that no fantasy writer has really done before her in such a successful way. I don't agree that her female antagonists were almost universally stock sexist archetypes either (Bellatrix, Malfoy's mum, Fleur, etc all had more depth than that). It was truly remarkable and for the first time, you would see huge amounts of female fans of fantasy instead of what you'd usually see (90%+ males). I think it's clear she succeeds at writing female characters to some degree more than Tolkien even if she isn't as adept as adult novelists like Jennifer Egan or Megan Abbott.

Ursula Le Guin?

 

[entropy]

octavia butler as well

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Ursula Le Guin?

octavia butler as well

Le Guin is a good call out although I'd put her more into science-fiction or speculative fiction than fantasy. Butler, not so much because while she is perhaps the best writer out of all mentioned, she doesn't fit in the fantasy category for me. She's much more literary fiction than fantasy.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Le Guin is a good call out although I'd put her more into science-fiction or speculative fiction than fantasy. Butler, not so much because while she is perhaps the best writer out of all mentioned, she doesn't fit in the fantasy category for me. She's much more literary fiction than fantasy.

Fantasy isn't her main genre, true, but the Earthsea series is pretty textbook.