Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 January 27

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.

January 27

What do you call the mongrel half science/half memoir genre

Over the last 20 years or so (as far as I have noticed) a genre of "science" writing has become very prevalent where one would think from the cover one is going to get hard science, then on the inside at least half the text is devoted to describing the author's personal struggles, how he had to hike through grueling heat to get to the archaeological dig, how he had to struggle to overcome his own misconceptions, or the opposition of others, how he got sick, suffered a great personal loss, yatta, yatta, yatta. This book: The Evolution Revolution: Design Without Intelligence is a perfect example--that is, a horrible book. If I wanted to hear about suffering I'd read The Bell Jar. The reason I want a book on science is...the science. Well, I am wondering, what is the name of this mongrelized genre, if anyone knows if it has one? Thanks. -- 01:48, 27 January 2013‎ Medeis

I've noticed this, too. Apparently books, movies, etc., on science alone don't do well, so they often toss in this personal stuff. I don't know of a name for it, maybe "soft science" ? StuRat (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to use soft science to describe the speculation of Julian Jaynes or Desmond Morris or Carl Sagan in his Dragons of Eden, which I loved as a kid. But half of this crap isn't even about the theory, it's about the scientist's personal feeling of what it is like to be a scientician. From an Amazon review of the above linked book

It is true: for some reason the publisher chose to package this book as a direct engagement with intelligent design theory. No doubt somebody in marketing cooked that idea up, because the term doesn't even appear in the index.

[...]That being said, the book is a wonderful read... once you accept what kind of book it really is: it is more like a collection of essays, rather than a long coherent argument. Much of the book is written in the first person, including vivid accounts of scaling precarious outcrops in the West Australian outback, looking for some of the oldest known records of animals on this planet. It is written with warmth and humour.

I mean really? If I want to read about "scaling precarious outcrops" I'll get a book on a notable base jumper or that guy who had to cut his boulder-pinned arm off.

The swift rise in prevalence of this, especially since the '90's, makes me think there must be some literary or publishing theory behind it and a name for that theory. I used to buy the NYT, religiously on tuesdays for the science section. When the gay Sulzberger son took over publishing the Times back when I worked for Christopher Street Magazine, his first order of business was that there be at least one gay-sympathetic story in each section daily. That meant the science section started getting stories about what it was like to be a lesbian lab researcher--which was human interest, not science. Frankly, I'd like a name to identify this trend, so I can avoid its fruits. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try looking for "hard science", that might work. I think that excludes both iffy speculation and that personal interest stuff. You might also do better to stick with textbooks. The only "personal interest" I've seen in those is the occasional one-page biography for the scientist in question. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just call it "popular science". I think authors mainly do that because they believe it will make their books interesting to a wider class of readers. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, well popular science is just science reporting that's presented at a layman's level, not the human-interest hybrid. There's got to be an English or journalism major whose taken a course on science writing who can comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, travel books with personal narratives (e.g. Bill Bryson) are sometimes called "travel literature", so could (popular) science books with personal narratives be called "science literature"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496, it's popular science (possibly "literature of science" as it says there, but that term seems obscure) -- which really isn't restricted to the narrow sense you have described, Medeis. There may be a industry trade name but I don't know of it, and I doubt it since editors and publishers usually stick with established categories. Two different books may have quite a different amount of scientific content (or value, if you prefer) but both could be considered popsci because it's such a nebulous grouping. Usually the publisher's labels are clues to the hybrid nature: looking at two of my favorite math books e.g. The Man Who Loved Only Numbers is tagged as Science/Biography, (on the back cover) while Fermat's Enigma is labeled as Math/History. The former has more personal info, the latter more number theory, both are considered popular science (afaik). If you're still not satisfied by that catchall, perhaps asking over at the Science desk (hopefully with a link to this thread) will yield another answer. El duderino ^(abides) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, popular science might be the genus involved, so that all such books like the one described are a kind of popular science. But it doesn't define the genre. Not all popular science addresses memoir-like material, nor does it need to to be popular science. Such biographical touches were rare in 20th century popular science before the 80's. Sagan wrote popular science, he didn't include his own story as part of the narrative. Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins write popular science, and they don't do it. Stephen Jay Gould didn't really do it. Oliver Sacks wrote biography and also wrote about himself, but then to describe scientifically his own various syndromes. Not to describe his harrowing subway rides to get to the clinic. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm not sure what you're driving at, regarding the original question. A certain label which you can avoid? "Science/Memoir" and "Popular Science/Memoir" [1] are equally hokey to me, as category names. I don't see Amazon et al, parsing popsci like that... But even within that category there is good and bad. Doesn't every genre have a quality range, both in style and substance relative to each genre? Just from my own experience, I think 'popular science' has devolved into a broader spectrum nowadays, such that this new-ish class (or genus) of books in "Science-Memoir" falls on the lighter side, with Hawking and much of Sagan's work on the heavier side. Anyway labels are largely decided by publishers, booksellers and their marketing arms, not so much by authors or readers. As I consider myself somewhat more scientifically inclined than average, I actually would be interested in hearing what others say at the Science desk, as suggested before. El duderino ^(abides) 08:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Vidal

Kropotkin, in his 1913 preface to The Conquest of Bread, writes "Vidal in France and Lorenz Stein in Germany further developed, in two remarkable works, published in 1846 and 1847 respectively, the theoretical conceptions of Considérant; and finally Vidal, and especially Pecqueur, developed in detail the system of collectivism, which the former wanted the National Assembly of 1848 to vote in the shape of laws." Lorenz Stein is Lorenz von Stein, Considérant is Victor Prosper Considerant, and Pecqueur is Constantin Pecqueur, but who is Vidal? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

François Vidal—a brief description of his career can be found in note 54 here. Oddly, even the French Wikipedia appears to lack an article on him. Deor (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Identify composer

Who is this [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.82.131 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The wig style places him firmly within the Classical period, so that gives you a start for places to look. --Jayron32 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

looks like Haydn. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very grainy, and I'm betting it's a shot from a movie, i.e. an actor, possibly playing a composer, rather than a photo of a portrait of an actual composer, assuming it is in fact a composer (you don't say why you think he's a composer but I agree it's quite like a young Joe Haydn). You might want to check out List of composers depicted on film. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an engraving, not an image of a live person, Jack. Or maybe we are seeing two different things? The image I see is blue and black. It matches Haydn's wig style if you do a google image search, and matches some of his depictions, although the better and more honest ones show him with a less pretty nose. Not that portraiture back then was honest or concerned with accuracy. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing nothing now except a grey screen. I must have limited views of that image or something. I only saw it twice. Seems pretty harsh. I'm not going to sign in. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The style of the image is late 19th century, but the costume is 18th century. My guess is that it's a somewhat idealised version of Haydn's face. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd still like to know why the OP thinks it's a composer at all. If we don't know who he is, he might be a chicken plucker. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Nader and 2000

Why did Ralph Nader first run a serious campaign in the 2000 U.S. Presidential election instead of in 1996, when the outcome was not in doubt at all? Has Nader ever said anything about this? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ralph Nader#2000 explains why. --Jayron32 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of disgruntled Democratic voters have still never forgiven Nader -- not so much for running for president in 2000, as for stepping up his campaign in October, especially in the swing states, even though he knew very well that it was quite unlikely that he would receive 5% of the overall presidential popular vote (which would have made the 2004 Green Party candidate eligible for federal matching funds). Some people think he was following the nineteenth-century "the worse the better" revolutionary ideology -- that having an oppressive government in power is better for the proletariat than having a mild government, because an oppressive government is more likely to create conditions for a revolutionary backlash... AnonMoos (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you're right. Nader apparently said that a "bumbling Texas governor [Bush] would galvanize the environmental community as never before." That said, is there any more info on this that I don't know about? Futurist110 (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As a political strategy, it was both cynical and stupid, since Gore would have been the most environmentally-activist president that Nader would be likely to get during his lifetime -- and it also has resulted in tarnishing the U.S. Green party brand to some degree (some people blame the second Iraq war on the Green party). AnonMoos (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about during Nader's lifetime, but yeah, Gore would have probably been much better on the environment and on many other issues than George W. Bush was in real life. Futurist110 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!" μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that you're onto something. Futurist110 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jacobite Succession

There is a question as to who is the rightful Jacobite claimant to the British throne. The most common recognized claimant is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. But because Franz's ancestry includes a niece-uncle marriage which is not recognized as legal under British law, some royal watchers say that the rightful claimant is actually the Infanta Alicia, Duchess of Calabria. But Alicia married her second cousin. Is that a valid marriage under British law so that her children are proper claimants to the British throne? RNealK (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The question has no answer until you specify which British laws you intend to treat as valid. If for example you accept the law that states that the monarch must be a Protestant, then there is no rightful Jacobite claimant. Looie496 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the absolutely meaningless answer. RNealK (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is Constitutionally very meaningful. The Jacobites lost their lawful claim to the throne by the Act of Settlement 1701. The British Monarch reigns by will of Parliament and there can be no "rightful claimant" outside of the parameters set by it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly correct, OP. By definition, no claimant who isn't recognised by the law can possibly be a "rightful" claimant, unless you're talking about some other "law", which is what Looie asked you to specify. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles Avunculate marriage, Alternative successions of the English crown, Jacobite succession#Alternative successions. Cousin marriage has been permitted in England since the 16th-century, when it was decided to basically only prohibit those marriages forbidden by Leviticus 18 (with a little tidying up around the edges). Both Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin married their first cousins, so it's hard to see how marrying your second cousin could keep you off the UK throne (unless your second cousin is a Catholic, of course)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That fact aside, it is perfectly legal to marry your first, second or third cousin under English and Scottish law. See Cousin marriage#United Kingdom. However, that won't get any of them closer to the throne. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the 'United Kingdom' section of Cousin marriage sure does repeat a lot of the same material as the 'Pakistan' section. It's almost like someone was trying to make a point. I may go and fix that if I get a chance later. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In a few societies (mainly Muslim) there's preferred father's brother's sister marriage, or "endogamous" cousin marriage, as opposed to the preferential cross-cousin marriage or "exogamous" cousin marriage found in many tribal societies, or the allowed (but not preferred) cousin marriage in European societies. Endogamous cousin marriage is probably the most problematic for long-term health consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the tradition - I have distant relatives by marriage who practiced it. I'm also aware of the health problems. My problem with the phrasing in the article is that a lot of the 'Pakistan' section is about the UK, and almost all of the UK section is about British Pakistanis. There must, surely, be enough to be said about Pakistanis other than British Pakistanis in the 'Pakistan' section, and about a wider range of British ethnicities in the 'UK' section. I'm aware of numerous examples of first-cousin and first-cousin-once-removed marriages among ethnic Brits of various kinds over the past 300 years; I presume there is some research on the subject. Indeed - I now recall having seen an article by one of Charles Darwin's sons about the prevalence of first cousin marriage among certain English social classes, including his own parents. (This may be mentioned in the general part of our cousin marriage article - I shall have to go and check. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses."[3] Alansplodge (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

@AnonMoos - I (think I) understand your point, but for the sake of clarity, endogamy and exogamy are not equivalent terms for any particular kind of cousin marriage, they simple refer to marriage within the group and outside the group, respectively, where "the group" is a nebulous and subjective concept open to different interpretations by different people, though it can be used to classify cousins as you suggest. The relevant article is at parallel and cross cousins. Matt Deres (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cross-cousin marriage is no guarantee of genetic diversity, but it's based on a principle of keeping things circulating which can hinder the worst kinds of interbreeding. By contrast, father's brother's daughter marriage reflects a determination to keep things within a single patrilineal lineage. Note that "parallel cousin" is not the same thing as "father's brother's child" (since mother's sister's children are also parallel cousins). I don't think there's any custom of parallel-cousin marriage (where both types of parallel cousins would be preferential marriage partners)... And many societies have very precisely defined genealogical groups; the simplest version is the "moiety" system, where half the people of a tribe are in one genealogical group, and half in the other. If people belonging to the same moiety are forbidden to marry each other, and moiety membership is either uniformly patrilineal or uniformly matrilineal, then your siblings and parallel cousins are in your own moiety, while your cross-cousins are in the other moiety. Such a society is moiety-exogamous... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

List of well known Americans living and working in Africa

Looking for well known Americans living and working in Africa. Would appreciate any help 49.206.53.229 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)vsmurthy

That's a tough one. I don't think there's a list for Americans in Africa, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_diaspora) might give you some information to gnaw on:

Cheers, JLDW^talk 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

post card DVDs

I'm trying to figure out which company produces these types of DVDs. They consist of post card-like images set to music and some coordinating sound effects. I saw the DVDs for sale at quite a few Walgreens locations and some souvenir stores. Please let me know if more information is available. Thank you.142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It might help if you said what the images were. Almost every tourism department produces similar DVDs which they either give away or sell very cheaply to promote local attractions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In a few San Francisco locations, the images were Coit Tower, Golden Gate Park, to name many. In a few New York City locations, the images were Battery Park, Central Park, to name many. The images were set to the same music, but different coordinating sound effects. Thus, the DVDs I'm trying to refer to may be produced by the same company. Could I be right?142.255.103.121 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"To name many?" Didn't you only name one? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you just google "[insert location] scenery DVD" you will find a whole raft of companies that produce this type of DVDs.

For example, when I googled "Australia scenery DVD" I found this company which seems to specialise in DVDs of this type featuring images of Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I want. Actually, it's a CD-ROM with images set to music and coordinating sound effects. 142.255.103.121 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The first actress of her country - does any one know more?

Hello! I am interested in theater history and are currently focusing on the first professional actress in Norway, whom I have identified as Christiane Hansen. I think she should have an article here, and given information, I would gladly start it myself. The first permanent professional public theater in Norway was as I understand the theatre of Johan Peter Strömberg in Oslo in 1827. In this article: [4], Christiane Hansen (later married Lang Bocher) is briefly mentioned as the first actress of note on that theatre. But that is all. I have found nothing more. Does any one here now anything more? At least the year of birth and death? Is she perhaps more easy to find under a different name? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about her, but there's no article for her (under that name) on either of the Norwegian Wikipedias (no. or nn.), which is not a good sign... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's where I'm up to: There is a text (in Norwegian) about the theatre and Strömberg: [5]. Unfortunately I can't seem to copy/paste from it (some sort of copyright protection thing?), but the relevant sentence, from section 25 Den Stombergske Theater is "Han var heldig nok til at faa fat i to flinke Subjekter i Jens Lang Bøcher och Jfr. Christiane Hansen (som siden blev Mad. Bøcher og derefter Mad. Berg)." (Rough translation: "He was lucky enough to find two fine subjects in Jens Lang Bøcher and Miss Christiane Hansen (who later became Mrs Bøcher and then Mrs Berg)").

The fact she is initially referred to as Jfr. Hansen (Miss Hansen) suggests this is her maiden name. I think the text refers to an event of 1828, implying that she was unmarried at that point and married Jens Lang Bøcher some time after 1828. Unfortunately I'm having trouble tracking her down using Google alone, but maybe someone with access to genealogical sources might be able to use some of this to pinpoint her. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

An update: I've been searching Arkivverket (the National Archives of Norway but have drawn a blank. I have found nothing relevant for Christine Hansen, only one possibly relevant record for a Christine Berg, who was born in 1797 as Christine Johannesen, and absolutely no record of either Christine Bøcher or Jens Lang Bøcher. The first Norwegian census available is from 1865. Since Norway in the 19th century at different times both a part of Denmark and in a union with Sweden, I tried searching the Danish and Swedish archives. I found nothing in the Swedish archives. I found the Danish archives almost impossible to search - it seems you can only search one municipality at a time, which is not much use if you don't know where someone was born or living. I'll get back to you if I find any more. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This book about the history of Strömbergs theater states on page 26 that Strömberg realised the theatre couldn't subsist on native actors alone and November 15 1827 he gained royal approval of hiring some Danish actors, of which he was lucky enough to gain "two clever subjects (lit. "flinke Subjekter") in Jens Lang Bøcher and Jomfru Christiane Hansen (later Madam Bøcher and eventually Madam Berg)". So she was indeed Danish. However the book also mentions other Norwegian-born actresses, which appeared on the stage before the engagement of Christiane Hansen: namely Jomfru Kolstad, Jomfru Ely, Henriette Hansen and Andrine Christensen, the last two being only actresses in training, but the first two fullfledged and I would guess professional actresses (pag. 12, 25ff and 38). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting - I see we've all been using different versions of the same text!

I may possibly have found the birth record for Jens Lang Bøcher, although I'd appreciate it if someone can check my understanding of the Danish material - being an Englishman who speaks a bit of Swedish means my Danish is not brilliant! This appears to be a copy of a census record from 1801, showing 'Jens Lang', son of Ulrich Böcher, aged 2 in 1801. This is confirmed by this copy of the Copenhagen parish records, showing Jens Lang born on 11.10.1799 and baptised 09.11.1799. (This was a big confusion to me since I was thinking dn:døbt = sv:död = en:dead, and that the child had died 3 weeks after birth. It took a long time for the penny to drop!) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the cognates are sv:dop and en:dip. HTH. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be him alright, born in Copenhagen (the parish of the Helligåndskirken). Interestingly enough the first link you provided to the genealogy forum discussing him, a poster says that his father was actually born in Risør in Norway in 1774. Of course birthplace doesn't equate nationality, and full information was not posted in the thread but only mailed privately. It is technically possible that he could have been Danish or even German (as the name seems to contain hints of German to me), but the Norwegian link does provide an explanation as to why he was chosen to be hired by Strömberg.

The book I linked says that Christiane Hansen latter married to the name "Berg", so it suggests that Bøcher died relatively early in Norway, he was the leader of the theatre for a while, and she remarried someone named Berg, most likely another Norwegian (although the name Berg is also common in Denmark) and the clue to her later life should thus probably be found in Norway. There may even be some information in the book I linked. I only browsed the first 50 pages or so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting indeed with so many long answers, I will read them more carefully later, but I must add directly: with "first Norwegian actress", I meant simply a professional actress active on the first permanent theatre in Norway, so it is perfectly okay that she was from Denmark. I also which to learn about her in particular, although I am grateful for the names of other early actresses, which can be usefull to look up later - for example, I understand that there was travelling theatres with Norwegian actors in the late 18th century. --Aciram (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the best death?

I remember reading various classical Roman figures had their opinions as to what the best death would be. For example, a noble death, an unexpected death, a voluntary death. I was hoping to find a list of these with classical figures who said them, but searches for "best death according to romans" or "best ways to die according to romans" yield unhelpful results. Would anybody be of help finding such a list? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Dying a Roman Death", Death in Ancient Rome, Catherine Edwards

And I sent you a link through Special:EmailUser for a PDF of pages 39-45 of Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook, Valerie Hope, section titled "Good deaths and bad deaths". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting reading. Appreciate you taking the trouble to email the link. That was commentary on actual deaths, though. More what I am looking for is attributed opinions, like "Smartius Panscius said the best death was a well-timed one" whether he actually died that way or not. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Define "best" death. Fastest? Most memorable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, did you read the actual question or just the header? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you always attack respondents in front of the OP, or is this a one-time occurrence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kpalion asks the right question, Bugs. It makes no sense for you to ask for mine or anyone else's here definition of a best death if you comprehend my question. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So you don't want a practical answer, you just want some quotes about an allegedly "best" death. OK, whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How could you have a practical answer? It's a subjective question. It's only an appropriate question for the reference desk if you are looking for a specific person's (or group of people's) opinion (as the OP clearly said they were). --Tango (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first, "best" for who or what? The victim? His family? His legacy? His place in history? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

An objective answer is not what's being asked for. Imagine there's a cocktail party in Hell. The topic is proposed, "What, in one word, is the best sort of death?" Hitler says the best death is a glorious one. Oscar Wilde says the best death is a postponed one. Truman Capote says the best death is a spectacular one. Elvis says the best death is an undisclosed one. Now imagine we have various real life historical figures making such statements. What I am looking for is a list of such opinions, or even individual examples at this point as long as they are referenced. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I would think the most common answer would be "painless". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me, Oscar would be lolling on gold velvet cushions in the highest circles of Heaven, attended by as many young male angels as he could possibly accommodate. But apparently he didn't want to go there because none of his friends would be there. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's always Marcus Curtius... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some information at Roman funerals and burial, the Military section notes some things about particular honor given to deaths in the military. There's a source used in that article: J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World which may have some information. I don't know if it does or not, but the review at Google Books: [6] states " First, Toynbee examines Roman beliefs about death and the afterlife..." which may have some information on what the OP is looking for. --Jayron32 07:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)