#Warrant Publishing Company

[cryptofmadness]

INTERVIEW: Rich Sala (Warrant Publishing/Shudder and Vampiress Carmilla magazines)

Interview conducted by Chet Reams

Rich Sala is the Publisher at Warrant Publishing Company and has granted us at Crypt of MADness magazine an exclusive interview, for which we are very, very greatful! This interview was conducted over means of electronic correspondence in April 2024.

Chet Reams: Hello Rich! Thanks for agreeing to an interview!! Rich Sala: Thank you for taking an interest in Warrant Publishing Company and for reaching out.

Reams: So first off, how did Warrant Publishing/The Creeps magazine get started? Sala: Back in 2012, I was filling in some holes in my Warren magazine collection. While browsing the internet, I decided to do a few searches to if I could find anything similar to the old Warren magazines being produced for the current market. I saw a lot of horror comics, including the Dark Horse reboots of Creepy and Eerie and the Dynamite Vampirella titles, but almost everything I saw was being produced in the smaller, standard floppy comic book size, approximately 6.5’ x 10” with typically about 32 pages. There were absolutely no magazine sized black and white horror comics with 50 plus pages and none were being created with the classic horror art and story styles that I loved so much as a youngster. I was at a crossroads in my life so I decided to move forward with a serious attempt at contacting some of the original Warren artists and writers and reassembling some of the old Warren crew to help create a full-sized 8.5” x 11” black and white illustrated horror magazine. The first issue took two years to assemble. It was a modest 36 pages, with plans to expand to 52 pages if The Creeps #2 was possible. I assumed that since we featured four original Warren artists in the first magazine, The Creeps would be picked up by Diamond Comic Distributors right away, but sadly, it was not to be. The Diamond buyer at the time rejected our magazine. I’d already invested tens of thousands of dollars in the project so I had no choice but to try to recoup some of my initial investment. In June, 2014, I started selling The Creeps #1 solely through our website, while investing in a few Facebook promotions to help get the word out. Without Diamond, I was sure that The Creeps was going to bite the dust with issues #1. As it turned out, there was an extremely strong interest in the concept of the magazine from the older Warren fans and collectors, and online sales started pouring in. Within about 5 weeks, I’d tripled my initial investment and Warrant Publishing Company was in business. I continued The Creeps with the intention of producing the magazine twice annually. The second issue was released in December, 2014 and I submitted copies to a few national magazine distributors. One of those distributors, INGRAM (now defunct), contacted me saying that they were interested in distributing The Creeps through the Barnes and Noble bookstore chain, the nation’s largest, with a popular newsstand magazine section in each of their 700 locations. They required that the magazine move to a quarterly release schedule if they were to carry the book. I agreed, and The Creeps became a nationally distributed quarterly publication in Spring, 2015. The Creeps #3 sold so well through INGRAM that they sent us an extremely rare re-stocking order to replenish the sold out copies in many of their outlets. Then, in late 2016, I was contacted by a newly hired magazine buyer at Diamond Comic Distributors who wanted to distribute The Creeps magazine through Diamond. They started with The Creeps #10, which became their #1 selling magazine title right out of the gate.

Reams: What about Vampiress Carmilla magazine? Sala: We wanted to create a sister magazine for The Creeps, with a different kind of horror host. A Vampire character made sense, so we dug into the archives at the local library and finally settled on the title character from the public domain horror classic by author Sheridan Le Fanu, Carmilla. She is a beautiful young Vampiress who never ages. We trademarked the title and launched Vampiress Carmilla magazine in December, 2020 as a bi-monthly publication. Each magazine is released in the months between each bi-monthly issue of Shudder magazine, exactly how James Warren used to leap-frog releases of Creepy and Eerie magazine back in the 1960s.

Reams: Obviously there have been some legal issues with the owners of CREEPY/EERIE magazine, New Comic Company LLC, as they filed a lawsuit against you a couple years ago, which was eventually settled out of court. (The aforementioned lawsuit was for copyright infringement which is odd, because none of their material was used!) Was there ever any talk with New Comic Company, LLC about licensing out “CREEPY” and Uncle Creepy, as opposed to (what seems would be their intent ) to stop you from continuing The Creeps/Shudder? Sala: I can’t comment on the negotiations or terms of the settlement due to the included non-disclosure agreement. I will say that the transition from The Creeps to Shudder was seamless. Surprisingly, the orders from both our newsstand distributors and Diamond Comic Distributors increased by about 30% after the name change, which a nice, unexpected surprise. Go figure! LOL!

Reams: How did you gather the team of artists and writers for the magazine? Sala: We reached out to a lot of Warren creators in the beginning and the response was very positive. We published work from a couple dozen original Warren creators during our first few years and by 2017, the late, great Nicola Cuti, who had held three different editorial positions at Warren Publishing Company over the years, had become our associate editor. Our stable to newer artists either contacted us with samples of their work or we contacted them after seeing their work and determining that their style would be a good fit for our books.

Reams: Several of the legendary legacy artists and writers have passed away in the years since you started publishing your comic mags. Ken Kelly, Richard Corben, and others come to mind… How has that affected things? Any chance of getting more newer contemporary horror/fantasy artists to do front covers? Or for that matter, even back covers, variant covers, and the like? Sala: Not anytime soon. There is still a great wealth of work available from the original Warren cover artists. Those guys are aging out quickly so we feel an urgent need to commission as much work as possible from greats like Sanjulian, Jeff Easley, Don Maitz and others while they are still able to produce work. We’ve already lost Basil Gogos and the aforementioned Richard Corben and Ken Kelly, who produced close to a dozen original cover commissions for our magazines over the years. Having covers by actual Warren cover artists is instrumental in creating AUTHENTIC Warren-styled magazines, which is the sole purpose of Warrant Publishing Company. I’ve always thought Variant cover(s) were a money grab by publishers who want to re-sell the same book to their faithful readers over and over by slapping on a half dozen different covers. If a variant cover is so great, put it on its own damn book. Warren never released a variant cover and neither will we.

Reams: What happens with the original artwork pieces that are used in the magazine? Are they kept or at least retained as photo-stats, digital scans, or something else? Sala: Most of the work is digital these days, so there is no original art. I retain multiple backup files of EVERTHING. I have about half of the original story pages from The Creeps #1, but beyond that, I usually let the artists keep their own originals if they work in traditional media. I do have a few select original pages by some of the original Warren illustrators in our archives through. A page that EC artist Angelo Torres illustrated for Shudder #6 is among my most treasured pieces.

Reams: What kind of stories do you look for specifically for use in Shudder mag (formerly “The Creeps”) and Vampiress Carmilla? Sala: With very few exceptions, I look for work that would fit perfectly into a collection of 1970s illustrated horror stories without standing out. Artists who work digitally must be able to produce work that accurately mimics traditional media.

Reams: Are there any stories you flat-out would not print in the magazine? Sala: Sure. We produce PG-13 magazines with adult horror themes in the Warren style. We would never run anything overtly sexual like some of the so-called “modern horror comics.” No worms crawling out of, or cutting up women’s sexual organs - things that are obvious gore p-rn.

Reams: This is more of an “entertaining” question, but out of these three, which would you choose as a favorite series: EERIE, VAMPIRELLA or CREEPY? (of the Warren magazine series-run titles) Sala: My introduction to illustrated horror was Warren’s Creepy magazine. I saw my older sister’s copy of Creepy #14 before I could even read. Those pictures freaked me out and they are burned into my brain to this day. Warren’s Creepy is the first and best in illustrated horror. At least in the large magazine format that I prefer.

Reams: Do you have any kinds of exclusive scoops/announcements about the magazine(s) Warrant Publishing does, that you could tell us here at Crypt Of MADness mag? Sala: We’re launching a Shudder Magazine Fan Club this Summer, 2024 and we’re putting the finishing touches on some Shudder and Vampiress Carmilla T-shirt designs. Coming soon!

Reams: Thanks again for the interview, Rich!! Sala: You’re welcome.

[downthetubes]

Top artist lineup on offer in latest issue of Warrant Publishing’s SHUDDER

The latest issue of the American horror comic anthology SHUDDER - Issue 16 - is available to pre-order, and subscribers get a poster of the Frank Frazetta cover for free

The latest issue of the American horror comic anthology SHUDDER – Issue 16 – is available to pre-order, and subscribers get a poster of the Frank Frazetta cover for free. Published by the Warrant Publishing Company, who also publish the horror anthology Vampiress Carmella, SHUDDER, also available through your Local Comic Shop, is a marvellous homage to classic US horror anthologies such as…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Return to office and dying on the job

Denise Prudhomme's bosses at Wells Fargo insisted that the in-person camaraderie of their offices warranted a mandatory return-to-office policy, but when she died at her desk in her Tempe, AZ office, no one noticed for four days.

That was in August. Now, Wells Fargo United has published a statement on her death, one that vibrates with anger at the callously selective surveillance that Wells Fargo inflicts on its workforce:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WellsFargoUnited/comments/1fnp9fa/please_print_and_take_to_your_managersite_leader/

The union points out that Wells Fargo workers are subjected to continuous, fine-grained on-the-job surveillance from a variety of bossware tools that count their keystrokes and create tables of the distancess their mice cross each day:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/24/gwb-rumsfeld-monsters/#bossware

Wells Fargo's message to its workforce is, "You can't be trusted," a policy that Wells Fargo doubled down on with its Return to Office mandate. Return to Office is often pitched as a chance to improve teamwork, communication, and human connection with your co-workers, and there's no arguing with the idea that spending some time in person with people can help improve working relationships (I attended a week-long, all-hands, staff retreat for EFF earlier this month and it was fantastic, primarily due to its in-person nature).

But our bosses don't want us back in the office because they enjoy our company, nor because they're so excited about having hired such a swell bunch of folks and can't wait to see how we all get along together. As John Quiggin writes, the biggest reason to force us back to the office is to get a bunch of us to quit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/26/in-their-plaintive-call-for-a-return-to-the-office-ceos-reveal-how-little-they-are-needed

As one of Musk's toadies put it in a private message before the Twitter takeover, "Sharpen your blades boys. 2 day a week Office requirement = 20% voluntary departures":

https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/29/elon-musk-texts-discovery-twitter/

The other reason to spy on us is because they don't trust us. Remember all the panic about "quiet quitting" and "no one wants to work"? Bosses' hypothesis was that eking out a bare minimum living on from a couple of small-dollar covid stimulus checks was preferable to working for them for a full paycheck.

Every accusation is a a confession. When your boss tells you that he thinks that you can't be trusted to do a good job without total, constant surveillance, he's really saying, "I only bother to do my CEO job when I'm afraid of getting fired':

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/19/make-them-afraid/#fear-is-their-mind-killer

As Wells Fargo United notes, Wells Fargo employees like Denise Prudhomme are spied on from the moment they set foot in the building until the moment they clock out (and sometimes the spying continues when you're off the clock):

Wells Fargo monitors our every move and keystroke using remote, electronic technologies—purportedly to evaluate our productivity—and will fire us if we are caught not making enough keystrokes on our computers.

The Arizona Republic coverage notes further that Prudhomme had to log her comings and goings from the Wells Fargo offices with a badge, so Wells Fargo could see that Prudhomme had entered the premises four days before, but hadn't left:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe-breaking/2024/09/23/wells-fargo-employees-union-responds-death-tempe-woman/75352015007/

Wells Fargo has mandated in-person working, even when that means crossing a state line to be closer to the office. They've created "hub cities" where workers are supposed to turn up. This may sound convivial, but Prudhomme was the only member of her team working out of the Tempe hub, so she was being asked to leave her home, travel long distances, and spend her days in a distant corner of the building where no one ventured for periods of (at least) four days at a time.

Bosses are so convinced that they themselves would goof off if they could that they fixate on forcing employees to spend their days in the office, no matter what the cost. Back in March 2020, Charter CEO Tom Rutledge – then the highest-paid CEO in America – instituted a policy that every back office staffer had to work in person at his call centers. This was the most deadly phase of the pandemic, there was no PPE to speak of, we didn't understand transmission very well, and vaccines didn't exist yet. Charter is a telecommunications company and it was booming as workers across America upgraded their broadband so they could work from home, and the CEO's response was to ban remote work. His customer service centers were superspreading charnel houses:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/03/18/diy-tp/#sociopathy

That Wells Fargo would leave a dead employee at her desk for four days is par for the course for the third-largest commercial bank in America. This is Wells Fargo, remember, the company that forced its low-level bank staff to open two million fake accounts in order to steal from their customers and defraud their shareholders, then fired and blackballed staff who complained:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/26/495454165/ex-wells-fargo-employees-sue-allege-they-were-punished-for-not-breaking-law

The executive who ran that swindle got a $125 million bonus:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/wells-fargo-ceos-teflon-don-act-backfires-at-senate-hearing-i-take-full-responsibility-means-anything-but.html

And the CEO got $200 million:

https://money.cnn.com/2016/09/21/investing/wells-fargo-fired-workers-retaliation-fake-accounts/index.html

It's not like Wells Fargo treats its workers badly but does well by everyone else. Remember, those fake accounts existed as part of a fraud on the company's investors. The company went on to steal $76m from its customers on currency conversions. They also foreclosed on customers who were up to date on their mortgages, seizing and selling off all their possessions. They argued that when bosses pressured tellers into forging customers on fraudulent account-opening paperwork, that those customers had lost their right to sue, since the fraudulent paperwork had a binding arbitration clause. When they finally agreed to pay restitution to their victims, they made the payments opt-in, ensuring that most of the millions of people they stole from would never get their money back.

They stole millions with fraudulent "home warranties." They stole millions from small businesses with fake credit-card fees. They defrauded 800,000 customers through an insurance scam, and stole 25,000 customers' cars with illegal repos. They led the pre-2008 pack on mis-selling deceptive mortgages that blew up and triggered the foreclosure epidemic. They loaned vast sums to Trump, who slashed their taxes, and then they fired 26.000 workers and did a $40.6B stock buyback. They stole 525 homes from mortgage borrowers and blamed it on a "computer glitch":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/29/jubilance/#too-big-to-jail

Given all this, two things are obvious: first, if anyone is going to be monitored for crimes, fraud and scams, it should be Wells Fargo, not its workers. Second, Wells Fargo's surveillance system exists solely to terrorize workers, not to help them. As Wells Fargo United writes:

We demand improved safety precautions that are not punitive or cause further stress for employees. The solution is not more monitoring, but ensuring that we are all connected to a supportive work environment instead of warehoused away in a back office.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/27/sharpen-your-blades-boys/#disciplinary-technology

[superchat]

UPDATE: THIS IS NOT AS SCARY AS IT SOUNDS. MULTIPLE SITES HAVE THIS EXACT WORDING AND ITS TO PREVENT BEING SUED

Transcription:

Your Rights and Grant of Rights in the Content

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What's yours is yours - you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for us to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, repost, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by us, or other companies, organizations or individuals, is made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services as the use of the Services by you is hereby agreed as being sufficient compensation for the Content and grant of rights herein.

We have an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content on the Services. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. You understand that we may modify or adapt your Content as it is distributed, syndicated, published, or broadcast by us and our partners and/or make changes to your Content in order to adapt the Content to different media.

You represent and warrant that you have, or have obtained, all rights, licenses, consents, permissions, power and/or authority necessary to grant the rights granted herein for any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. You agree that such Content will not contain material subject to copyright or other proprietary rights, unless you have necessary permission or are otherwise legally entitled to post the material and to grant us the license described above.

[warningsine]

Living online means never quite understanding what’s happening to you at a given moment. Why these search results? Why this product recommendation? There is a feeling—often warranted, sometimes conspiracy-minded—that we are constantly manipulated by platforms and websites.

So-called dark patterns, deceptive bits of web design that can trick people into certain choices online, make it harder to unsubscribe from a scammy or unwanted newsletter; they nudge us into purchases. Algorithms optimized for engagement shape what we see on social media and can goad us into participation by showing us things that are likely to provoke strong emotional responses. But although we know that all of this is happening in aggregate, it’s hard to know specifically how large technology companies exert their influence over our lives.

This week, Wired published a story by the former FTC attorney Megan Gray that illustrates the dynamic in a nutshell. The op-ed argued that Google alters user searches to include more lucrative keywords. For example, Google is said to surreptitiously replace a query for “children’s clothing” with “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear” on the back end in order to direct users to lucrative shopping links on the results page. It’s an alarming allegation, and Ned Adriance, a spokesperson for Google, told me that it’s “flat-out false.” Gray, who is also a former vice president of the Google Search competitor DuckDuckGo, had seemingly misinterpreted a chart that was briefly presented during the company’s ongoing U.S. et al v. Google trial, in which the company is defending itself against charges that it violated federal antitrust law. (That chart, according to Adriance, represents a “phrase match” feature that the company uses for its ads product; “Google does not delete queries and replace them with ones that monetize better as the opinion piece suggests, and the organic results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems,” he said.)

Gray told me, “I stand by my larger point—the Google Search team and Google ad team worked together to secretly boost commercial queries, which triggered more ads and thus revenue. Google isn’t contesting this, as far as I know.” In a statement, Chelsea Russo, another Google spokesperson, reiterated that the company’s products do not work this way and cited testimony from Google VP Jerry Dischler that “the organic team does not take data from the ads team in order to affect its ranking and affect its result.” Wired did not respond to a request for comment. Last night, the publication removed the story from its website, noting that it does not meet Wired’s editorial standards.

It’s hard to know what to make of these competing statements. Gray’s specific facts may be wrong, but the broader concerns about Google’s business—that it makes monetization decisions that could lead the product to feel less useful or enjoyable—form the heart of the government’s case against the company. None of this is easy to untangle in plain English—in fact, that’s the whole point of the trial. For most of us, evidence about Big Tech’s products tends to be anecdotal or fuzzy—more vibes-based than factual. Google may not be altering billions of queries in the manner that the Wired story suggests, but the company is constantly tweaking and ranking what we see, while injecting ads and proprietary widgets into our feed, thereby altering our experience. And so we end up saying that Google Search is less useful now or that shopping on Amazon has gotten worse. These tools are so embedded in our lives that we feel acutely that something is off, even if we can’t put our finger on the technical problem.

That’s changing. In the past month, thanks to a series of antitrust actions on behalf of the federal government, hard evidence of the ways that Silicon Valley’s biggest companies are wielding their influence is trickling out. Google’s trial is under way, and while the tech giant is trying to keep testimony locked down, the past four weeks have helped illustrate—via internal company documents and slide decks like the one cited by Wired—how Google has used its war chest to broker deals and dominate the search market. Perhaps the specifics of Gray’s essay were off, but we have learned, for instance, how company executives considered adjusting Google’s products to lead to more “monetizable queries.” And just last week, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging anticompetitive practices. (Amazon has called the suit “misguided.”)

Filings related to that suit have delivered a staggering revelation concerning a secretive Amazon algorithm code-named Project Nessie. The particulars of Nessie were heavily redacted in the public complaint, but this week The Wall Street Journal revealed details of the program. According to the unredacted complaint, a copy of which I have also viewed, Nessie—which is no longer in use—monitored industry prices of specific goods to determine whether competitors were algorithmically matching Amazon’s prices. In the event that competitors were, Nessie would exploit this by systematically raising prices on goods across Amazon, encouraging its competitors to follow suit. Amazon, via the algorithm, knew that it would be able to charge more on its own site, because it didn’t have to worry about being undercut elsewhere, thereby making the broader online shopping experience worse for everyone. An Amazon spokesperson told the Journal that the FTC is mischaracterizing the tool, and suggested that Nessie was a way to monitor competitor pricing and keep price-matching algorithms from dropping prices to unsustainable levels (the company did not respond to my request for comment).

In the FTC’s telling, Project Nessie demonstrates the sheer scope of Amazon’s power in online markets. The project arguably amounted to a form of unilateral price fixing, where Amazon essentially goaded its competitors into acting like cartel members without even knowing they’d done so—all while raising prices on consumers. It’s an astonishing form of influence, powered by behind-the-scenes technology.

The government will need to prove whether this type of algorithmic influence is illegal. But even putting legality aside, Project Nessie is a sterling example of the way that Big Tech has supercharged capitalistic tendencies and manipulated markets in unnatural and opaque ways. It demonstrates the muscle that a company can throw around when it has consolidated its position in a given sector. The complaint alleges that Amazon’s reach and logistics capabilities force third-party sellers to offer products on Amazon and for lower prices than other retailers. Once it captured a significant share of the retail market, Amazon was allegedly able to use algorithmic tools such as Nessie to drive prices up for specific products, boosting revenues and manipulating competitors.

Reading about Project Nessie, I was surprised to feel a sense of relief. In recent years, customer-satisfaction ratings have dipped among Amazon shoppers who have cited delivery disruptions, an explosion of third-party sellers, and poor-quality products as reasons for frustration. In my own life and among friends and relatives, there has been a growing feeling that shopping on the platform has become a slog, with fewer deals and far more junk to sift through. Again, these feelings tend to occupy vibe territory: Amazon’s bigness seems stifling or grating in ways that aren’t always easy to explain. But Nessie offers a partial explanation for this frustration, as do revelations about Google’s various product adjustments. We have the sense that we’re being manipulated because, well, we are. It’s a bit like feeling vaguely sick, going to the doctor, and receiving a blood-test result confirming that, yes, the malaise you experienced is actually an iron deficiency. It is the catharsis of, at long last, receiving a diagnosis.

This is the true power of the surge in anti-monopoly litigation. (According to experts in the field, September was “the most extraordinary month they have ever seen in antitrust.”) Whether or not any of these lawsuits results in corporate breakups or lasting change, they are, effectively, an MRI of our sprawling digital economy—a forensic look at what these larger-than-life technology companies are really doing, and how they are exerting their influence and causing damage. It is confirmation that what so many of us have felt—that the platforms dictating our online experiences are behaving unnaturally and manipulatively—is not merely a paranoid delusion, but the effect of an asymmetrical relationship between the giants of scale and us, the users.

In recent years, it’s been harder to love the internet, a miracle of connectivity that feels ever more bloated, stagnant, commercialized, and junkified. We are just now starting to understand the specifics of this transformation—the true influence of Silicon Valley’s vise grip on our lives. It turns out that the slow rot we might feel isn’t just in our heads, after all.

[kristinagehrmann]

The US Copyright Office is currently asking for input on generative AI systems ...

... to help assess whether legislative or regulatory steps in this area are warranted. Here is what I wrote to them, and what I want as a creative professional: AI systems undermine the value of human creative thinking and work, and harbor a danger for us creative people that should not be underestimated. There is a risk of a transfer of economic advantage to a few AI companies, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of creatives. It is the creative people with their works who create the data and marketing basis for the AI companies, from which the AI systems feed. AI systems cannot produce text, images or music without suitable training material, and the quality of that training material has a direct influence on the quality of the results. In order to supply the systems with the necessary data, the developers of those AI systems are currently using the works of creative people - without consent or even asking, and without remuneration. In addition, creative professionals are denied a financial participation in the exploitation of the AI results created on the basis of the material. My demand as a creative professional is this: The works and achievements of creative professionals must also be protected in digital space. The technical possibility of being able to read works via text and data mining must not legitimize any unlicensed use! The remuneration for the use of works is the economic basis on which creative people work. AI companies are clearly pursuing economic interests with their operation. The associated use of the work for commercial purposes must be properly licensed, and compensated appropriately. We need transparent training data as an access requirement for AI providers! In order to obtain market approval, AI providers must be able to transparently present this permission from the authors. The burden of proof and documentation of the data used - in the sense of applicable copyright law - lies with the user and not with the author. AI systems may only be trained from comprehensible, copyright-compliant sources.

____________________________

You can send your own comment to the Copyright Office here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2023-0006-0001

My position is based on the Illustratoren Organisation's (Germany) recently published stance on AI generators: https://illustratoren-organisation.de/2023/04/04/ki-aber-fair-positionspapier-der-kreativwirtschaft-zum-einsatz-von-ki/

[itwasanangryinch]

Vamptember Day 4: Tape Recorder

You kept me in that apartment for how long? You were there, Daniel. I don't remember that's why I'm asking

I'm going to be using these prompts as a way to explore different art styles than I might otherwise try. Ferric Blather is a mix between flat poster art, typography, and hand-drawn lettering.

Image description under the cut

Interested in buying? || Ko-fi

[ID:] A flat rendered digital painting featuring characters from AMC's Interview with the Vampire. In the foreground, the vampire Armand clicks the fast forward button on a tape recorder. His hand is angled at an unnatural angle as he grasps the recorder.

In the mid-ground, interviewer Daniel is shown in shadow with green handwritten words over his silhouette. He is physically bound to an unseen chair.

The background is a wall with two windows, each with two translucent curtains, and a green carpet. Screened on top is part of the earlier fight between Louis and Armand. On Armand's hand is the artist's watermark '8-Tracks Creative.'

The green words on Daniel Molloy are a slight paraphrasing of his interrogation by Armand, namely to make it a monologue.

ARMAND: You held Louis' attention. He confessed his inner most secrets to you. 128 boys he's brought here. And you're the first he didn't consummate and drain. That makes you special. That warrants investigation. Bartering with desire; is that what makes you fascinating? You think in all these spools you'd arrived at some ineffable truth. Louis thinks I'm boring. Do you find me boring? DANIEL: No!

The typed words across the background read:

LOUIS: Things got a little heated. ARMAND: With a boy. Things got heated with a boy. I was at home picking lint off the sofa. L: I said to join us… A: The room soiled and once again, I'm here with mop and mindfulness to clean it up. L: So the room got dirty, so what? I'll clean it up. A: No! I clean it up. You make the mess and I clean it up. Put it on the calendar, align it with Ursa Major, Louis' tri-annual fuck off and find me with apologies to follow later! L: I'm sorry. A: You seek comfort in the company of low-lifes and unfortunates and broken children - fine. L: Fine, fine, it doesn't sound like fine. A: But revealing our nature to a reporter that you met at a bar ten hours ago! What if it was published? L: I was having some fun. A: You don't feel a little embarrassed? L: I was in the middle of ending things when you walked in. A: No! You were already passed out on the floor. Next him, Louis. Out on your feet from the drugs you stuffed him with. L: Oh this is boring! You're boring! This is boring! You are so boring! A: Here come the drugs. L: Colorless. Flavorless! Dull. Dull weeks, full months. Dull as fuck. Suffocation by the world's softest, beigest pillow. The ten hours I spent with that boy were more exciting, more fascinating than decades spent with you. There it is, the half-blank, half- apocalyptic look. But what does it mean tonight? Does he [cuts off.]

[End ID]

[kpopsexstories]

🥶 don't worry take your time I'm excited to read your a amazing you can write straight and gay stories very well and I'm always happy to read them I hope you have a amazing day and/or night 💓

I'm happy to tell you that I just finished the last of the first drafts for the remaining gay NCT Dream 'Dating Ban' stories 😄 You've got a lot to look forward to if you're into this series!

For anyone who's finding this post at random, I'm a straight k-pop smut blog who is publishing a gay NCT Dream side series, in part thanks to the anonymous person above. Their 🥶 emoji lets me know they're the same person who has continuously inspired me to turn an originally requested gay Jisung story into a full-blown series, but because they're anonymous I can only reply with a public post :)

If you too are interested in gay k-pop/NCT smut, here's where we're at with the series right now...

Already published:

Jisung 'Dating Ban' Part 1 and Part 2 – You're Jisung's best friend, and on the first night when you come for a week-long visit you help him out with his sexual frustrations that stem from the "dating ban" the company has put on the boys.

Haechan 'Dating Ban' – Haechan has found out that you and Jisung has had sex. He wants in on the action and ends up fucking you from behind against a couch when the others are out.

Mark 'Dating Ban' – Rumors about your sexual exploits are beginning to spread among the boys. Mark sees his chance when you go to the bathroom for a shower, and he forces his way in with you.

Renjun 'Dating Ban' Part 1 and Part 2 – Renjun comes to find you by the community pool of the NCT Dream apartment complex. He reveals that he's gay – the only one to come out to you. In part 1 he gives you a blowjob in the pool, and in part 2 he rides you in the community showers.

Still to be published:

Jeno 'Dating Ban' Part 1 and Part 2 – October 8 & 9 – When Jeno comes naked to Jisung's room, in which you're sleeping for the week, it's obvious why he's there. What ensues is some incredibly hot and wild sex which makes you question if Renjun is really the only one among the members who is gay.

Chenle ' Dating Ban' – TBD – Frustrated both sexually and by the fact that he's almost the only one who hasn't gotten to have sex with you yet, Chenle comes to your bed while you're taking a nap. He's so persistent you finally give in, and end up giving him a most sensational blowjob. It ends in the most excessive eruption of cum any of my stories have ever seen 🤪😏🍆💦

Jaemin 'Dating Ban' – TBD – Second to Jisung, Jaemin is actually your best friend among the boys. Throughout the week of this particular visit, you've unwittingly neglected him. You finally go on your traditional bike trip to a secluded lake outside the city, where nostalgia and new sexual exploits take your friendship to the next level.

All 7 Members Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 – TBD – It's your last day with the boys and naturally they want to make the most of it. They've all had a taste of you and aren't ready to see you go. Your regular morning sex with Jisung is interrupted when Renjun comes to join you, and before you know it a full-blown orgie is taking place. Yes, all seven members are involved, and this scene became so long it warranted no less than 3 incredibly hot parts 🤤

I know gay sex is not everyone's cup of tea, and if it's not yours I'd direct you to my straight-sex Most Memorable Sexual Experiences of NCT & WayV series (which has already been concluded and can be read in full right now), as well as my currently on-going Most Memorable Sexual Experiences of TXT series.

But if you are into my gay series – which I know from the requests coming in that many of you are 😉 – you have a lot to look forward to! While for now I'm focusing on the Dream Dating Ban series over other gay requests, the remianing parts are packing a lot.

I still need to edit and proofread all the remaining parts. I'll probably re-write some of them and can't commit to any schedule. But I can promise that the next story – Jeno's part 1 and 2 – will be out on October 8 and 9.

Psst! Besides everything mentioned above, a requested straight smut "Yangyang fucking is best friend's sister" will be published on Thursday this week (October 3rd, 2024). And if you want more gay sex, you can already now read a muscular hunk Jeno topping a gay male reader story, as someone requested my most-loved straight Jeno story to be turned into a gay version. It was published two weeks ago but isn't part of the 'Dating Ban' series.

[fibula-rasa]

Cosplay the Classics: Nazimova in Salomé (1922)—Part 1

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

The Importance of Being Peter: Nazimova’s Take on Wilde

With over two decades of professional acting experience behind her (six on the “shadow stage” of silent cinema), Alla Nazimova went independent. She was one of the highest paid stars in Hollywood at the start of 1922 when her contract with Metro ended. Almost exclusively using her own savings, Nazimova founded a new production company and immediately got to work on two films that reflected both a deep understanding of her own fan base and a faith in the American filmgoer’s appreciation for art.

Discourse around these films and their productions that have emerged in the century since their release are often peppered with over-simplifications or a lack of perspective. Focus is understandably placed on Salomé, as her first project, A Doll’s House (1922), has not survived. In part one of this series, I plan to contextualize Nazimova’s decision to commit Wilde’s drama to celluloid and examine the details of the adaptation. Then, in part two, I will cover how Salomé (and A Doll’s House) fits into the industry trends and the emergent studio system in the early 1920s.

While the full essay and more photos are available below the jump, you may find it easier to read (formatting-wise) on the wordpress site. Either way, I hope you enjoy the read!

Wilde’s Salomé: The Basics

Salomé was a one-act drama written by Oscar Wilde. In a creative challenge to himself, Salomé was one of Wilde’s first plays and he chose to write in French, which he did not have as complete a mastery of as of English. Wilde was directly inspired by the Flaubert story “Herodias,” which was, in turn, inspired by the short story which appears twice in the New Testament. The play was later translated into English and published with illustrations by artist Aubrey Beardsley. Wilde’s play was the basis of the opera of the same name by Richard Strauss. While both the opera and the play had been staged numerous times across Europe and in New York before Nazimova’s adaptation, Strauss’ opera was the main reference point for the story in the popular imagination of the time. The success of Strauss’ opera led to the popularization of the Dance of the Seven Veils and the accepted interpretation of the character as a classic femme fatale.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

Nazimova’s Salomé: The Basics

When Nazimova announced her production of Salomé, she did so assured that she and Natacha Rambova, her art director, had a unique and creatively compelling interpretation of the story to warrant adaptation. Nazimova was not only the star and producer of Salomé, she adapted it from its source herself under her pen name Peter M. Winters. (Cheekily, contemporary interviews and profiles joke that “Peter” is one of her common nicknames.) Charles Bryant, credited as director, was as much the director of the film as he was Nazimova’s husband, which is to say, he is not known to have contributed much at all. It’s now accepted fact that Bryant acted as a professional beard (Bryant and Nazimova were also never legally married). The choice to credit Bryant was to offset the heat Nazimova was getting in the press at the time for “taking on too much.” Having Bryant’s name in the credits was a protective measure. Charles Van Enger was a talented, up-and-coming cinematographer who had been recommended to Nazimova following the inadequate cinematography of her Metro films.

Rambova was in charge of the art direction, set designs, costumes, and makeup. Nazimova and Rambova had become close artistic collaborators after Nazimova hired Rambova to design the fantasy sequence for her film Billions (1920, presumed lost). [You can learn more about Rambova’s career here.] Both women valued their work above all else. Both were convinced that film could be art. Both had the gumption to believe that they could make a lasting mark on cinema’s recognition as a legitimate medium of artistic expression.* (Spoiler: even though Salomé was not an unqualified box-office success, they were right.)

Photo of the Salomé crew from Exhibitors Herald, 29 April 1922. Original caption: Nazimova ordered this picture taken that she might be reminded of the real pleasure encountered in every stage of the production of “Salome.” Top, left to right: Monroe Bennett, laboratory; Charles Bryant, director; Mildred Early, secretary; John DePalma, assistant director. Second row: Sam Zimbalist, cutter; Natacha Rambova, art director; Charles J. Van Enger, cameraman; the star; R. W. McFarland, manager. Front row: Neal Jack, electrician; Paul Ivano, cameraman; Lewis Wilson, cameraman.

Nazimova’s independence was at least partly spurred on by feeling creatively bereft from her work at Metro. In a 1926 interview with Adela Rogers St. Johns, Nazimova said:

“You asked me why I made ‘Salome.’ Well—’Salome’ was a purgative. […] It seems impossible now that I should ever have been asked to play such parts as ‘The Heart of a Child’ and ‘Billions.’ But I was. And instead of saying, ‘No. I will not play such trash. I will not play roles so wholely [sic] unsuited to me in every way,’ I went on and played them because of my contract, and they ruined me. “WORSE than that, they [made] me sick with myself. So I did ‘Salome’ as a purgative. I wanted something so different, so fanciful, so artistic, that it would take the taste out of my mouth. ‘Salome’ was my protest against cheap realism. Maybe it was a mistake. But—I had to do it. It was not a mistake for me, myself.”

Given that Nazimova now had full creative freedom, outside of the confines of the Hollywood film factory, why were A Doll’s House and Salomé the first works she gravitated towards?

Initially, Nazimova had conceived of a “repertoire” concept for her productions: one shorter production (A Doll’s House) and one feature-length production (Salomé), which could be distributed and exhibited together. Once production was underway for ADH, Nazimova instead chose to make it a feature. The reasons for this decision that I found in contemporary sources are purely creative, but I don’t think it’s too much of a presumption that this may have been a financial choice, as profits from ADH (which unfortunately wouldn’t materialize—more on that in part two!) could have been cycled into Salomé’s production.

Ibsen was not popular source material for the silent screen, but Nazimova’s name and career was forever tied to the playwright as she is considered the actress who brought Ibsen to the US. (Minnie Maddern Fiske starred in a production of Hedda Gabbler in the US before Nazimova, however it failed to raise the profile of the writer.) Nazimova’s stage productions of Ibsen’s work proved that there was an audience for it in the US—both in New York and on tour. Superficially, ADH might seem like a risky proposition, but Nazimova had good reason to believe it had both artistic and box office potential. (Again, I’ll delve into why it might not have found its audience in part two.)

Nazimova as Nora in A Doll’s House

Though ADH is now lost, we know from surviving materials that Nazimova understood that by 1922 The New Woman archetype was already becoming passé to the post-war/post-pandemic generation of young women. Nazimova endeavored to translate the play in a way that would resonate with 1920s American womanhood. (How well she succeeded is lost to time unless we are lucky enough to recover a copy of the film.) Likewise, Nazimova approached her adaptation of Salomé with a keen eye for the concerns of modern independent women.

——— ——— ———

*Incidentally, both women also had a personal connection to Wilde. Nazimova was a close friend and colleague of Elizabeth Marbury, who worked as Wilde’s agent. Rambova spent summers at her aunt’s (Elsie de Wolfe) villa in France where she lived with her longtime partner, Marbury.

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

The Adolescence of Salome

In the decade following the end of the First World War, there was a great cultural shift for women in America, who experienced and pursued greater independence in society—particularly young and/or unmarried women. This quality was emblematized in the Flappers and the Jazz Babies, but even women who didn’t participate in these subcultures lived lifestyles removed from “home and family” ideals of the past. The lifestyle change was mirrored aesthetically. As Frederick Lewis Allen describes in Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s:

“These changes in fashion—the short skirt, the boyish form, the straight, long-waisted dresses, the frank use of paint—were signs of a real change in the American feminine ideal (as well, perhaps, as in men’s idea of what was the feminine ideal). […] the quest of slenderness, the flattening of the breasts, the vogue of short skirts (even when short skirts still suggested the appearance of a little girl), the juvenile effect of the long waist,—all were signs that, consciously or unconsciously, the women of this decade worshiped not merely youth, but unripened youth […] Youth was their pattern, but not youthful innocence: the adolescent whom they imitated was a hard-boiled adolescent, who thought not in terms of romantic love, but in terms of sex, and who made herself desirable not by that sly art that conceals art, but frankly and openly.”*

Allen’s summary of youthful womanhood in the 1920s resounds so clearly in the character design and performance of Nazimova’s Salomé, it’s apparent that she and Rambova were thoroughly informed by contemporary trends around young/independent women. Belén Ruiz Garrido puts it succinctly in her great essay on the film “Besare tu boca, Iokanaan. Arte y experiencia cinematografica en Salomé de Alla Nazimova:”

“Las concomitancias con la flapper o la it girl de los felices años veinte son evidentes. Se muestra mimosa, pero su seducción es como un juego de niña. / The similarities with the flapper or the it girl of the roaring twenties are obvious. She performs affection, but her seduction is like child’s play.” (translation mine)

Nazimova was also fully conscious that her fanbase was predominantly female and that she held significant appeal for younger women. From the moment she signed her first American theatrical contract with Lee Shubert, Nazimova’s status as a queer idol was already being established.

“The women… were enthusiastic about [Nazimova]… [At the hotel, the] ladies’ entrance was always crowded with women waiting for her to return from the theatre. It is much better that she should be exclusive and meet no one if possible. They regard her as a mystery. And there are other damned good reasons besides this one.”  – citation: A. H. Canby to Lee Shubert, December 29, 1908**

While women, particularly middle-class women, were emerging as a prominent consumer group in the US, Nazimova’s popularity peaked on stage and on screen. Arriving in Hollywood, Nazimova also continued her trend of surrounding herself socially and professionally with other queer women. Profiles and interviews of Nazimova in the Hollywood press often contained coded language about her queerness as a wink and nudge, usually but not always accompanied by mention of her “husband” Charles Bryant.

This well-developed understanding of her primary fanbase led her to break from popular presentations of the character as an embodiment of monstrous feminine sensuality. Instead, Nazimova chose to present the character as an adolescent. While Nazimova was the first to put this read on the character on film, Marcella Craft chose an adolescent interpretation in a production Strauss’ opera in Munich and Hedwig Reicher was a teenager when she assayed the role and played it accordingly (also in Germany). (Maybe not insignificantly, Reicher was also working in Hollywood at the time of Salomé’s production.)***

This is the American pop culture landscape we’re talking about here, so of course women’s independence was rapidly codified for capitalization. Young women were moralized at for not conforming to traditional gender roles while simultaneously being framed as sexually desirable in order to sell consumer goods (including motion pictures!). The American way. It’s hard to not see social commentary in Nazimova’s reworking of this icon of wanton femininity for a new generation.

This isn’t to suggest that Nazimova’s Salomé glorifies the character, but rather that making Salomé a teen adds layers of complexity to the production. Considering it in conversation with her predecessors, Salomé isn’t even named in the New Testament stories. Flaubert built out the character with 19th century concerns in mind (though his story is more about Herod & Herodias) and Wilde shifted even more focus to Salomé. Nazimova continued that trend with her version of Salomé—an impetuous child too young and ill-equipped to constructively deal with the horrible environment she was brought up in. (Might that resonate with a generation of young people disillusioned by a World War and a pandemic?)

As Nazimova/Peter wrote in the opening intertitles to the film:

“It is at this point that the drama opens, revealing Salome who yet remains an uncontaminated blossom in a wilderness of evil.

“Though still innocent, Salome is a true daughter of her day, heiress to its passions and its cruelties. She kills the thing she loves; she loves the thing she kills, yet in her soul there shines the glimmer of the Light and she sets forth gladly into the Unknown to solve the puzzle of her own words——”

My cosplay of Nazimova as Salomé

As Salomé was an experiment in pantomime for screen acting, it’s worthwhile to look at how Nazimova embodies this image of youth in her performance. In the first scenes, Salomé’s facial expressions are pouty and her movements like a bored child’s. Her wig emphasizes every movement she makes with a flurry of pearls and creates a neotenous silhouette for the character. When denied access to Jokanaan, her facial expressions are imperious, but the imperiousness of a spoiled child. She swings on the bars imprisoning Jokanaan as if they are a jungle gym. As she “charms” Narraboth, her expressions and body language shift toward a scheming energy with barely concealed artifice, displaying a distinct lack of sophistication—like she’s trying to angle a second serving of ice cream not exacting a favor of a servant that could cost his life.

Perhaps most crucially, Salomé’s adolescence emphasizes the inappropriateness of men’s gaze upon her. Wilde’s drama is built around rhythmic repetition in the dialogue—a key repetition being the act of looking. Though the play is only one act, some form of “regarder” in relation to Salomé is repeated nineteen times—most often in some form of “don’t look at her” or “you shouldn’t look at her that way.” As Salomé is a silent film, to repeat this in intertitles nineteen times in intertitles would be absurd. Throughout the film, frequent close ups are strategically employed to visually recreate the rhythmic emphasis on gazing. (The purpose of this device seems to have been lost on one reviewer for Exhibitors Herald who said in his review: ”too many close ups.”) Additionally, the motif is foregrounded by front-loading the mentions of looking. As soon as the opening narration ends, we’re introduced to Herod behaving lecherously toward Salomé and Herodias telling him not to look at her. The perversity of Herod is amplified here because Salomé is not only his niece and his step-daughter, but also a child. This scene is followed by Narraboth and the page having a similar interaction, albeit with a different tone.

As Nazimova put it herself in a profile in Close-Up magazine:

“The men about her are obnoxious; they cannot even look upon her decently. She loathes them all. Even the Syrian [Narraboth] whose approach is of all the most respectful and decorous, is of his times and his love is tempered with the alloy of lust.”

In the film, Salomé’s rage against Herod is justified, and her rage against Jokanaan is a raw confusion of emotions—she doesn’t have the capacity to act constructively. When the first unfortunate man commits suicide over her, she barely takes notice, establishing Salome’s blasé attitude toward death. When the second man takes his life this time directly in front of her, Salomé only notices after almost tripping on his body. Her response is giving the body an annoyed kick for tripping her! The key phrase of the drama is “The mystery of love is greater than the mystery of death.” Salomé is surrounded by death, enveloped by it, but love (of any kind) is unknown to her until Jokanaan. So, when her love of Jokanaan is rebuked, she reverts to the only response that has been nurtured into her: death.

Nazimova’s Salomé is a perfect surviving example of a quality of her acting described in an uncredited review of Nazimova’s theatrical work:

“If the actress you’re seeing knows what she’s saying but you don’t, it’s Mrs. [Minnie Maddern] Fiske. But if the actress doesn’t know what she is saying and you do, it’s Alla Nazimova.”****

We as viewers understand what Salomé is going through, but she is being psychologically buffeted by fate and circumstance without ever comprehending the nature of it. The tumultuous feelings brought on by Salomé’s first brush with the spiritual (rather than the sexual), launches her into an accelerated ripening of her cruelty. This is masterfully communicated by Nazimova through facial expression and body language and accentuated by Rambova’s costuming.

As Herman Weinberg put it in his essay “The Function of the Actor:”

“The true film crystalizes action for us. ‘To see eternity in a grain of sand,’ the poet said. ‘To see a life cycle in an hour and a half’ is the modern screen parallel.”

Because of the emotional scale of Nazimova’s performance in Salomé, it has been variously described as “bizarre” or “grotesque”—though not always said derogatorily. That’s on point, as Nazimova’s performance is only one expression of her protest against realism in the film.

——— ——— ———

*If you’re interested in the 1920s at all, I highly recommend Allen’s book. The section this quote is from has a detailed survey of changes in American women’s lifestyles throughout the 1920s.

**as quoted in “Alla Nazimova: ‘The Witch of Makeup’” by Robert A. Schanke

***Gavin Lambert’s biography of Nazimova intimates that she referenced the 1917 Tairov production of Wilde’s Salomé, which she reportedly had a detailed description of. Reading about the production for myself in Mark Slonim’s Russian Theatre: from the Empire to the Soviets, I’m not sure what precisely she would have drawn from this production. It doesn’t seem to have much in common with the ‘22 film at all. That said, in a 1923 interview with Malcolm H. Oettinger in Picture-Play Magazine, Nazimova admits that in preparing for the film, she compiled a large scrapbook of previous productions and artistic interpretations of the story and character. Unfortunately, though Lambert clearly did voluminous research for his biography, his presentation and interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Most of the things I tried to verify or try to find more information on from the book proved to be misrepresentations or were factually incorrect. So, I’m avoiding quoting Lambert without verification, unless what I’m citing is directly taken from a primary source; like a quote from Nazimova’s correspondence.

****quotation is from an uncredited clipping held by the Nazimova archive in Columbus, Georgia as quoted in Gavin Lambert’s biography

Illustration of Nazimova as Salomé by F. Corral from The Story World, March 1923

Nazimova and Rambova’s Modernist Phantasy

The assurance that Rambova and Nazimova felt that they had something new to bring to Salomé was obviously not solely founded in a character interpretation updated for the screen and for the decade. The two crafted a singular work born of pastiche in a manner that genuinely had not been done before in the American film industry. It’s often repeated that Salomé is America’s first art film. This may have its origin in promotional materials* made for the initial release of the film. Before the film’s official release, Bryant, Nazimova, and Paul Ivano (assistant camera & Nazimova’s on-again-off-again lover) arranged preview screenings and a few reviews from those screenings mention in some form that Salomé was a direct retort to the notion that art cannot be made with a camera.

What constituted the Nazimova/Rambova strategy to elevate film to the status of art? Both women had around six years of experience working in film (twelve collectively), but both came from a live performance background—theatrical acting and ballet respectively. Salomé is a film based on a stage play (though not strictly based on any one production of that play). Salomé inherits its symbology (first and foremost the moon) from its source material, but the filmmakers found creative ways of communicating and remixing symbols for the camera. The art design is inspired by Aubrey Beardsley’s illustrations for a printed edition of the play, though Rambova pulled more broadly from art-nouveau to devise designs that are in no way unoriginal.

As for the much discussed Dance of the Seven Veils, in my opinion, Nazimova’s execution is inspired by the dance described in Flaubert’s “Herodias” rather than a previous live performance.

“Again the dancer paused; then, like a flash, she threw herself upon the palms of her hands, while her feet rose straight up into the air. In this bizarre pose she moved about upon the floor like a gigantic beetle; then stood motionless.

“The nape of her neck formed a right angle with her vertebrae. The full silken skirts of pale hues that enveloped her limbs when she stood erect, now fell to her shoulders and surrounded her face like a rainbow. Her lips were tinted a deep crimson, her arched eyebrows were black as jet, her glowing eyes had an almost terrible radiance; and the tiny drops of perspiration on her forehead looked like dew upon white marble.”

Clearly, I’m not implying that what’s described above is exactly what we see on screen. My thought instead is that Nazimova may have drawn inspiration for the dance to be provocative in an uncanny way instead of provocative in a conventionally sensuous way. What we do see on screen is a distinct lack of practiced sensuality and an element of menace. The former comes both from Salomé’s youthfulness and from the logic that, as Salomé has already gotten Herod to give her his word in front of dignitaries, there’s no need for seduction. The latter is brought on by the expression of Salomé’s fractured emotional state and feelings about Herod. In execution, the use of close-ups again serves a major purpose. Intercutting close-up reactions from those gathered at the court provides a crescendo to the motif of looking, which is then pivotally reversed in the kiss scene. Cutting to close-ups of Salomé’s face accents the ecstatic and maniacal quality of the dance. Together this variation of shots creates an effect that could only work on film.

Salomé has a significant appreciation for its non-cinematic antecedents, but filtered through the prism of Nazimova’s and Rambova’s own creative strengths and sensibilities—a melding of theater and graphic art into something not only fresh but also totally cinematic.

It speaks to their filmmaking skill that all of these ideas and influences do in fact come together as a cohesive yet wholly unconventional film. Some critics of Salomé (both contemporary and modern) will cite vague notions of theatricality, or state that the film is only a series of tableaux, or that the limited sets don’t depart enough from a stage presentation. Art is in the eye of the beholder, but I think whether those specific elements preclude Salomé from being cinematic is a matter of perspective.

The oversized, stylized nature of Salomé’ssets might at first register as theatrical, but those same sets also serve to amp up the anti-real nature of the film. It’s uncharitable to Rambova to suggest that this artificiality was not a conscious artistic decision. If you have seen the sequences she designed with Mitchell Leisen for De Mille’s Forbidden Fruit (1921) then you have seen her demonstrated understanding of how designs register on camera. The gorgeously executed lighting effects in Salomé that are employed to to sublimate tone shifts could feasibly be recreated in a theatrical setting, here, filtered through the camera of Van Enger, register as thoroughly cinematic.

To once again quote “The Function of the Actor” by Weinberg:

“In nine movies out of ten (most particularly those emanating from the film factories of Hollywood), the actors stand around and talk to each other, relieved only by periodic bursts of someone going in or out of a doorway. (Sixty percent of the action in the average Hollywood movie consists of people going in and out of doors.) […] 

“The actor going through a doorway may be a necessary device on the stage, to get him on and off. But Pudovkin has made a neat distinction between the realities of stage and screen: ‘The film assembles the elements of reality to build from them a new reality proper to itself; and the laws of time and space that, in sets and footage of the stage are fixed and fast, are in the film entirely altered.’ On the stage, that is, an event seems to occur in the same length of time it would occupy in life. On the screen, however, the camera records only the significant parts of the event, and so the filmic time is shorter than the real time of the event.”

Weinberg cites Pudovkin in an amusing but illustrative way here. People may throw “overly theatrical” or “stagey” casually, but more often than not the distinction between theatrical/cinematic comes down to how space and time is traversed. Even if the base material, a narrative drama for example, is shared between stage and screen, there should be a thoughtful construction of geography and chronology. Could Salomé have played more creatively with space? Perhaps. But, for a film made in early 1922, its creative geography isn’t all that uninventive. The majority of the action in Salomé takes place exclusively on one set, so it does rely a lot on the types of comings and goings that Weinberg identifies with theatre. That said, there are some comings and goings that forcefully pull the audience away from the feeling of stagey-ness. The most consequential occurs in the scene with the first suicide, which I previously mentioned in the context of developing Salomé‘s character and environment. The man runs to the ledge of the courtyard, beholds the moon, and leaps. Cut to a wide, back-lit shot of the figure plunging to nowhere, establishing that the city above the clouds depicted in the art titles and opening credits is the actual physical location that film is taking place in. It’s a genuinely startling moment in the film and Salomé’s most evocative use of creative geography.

The majority of legitimate critical appraisal at the time of Salomé’s release recognize it as an achievement in film art, even highlighting artsiness as a potential selling point. As art cinemas started popping up in the US, Salomé stayed in circulation. Appreciation grew. Legends emerged around its production. And, now one hundred years later, it’s safe to say that Salomé has earned and kept its place as a fixture of the history of film art. As we are lucky enough to have the complete film to watch, assess, reassess, and debate its qualities as a work of cinematic art, I’m positive that conversation on Salomé will continue. 

So, if Salomé was appreciated in its time, why did it ruin and bankrupt Nazimova? What was going on in the American film industry at the time? Find out in part two!

“If we have made something fine, something lasting, it is enough. The commercial end of it does not interest me at all. I hate it. This I do know: we must live, and I must live well. I have suffered—enough. Never again shall I suffer. But most of all am I concerned in creating something that will lift us all above this petty level of earthly things. My work is my god. I want to build what I know is fine, what I feel calling for expression. I must be true to my ideals—” — Nazimova on Salomé quoted in “The Complete Artiste” by Malcolm Oettinger

——— ——— ———

*As of the time of writing, I haven’t been able to track down a complete copy for the campaign book for the film, so I’m relying on fragments, quotes, and second-hand references to its content.

——— ——— ———

Read Part Two Here

——— ——— ———

☕Appreciate my work? Buy me a coffee! ☕

——— ——— ———

Bibliography/Further Reading

(This isn’t an exhaustive list, but covers what’s most relevant to the essay above!)

Salomé by Oscar Wilde [French/English]

“Herodias” by Gustave Flaubert [English]

Cosplay the Classics: Natacha Rambova

Lost, but Not Forgotten: A Doll’s House (1922)

“Temperament? Certainly, says Nazimova” by Adela Rogers St. Johns in Photoplay, October 1926

“Newspaper Opinions” in The Film Daily, 3 January 1923

“Splendid Production Values But No Kick in Nazimova’s “Salome” in The Film Daily, 7 January 1923

“SALOME” in The Story World, March 1923

“SALOME’ —Class AA” from Screen Opinions, 15 February 1923

“The Complete Artiste” by Malcolm H. Oettinger in Picture-Play Magazine, April 1923

“Famous Salomes” by Willard H. Wright in Motion Picture Classic, October 1922

“Nazimova’s ‘Salome’” by Walter Anthony in Closeup, 5 January 1923

“Alla Nazimova: ‘The Witch of Makeup’” by Robert A. Schanke in Passing Performances: Queer Readings of Leading Players in American Theater History

“Besare tu boca, Iokanaan. Arte y experiencia cinematografica en Salome de Alla Nazimova” by Belén Ruiz Garrido (Wish I had read this at the beginning of my research and writing instead of near the end as it touches upon a few of the same points as my essay! Highly recommended!)

“The Function of the Actor” by Herman Weinberg

“‘Out Salomeing Salome’: Dance, The New Woman, and Fan Magazine Orientalism” by Gaylyn Studlar in Visions of the East: Orientalism in Film

Nazimova: A Biography by Gavin Lambert (Note: I do not recommend this without caveat even though it’s the only monograph biography of Nazimova. Lambert did a commendable amount of research but his presentation of that research is ruined by misrepresentations, factual errors, and a general tendency to make unfounded assumptions about Nazimova’s motivations and personal feelings.)

Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s by Frederick Lewis Allen

Russian Theatre: from the Empire to the Soviets by Mark Slonim

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Supreme Court threatens to block X in Brazil for not having a local representative

Justice Alexandre de Moraes says Elon Musk's company has 24 hours to appoint a representative in the country or face being suspended in national territory. Notification was officially delivered through a post on X.

A Supreme Court Justice threatened this Wednesday (Aug. 28) to block X (formerly known as Twitter) in Brazil, after the company failed to appoint a local representative in the country, deepening the clash between the social network, Elon Musk and the Brazilian highest court.

The company has 24 hours to comply starting at around 8 PM Brasilia Time.

The subpoena issued by the Supreme Court, which directly names Elon Musk, was strangely published as post on its official account in X's. The official post, a reply in another post made on Aug. 17 by X's Global Government Affairs profile, simply read "Mandado de Intimação", which in English means "Warrant for subpoena".

Nucleo has confirmed with Supreme Court's press representatives that the subpoena is real and valid. This method of judicial notification via social media by the Supreme Court has little precedent in Brazil – a deviation from traditional ways of legally notifying organizations and individuals.

Continue reading.

[princessanneftw]

Hardest working royals of 2023 revealed

Princess Anne tops list with more than 450 engagements with the King also increasing his time spent at public events

Patrick Sawer, Senior News Reporter and Hannah Furness, Royal Editor for The Telegraph

Princess Anne was the hardest working royal this year, carrying out 457 engagements as she lent steadfast support to her brother in his role as monarch.

The King was ranked in second place, having taken part in 425 royal engagements, while his brother the Duke of Edinburgh was third, with 297 engagements.

The Queen was fourth with 233 royal engagements and the Duchess of Edinburgh fifth with 219.

An analysis by The Telegraph of public events and official meetings based on entries published in the Court Circular showed that the Princess Royal continued to be the most industrious member of the family.

Princess Anne and the King were among members of the Royal family to increase their workload over the past year, after taking on many of the duties and engagements previously conducted by the late Queen Elizabeth.

A separate analysis last year by Reboot SEO company showed that Princess Anne carried out 214 royal engagements, while the King took part in 181.

In a typical average week this year, Princess Anne undertook between 12 and 14 engagements.

Her busiest month was February, when the Princess Royal undertook 57 engagements, which included trips to Australia and New Zealand.

Richard Fitzwilliams, a royal commentator and former editor of The International Who’s Who said: “Anne is one of the best advertisements for the Royal family because she is hardworking, she is dedicated and she is popular because people look at the way she handles things and they like it.

“The public see Anne as someone who is grounded, I think the institution does need her very much.”

The King’s workload over the past 12 months included a state visit to France in September as well as his own Coronation on May 6.

Some of his busiest days have involved back-to-back meetings at Buckingham Palace with ambassadors and other dignitaries and politicians, while the King has also undertaken numerous smaller-scale engagements in the community, visiting local projects and businesses.

Typical of this was his visit to the Broke Not Broken charity in Kinross in September, where he viewed its food bank store, and vegetable garden and met volunteers and members of staff, before visiting an art exhibition and a day centre.

The Court Circular shows that over the past 12 months both the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Gloucester carried out 172 royal engagements each.

The Princess of Wales undertook 128 and the Duchess of Gloucester 111. The Duke of Kent carried out 69 engagements.

An analysis of the number and type of royal engagements raises questions about the future of the monarchy, with the Prince and Princess of Wales taking a very different approach to that of the older generation.

The majority of day-to-day engagements are now carried out by those well into or approaching retirement age, with the Duchess of Edinburgh now 58 and the Duke of Edinburgh turning 60 next year.

The Waleses have deliberately chosen to focus on fewer patronages, hoping to use their power to shine a light on issues close to their hearts to make a bigger difference.

Traditionalists have raised questions over who will pick up the numerous daily visits around the country in the newly slimmed down monarchy with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex departed and the children of the Princess Royal, Duke of York and Duke of Edinburgh not working members of the family.

Dickie Arbiter, the royal commentator who was press spokesman for Queen Elizabeth from 1988 until 2000, said Princess Anne provided invaluable support to the King.

“She just gets on with it, often carrying out multiple engagements in one day,” he said.

“Of course much of what the King does is behind the scenes, in meetings and going through his red boxes, which doesn’t warrant a mention in the Court Circular.”

Mr Arbiter added: “Anne is a tremendous support to the King. He bounces ideas off her. For an ageing monarchy they are doing pretty well.”

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Relaunching Again

Meghan has Emily Andrews hyping up another career rebrand and relaunch.

Which got me thinking...how many times has Meghan's PR hinted, alleged, teased a return to social media or a new career relaunch? How many rumors has her PR started to hype up her rebrand, relaunch, or return?

Let us count the ways!

We'll start in August 2022, because that was when she finally got the brand launch/rollout she expected from Megxit that the pesky little pandemic kept her from getting. So, in August 2022:

She hinted to The Cut that she was coming back to social media.

She hinted that she was writing her memoirs and looking for a publisher.

She teased that she and Harry were renewing their wedding vows.

In September 2022:

She hinted that she was willing to come back to the BRF and relaunch Duchess brand.

She shopped her memoirs again.

In October 2022:

She hinted to Variety that she was relaunching both her acting career and feminist activism.

She hinted that she and Harry wanted to live in Windsor Castle and would come back to the BRF.

She denied to Fortune that she would ever be back on social media (debunking her own rumor from August/The Cut). She mustn't have gotten any interest or traction from sponsors or followers.

She teased that Harry's memoir would turn him into an exalted American leader in the company of Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg. (Seriously. I kid you not.)

In November 2022:

There was a leak that she had been contacting brands, companies, and fashion houses that she was available for merching since she was returning to social media .

In December 2022:

She hinted that her family's Christmas photo would launch her new social media.

Also in 2022: (I didn't catch dates for these)

She hinted intentions to run for President or other U.S. political office.

She hinted intentions to lobby for a Department of State foreign ambassadorship posting.

It was leaked that she planned to rebrand Archewell as a "royal warrant"-like endorsement brand for travel, restaurants, stores in return for freebies and merch.

It was also leaked that way back in August 2019, she wanted to relaunch as an American royal by having a partnership with the US Open (like how Kate represents/partners with Wimbledon).

In January 2023:

She teased launching a housewares and beauty brand.

She hinted that she would relaunch her social media for Valentine's Day.

She hinted a Hollywood A-List reset by suggesting she would be in a Beyonce documentary.

In February 2023:

She hinted her social media would come at the end of the month.

She hinted that she and Harry were available for opportunities in Australia (i.e., they wanted a fauxyal tour of Australia but they also wanted to get paid for goign to Australia).

She teased launching a California casual clothing brand.

She hinted at relaunching her political career and hinted her availability/interest to be a recess appointee to California's congressional delegation.

She hinted relaunching her calligraphy company.

In March 2023:

She hinted returning to social media for the Met Gala.

She hinted at wanting to move out of the US to a private island-type of place.

She hinted that Archewell would become a production company for female-driven storytelling, like a more prestigious Hallmark.

In April 2023:

She hinted returning to social media for May 6th, Archie's very very important not-to-be-missed milestone birthday.

She hinted returning to social media for Mother's Day. (The US celebrates Mother's Day on the second Sunday of May.)

She teased Archetypes Season 2.

She hinted a return to acting/Hollywood and teased a producing partnership with Mindy Kaling.

She teased relaunching The Tig in June 2023.

She hinted her career relaunch and social media rebrand would exclude Harry.

She shopped her memoirs again.

In May 2023:

Her PR put out feelers for her and Harry to appear on the morning talk shows to give interviews about their "catastrophic car chase."

She hinted that she wanted her own daytime talk show.

She teased an appearance on Property Brothers IOU.

She hinted at being Gayle's first guest on her new "King Charles" CNN show.

In June 2023:

She hinted that she was launching a subscription box service, like Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop.

In July 2023:

She hinted that she was partnering with Hilaria Baldwin on the subscription box service.

She hinted she was open for acting jobs.

In August 2023:

Her PR dropped her new Instagram handle and hinted she would be back "soon," suggesting that the relaunch would start with a never-before-seen photograph of her chidlren with The late Queen in a tribute on the anniversary of The Queen's passing.

She hinted a Tig relaunch in September 2023.

She hinted she was developing her own wine brand.

She hinted returning to the royal fold with another round of peace talks with the BRF that would take place in September 2023.

She hinted wanting to come back to be a royal again.

In September 2023:

She hinted returning to social media and relaunching The Tig in November 2023 when Endgame is published.

She teased her memoirs again.

In October 2023:

She hinted launching new social media on November 1.

More memoir teasing.

She hinted that she was being blocked from pursuing politics by Michelle Obama. (Okay, this one doesn't count as a rebrand or relaunch, but I think it's funny. Like Michelle Obama really spends time thinking of and worrying about Meghan Markle when she, and her husband, very publicly chose the BRF over the Sussexes.)

So by the numbers...it's 48 total attempts to rebrand, relaunch, reset, or return. No wonder Meghan needs a vacation for every 2 hours of work! It's exhausting trying to decide who (and what) she wants to be.

And out of all 48 hints, only 1 came to pass: rebranding Archewell as female-driven storytelling and content creation.

Here's the Emily Andrews article.

Edit: 11/17/23 - I added a jump cut to make this post shorter for easier reblogs later since I plan to keep adding onto this.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google is (still) losing the spam wars to zombie news-brands

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (May 3) in CALGARY, then TOMORROW (May 4) in VANCOUVER, then onto Tartu, Estonia, and beyond!

Even Google admits – grudgingly – that it is losing the spam wars. The explosive proliferation of botshit has supercharged the sleazy "search engine optimization" business, such that results to common queries are 50% Google ads to spam sites, and 50% links to spam sites that tricked Google into a high rank (without paying for an ad):

https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies#site-reputation

It's nice that Google has finally stopped gaslighting the rest of us with claims that its search was still the same bedrock utility that so many of us relied upon as a key piece of internet infrastructure. This not only feels wildly wrong, it is empirically, provably false:

https://downloads.webis.de/publications/papers/bevendorff_2024a.pdf

Not only that, but we know why Google search sucks. Memos released as part of the DOJ's antitrust case against Google reveal that the company deliberately chose to worsen search quality to increase the number of queries you'd have to make (and the number of ads you'd have to see) to find a decent result:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Google's antitrust case turns on the idea that the company bought its way to dominance, spending the some of the billions it extracted from advertisers and publishers to buy the default position on every platform, so that no one ever tried another search engine, which meant that no one would invest in another search engine, either.

Google's tacit defense is that its monopoly billions only incidentally fund these kind of anticompetitive deals. Mostly, Google says, it uses its billions to build the greatest search engine, ad platform, mobile OS, etc that the public could dream of. Only a company as big as Google (says Google) can afford to fund the R&D and security to keep its platform useful for the rest of us.

That's the "monopolistic bargain" – let the monopolist become a dictator, and they will be a benevolent dictator. Shriven of "wasteful competition," the monopolist can split their profits with the public by funding public goods and the public interest.

Google has clearly reneged on that bargain. A company experiencing the dramatic security failures and declining quality should be pouring everything it has to righting the ship. Instead, Google repeatedly blew tens of billions of dollars on stock buybacks while doing mass layoffs:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Those layoffs have now reached the company's "core" teams, even as its core services continue to decay:

https://qz.com/google-is-laying-off-hundreds-as-it-moves-core-jobs-abr-1851449528

(Google's antitrust trial was shrouded in secrecy, thanks to the judge's deference to the company's insistence on confidentiality. The case is moving along though, and warrants your continued attention:)

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-2-trillion-secret-trial-against

Google wormed its way into so many corners of our lives that its enshittification keeps erupting in odd places, like ordering takeout food:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

Back in February, Housefresh – a rigorous review site for home air purifiers – published a viral, damning account of how Google had allowed itself to be overrun by spammers who purport to provide reviews of air purifiers, but who do little to no testing and often employ AI chatbots to write automated garbage:

https://housefresh.com/david-vs-digital-goliaths/

In the months since, Housefresh's Gisele Navarro has continued to fight for the survival of her high-quality air purifier review site, and has received many tips from insiders at the spam-farms and Google, all of which she recounts in a followup essay:

https://housefresh.com/how-google-decimated-housefresh/

One of the worst offenders in spam wars is Dotdash Meredith, a content-farm that "publishes" multiple websites that recycle parts of each others' content in order to climb to the top search slots for lucrative product review spots, which can be monetized via affiliate links.

A Dotdash Meredith insider told Navarro that the company uses a tactic called "keyword swarming" to push high-quality independent sites off the top of Google and replace them with its own garbage reviews. When Dotdash Meredith finds an independent site that occupies the top results for a lucrative Google result, they "swarm a smaller site’s foothold on one or two articles by essentially publishing 10 articles [on the topic] and beefing up [Dotdash Meredith sites’] authority."

Dotdash Meredith has keyword swarmed a large number of topics. from air purifiers to slow cookers to posture correctors for back-pain:

https://housefresh.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/keyword-swarming-dotdash.jpg

The company isn't shy about this. Its own shareholder communications boast about it. What's more, it has competition.

Take Forbes, an actual news-site, which has a whole shadow-empire of web-pages reviewing products for puppies, dogs, kittens and cats, all of which link to high affiliate-fee-generating pet insurance products. These reviews are not good, but they are treasured by Google's algorithm, which views them as a part of Forbes's legitimate news-publishing operation and lets them draft on Forbes's authority.

This side-hustle for Forbes comes at a cost for the rest of us, though. The reviewers who actually put in the hard work to figure out which pet products are worth your money (and which ones are bad, defective or dangerous) are crowded off the front page of Google and eventually disappear, leaving behind nothing but semi-automated SEO garbage from Forbes:

https://twitter.com/ichbinGisele/status/1642481590524583936

There's a name for this: "site reputation abuse." That's when a site perverts its current – or past – practice of publishing high-quality materials to trick Google into giving the site a high ranking. Think of how Deadspin's private equity grifter owners turned it into a site full of casino affiliate spam:

https://www.404media.co/who-owns-deadspin-now-lineup-publishing/

The same thing happened to the venerable Money magazine:

https://moneygroup.pr/

Money is one of the many sites whose air purifier reviews Google gives preference to, despite the fact that they do no testing. According to Google, Money is also a reliable source of information on reprogramming your garage-door opener, buying a paint-sprayer, etc:

https://money.com/best-paint-sprayer/

All of this is made ten million times worse by AI, which can spray out superficially plausible botshit in superhuman quantities, letting spammers produce thousands of variations on their shitty reviews, flooding the zone with bullshit in classic Steve Bannon style:

https://escapecollective.com/commerce-content-is-breaking-product-reviews/

As Gizmodo, Sports Illustrated and USA Today have learned the hard way, AI can't write factual news pieces. But it can pump out bullshit written for the express purpose of drafting on the good work human journalists have done and tricking Google – the search engine 90% of us rely on – into upranking bullshit at the expense of high-quality information.

A variety of AI service bureaux have popped up to provide AI botshit as a service to news brands. While Navarro doesn't say so, I'm willing to bet that for news bosses, outsourcing your botshit scams to a third party is considered an excellent way of avoiding your journalists' wrath. The biggest botshit-as-a-service company is ASR Group (which also uses the alias Advon Commerce).

Advon claims that its botshit is, in fact, written by humans. But Advon's employees' Linkedin profiles tell a different story, boasting of their mastery of AI tools in the industrial-scale production of botshit:

https://housefresh.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Advon-AI-LinkedIn.jpg

Now, none of this is particularly sophisticated. It doesn't take much discernment to spot when a site is engaged in "site reputation abuse." Presumably, the 12,000 googlers the company fired last year could have been employed to check the top review keyword results manually every couple of days and permaban any site caught cheating this way.

Instead, Google is has announced a change in policy: starting May 5, the company will downrank any site caught engaged in site reputation abuse. However, the company takes a very narrow view of site reputation abuse, limiting punishments to sites that employ third parties to generate or uprank their botshit. Companies that produce their botshit in-house are seemingly not covered by this policy.

As Navarro writes, some sites – like Forbes – have prepared for May 5 by blocking their botshit sections from Google's crawler. This can't be their permanent strategy, though – either they'll have to kill the section or bring it in-house to comply with Google's rules. Bringing things in house isn't that hard: US News and World Report is advertising for an SEO editor who will publish 70-80 posts per month, doubtless each one a masterpiece of high-quality, carefully researched material of great value to Google's users:

https://twitter.com/dannyashton/status/1777408051357585425

As Navarro points out, Google is palpably reluctant to target the largest, best-funded spammers. Its March 2024 update kicked many garbage AI sites out of the index – but only small bottom-feeders, not large, once-respected publications that have been colonized by private equity spam-farmers.

All of this comes at a price, and it's only incidentally paid by legitimate sites like Housefresh. The real price is borne by all of us, who are funneled by the 90%-market-share search engine into "review" sites that push low quality, high-price products. Housefresh's top budget air purifier costs $79. That's hundreds of dollars cheaper than the "budget" pick at other sites, who largely perform no original research.

Google search has a problem. AI botshit is dominating Google's search results, and it's not just in product reviews. Searches for infrastructure code samples are dominated by botshit code generated by Pulumi AI, whose chatbot hallucinates nonexistence AWS features:

https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/01/pulumi_ai_pollution_of_search/

This is hugely consequential: when these "hallucinations" slip through into production code, they create huge vulnerabilities for widespread malicious exploitation:

https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/28/ai_bots_hallucinate_software_packages/

We've put all our eggs in Google's basket, and Google's dropped the basket – but it doesn't matter because they can spend $20b/year bribing Apple to make sure no one ever tries a rival search engine on Ios or Safari:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-payments-apple-reached-20-220947331.html

Google's response – laying off core developers, outsourcing to low-waged territories with weak labor protections and spending billions on stock buybacks – presents a picture of a company that is too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

Google promised us a quid-pro-quo: let them be the single, authoritative portal ("organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful"), and they will earn that spot by being the best search there is:

https://www.ft.com/content/b9eb3180-2a6e-41eb-91fe-2ab5942d4150

But – like the spammers at the top of its search result pages – Google didn't earn its spot at the center of our digital lives.

It cheated.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/03/keyword-swarming/#site-reputation-abuse

Image: freezelight (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spam_wall_-_Flickr_-_freezelight.jpg

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

[mariacallous]

AI slop is flowing onto every major platform where people post online—and Medium is no exception.

The 12-year-old publishing platform has undertaken a dizzying number of pivots over the years. It’s finally on a financial upswing, having turned a monthly profit for the first time this summer. Medium CEO Tony Stubblebine and other executives at the company have described the platform as “a home for human writing.” But there is evidence that robot bloggers are increasingly flocking to the platform, too.

Earlier this year, WIRED asked AI detection startup Pangram Labs to analyze Medium. It took a sampling of 274,466 recent posts over a six-week period and estimated that over 47 percent were likely AI-generated. “This is a couple orders of magnitude more than what I see on the rest of the internet,” says Pangram CEO Max Spero. (The company’s analysis of one day of global news sites this summer found 7 percent as likely AI-generated.)

The strain of slop on Medium tends toward the banal, especially compared with the dadaist flotsam clogging Facebook. Instead of Shrimp Jesus, one is more apt to see vacant dispatches about cryptocurrency. The tags with the most likely AI-generated content included “NFT”—out of 5,712 articles tagged with this phrase over the last several months, Pangram found that 4,492, or around 78 percent, came back as likely AI-generated—as well as “web3,” “ethereum,” “AI,” and, for whatever reason, “pets.”

WIRED asked a second AI detection startup, Originality AI, to run its own analysis. It examined a sampling of Medium posts from 2018 and compared it with a sampling from this year. In 2018, 3.4 percent were estimated as likely AI-generated. CEO Jon Gillham says that percentage corresponds to the company’s false-positive rate, as AI tools were not widely used at that point. For 2024, with a sampling of 473 articles published this year, it suspected that just over 40 percent were likely AI-generated. With no knowledge of each others’ analyses, both Originality and Pangram came to similar conclusions about the scope of AI content.

When contacted by WIRED for this article and notified of the results of the AI detection analyses, Stubblebine rejected the premise that Medium has an AI issue. “I am disputing the importance of the results and also the idea that these companies discovered anything,” he says.

Stubblebine does not deny that Medium has seen a major uptick in AI-generated articles. “We think, probably, AI-generated content that gets posted to Medium is probably up tenfold from the beginning of the year,” he says. He also adopts a generally adversarial approach to AI slop appearing on the platform: “We’re strongly against AI content.” But he objects to the use of AI detectors in assessing the scope of the issue, in part because he alleges they cannot differentiate between posts that are wholly AI-generated and posts in which AI is used more lightly. (“That’s not accurate,” Spero says; he claims Pangram can indeed differentiate between a ChatGPT post generated from a prompt and a post based on an AI outline but fleshed out with human writing.)

According to Stubblebine, Medium tested several AI detectors and decided they were not effective. (Stubblebine also accused Pangram Labs of attempting to extort him “by press” because Spero, Pangram’s CEO, sent an email detailing the results of the analysis WIRED had requested and then offered its services to Medium. “I just thought we could help them,” Spero says.)

AI detection tools are, indeed, flawed. They work by analyzing texts and making predictions and can produce false positives and false negatives. Caution using them to judge individual pieces of writing and artwork is warranted, especially with a new wave of tools available to trick them. Still, they have utility as barometers gauging changes in how much AI-generated content exists on certain platforms and websites, and they can help researchers, journalists, and the public to spot patterns.

“Since AI detectors are accurate but not perfect, it is impossible to say with certainty whether any single piece of content is AI-generated or not,” says Gillham. “However, they are great at seeing the trend of AI writing taking over platforms like Medium.”

Others have spotted this trend. “During my regular scans for new AI-generated news sites, I regularly come across AI-generated content on Medium on a weekly basis,” says McKenzie Sadeghi, an editor at online misinformation tracking company NewsGuard. “I've found that most of it is often about crypto, marketing, SEO.”

Stubblebine is adamant that these numbers do not accurately capture what Medium readers experience. “It doesn't matter,” he says. “Having access to the raw feed of what gets posted to Medium doesn't represent the actual activity of what gets recommended and viewed. The vast majority of detectable AI-generated stories in the raw feeds for these topics already have zero views. Zero views is the goal and we already have a system that accomplishes [that].” He believes Medium is effectively containing its AI slop with the combination of its general-purpose spam filtering system and its human moderation.

Many accounts that appear to post high volumes of AI-generated material do, indeed, appear to have puny or non-existent readerships. One account flagged by Pangram Labs as the author of likely AI-generated posts about crypto, for example, posted six times in one day, with no interactions on any of the posts, suggesting a negligible impact. Other flagged posts appear to have been recently pulled down; while some may have been voluntarily removed, others may have been removed by Medium days or weeks after publication. Sometimes, Medium deliberately delays removing spam, according to Stubblebine, if it has identified “spam rings” attempting to game the system.

Zero views was not the case across the board, though. WIRED found that other articles flagged as likely AI-generated by Pangram, Originality, and the AI detection company Reality Defender, had hundreds of “claps,” which are similar to “likes” on other platforms, suggesting at the very least a readership substantially higher than zero.

Stubblebine sees people as the cornerstone of Medium’s approach to quality control. “Medium basically runs on human curation now,” he says. He cites the 9,000 editors of Medium’s publications, as well as additional human evaluation for stories that can be “boosted” or more widely distributed. “I think you could, if you're being pedantic, say we're filtering out AI—but there's a goal above that, which is, we're just trying to filter out the stuff that's not very good.”

Medium has taken steps this year to curb the presence of robotic bloggers, updating its AI policy. Its stance is a notable contrast to other platforms, like LinkedIn and Facebook, that explicitly encourage people to use AI. Instead, Medium no longer allows AI writing to be paywalled in its Partner program, to receive wider human-curated distribution from its Boost program, or to promote affiliate links. Disclosed AI writing can get general distribution, but undisclosed AI writing is given only “network” distribution, which means it is meant to appear only on the feeds of people who follow the writer. Medium defines AI-generated writing as “writing where the majority of the content has been created by an AI-writing program with little or no edits, improvements, fact-checking, or changes.” Medium does not have any AI-specific enforcement tools for these new rules. “We've found that our existing curation system has the side effect of filtering out AI generated writing simply because AI generated writing is also bad writing,” says Stubblebine.

Some Medium writers and editors do applaud the platform’s approach to AI. Eric Pierce, who founded Medium’s largest pop culture publication Fanfare, says he doesn’t have to fend off many AI-generated submissions and that he believes that the human curators of Medium’s boost program help highlight the best of the platform’s human writing. “I can’t think of a single piece I’ve read on Medium in the past few months that even hinted at being AI-created,” he says. “Increasingly, Medium feels like a bastion of sanity amid an internet desperate to eat itself alive.”

However, other writers and editors believe they currently still see a plethora of AI-generated writing on the platform. Content marketing writer Marcus Musick, who edits several publications, wrote a post lamenting how what he suspects to be an AI-generated article went viral. (Reality Defender ran an analysis on the article in question and estimated it was 99 percent “likely manipulated.”) The story appears widely read, with over 13,500 “claps.”

In addition to spotting possible AI content as a reader, Musick also believes he encounters it frequently as an editor. He says he rejects around 80 percent of potential contributors a month because he suspects they’re using AI. He does not use AI detectors, which he calls “useless,” instead relying on his own judgment.

While the volume of likely AI-generated content on Medium is notable, the moderation challenges the platform faces—how to surface good work and keep junk banished—is one that has always plagued the greater web. The AI boom has simply super-charged the problem. While click farms have long been an issue, for example, AI has handed SEO-obsessed entrepreneurs a way to swiftly resurrect zombie media outlets by filling them with AI slop. There’s a whole subgenre of YouTube hustle culture entrepreneurs creating get-rich-quick tutorials encouraging others to create AI slop on platforms like Facebook, Amazon Kindle, and, yes, Medium. (Sample headline: “1-Click AI SEO Medium Empire 🤯.”)

“Medium is in the same place as the internet as a whole right now. Because AI content is so quick to generate that it is everywhere,” says plagiarism consultant Jonathan Bailey. “Spam filters, the human moderators, et cetera—those are probably the best tools they have.”

Stubblebine’s argument—that it doesn’t necessarily matter whether a platform contains a large amount of garbage, as long as it successfully amplifies good writing and limits the reach of said garbage—is perhaps more pragmatic than any attempt to wholly banish AI slop. His moderation strategy may very well be the most savvy approach.

It also suggests a future in which the Dead Internet theory comes to fruition. The theory, once the domain of extremely online conspiratorial thinkers, argues that the vast majority of the internet is devoid of real people and human-created posts, instead clogged with AI-generated slop and bots. As generative AI tools grow more commonplace, platforms that give up on trying to blot out bots will incubate an online world in which work created by humans becomes increasingly harder to find on platforms swamped by AI.

[abimee]

one section of the internet treats fanfiction with the idea that its on the same level as published literature (its not) but another section of the internet treats fanfiction like the very concept is bad (its not) while im firmly in the position that fanfic is just a hobby that can help you strengthen the base skill (writing) just like fanart can strengthen your ability to draw and fanmusic your ability to sing/play an instrument. its not as good as original stories made by the author but fanfiction isnt some lesser category of art making and i dont think ''you read fanfic = you are some illiterate anti intellectual" like some people seem to honestly believe and type out. and you cant claim fanfiction is as good as published literature for as long as its seen as normal in fanfic communities to post child porn and rape fics and go ''just dont look'' because any actual publishing company would put a warrant out for your arrest if you sent them that in a manila envelope hoping to get it published

[ipsen]

Consider: Eto at a gala meeting from her publishing company and sneaking out with Kaneki to do dumb shit like 2 teenagers

hoof alright just drop that in my lap. under the cut

He is her bodyguard, and he must keep an eye on her at all possible times.

That also means making sure she arrives at all social obligations on time, even when— especially when— she complains. In the same vein, he must attend those same obligations even if he would rather stay at home and read a book.

On the way there, he has to make sure she looks presentable before appearing in public. He must take care of any stray strand of hair, any smudge of makeup, before someone sees and becomes perturbed. It's ridiculous, she says. He gets to attend in a simple black suit with minimal gel in his hair while she has to get dolled up and wear a dress with no pockets.

He doesn't respond, for it is not his job. He is her bodyguard.

And being a bodyguard includes keeping her out of harm's way, physical and otherwise. He looks at the member list again. Her ex, the "reaper made flesh" in her words, is on the list. He makes a mental note to look out.

When they arrive, she groans. She mentions a book she's been wanting to finish. He picks some lint off her shoulder, and for some reason, she pauses.

... She asks how she looks, twisting her head this way and that.

He pauses for a moment before saying she looks good.

She shuts up after that.

The event is nothing special, and most of it passes in a blur. The only real note he is able to make is on the quality of the available drinks, as well as their poor choice her publishing company made when displaying her most famous— and least entertaining— work. It's a fact not lost on her, either, and she rolls her eyes at it.

However, he is still her bodyguard, and he stays on alert while she is forced to mingle. He makes sure she doesn’t stumble or fall as they move about, and he clears his throat when she's about to say something she’ll regret. As the night continues, she clings to him more and more. He thinks it's the alcohol getting to her.

Then, it happens. The novelty of her appearance wears off, and an opportunity presents itself: one that she is quick to take.

He’s sure to follow her when she wanders off and away from the crowds. When asked by strays why, she says she’s headed for the restroom. A bold-faced lie, considering it’s in the opposite direction. He follows her anyway because he is her bodyguard, and he forces down any possible outcomes for himself.

A pity.

In the silence of the room, the picturesque image of her author melts away, and the real her appears. It isn't long before he finds himself backed against a wall, her palms on either side of him.

She’s drunk, he says, even though she hasn't had nearly enough to warrant the statement. She opts to raise her brow instead of calling him out like she usually does. He looks left, then right.

It's quiet, and they are alone.

...

...

...

... They return to the gathering, still out of breath but feeling rather refreshed for it. The night passes without incident, though he is far more cognizant of her gaze on him than before. It straightens his back, making him feel a small swell of pride in his chest.

He is her bodyguard, after all, and he must keep an eye on her at all possible times.