#it's the larries culture summarized

[oracleintheshell]

Conclusion: Reevolution

Sarah Franklin

If the most common response to The Dialectic of Sex is a caricature of her position on technology, reproduction, and social change, it is a highly indicative misreading. Like the smoke that indicates a fire, the obfuscation of Firestone points at the core of the problem she set out to diagnose—the “categories that don’t apply,” the “painful” problem that is “everywhere,” in “the very organization of culture itself”62—the problem of the unthinkability of anything outside and beyond the legacies of sexual polarization that limit perception, and above all the invisibility of this problem. From this perspective, the wide variation in feminist responses to new reproductive technology would be expected, especially when, as Firestone repeatedly points out, neither the production nor the application of such technologies can occur outside of the currently male-dominated institutions of science, medicine, and engineering. Variation, division, equivocation, confusion, and ambivalence would be politically predictable in response to the scale, and stage, of the problem.

Given her enthusiasm for technological and scientific progress, a bridge Firestone might want to see strengthened would be that between women scientists and technicians and the new biological possibilities opened up, for example, by stem cells, artificial gametes, cloning, and genetic modification. To a certain extent this is already beginning to occur, as certain areas of biology become more feminized, and as the crossover region between basic research and applications in the areas of human, plant and animal reproduction expands.

In the past, a healthy dose of science skepticism has been justifiably present within feminism—and so it should be given the male-dominated histories of science, medicine, and engineering. But this skepticism must also be ambivalent: it needs to be accompanied by greater integration of feminist perspectives into science, technology design, clinical medicine, and engineering which in turn must involve a greater integration of women scientists into feminism—something that is likely to become more of a priority within feminist scholarship. This integration will be especially difficult for women scientists due to the general taboo that still surrounds mere mention of the F-word in most laboratories. However, “the science question in feminism” may well prove an increasingly important priority in what the Economist has called “the age of biology.”

Ironically, this would mean that an important legacy of Firestone’s manifesto will today be manifest at the level of what is traditionally called a liberal feminist agenda—the concern with issues such as getting more women into science and engineering. Indeed, on this point, Firestone herself is both adamant and strikingly contemporary. In her characteristically blithe and searing manner, she summarizes the situation of women and science (or the “Larry Summers question”) in a single paragraph:

The absence of women at all levels of the scientific disciplines is so commonplace as to lead many (otherwise intelligent) people to attribute it to some deficiency (logic?) in women themselves. Or to women’s own predilections for the emotional and the subjective over the practical and the rational. But the question cannot be so easily dismissed. It is true that women in science are in foreign territory—but how has this situation evolved? Why are there disciplines or branches of inquiry that demand only a “male” mind? Why would a woman, to qualify, have to develop an alien psychology? When and why was the female excluded from this type of mind? How and why has science come to be defined as, and restricted to, the “objective?”

In another ironic twist, the most radical proposal in The Dialectic of Sex—of eliminating sexual difference—may also be gaining some traction in the post-Dolly context of sex-as-mix, albeit in ways Firestone did not anticipate. Now that a skin cell can be made into an artificial gamete, and an artificial egg into an artificial sperm, and an embryoid body into a viable offspring, it is no longer clear what “sexual difference” consists of in “strictly biological” terms.

It is similarly worth remembering that although new reproductive technologies have largely been legitimated through the promotion of normative, heterosexual, nuclear families, they have also, in Marilyn Strathern’s words, “travelled back” to denaturalize some of these same traditional idioms—such as biological relatedness, which, as Charis Thompson has pointed out,66 is now explicitly constructed, or “strategically naturalized,” in complex exchanges of reproductive substance between siblings, across generations, and through complex, multiparty financial transactions. As a consequence, the very meaning of “biology” and “biological” is changing rapidly, and these terms no longer signify conditional or “given” attributes but something more amorphous, malleable, plastic, and fluid.

The true heir to Firestone is Donna Haraway, who has never allowed science, technology, biology, or the search for “solutions” to be oversimplified. Properly, Haraway is not a dutiful daughter and would not share Firestone’s over-reliance on either bio-pessimism or techno-optimism. Rather, Haraway has devotedly morphed these very categories through (in)tolerance, persistence, love, labor, and imagination. In her own Cyborg Manifesto twenty-five years ago, Haraway rejected the ecological sentimentalism of a return to holistic values in favor of something queerer, less predictable, and more difficult in the form of a situated ethics that is at once principled but uncontrolled. As a way-finding ethics, she has forged a feminist political discipline as a form of companionship within the project of reevolution. This is an approach that shares with Firestone an enthusiasm both for biology and the technological means of changing it. Above all, it shares Firestone’s distaste for substance-based familialism and blood kinship in all of its forms.

Reading Firestone and Haraway together in the first decades of the twenty-first century reminds us of the importance of the constellation of issues they both positioned at the heart of their feminist manifestos, while providing a useful contrast in the way they assembled their arguments. For both Firestone and Haraway the control of biology is inseparable from an evolutionary narrative that is increasingly hybridized with technological Salvationism.

Similarly, for both theorists the relationship of gender to biology is radically denaturalized in the service of a revolutionary agenda that requires the destruction of familiar categories, identities, and ways of life. In particular, the ability to radically reimagine kinship, family, and reproduction is crucial to the liberation of gender categories, and for both theorists a radical rethink of reproduction enables a reimagining of what technological control is in aid of (which is largely the opposite of its normatively presumed function of improving the status quo).

Notable too is the extent to which both Firestone and Haraway part company with their feminist contemporaries on “the question of technology” by placing it at the heart of their feminist visions. This is what they have in common, and what sets them apart from their peers, both in their political aspirations (which are revolutionary) and in their theoretical models (which are in some ways more conventional than they seem in their enthusiasm for science and technology). It is also what establishes them as the origin of a tradition of feminist critical engagement with science and technology that is likely to become increasingly more mainstream as the era of reengineered, transgenic, and synthesized biology begins to regender us all.

[irisembury]

Types of masculinity

For my purposes here, let’s just summarize masculinity as strong, confident, assertive, dominant. That seems good enough. From there, you can recognize different subtypes or archetypes. There’s probably numerous ways to slice it, but I think one particular spectrum stands out, which for lack of better term I have come to call the suave and the savage.

The suave-masculine is refined, intelligent, sophisticated, gentlemanly. He’s well-spoken and cultured—a debonair; but he’s still masculine (strong, confident, assertive, dominant).

The savage-masculine is more primal, vigorous, and brash. He’s aggressive, he’s unfiltered, he acts on his instincts—animalistic, like a caveman. And likewise, he’s still masculine.

Not everybody fits perfectly into one or the other, but most men clearly lean one way or the other, and most people who are attracted to men have a preference.

In my experience, the following observation holds true: the more a girl is nerdy and into anime, the more likely she is to prefer suave-masculinity. The more she’s into golden retrievers and pepperoni pizza, the less likely she is to prefer suave-masculine (compared with the anime girls). Sound weirdly specific? It is.

I see this spectrum in many places, including people I know in my own life. But often when watching a show or movie, there will be two different guys who are both masculine in different ways, and it’s framable using something like this.

For example, not long ago I was thinking about it while watching a show called Fate/Zero, where two characters called Lancer and Rider embody these two different archetypes perfectly.

Vampires and werewolves

From Twilight to Underworld, series that have vampires usually feature werewolves and vice versa, and this is a perfect stage for writers to play with the suave and savage. The werewolf and vampire are both powerful, sexy creatures—they’re killers, they’re assertive and controlling, and they represent an alluring other.

But vampires then have a tendency of being more fancy, romantic, and refined. Werewolves, meanwhile, are more primordial and raw. They literally lose control of theirselves in the moonlight—a metaphor for instincts taking over (comparable to a man being uncontrollable with lust).

For many people, taking a glance at the Twilight series back when it was popular and seeing the way people argued about Jacob versus Edward seemed confusing, because they’re both just young white guys who look similar. But what was playing out was a difference in preference between the more suave vampire and the more savage werewolf.

Monsters

There’s something interesting happening psychologically when women find theirselves attracted to monsters, which is the catch-all that I’m going to use to describe anything non-human. It’s something that’s probably uncomfortable to talk about in broader society.

There’s a submissive tendency that can be cast from an individual level (‘you dominate me’) onto group dynamics (‘your group dominates my group’). This probably happened deep in our history, whenever one tribe conquered another. What do you think happened to all the women in a village if the men of some other village killed all their husbands? It’s gruesome, but the best survival strategy would be to shrug and accept that you’re part of that other tribe now.

Have you ever seen that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry dates a Palestinian woman, and then while having sex she unexpected hits him with “fuck me you Jew bastard, fuck me like Israel fucks my people”? It’s an inescapable part of humanity, despite our desire to look away. People don’t just think of individuals. We also see each other as members of groups. And sometimes your group getting dominated is sexy, the same way you as an individual getting dominated is. This is what’s happening in most race-based sexual play.

Edward and Jacob were played by Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, both attractive guys, but there’s more to it than that. Their sex appeal was amplified by the fact they’re a different species, and one that’s dangerous to humans. It wasn’t just about getting dominated by some attractive man. It was about your humanity being dominated by a non-human other.

Yes, Edward—bite me. Make me one of you.

Apollo and Dionysus

There’s an old concept in philosophy, literature, art, and possibly other contexts, named after the Greek gods Apollo (‘ah-paul-oh’) and Dionysus (‘die-uh-nigh-suss’). Apollo was the god of order, logic, and higher thinking, while Dionysus was the god of festivals, chaos, wine, and dance. This gives to the concepts of Apollonian (‘apple-oh-nee-an’), to mean things that are structured, stable, conventional, disciplined; and Dionysian (‘die-ah-niss-ee-uhn’) to mean passionate, wild, spontaneous, and free. I view this as yet another personality axis—which some people have historically argued correlates with masculine and feminine (men being more Apollonian and women being more Dionysian), but I don’t think I agree with that. When I look around in this world, I see men and women of both sorts.

Examples:

Sherlock Holmes and his brother Mycroft. Sherlock works alone and is quick on his feet, emotional, impulsive, wild. Mycroft is the more measured man of the institution.

Kirk and Picard from Star Trek. Though not in the same series, they’re often compared because they’re the two most famous starship captains—and while similar, given they’re both Starfleet captains, Kirk is more of a daring rogue or risk-taker, while Picard is more of a refined diplomat. In this comparison, you can see it’s all relative, or about contrast: in comparison with other characters, one could argue that Kirk is Apollonian, because he’s part of Starfleet, but he has a more independent personality or attitude. There’s a broader spectrum of Apollo to Dionysus, and Kirk is noteworthy for being more Dionysian than the other characters in his environment, despite not being the most Dionysian man in the galaxy.

In Star Wars, I wouldn’t describe Luke Skywalker as an Apollonian character overall—he’s more balanced. Not everybody is going to lean hard in one direction or the other. But Han Solo is then more Dionysian than Luke is, by comparison. We see that Luke is capable of being daring, working alone, acting on instinct, especially in Return of the Jedi, but overall he doesn’t seem as wild or chaotic as Solo.

The tumblr sexyman

The tumblr sexyman is a satirical, tongue-in-cheek name that spawned on Tumblr many years ago by Tumblr users making fun of theirselves for their own preferences. Despite sounding silly, it captures something real, which is a pattern of traits that captivated people across many different examples and genres, and which I would describe as a sub-archetype of the suave Dionysian. Typically, a tumblr sexyman is:

tall, white, and fancy or well-dressed

often a bit feminine in some ways, especially appearance (bonus points if they have to crossdress at some point for plot reasons)

cool or edgy, not bubbly or cheerful (they can be optimistic)

morally grey, or willing to break the rules to get results; not necessarily evil, but definitely not a white-knight paladin do-gooder

a lone wolf—always independently minded, even if they’re fighting for the good guys as part of some broader organization

Some popular examples of this archetype are:

the Doctors from the Doctor Who series

Sherlock (from the BBC series)

Kaito Kuroba (Detective Conan)

Cloud (Final Fantasy VII)

Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)

This character archetype was so loved that people would engage in sexyman-ification of characters when it felt right (e.g., try searching “bill cypher sexyman”).

[dustedmagazine]

Dan Melchior — Welcome to Redacted City (Midnight Cruiser)

Welcome To Redacted City by Dan Melchior Band

The title comes from an odd, lo-fi interval called “Slamming the Tent Door,” an eerie conglomeration of guitar noodling and amp buzz and ominous, echo-shrouded murmurings about the surreal ��redacted city.” It’s an outpost in Dan Melchior’s volume-fried punk alterative universe, where insects teem and colonels plot, and no one really knows where they are. It sounds simple, but in practice turns devilishly opaque, shape-shifting and evocative.  

Welcome to Redacted City brings together all of the things you might love (or come to love, if you’re just getting here) about Dan Melchior’s work, the frayed distortion, the seething sarcasm, the vintage sci-fi, b-movie surreality. He sees you pretending that you don’t watch Real Housewives, and he knows.

Dan Melchior recently moved from North Carolina to Austin, but in this, his first album of 2023 (following three in 2022, according to Discogs). He hasn’t altogether abandoned the Tar Heel State, however, because his band includes a couple of players from the Spider Bags—Chris Girard on bass and Clark Blomquist on drums. Anthony Allman, the keyboard player with whom Melchior recorded the much more abstract and experimental Depth Boys album last year, fills out the band.

That makes sense, because what Spider Bags did with a thick Southern drawl is very similar to what Melchior has been doing in his cracked and contemptuous English accent: infuse the most brutal, primitive sort of garage rock with a complicated sort of poetry. Melchior lets fly bright clanging guitar chords, buzzing dissonance and exuberantly simple choruses, then twists the whole thing several notches toward the bizarre.

There are 21 one songs on this one, single album, each in more or less the same palette, but as different as snowflakes. It is somewhat difficult to summarize. There are, for instance, giddy, happy-go-lucky songs that seem to have a squishy dangerous underpinning. I’m talking about organ wheedling, guitar-blaring “Going Outside,” which careens on in a carefree way, while leaving you with the distinct impression that no one should go outside. There are sharp, complicated cultural observations about the obscurest sorts of phenomena, a 1946 Joseph Manciewicz film noir called Somewhere in the Night (“Larry Cravat”), the founder of the long-running English oddball blues band, the Groundhogs (“TS McPhee”) and the Kurosawa film “Ran” (“Apologists, Controversialists, Etc.”).

Novelistic vignettes bob up from impossibly thick stews of buzz and feedback, as on “A Shot of the Master” (“What is the world’s biggest bad-ass doing today? Practicing tai chi in his special pjs. What is the world’s most feared man doing tonight? Watching Sex and the City with a glass of Amstel light.”) And yet, though the discourse is sharp and knowing, he’s got very little patience for your pretensions; see him rip the cover off your low-end television habits in “I Watch TV.”

If you’ve ever caught Melchior live, you’ll know that the elegance of his argument in no way compromises the force of his delivery—and this is true on the current disc as well. The man plays loud and hard and sharp and with a good bit of noise embedded, and his band is well up to the task as well. Welcome to Redacted City offers the cleansing fury of garage rock primitivism, but it is not the least bit primitive.

Jennifer Kelly

[oglenvs3000w24]

Unit 6: Nature Interpretation through History

Wow! What a quote! I felt connected to this quote after learning more about interpretation's role in history. What jumped out at me was the emphasis on the importance of history. I like that it emphasizes that you need all parts of life, past and present, to maintain integrity. I believe many people are quick to dismiss history, myself included. I have heard and said claims such as “history is boring” and “why does it matter,” but the older I get, the more I recognize its importance. In order to tell a whole story, you need the past. It is naive to think that the only thing that matters is here right now, this minute. I felt this quote acknowledges this point with the comparison to a railway station, and how to ignore the past is like the station ceasing to exist once we are past it. Anyone can acknowledge that this is untrue and that the station is still there; it is just ourselves that have moved past. Many moments in life helped shape where we are now, and they do not simply disappear just because we have progressed through time. You can follow that “track” back and end up at all those moments again. 

History makes places more meaningful (Beck et al., 2018). It adds to a place's quality of life and economic development (Beck et al., 2018). Learning the entire story of a place can change a person's view about where they live, making the place better or having them feel a sense of pride. It allows an individual to feel more connected to the place they are. An example that comes to mind is my recent trip to Godrich. If you were not aware, this town on Lake Heron's coast was flattened by a tornado that came in off the water in 2011. Walking around the town and reading signs about the tornado and the recovery rebuilding process made me feel incredibly connected to this location. I felt the emotion and imagined the challenges to rebuild to what it is now. I understood why the trees were small, and everything seemed new. This is a small example, but it portrays how the integrity of time and the inclusion of historical events help to create a sense of place. 

This is a photo of Godrich and the salt mine in the top right. The tornado came in off this coast and flattened the entire city centre. Google it for some crazy photos! As you can see, many of these trees are young and small as they regrow. 

In the quote, they mention that the maintenance of integrity involves knowledge and a memory of ancient things. This reminds me of an essential point in our textbook about interpreting history effectively and accurately: You must research (Beck et al., 2018)—using various sources like primary sources and oral historians to gain an accurate, in-depth understanding of the past. It is one thing to acknowledge history and the past but another to understand and ensure the information is accurate to the time. 

This quote does an excellent job of summarizing the importance of understanding history and how there is merit to understanding the transition through time.

References:

Knudson, Larry Beck, Ted T. Cable, Douglas M. Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage: For a Better World. Available from: Sagamore Publishing LLC, Sagamore Publishing LLC, 2018. 

[mahashankh]

Empowering Billions in the world : Google's Sentimental Journey of Innovation till 2024

The Evolution and Impact of Google

Abstract: This research paper delves into the evolution and impact of Google, examining its origins, growth, products, influence on society, and challenges faced.

Google From its humble beginnings as a search engine to its current status as a global tech giant, Google's journey reflects the transformative power of the digital age. The Evolution and Impact of Google Transformation of Google Key Google Products and Services Google's Influence on Society Google's Challenges and Controversies Google's Innovation and Future Directions Google's Enduring Impact on the Digital Age Important Link List of Google - Brief overview of Google's founding by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998. - Explanation of the importance of Google's contributions to the digital landscape. Evolution and Growth: - Exploration of Google's early years as a search engine. - Discussion of key technological innovations, including the PageRank algorithm and AdWords. - Examination of Google's diversification into various products and services. Key Google Products and Services: - Google Search: Overview of the search engine's impact on information retrieval and its ongoing advancements. - Gmail: Discussion of how Gmail revolutionized email communication and its integration with other Google services. - Google Maps: Examination of its influence on navigation, location-based services, and mapping technology. - YouTube: Analysis of how YouTube transformed online video sharing and its cultural significance. - Android: Exploration of the Android operating system's impact on mobile technology. Influence on Society: - Discussion of Google's role in shaping how people access information and interact online. - Exploration of the democratization of information, content creation, and online entrepreneurship through Google platforms. - Examination of Google's contributions to education, research, and innovation. Challenges and Controversies: - Overview of privacy concerns related to Google's data collection practices. - Discussion of antitrust challenges and allegations of monopolistic behavior. - Analysis of the ethical implications of Google's technological advancements, such as AI and machine learning. Innovation and Future Directions: - Examination of Google's investments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and sustainability. - Exploration of potential future developments and their potential impact on society. Conclusion: - Summarization of Google's journey from a search engine startup to a global tech powerhouse. - Reflection on the transformative impact of Google's products and services on the digital landscape. - Consideration of the challenges and responsibilities that accompany Google's influence. References: - Citations of sources used throughout the research paper to support claims and statements. Please note that this outline provides a structure for your research paper. You would need to expand each section with relevant information, examples, and citations from reputable sources to create a comprehensive research paper on the evolution and impact of Google.

Transformation of Google

. 1: The Evolution of Google Google, founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, began as a revolutionary search engine. Its PageRank algorithm transformed how users found information online. Over the years, Google diversified its offerings, launching products that have become integral parts of our lives. From the launch of Gmail that redefined email, to Google Maps changing the way we navigate, and YouTube transforming online video sharing, Google's journey reflects its commitment to innovation. Article 2: Google's Impact on Information Retrieval Google Search, a core product, revolutionized information retrieval. The PageRank algorithm not only delivered accurate search results but also introduced the concept of ranking websites based on relevance and authority. This set the stage for modern SEO practices, shaping how websites optimize content to improve their visibility in search results. Google's continuous advancements in search technology have refined our ability to access information quickly and effectively. Article 3: The Transformation of Email Communication through Gmail In 2004, Google introduced Gmail, a game-changer in email communication. With its generous storage, intuitive interface, and innovative features like threaded conversations, Gmail set a new standard. It popularized concepts like labels and filters, simplifying email organization. Integration with other Google services further enhanced its appeal, making Gmail a staple for both personal and professional communication. Article 4: Navigating the World with Google Maps Google Maps revolutionized navigation by providing accurate, real-time directions and satellite imagery. It disrupted the GPS market and empowered users to explore the world with confidence. Businesses leveraged Google Maps to improve their visibility through Google My Business listings, while the integration of Street View brought virtual exploration to our fingertips. The app's constant updates reflect Google's commitment to enhancing user experiences. Article 5: YouTube's Cultural Impact Google's acquisition of YouTube in 2006 transformed online video sharing. With billions of users, YouTube became a cultural phenomenon, reshaping entertainment, education, and content creation. It birthed new careers, allowed people to share their passions, and democratized media production. YouTube's algorithm-driven recommendations influenced viewing patterns, raising discussions about echo chambers and misinformation. Article 6: Android's Influence on Mobile Technology Introduced in 2007, Android disrupted the mobile landscape. Its open-source nature enabled various manufacturers to adopt and customize the platform, leading to a diverse range of smartphones. Google Play Store provided a centralized platform for app distribution, empowering developers and enabling users to personalize their devices. Android's accessibility contributed to the global smartphone revolution. Remember, these articles are concise summaries of each topic. If you need more detailed information or further expansion, please let me know!

Key Google Products and Services

Google, the tech giant that began as a search engine, has expanded its portfolio to encompass an array of products and services that have transformed how we interact with technology. Let's delve into some of the key offerings that have become integral parts of our digital lives. 1. Google Search: The cornerstone of Google's success, the search engine's impact on information retrieval is immeasurable. It introduced the PageRank algorithm, which revolutionized search result relevance. Constantly evolving, Google Search employs machine learning and AI to deliver accurate and personalized results, shaping how we find and consume information. 2. Gmail: Gmail redefined email communication when it was introduced in 2004. Its innovative features like threaded conversations, ample storage, and spam filtering changed how we manage and organize emails. Integrations with Google Drive and other services enhanced its functionality, making Gmail a preferred choice for individuals and businesses alike. 3. Google Maps: Navigating the world became easier with Google Maps. Offering turn-by-turn directions, real-time traffic updates, and Street View, it transformed GPS navigation. Businesses benefitted from Google Maps through listings and reviews on Google My Business. The app's seamless integration with other services contributed to its ubiquity. 4. YouTube: Acquired by Google in 2006, YouTube revolutionized online video sharing. It transformed content consumption, providing a platform for creators to share videos and build communities. With billions of users, YouTube's impact on entertainment, education, and culture is undeniable, although its algorithms and content moderation have also raised debates. 5. Android: Google's Android operating system reshaped the mobile landscape. Its open-source nature allowed diverse manufacturers to create smartphones, fostering competition and innovation. The Google Play Store provided a central hub for app distribution, fueling the app economy. Android's versatility and customization options propelled it to global prominence. 6. Google Drive: Introduced in 2012, Google Drive revolutionized cloud storage and collaboration. Users could store documents, photos, and files, with seamless integration across devices. Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides offered collaborative editing, challenging traditional office software. Google Drive's accessibility and real-time collaboration features increased productivity. 7. Google Assistant: Google's AI-driven virtual assistant, Google Assistant, responds to voice commands and interacts with users through devices like smartphones, smart speakers, and smart displays. It integrates with various services to provide information, control smart devices, set reminders, and perform tasks, enhancing convenience. 8. Google Photos: Launched in 2015, Google Photos redefined how we manage and store our memories. With unlimited storage for high-quality photos and videos, its AI-powered features automatically categorize and organize media. Google Photos exemplifies Google's focus on utilizing AI to enhance user experiences. 9. Google Chrome: Google's web browser, Chrome, quickly gained popularity for its speed, simplicity, and security. It became the most widely used browser globally, introducing features like extensions, seamless syncing across devices, and continuous updates that prioritize user experience. These products and services are just a snapshot of Google's expansive offerings. The company's commitment to innovation, user-centric design, and technological advancements continues to shape how we interact with technology, information, and each other.

Google's Influence on Society

Google, the technology behemoth, has indelibly shaped modern society, transforming the way we access information, communicate, and navigate the world. Its products and services have had a profound influence, leaving an indelible mark on various aspects of our lives. 1. Democratization of Information: Google's core product, the search engine, has democratized access to information. With a few keystrokes, users can access a wealth of knowledge from across the globe. This accessibility has empowered individuals with the ability to learn, research, and stay informed on a myriad of topics. 2. Information Retrieval and Research: Google Search has become synonymous with internet searches. It has revolutionized the research process, enabling students, academics, and professionals to quickly locate credible sources, scholarly articles, and resources that aid learning and decision-making. 3. Content Creation and Sharing: Platforms like YouTube have revolutionized content creation and sharing. Anyone with a camera and an idea can become a content creator, sharing their passions and expertise with a global audience. This has democratized media production, leading to new careers and diverse perspectives. 4. Economic Impact: Google's advertising platform, AdWords, and the app economy driven by the Google Play Store have contributed significantly to the global economy. Businesses of all sizes can reach their target audiences through digital advertising, while app developers have found platforms to distribute and monetize their creations. 5. Navigation and Exploration: Google Maps has fundamentally changed how we navigate the world. It has made travel more accessible, enabling people to confidently explore new places and discover local businesses. The integration of reviews and ratings has empowered consumers to make informed decisions. 6. Connectivity and Communication: Google's suite of communication tools, including Gmail, Hangouts, and Google Meet, have facilitated seamless remote communication. Whether for personal interactions or professional meetings, these tools have brought people closer together, especially in an increasingly digital world. 7. Educational Resources: Google for Education has revolutionized classrooms, offering educators and students collaborative tools like Google Docs and Google Classroom. This has transformed teaching methods, enabling collaborative learning and breaking down geographical barriers. 8. Cultural Influence: YouTube's impact on popular culture is immeasurable. It has spawned viral trends, launched music careers, and provided a platform for social commentary. The platform's influence extends to shaping how entertainment is consumed, making it a cultural touchstone. 9. Privacy and Ethical Concerns: Google's data collection practices have raised questions about user privacy. The company's reach and influence have prompted discussions about the ethical implications of handling vast amounts of user data, leading to debates about the balance between convenience and privacy. In conclusion, Google's influence on society is undeniable. Its products and services have revolutionized how we access information, communicate, navigate, and entertain ourselves. As the company continues to innovate and adapt, its role in shaping the digital age remains a defining aspect of modern life.

Google's Challenges and Controversies

As a global tech giant, Google's journey to success has been accompanied by challenges and controversies that have raised important questions about privacy, market dominance, and ethical considerations. Let's explore some of the key challenges and controversies that Google has faced over the years. 1. Data Privacy Concerns: Google's vast data collection practices have raised concerns about user privacy. The company's ability to track and analyze user behavior across its products and services has prompted debates about the extent to which individuals' personal information is being used for targeted advertising and other purposes. 2. Antitrust Investigations: Google's dominance in the search and online advertising markets has led to antitrust investigations by regulatory bodies in various countries. Allegations of anti-competitive behavior and favoring its own services in search results have resulted in legal challenges and fines. 3. Monopolistic Behavior Allegations: Google's position as a market leader in search, advertising, and mobile operating systems has led to accusations of monopolistic behavior. Critics argue that Google's practices could stifle competition and innovation in these markets, impacting consumers and smaller competitors. 4. Misinformation and Content Moderation: YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, has faced criticism for its role in spreading misinformation and controversial content. The platform's algorithms and content moderation policies have come under scrutiny, raising questions about the responsibility of tech companies to mitigate the spread of harmful information. 5. Ethical Considerations in AI: Google's advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning have brought ethical considerations to the forefront. Controversies have arisen over the use of AI in areas like facial recognition, leading to internal debates and employee activism regarding the potential societal impact. 6. Censorship and Global Expansion: Google's operations in countries with restrictive internet policies have raised concerns about censorship and compliance with government demands for content removal. Balancing its commitment to open access with local regulations presents ethical dilemmas. 7. Employee Activism: Google's workforce has been known for its vocal activism on issues ranging from workplace ethics to environmental concerns. Employee protests and advocacy have influenced company decisions and led to internal changes in policy. 8. Copyright and Intellectual Property: Google's platforms, particularly YouTube, have faced legal battles over copyright infringement. The platform's challenges in effectively policing copyrighted material uploaded by users highlight the complexities of balancing content creation and rights protection. 9. Algorithmic Bias: Google's algorithms, including those used in search and recommendation systems, have been criticized for bias in their results. These biases can perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce existing inequalities, sparking discussions about the need for more transparent and fair algorithms. In conclusion, Google's influence and reach have not been without challenges and controversies. The company's responses to these issues reflect its evolving role in a rapidly changing digital landscape. As Google continues to navigate these complexities, its actions and decisions will undoubtedly shape its trajectory and impact on society.

Google's Innovation and Future Directions

Innovation is at the core of Google's DNA, driving its evolution from a search engine startup to a global tech powerhouse. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, Google's investments in cutting-edge technologies and its commitment to sustainability point toward exciting future directions. 1. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Google has been a frontrunner in AI and machine learning research. From enhancing search algorithms to powering products like Google Assistant and improving translation services, AI is integrated across Google's offerings. The company's focus on ethical AI and responsible use showcases its dedication to shaping AI's future. 2. Quantum Computing: Google's Quantum AI lab is working on quantum computing technology that has the potential to revolutionize computing capabilities. Read the full article

[capitol-scholar]

Greetings, Scholars!

After our initial introduction, it's time to dive into the heart of our journey - the essential readings. These foundational texts provide a comprehensive exploration of American politics, covering everything from the grassroots to the echelons of power. We'll be going through these readings systematically, discussing their main arguments, implications, and relevance to contemporary political discourse.

Below, I have provided our initial list of essential readings. This list is, by no means, exhaustive. It's a starting point for our exploration, but we're not confined to it. If you have any requests, recommendations, or come across a gem that you believe should be shared, please feel free to suggest. After all, academic pursuit thrives on collaboration and openness to new perspectives.

The list is as follows:

Aldrich, John Why Parties?

Alvarez & Brehm Hard Choices, Easy Answers

Arnold, Douglas The Logic of Congressional Action

Bartels, Larry Unequal Democracy

Baumgartner & Jones The Politics of Attention

Baumgartner & Jones Agendas and Instability in American Politics (latest ed.)

Baumgartner, et al. Lobbying and Policy Change

Bensel, Richard The Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877-1900

Berry, Jeffrey The New Liberalism

Browning, Rufus, et al. Protest Is Not Enough

Burns, Schlozman & Verba The Private Roots of Public Action

Cameron, Charles Veto Bargaining

Campbell, Louise How Policies Make Citizens

Cohen, et al. The Party Decides

Converse, Philip "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in Apter (Ed.),

Ideology and Discontent

Cox & McCubbins Setting the Agenda

Delli Carpini & Keeter What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters

Erikson, MacKuen, & Stimson The Macro Polity

Fiorina, Morris Retrospective Voting in American National Elections

Fiorina, Abrams & Pope Culture War? (3rd ed)

Gilens Affluence and Influence

Green & Shapiro Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory

Green, Palquuist, & Schickler Partisan Hearts and Minds

Hacker, Jacob The Divided Welfare State

Hajnal, Zolton America’s Uneven Democracy

Hansen, John Mark Gaining Access

Harvey, Anna Votes Without Leverage

Hibbing, Smith & Alford Predisposed

Hero, Rodney Latinos and the US Political System.

Iyengar, Shanto Is Anyone Responsible?

Jacobson, Gary The Politics of Congressional Elections

Kernell, Samuel Going Public (latest ed.)

King & Smith Still a House Divided

Kingdon, John Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (latest ed.)

Krehbiel, Keith Pivotal Politics

Mann & Ornstein It's Even Worse Than it Looks

Mayhew, David Electoral Realignments

Mettler, Suzanne Soldiers to Citizens

Milkis & Nelson The American Presidency (latest ed.)

Mutz, Sniderman, Brody Political Persuasion

Neustadt, Richard Presidential Power

Olson, Mancur The Logic of Collective Action

Ostrom, Elinor Governing the Commons

Page & Shapiro The Rational Public

Patashnik, Eric Reforms at Risk

Pierson, Paul Politics in Time

Putnam, Robert Bowling Alone

Rosenstone & Hansen Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America

Schlozman, Verba & Brady The Unheavenly Chorus

Skocpol, Theda Protecting Soldiers and Mothers

Skorownek, Stephen The Politics Presidents Make

Smith, Steven S. Party Influence in Congress

Stone, Clarence Regime Politics

Stone, Deborah Policy Paradox and Political Reason

Stonecash & Brewer Split: Class and Cultural Divisions in American Politics

Strolovitch, Dara Affirmative Advocacy

Verba, Schlozman & Brady Voice and Equality

Weimer & Vining Policy Analysis (latest ed.)

Wilson, J.Q. Bureaucracy

Zaller, John The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion

Each reading will have its dedicated blog post, where I'll summarize the key arguments, provide a critical analysis, and relate the text to our broader understanding of American politics. More importantly, I encourage you to share your thoughts, critiques, and insights as well.

The sequence of our reading will not necessarily follow the order in which the books are listed. Depending on our discussions, current political events, or requests, we might jump around the list. Flexibility will keep our exploration fresh and relevant.

So, let's embark on this intellectual adventure! It's time to dig into these fascinating texts and unravel the complex, dynamic world of American politics. Here's to a journey full of discovery, debate, and deep insights!

Happy Reading,

The Capitol Scholar

[berlinini]

Excuse me but I've just found that Larries are going to the Tokyo Olympics to get their gold medal in mental gymnastics I read this Larry post yesterday and need to gauge my eyes out vent a little.

Can we talk about this for a second:

So according to this, OP (and I assume larries at large) hates Harry's behavior (being in a seemingly loving relationship with his movie director aka the "stunt"), doesn't understand why Harry behaves this way ("stunting"), but isn't willing to question Harry's behavior ("who he is") and that takes some ~faith~ but it's not ~blind faith~ because "Harry is still Harry".

So... "Harry is still Harry"... which Harry is that? The one whose behavior you hate? The one whose behavior you don't understand? The one whose behavior you do not wish to question??? Is it so hard to admit that Harry's behavior in 2021 is...because...Harry changed and became who is projecting to be (a mega star sleeping with a beautiful Hollywood girlboss) or at least he became someone who is comfortable with projecting that image and has traded any trace of self-respect for über fame? (Side note: Do you find it normal to never question the people you look up to? To excuse their behavior even when it doesn't sit right with you? To hold on to an outdated version of this person?)

Also:

So... we agree...??? Harry is incredibly self-aware that's he's "someone [he] [doesn't] want around?" and he's "just an arrogant son of a bitch"? I know you don't want to question who Harry is but he literally just told you...in his songs...??? Maybe listen to him???

Honestly I would've let it slide because I'm well aware that Larries have no grasp of 2021 Harry Styles™️ and are still attached to cupcake fanfic Harry and there's not much to be done about that.

But then this came....and I just -

Harry is the biggest Louie there is?

Harry "somebody's mom" Styles? Harry "my assistant makes fun of Louis" Styles? Harry "hanging out with the writers of Euphoria" Styles? Harry "Louis the Fish" Styles? Harry Styles is a Louie????????

Louis is the biggest Harrie there is???

Are we talking about the Louis who said of Walls that he was "reflecting on a breakup (...) (trying) to be as honest as possible"??? The Louis who wrote "The day you walked away and took the higher ground/ Was the day that I became the man that I am now"? Or the one who wrote "So this one is a thank you for what you did to me"? Or perhaps the Louis that wrote "Now I'm not saying that you could've done better / Just remember that I, I've seen that fire alight" and "the life you design (...) it's all lies"???

Louis is a Harrie?????????????

Apart from wearing a cap with the Italian flag, what has Louis recently done or said that would suggest he's in a relationship with H? That he's "proud" and "supports" Harry? That he's patiently waiting at home for "his husband" to come back from frolicking in a yacht with Olivia? It's a genuine question.

Bestie, get out of your fetus Larry and 2015 Larry head canon and instead of hyperfixating on blue clothes, maybe start questioning who Harry is, who Louis is, start looking at their actions, at the people surrounding them, at the music they make, the way they treat their fans...

And if you find that the only way you're "having faith" in Harry is because you believe that him and Louis are "fighting TPTB" and "waiting to be free" and Harry is "secretly" working behind the scene for Louis...then you are 1) making up excuses for Harry's behavior and 2) you're using Louis as a palate cleanser for the bitter taste that the real Harry leaves you.

And if you still excuse Harry's actions and decide to believe that Larry is real, please know that it's incredibly insulting for Louis - for the character and values he has consistently shown - to believe that he would be with present-day Harry - someone who definitely got lost on the way up. Also you need to listen to Walls again.

In any case it would probably be best for everyone involved if you could leave Louis alone. Thanks!!! 😘

[twopoppies]

the "based on your likes" feature just showed me an older ask you got about older fans being "mean/unwelcoming" to newer fans and as a pandemic fan, i just wanted to say that, when people said how exhausting new fans are sometimes, i never took that as a general statement or felt insulted by it, i thought it was obvious that that was about the sort of fans who are here for a hot second and already think that they know better than everyone else without doing the proper research, just to take of with stuff like "zarry was real" or "they broke up 2015-2020"or whatever and when older fans correct them they get pissy 😅 sorry you have to deal with that btw and thank you for all the work you and others put into this fandom, it helped me out a lot when I was new😊💙

Hi honey. I would think people would understand that no one means every single newer fan, but I’ve gotten a lot of messages from people being very defensive about the conversation. And yes, that’s definitely the sort of fan I’m referring to.

The thing is, during quarantine there was a MASSIVE influx of new fans, many of whom started on Twitter or TikTok and got all sorts of wild misinformation. Then there was this enormous exodus from Twitter, especially, and blogs here were flooded with questions. And when I say flooded, I mean I was getting hundreds of new followers a week, sometimes hundreds in a day. It was insane. And many of those people were demanding answers on stuff that was already dead and buried a decade ago. But it was being dredged up as people started digging, and it was exhausting to explain things over and over to people who didn’t want to take the time to do any research themselves.

On top of that, I think there was a bit of a culture war going on. Those of us who’ve been here for a long time know that the reason we were so obsessive about masterposts and having facts and “evidence” is because larries were being constantly bullied and harassed and the gaslighting was insane. We were constantly told we were crazy and we were doing something awful etc. Having links and dates and photos gathered was what we had to fight back with. We knew we weren’t crazy because the evidence was right fucking there. We were here fighting to let Harry and Louis know that we saw and heard them fighting, and we wouldn’t be driven away.

But by the time this new group of fans came into the fandom, so many blogs had been deleted and a lot of evidence was lost and things that older fans took as fact because we’d been there, was no longer able to be “proven” so easily. Like babygate. Or the bears. When we say you can’t understand it if you weren’t here, we’re not gatekeeping. We’re not saying we’re better than you. It’s just that it literally is impossible to explain what it’s like when an entire fandom experiences something in real time. Summaries don’t do it justice.

This is such a huge topic and I feel like I’m a bit all over the place. But I hope I’m making a little bit of sense. I get why newer fans feel defensive at times, but I think they also have to look at things from long time fans’ perspective, too. We know trying to come to grips with a dozen years of information is a big task. But asking us to summarize it in a few bullet points so you (general you) don’t have to do the work, is so entitled and insulting.

[itsthenovelteafactor]

Superhero Gothic

Thanks to everyone who responded to my previous post (special shoutout to @jeyfeather1234 💛 ) about superheroes and gothic media! I know it’s been, like, a month, but here we go.

Here’s a bit of a look into some common gothic themes, and how they apply to Doom Patrol, The Boys, Watchmen (2019), and The Umbrella Academy. This one’s a bit long, not gonna lie, but I hope you enjoy! 

Part I: Let’s Talk About Gothic Media

There is not actually an all-encompassing definition for gothic media, or even a universally agreed-upon one. You’re probably familiar with some well-known gothic works (think Dracula, Frankenstein, Edgar Allen Poe, Stephen King) but there is a lot of debate on what exactly makes them gothic. 

There are some common themes in gothic works, though: families/characters under the control of a tyrannical paterfamilias, the crumbling of the established order/estate, long-buried secrets that have consequences in the present, and supernatural events that are stand-ins for/reflective of the emotional state/past actions of the characters. 

(Note: these aren’t all the themes of gothic works or even most of them, but for purposes here, I’d like to limit this analysis to them. I’d love to talk about other themes/ideas, though, if anyone has them. 😊)

So… superheroes (quick overview in case you haven’t watched any of them… spoiler warnings for the rest of this discussion)

Doom Patrol:

Five misfit superhumans attempt to rescue their mentor figure when he is kidnapped by an old enemy.

They are very, very bad at it.

Also features a singing horse head, a sentient nonbinary teleporting street (who is by far the best character) and the narrator is the fourth-wall breaking series villain. 

Beautifully weird but will also emotionally devastate you. Criminally underrated, tbh.

Watchmen (2019):

Story takes place after the canon of the graphic novel which is too much to summarize.

Alternate history (that should really feel more fictitious than it does) where white supremacist organization the Seventh Cavalry, masked police officers, and former superheroes in hiding all collide in Tulsa Oklahoma

Swept the Emmys this year and ABSOLUTELY DESERVED TO

The Umbrella Academy:

Washed up former child superheroes are forced to reunite when their father dies under mysterious circumstances 

Time travel, dysfunctional siblings, and a killer soundtrack

Basically a family drama with the superhero story as secondary (complimentary)

Probably the most obviously gothic of all of these it is aesthetic AF 

The Boys: 

Superheroes exist but they are corporate sellouts under the control of evil company Not-Amazon (AKA Vought)

Regular human protagonists try to hold them accountable for their actions with varying (read: usually minimal) success

Yes, it’s the one from those weird ads earlier this year

Billy Joel!! 

Part II: Niles Caulder, Ozymandias, and Other Terrible Father Figures

The Tyrannical Paterfamilias: 

Does not always mean a father figure explicitly, often relating to the notion of a patriarchal tradition, or family inheritance that plays a role in controlling the main characters. 

Sometimes, it is a father figure. 

Sometimes, it is a representative of patriarchal tradition/male head of pseudo-family unit.

So, uh, role call: 

Reginald Hargreeves (even in death) holds power over his children, and has shaped all of them into the adults they have become, and that drives the majority of the conflict. Each of the major character individually grapples with the after-effects of his abuse. Luther feels the need to be the leader and protect everyone and alienates his allies as a consequence. Diego constantly asserts himself as a hero (often to dangerous extremes) because it is the only way he was ever valued. Allison has to teach herself boundaries and responsible use of her powers after he encouraged her to abuse them for years. Klaus turns to drugs to cope with his childhood trauma. Five disobeyed his father with disastrous consequences and is constantly fighting to not become him. Vanya spent her entire childhood in the background, and never learned to assert herself in a healthy way. Thanks, Reggie.

Homelander says that The Seven are like a family. While whether or not this is accurate (it isn’t) is up for debate, he does occupy the tyrannical paterfamilias roles incredibly well. Homelander controls every member of the Seven, threatening them and their loved ones whenever they step out of line (read: do not do exactly what he wants in the exact way he wants them to do it.) He is also very closely tied with conservative/patriarchal rhetoric in-universe and at one point dates a literal Nazi. 

William Butcher less evil than most of the other characters on this list but the bar is also like, on the ground. Butcher tries to control the Boys in a similar way (Butcher and Homelander are character foils, okay? it’s actually pretty neat). He’s perfectly willing to sacrifice them in pursuit of his own goals, disregards their points of view and the well-being of their loved ones, and tries to cut loose anyone who disagrees with his methods (recall when Hughie tried to rescue his friends at the end of s1 and Butcher… punched him in the face? Yeah, that.) The difference is that the Boys can push back against his without being, you know, brutally murdered. (And also the Butcher isn’t a literal monster; I’m not anti-Butcher, okay? He’s an interesting character and the fact that he seems constantly on the verge of becoming that which he hates most is part of what makes him interesting.)

Guess what, folks? It’s hating Niles Caulder hours. He engineered accidents to turn the main characters into his test subjects, and then kept them conveniently hidden away in his large manor. Stole their autonomy and independence but paints himself as a benevolent father figure. And that’s not even including what he does to his actual daughter, Dorothy. He’s terrified of her growing up (read: becoming a young woman) and so he locks her away for almost 100 years and, when she is freed, yells at her constantly and makes her terrified of showing any signs of maturation (even though she’s 111 and clearly tired of being written off as a child).

The relationship between Ozymandias and his daughter, Lady Trieu, is integral to the final act of Watchmen. Heralded as the “smartest man in the world,” Ozymandias refused to acknowledge his daughter as his until he needed something from her. While Lady Trieu is more self-sufficient and independent than some of the applications of this trope, she goes to great lengths to prove herself, first to him, and then to herself when he rejects her.

Part III: Been a Long Time Gone (Constantinople) 

Gothic fiction is often associated with change, and particularly, the collapse of established systems of power. For example, many works like The House of the Seven Gables and The Fall of the House of Usher take place in old, crumbling manor houses. There is a reason for this! These kinds of estates are remnants of a past that is irreversibly gone, and their continued presence in decrypt forms serves as a reminder. 

Each of the four series takes place at a moment, either on a wide scale or on a personal scale (or both!), in which an established order is being questioned, and the constant reminders of that failed order are used to gothic effect.

The Umbrella Academy plays this most directly (In fact, there are TONS of parallels between the end of s1 of TUA and House of Usher that I don’t have the time to get into right now... lmk if you want that meta). We can see the Hargreeves mansion as a very literal example of this. While not worn down, the house is notably both very large and very empty. Shelves are filled with merchandise for a superhero team that disbanded over a decade prior, and portraits of a family that no longer speaks to each other. None of the family members ever seem truly comfortable or at ease in the house, and for good reason - every back corner is a reminder of their incredibly traumatic childhood. 

In The Boys, the story begins with the fridging death of the main character’s girlfriend, Robin, at the hands of a member of the Seven, a group of heroes so ingrained in the public consciousness that when they later hide out in a costume shop, literally every single costume is for one of Vought’s heroes. The Seven represent the system in power, which, at the disposal of Not-Amazon means corporate greed, shallow altruism, and the cultivation of public personas at the expense of actual humanity. 

From that moment on, the sheer presence of The Seven on everything from public billboards to breakfast cereal is a remainder for Hughie (and the audience) that this established system doesn’t work and is based on lies, which serves this effect on a personal level. In the broader scale, however, we also see that the Seven themselves are fracturing under an unsustainable business model. Even their name, “The Seven” starts to seem a bit dated when halfway through season one through the end of season two there are notably... less than seven of them. 

The main characters in Doom Patrol are all in recovery after the accidents that irreversibly changed their lives. We see through flashbacks the people that they used to be, and the difference is striking. They were each established in their own elements: Cliff a famous race-car driver, Rita a world renowned actress, Larry a hero pilot, Jane was involved in counter-cultural movements, Vic was a student and athlete. The foundations upon which their worlds were established are completely decimated by the accidents, and now they (save Vic and sometimes Jane) live mostly in isolation in Niles’ manor house, an estate that is far larger than would be necessary to comfortably house a group of their size.

And you feel the emptiness, both in the manor, and in the lives of the characters. They have barely created a shadow version of their own existence when the series starts, so fragile that a simple trip into town devolves into utter chaos. 

Angela Abar of Watchmen has also constructed a life following the terrifying act of terrorism on the White Night. It’s a bit of a double life, and we see that the balancing act is challenging for her, even before the story truly begins. The death of Judd Crawford, and the revelation about him that follows is not only traumatizing on a personal level (but it definitely is that), but also upsets her understanding of the world. People she’s come to trust are not just dishonest but truly monstrous. And the more Angela learns about what has been happening, the more her understanding of the world begins to unravel. Her memories, and the memories of those around her are cast in a much more sinister light, and the effect is genuinely chilling. 

Part IV: “I’m the Little Girl Who Threw the Brick in the Air”

In episode 3 of Watchmen, Laurie contacts Dr. Manhattan on the cosmic phone booth to tell him a joke. It’s a version of what TVTropes calls the “brick joke,” and it relies on set up taking place early on, other stuff happening, and then the response coming at an unexpected moment. 

So, yeah. Events of the past/buried secrets resurfacing with consequences in the present.

Continuing with the theme from Watchmen, the entire series is punctuated with the way the past and the present intertwine, with elements from both the original Watchmen graphic novel, and actual American history. One of the things we talked a lot about in my gothic lit class was the manner in which the overhanging specter of past atrocities casts a shadow over the present, and how many works cannot help but have gothic themes because there are so many horrifying things in the past that cannot be ignored, and provide both context and nuance for the discussions we have in the present. No series tackles these topics quite so directly (and with as much care) as Watchmen. (note: it does not always make for easy viewing, but if you’re in a place where you feel like you can engage with that kind of material, I highly recommend the show.)

In Doom Patrol, the past actions of the characters very much control the storyline (see: previous discussion of Niles Caulder), but the character whose storyline I want to talk about here is Rita (partially for plot reasons and partially because I just love Rita, okay?). We learn when we first meet Rita that in the past she was... not a great person. We know that the trauma of the accident that gave her her powers has changed her, we also know that she still holds on to the guilt and that her guilt has limited the scope of her world for years, but we don’t know what exactly it is that she’s done. 

Enter Mr. Nobody, all-powerful narrator who is not just aware of Rita’s greatest sins, but perfectly capable of manifesting reminders of them into the story. She is confronted with empty cradles, and the sound of crying children in the background of many scenes and we see how much it effects her, without a full understanding of why it does (see: The Tell-Tale Heart). Her past begins to haunt her physically, and she begins to crumble in response to it, until finally she is forced to confide in a stranger (and thus the audience). The past actions do not just inform the audience of Rita’s character - they show up to influence her behavior in the present. 

The ending of The Umbrella Academy season 1 is super evocative of the gothic genre with Vanya breaking open the soundproof chamber (wherein she was silenced for years) and rising from the basement to destroy the last remnants of the Hargreeves legacy (which would be awesome if the last remnants of the Hargreeves legacy didn’t include the rest of her family). Pretty much every mistake the siblings make over the course of the season feeds together to create the finale, but the primary cause isn’t something any of them actually did. It all ties back to Reginald Hargreeves’ complete inability to be nice to children. Any children. His own and random strangers that need help. 

In The Boys, while the extent to which people are making f-ed up choices in the present cannot be expressed enough, we see through the characters of Homelander that many of the present difficulties are a result of past mistakes. Particularly, the profit-seeking corruption within Vought. We learn in s1 through Vogelbaum that Homelander was raised in a lab by Vought as an experiment, only to be unceremoniously thrust into the spotlight and told he was a superhero (which... does not justify a single one of his actions but is still a major yikes). As the head scientist of the project, Vogelbaum is very aware that ignoring his conscious if the name of research has essentially created the biggest threat their world has ever seen. 

(Seriously y’all just stop raising your super kids in isolation) 

Part V: Put Them Together, and They’re the MF-ing Spice Girls 

Having the environment respond to characters’ emotions/mental states is pretty common in gothic works (it was a dark and stormy night = someone is probably not doing super well). One of the advantages of the genre’s tendency towards the supernatural is that, often, those elements of the stories, as well, are reflections of the main ideas of a work of fiction (see: Stephen King’s really unsubtle period metaphors).

Because all of these shows have a ton of supernatural/scifi elements by virtue of being, well, superhero shows, I thought it would be easier (and more fun!) to come up with a short list of elements, what they mean, and what cases they might apply to.

1. A Nonlinear Experience of Time

The Umbrella Academy: legitimately about time travel. Characters are attempting to fix the timeline but are unable to because they are both mentally and sometimes literally stuck in the past. 

Watchmen: In the episode This Extraordinary Being, Angela experiences firsthand the experiences of her grandfather, under the influence of a drug called Nostalgia. The episode touches on many themes, one of which being the impact of generational trauma in marginalized communities. Throughout the series, Dr. Manhatten is cursed with experiencing all time at once, and the episode A God Walks into Abar illustrates that, because of this, he is constantly facing the consequences of particular actions before, after, and while he is preforming him.

Doom Patrol: Mr. Nobody is able to physically travel to one of Jane’s flashbacks via his fourth-wall breaking powers, and gives Dr. Harrison an ultimatum for the future. 

What it implies: Events, particularly events that evoke guilt or conflict, are not as rooted in the past as one would like to think.

2. Powers/Abilities that reflect personal trauma/failings

Doom Patrol: Larry’s abilities/bond with the Negative Spirit have made it so that he is constantly covering himself with bandages/avoiding other people, which reflects his experiences having to hide his identity as a gay man in the 50/60s. Rita forced herself to walk a thin line, betraying everything in pursuit of her image; her abilities require constant effort to keep her entire body from becoming misshapen and out of control. Vic’s father with boundary issues can literally control his perception of the world through his cybernetic enhancements. Dorothy’s abilities manifest as imaginary friends because she was kept isolated for years at a time. 

The Umbrella Academy: pretty much all of the kids’ powers are representative of the interpersonal skills they were never able to develop. Luther is super-durable but also the most emotionally vulnerable of the group. Five can teleport and time travel but always seems to be too late to stop things. Diego can manipulate the trajectory of projectiles but cannot escape the path his father set out for him, not matter how much he resents it. Vanya always forced herself to stay quiet until the sound literally explodes out of her.

The Boys: Annie’s abilities allow her to control light, but she struggles (in the beginning) to bring to light the horrible things done to her behind closed doors. 

Watchmen: Not technically a power, but Looking Glass’ mirror-mask is a constant reminder of the hall of mirrors that both saved his life and traumatized him forever. 

What it implies: from a story perspective, these allow for an exploration of trauma/guilt to occur on a scale much larger than people simply talking about their problems (as if anyone on any of these shows knows how to talk about their problems...) It also means that the trauma/guilt of the characters takes on a physical form that is able to haunt them, and constantly remind them/hold them accountable for their past actions.

3. Diluted Sense of Reality:

Doom Patrol: The first season is narrated by its main villain, and throughout the season we see that the act of narration itself has an impact on the story.

Watchmen: The event that kicks off the plot of the story is hinged upon a paradox introduced by Angela near the end of the series when trying to speak to her Grandfather in the past through Dr. Manhattan.

The Umbrella Academy: The pair of episodes in season 1, The Day that Wasn’t and The Day That Was take the same point in time and explore two possible avenue for the future from there, with The Day that Wasn’t ending with the events of the entire episode being completely erased from the timeline.

What it implies: you can’t necessarily trust everything you see, even from the audience perspective, giving them a position not unlike that of the characters. The character’s uncertainty and confusion is magnified and reflected in the world that surrounds them.

Other examples: an apocalypse (The Umbrella Academy, Doom Patrol, Watchmen (of a sort)), ghosts (The Umbrella Academy - hi, Ben!), immortality/invulnerability (Watchmen, Doom Patrol, The Boys), and characters that look significantly younger than they actually are (The Boys, The Umbrella Academy, Doom Patrol). 

Part VI: Why Did You Write a Literal Essay Don’t You Have Real Schoolwork (yes... shhhhh...)

And... there you have it. I don’t really have some grand conclusion here. This is (clearly) far from a complete analysis but it is the most my finals-week brain can concoct at the moment. 

If you have other ideas, let me know! You can always add to the notes or message me – my inbox is always open!  If you got this far, thank you so much for taking the time to read this! Much love! ❤️

[jazzypizzaz]

liiveblogging my every reaction to The Man Who Would be King cuz hey TGIF

“the way whatver’s going on with Cas has been alluded to in passing all season and now we get The STory ??? fuck, I take it back about dumb AUs, this is the best type of episode

one minute in and this is the MOST epic way to start any story

“I remember that fish” ok lmao

WHO IS HE TELLING THES TORY TO I NEED TO KNWO WHO

“cas you’ll call right... if you get into real trouble...” HELP pointed looks... dean worries. he does care cas he doesn’t Get It but he cares!!

DEAN CHANGED HIM HE OWES EVERYTHING IMPORTANT TO DEAN

the fact that cas raised dean from hell and that had such a Profound (positive) Impact on both him and the world, that he’s immediately all cocky like sure I’ll pull Sam out of hell next, no problemo... not the same buddy

Dean defending Cas and feeling bad about keeping their crowley hunt secret :-( he’s loyal to him

“he could make a mistake, he ‘s the Balki Bartokomous of angels” quick wiki of this and “ However, Larry soon realizes that for all of Balki's naivety and cultural malapropisms, he otherwise is a very intelligent and courageous man of many talents who often saves the day himself. “ awwww

“you think cas is in with CROWLEy?!” i meeeeean literaly everyone seems to be in with crowley at some point so like. stones and glass houses and whatever. every episode is you making a deal with evil people or whatnot it just happens

sam like “we’re all friends, i’d die for him i would, but” okay yeah sure it’s not the same tho!!!

CAS IS WATCHING THIS CONVO OMG I HAD TO PAUSE AND REWIND

i don’t udnerstand when demons eyes turn black instead of human-passing. only when the tv audience needs confirmation?

“i favor the eternal tuesday afternoon of an autistic man who drowned in a bathtub in 1953″ wow dang that’s like a whole sentence that cas said wasn’t it huh

ah SO MANY classic lines in this one A+++

is there literally anything going on in any of these angels’ heads. like. raphael wants to be in Power, ok sure, but Why. is there any reason whatsover. what does anyone want like actually

DEAN’S LOYALTY!!! ;_; ;_; ;_;

“cas is busy” “that’s okay we are too” jklfsdjlk classic ‘i texted my crush and they left me on read and now im pretending like I have an active life and im not just waiting by the phone for them to respond’

[this isn’t a good idea but] “on the other hand, they were my friends” this summarizes cas’ whole thing doesn’t it. everything :(

“i went to an old friend for help” uuhh you’re a million years old and you’ve only konwn him for like two?? does that count as an old friend. i mean. it sounds like he’s the ONLY friend you’ve ever had so :( it’s older than any other friendship of his :( :( :(

he doesn’t want to ask dean for anything more :-(

NONCONSESENtUAL LEAF RAKING

i’ve been wondering what humans have to do with anything wrt to Heaven cuz like. no one seems to care about humans, so why are tehy even there. what’s the point of it all. and this seems to say -- as batteries??? Souls are powerful and hte more souls you’ve got, the more power

what is the point of power if you dont’ want to do anything with it

(this isn’t about you Cas you’re doing beautiful sweetie, you want power for freedom, which is sexy, at least right now)

“TWO teen beat models” and Cas “No not Dean” jlkdfskjl sam’s fine then sure i See You buddy

the way Cas is always turning, looking away when he’s got something to say. his eyes. he’s very good at Looking Intentionally.

“you gotta look at me man” THEY SHARE A PRFOUND  BOND OKAY profound. i’ts profound.

“raphael will turn the world into a graveyard” BUT LIKE. WHYYY why would he do that. i dont’ remember or care but why.

FUCK LEAVES FLASHBACK WHERE WERE YOU HE WAS WATCHING THE RAKING shit

“i’m doing this for you dean” OK WHAT THE FUCK he just says that outloud

he called him Family :( :( :( oh buddy we’re in it now

dean is Against cas’s whatever cuz of Reasons that cas should subscribe to just cuz ?? demons bad blah blah blah trust blah blah idk BUT WHY THO

i guess my problem is i want demons to just be Funky Little Dudes causing problems for fun I guess. not ~~pure evil~~

Oohh hes talking to God, of course of course

sad cas is sad but also sad cas Good TV lkjdfs

[nodynasty4us]

The key predictor of which Republicans were most receptive to ditching democratic rules wasn’t age or education or any other demographic factor. Instead, hostility toward the nation’s growing racial and ethnic diversity—the central chord of Trump’s messaging—was the single best predictor of a willingness to abandon democratic precepts. Close behind was hostility toward cultural change, such as greater acceptance of gay rights.

Ronald Brownstein, How Democrats Are Preparing for Postelection Chaos - The Atlantic, summarizing research by  Vanderbilt University political scientist Larry M. Bartels

[railbikes]

Route Review: NPOV Lion’s Club Rail Riders - Washington

The North Pend Oreille (”pon-der-ay”) Valley (NPOV) Lion’s Club Rail Riders commenced their second season of railbiking on the tracks of the Pend Oreille Valley Railroad on the weekend of June 15th and 16th, 2019. Running six full weekends through the season, this all-volunteer run service organization dedicates itself to betterment of the community of Ione and the “Forgotten Corner” of northeast Washington.. I pedalled the route though the valley from Ione on June 15th, 2019.

Vitals

Phone: 844 RAIL RIDE (844-724-5743)

Email: lionsrailriders@gmail.com

Website: https://lionsrailriders.com/

Check-in Address: 101 Railroad Ave, Ione, WA 99139

The Site

Check-in is at the station in the small village Ione, which formerly served the NPOV Lion’s Club excursion train (and across a parking lot from a bar and grille).

While the history of the line is summarized below, I’ll also share this direct quote from the NPOV Lions Club, describing the contributions they’ve made to the region over the years.

In 1981, NPOV Lions Club started a train ride...with a single flat car, wooden benches with chicken wire fencing...that carried 60 passengers along the scenic Pend Oreille River from Ione to Metaline Falls. The success of the ride over the years had increased to 7 train cars (including a caboose!) and ridership to over 10,000 guests each season. From humble beginnings, North Pend Oreille Valley Lions Excursion Train Ride rolled to a stop after 35 years of providing family fun on October 23, 2016.

This created a new challenge for NPOV Lions Club.  Funds raised from the train ride supported local, regional, and international projects. Nothing could replace the train but NPOV Lions now have a new, exciting, family fun event…RAIL RIDERS!

The Route

The initial route is a 6-mile (9.7 km) round trip from the Ione station along the river to the turnaround at the trestle overlooking the magnificent Box Canyon Hydroelectric Dam. Upon return to the station, riders are offered an additional 3-mile (4.8 km) round trip through farmlands and forest south of Ione.

The line was originally constructed from 1909 to 1911 as the Idaho and Washington Northern (I&WN) to carry lumber and cement from the valley to larger, mainline markets. I cannot readily find evidence of passenger service, although it is easy to imagine that locals used the freight services as connections to mainline passenger services. Through various financial transactions, operation of the line was taken over by the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad before being sold to the Milwaukee Road, who ran the line from 1916 until bankruptcy in 1979. This was followed by the public creation of the Port of Pend Oreille, which took over maintenance and operation of the newly named Pend Oreille Valley Railroad (POVA).

While the new venture initially served cement, newsprint and lumber operations, the NPOV Lions Club began running excursion trains in 1981. These trains ran a slowly expanding fleet until the cost of regular line inspections led to the 2016 discontinuance of rail service in the northern part of the line, opening the opportunity for railbiking, which commenced in 2018. Freight operations and the Newport Priest River Rotary Club SPORT (Scenic Pend Oreille River Train) continue further south on the line.

The Vehicles

As seen in many railbiking operations around the country, the NPOV Lions built their own bike based on the Railriders aluminum-framed and polyurethane-wheeled design. Lion Larry Pollack showed me the design and construction modifications he and the rest of the Lions made, including converting bolted connections to welds and moving the front wheels and axles to to the extreme front of the vehicles.

Moving the wheels to the front logically offers increased vehicle stability, but also created the challenge of decreasing seat adjustment range, potentially affecting taller riders. Larry explained that he has plans to deal with this and I look forward to seeing his next design update.

Travel Notes

I travelled to Ione as part of a trip through the Pacific Northwest while staying in Spokane, Washington. I didn’t see any good options for using public transit to reach Ione from Spokane for a day trip. Also, given that Ione is 85 miles (137 kms) north of Spokane, it would have been impractical to cycle there and back in the time I had, so I opted for a rental car. The drive was impressively scenic, running through hills and farmlands and ultimately paralleling the Pend Oreile River and Railroad. Nearby attractions include the Seattle City Light Boundary Dam and the Tiger Historical Museum.

The cultural and entertainment offering in Spokane (note to fellow North-Easterners: it’s apparently pronounced Spo-can) far exceed expectation with classic spots such as the Davenport Hotel and contemporary offerings such as the Volstead Act. The Spokane River waterfront is a charming park comprised of bicycle and pedestrian trails and bridges, featuring the Numerica SkyRide aerial tramway over the Spokane Falls hydro-electric generator.

Railfans, and fans of Americana in general, will appreciate Frank’s Diner, housed in a former Barney Smith railcar that once served as the presidential car for the Northern Pacific Railroad.

Amtrak’s once-per-day westward Empire Builder is scheduled to leave Spokane at 02:45. The train was delayed just enough for me to enjoy the sunrise as I boarded.

[just-another-digital-media--blog]

Gather around the bonfire, and let me tell ya about “connective blogging!”

"I couldn't even explain it to myself. All I knew is that Barrens broke something inside of me. It warped the needles on my compass and turned the south to north and lies to truth and vice versa."

Hey y’all! It is finally summertime, and you know what that means, it’s time for beach trips, hiking, maybe finding some summer lovin’? (can someone queue the Grease soundtrack, cause I’m having a blast!)

My favorite part of summer has to be the summer nights- yes, I’m using another Grease pun- because they have everything; you’ve got stars in the sky, friends coming over for movie nights, and of course everyone huddles around a bonfire!

Synopsis:

So now I didn’t want to risk downplaying, oversharing, or just not accurately explaining the plot of Bonfires so of course, I turned to my go-to website for book recommendations, reviews, and book nerds haven Goodreads.

“It has been ten years since Abby Williams left home and scrubbed away all visible evidence of her small town roots. Now working as an environmental lawyer in Chicago, she has a thriving career, a modern apartment, and her pick of meaningless one-night stands.

But when a new case takes her back home to Barrens, Indiana, the life Abby painstakingly created begins to crack. Tasked with investigating Optimal Plastics, the town's most high-profile company, and economic heart, Abby begins to find strange connections to Barrens’ biggest scandal from more than a decade ago involving the popular Kaycee Mitchell and her closest friends—just before Kaycee disappeared for good.

Abby knows the key to solving any case lies in the weak spots, the unanswered questions. But as Abby tries to find out what really happened to Kaycee, she unearths an even more disturbing secret—a ritual called “The Game,” which will threaten the reputations, and lives, of the community and risk exposing a darkness that may consume her.

With tantalizing twists, slow-burning suspense, and a remote, rural town of just five claustrophobic miles, Bonfire is a dark exploration of the question: can you ever outrun your past?”

Goodreads is a great tool for everything because it where everyone can contribute any and everything book related information to novels and written works. Whenever I need a new book to read as if I don’t already have enough TBR, or what others are saying on the books I’m reading or plan to read.

I always loved nights spent around a bonfire with my friends. Whether we were talking about our hopes and dreams, roasting marshmallows, laughing about everything, or plotting murder and covering our tracks… Oh, is that not a normal activity at a bonfire? Well, it was in Krysten Ritter’s debut novel Bonfires. A psychological thriller mystery novel, and it is both a great starter novel for that genre, simply a new to mystery type, or a new reader novel. Bonfires is perfect for all these situations.

As I always like to include other people’s opinions of my book because I feel like that gives both perspectives, kind of applying the old saying “there are three sides to a story; his story, her story, and the truth.” Well, my opinion is the truth. (Well, it is at least my honest opinion of the novel.) But I have my dislikes and points of highlights that’ll address using their opinions.

There were good reviews

Larry, author of the blog “It's Either Sadness or Euphoria…” gave the story of raving review, of course coming from a predetermined bias of being a Ritter’s fan, he explains the very agreeable positive sides of Bonfires. One of my favorite parts of his review is actually what inspired the quote I mentioned at the beginning of this post because it is so relevant to the story and struck at my heartstrings.

"I couldn't even explain it to myself. All I knew is that Barrens broke something inside of me. It warped the needles on my compass and turned the south to north and lies to truth and vice versa."

And honestly, I’ll let you get more of Larry’s opinion by going to his page and get back to my opinion because it is why you are on my page:)

This quote literally is my own personal journey. I had such a similar story as Abby Williams, Bonfires protagonist, of having my hometown make me dread the place that I avoid it like the plague. The only difference between Abby and I, besides the fact that I haven’t gotten a law degree and unearthed a population scandal, is that I had an extremely blessed, supportive, loving family. They are the only reason I go home ever.

This quote also is a perfect summarization of Bonfires because Abby William’s experienced growing up in Barrens, shaped and scared her permanently for good and bad. And that is what your hometown is supposed to do, but never in such an abusive way that is done for Abby.

Now nothing is without negative reviews, and Goodreads critique Emily May ripped into Ritter’s book. Some highlights and points I wanted to comment on were Emily May’s opinion of Ritter’s conclusion and engagement with the readers. She says,

And isn't this a story we've seen a thousand times? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like I've read countless versions of a woman escaping her smalltown life, only to grow up and become a detective or lawyer or whatever and return to solve a mystery and face all the people and unresolved issues of her past…”

May doesn’t stop there, continuing into the conclusion and characters of the novel saying,

It was also just very unconvincing overall. I couldn't understand why Abby was so adamant that the pollution took place when even those who got sick claimed it wasn't true… And Bonfire relies heavily on Abby conveniently remembering, forgetting, or deducing (quite incredibly) as needed. Abby makes many tenuous connections between some clue - that fell into her lap - and the truth, whilst jumping to conclusions that I doubt anyone would have made… There is a moment at the climax of the novel which is easily the most thrilling of the whole book...The climax leads into an extremely rushed ending-- we discover the villain, witness a face-off, and wrap it all up in the last fifteen pages of the book. Messy and disappointing.”

That last sentence is the biggest part May and I agree on; I hate rushed and what I call “conclusions without consequences” type endings; we see no love-lost between friends of Abby who didn’t believe her, we see no characters fighting for her to stay, and we see no reason for her to still feel so driven to get back out of Barren as she has quite literally slain all of her hometown demons. And all of this was done with no equal or greater reaction! We have no vengeful exes, no changed timelines, and no ancient rituals accidentally activated signaling the end of times.

Some argue with me that “this is a proper ending, all loose ends are tied into a neat bow.” well it is a bow on a piece of bullshit. I hate “perfectly finished endings” I want plot holes, I want wiggle room, I want theories of “Wait! What about this? Or why didn’t they address this?” Ugh, I hate it.

Now here are some additional links to some news articles that definitely gave the novel the proper recognition it deserves. I hope you enjoyed reading my review and critique of Krysten Ritter’s debut novel Bonfires. It is a great recommendation for a good summer reading. Can’t wait to update you’ll about my continuous reading for this summer, but make sure you like, share, and most importantly subscribe!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/books/krysten-ritter-novel-bonfire.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2017/11/06/krysten-ritter-bonfire-book-review-marvel-jessica-jones/829604001/

https://www.elle.com/culture/books/a13795415/krysten-ritter-bonfire-interview/

[justforbooks]

If Stan Lee revolutionized the comic book world in the 1960s, which he did, he left as big a stamp — maybe bigger — on the even wider pop culture landscape of today.

Think of “Spider-Man,” the blockbuster movie franchise and Broadway spectacle. Think of “Iron Man,” another Hollywood gold-mine series personified by its star, Robert Downey Jr. Think of “Black Panther,” the box-office superhero smash that shattered big screen racial barriers in the process.

And that is to say nothing of the Hulk, the X-Men, Thor and other film and television juggernauts that have stirred the popular imagination and made many people very rich.

If all that entertainment product can be traced to one person, it would be Stan Lee, who died in Los Angeles on Monday at 95. From a cluttered office on Madison Avenue in Manhattan in the 1960s, he helped conjure a lineup of pulp-fiction heroes that has come to define much of popular culture in the early 21st century.

Mr. Lee was a central player in the creation of those characters and more, all properties of Marvel Comics. Indeed, he was for many the embodiment of Marvel, if not comic books in general, overseeing the company’s emergence as an international media behemoth. A writer, editor, publisher, Hollywood executive and tireless promoter (of Marvel and of himself), he played a critical role in what comics fans call the medium’s silver age.

Many believe that Marvel, under his leadership and infused with his colorful voice, crystallized that era, one of exploding sales, increasingly complex characters and stories, and growing cultural legitimacy for the medium. (Marvel’s chief competitor at the time, National Periodical Publications, now known as DC — the home of Superman and Batman, among other characters — augured this period, with its 1956 update of its superhero the Flash, but did not define it.)

Under Mr. Lee, Marvel transformed the comic book world by imbuing its characters with the self-doubts and neuroses of average people, as well an awareness of trends and social causes and, often, a sense of humor.

In humanizing his heroes, giving them character flaws and insecurities that belied their supernatural strengths, Mr. Lee tried “to make them real flesh-and-blood characters with personality,” he told The Washington Post in 1992.

Energetic, gregarious, optimistic and alternately grandiose and self-effacing, Mr. Lee was an effective salesman, employing a Barnumesque syntax in print (“Face front, true believer!” “Make mine Marvel!”) to market Marvel’s products to a rabid following.

He charmed readers with jokey, conspiratorial comments and asterisked asides in narrative panels, often referring them to previous issues. In 2003 he told The Los Angeles Times, “I wanted the reader to feel we were all friends, that we were sharing some private fun that the outside world wasn’t aware of.”

Though Mr. Lee was often criticized for his role in denying rights and royalties to his artistic collaborators , his involvement in the conception of many of Marvel’s best-known characters is indisputable.

He was born Stanley Martin Lieber on Dec. 28, 1922, in Manhattan, the older of two sons born to Jack Lieber, an occasionally employed dress cutter, and Celia (Solomon) Lieber, both immigrants from Romania. The family moved to the Bronx.

Stanley began reading Shakespeare at 10 while also devouring pulp magazines, the novels of Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Mark Twain, and the swashbuckler movies of Errol Flynn.

He graduated at 17 from DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx and aspired to be a writer of serious literature. He was set on the path to becoming a different kind of writer when, after a few false starts at other jobs, he was hired at Timely Publications, a company owned by Martin Goodman, a relative who had made his name in pulp magazines and was entering the comics field.

Mr. Lee was initially paid $8 a week as an office gofer. Eventually he was writing and editing stories, many in the superhero genre.

At Timely he worked with the artist Jack Kirby (1917-94), who, with a writing partner, Joe Simon, had created the hit character Captain America, and who would eventually play a vital role in Mr. Lee’s career. When Mr. Simon and Mr. Kirby, Timely’s hottest stars, were lured away by a rival company, Mr. Lee was appointed chief editor.

As a writer, Mr. Lee could be startlingly prolific. “Almost everything I’ve ever written I could finish at one sitting,” he once said. “I’m a fast writer. Maybe not the best, but the fastest.”

Mr. Lee used several pseudonyms to give the impression that Marvel had a large stable of writers; the name that stuck was simply his first name split in two. (In the 1970s, he legally changed Lieber to Lee.)

During World War II, Mr. Lee wrote training manuals stateside in the Army Signal Corps while moonlighting as a comics writer. In 1947, he married Joan Boocock, a former model who had moved to New York from her native England.

His daughter Joan Celia Lee, who is known as J. C., was born in 1950; another daughter, Jan, died three days after birth in 1953. Mr. Lee’s wife died in 2017.

A lawyer for Ms. Lee, Kirk Schenck, confirmed Mr. Lee’s death, at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

In addition to his daughter, he is survived by Ms. Lee and his younger brother, Larry Lieber, who drew the “Amazing Spider-Man” syndicated newspaper strip for years.

In the mid-1940s, the peak of the golden age of comic books, sales boomed. But later, as plots and characters turned increasingly lurid (especially at EC, a Marvel competitor that published titles like Tales From the Crypt and The Vault of Horror), many adults clamored for censorship. In 1954, a Senate subcommittee led by the Tennessee Democrat Estes Kefauver held hearings investigating allegations that comics promoted immorality and juvenile delinquency.

Feeding the senator’s crusade was the psychiatrist Fredric Wertham’s 1954 anti-comics jeremiad, “Seduction of the Innocent.” Among other claims, the book contended that DC’s “Batman stories” — featuring the team of Batman and Robin — were “psychologically homosexual.”

Choosing to police itself rather than accept legislation, the comics industry established the Comics Code Authority to ensure wholesome content. Gore and moral ambiguity were out, but so largely were wit, literary influences and attention to social issues. Innocuous cookie-cutter exercises in genre were in.

Many found the sanitized comics boring, and — with the new medium of television providing competition — readership, which at one point had reached 600 million sales annually, declined by almost three-quarters within a few years.

With the dimming of superhero comics’ golden age, Mr. Lee tired of grinding out generic humor, romance, western and monster stories for what had by then become Atlas Comics. Reaching a career impasse in his 30s, he was encouraged by his wife to write the comics he wanted to, not merely what was considered marketable. And Mr. Goodman, his boss, spurred by the popularity of a rebooted Flash (and later Green Lantern) at DC, wanted him to revisit superheroes.

Mr. Lee took Mr. Goodman up on his suggestion, but he carried its implications much further.

In 1961, Mr. Lee and Mr. Kirby — whom he had brought back years before to the company, now known as Marvel — produced the first issue of The Fantastic Four, about a superpowered team with humanizing dimensions: nonsecret identities, internal squabbles and, in the orange-rock-skinned Thing, self-torment. It was a hit.

Other Marvel titles — like the Lee-Kirby creation The Incredible Hulk, a modern Jekyll-and-Hyde story about a decent man transformed by radiation into a monster — offered a similar template. The quintessential Lee hero, introduced in 1962 and created with the artist Steve Ditko (1927-2018), was Spider-Man.

A timid high school intellectual who gained his powers when bitten by a radioactive spider, Spider-Man was prone to soul-searching, leavened with wisecracks — a key to the character’s lasting popularity across multiple entertainment platforms, including movies and a Broadway musical.

Mr. Lee’s dialogue encompassed Catskills shtick, like Spider-Man’s patter in battle; Elizabethan idioms, like Thor’s; and working-class Lower East Side swagger, like the Thing’s. It could also include dime-store poetry, as in this eco-oratory about humans, uttered by the Silver Surfer, a space alien:

“And yet — in their uncontrollable insanity — in their unforgivable blindness — they seek to destroy this shining jewel — this softly spinning gem — this tiny blessed sphere — which men call Earth!”

Mr. Lee practiced what he called the Marvel method: Instead of handing artists scripts to illustrate, he summarized stories and let the artists draw them and fill in plot details as they chose. He then added sound effects and dialogue. Sometimes he would discover on penciled pages that new characters had been added to the narrative. Such surprises (like the Silver Surfer, a Kirby creation and a Lee favorite) would lead to questions of character ownership.

Mr. Lee was often faulted for not adequately acknowledging the contributions of his illustrators, especially Mr. Kirby. Spider-Man became Marvel’s best-known property, but Mr. Ditko, its co-creator, quit Marvel in bitterness in 1966. Mr. Kirby, who visually designed countless characters, left in 1969. Though he reunited with Mr. Lee for a Silver Surfer graphic novel in 1978, their heyday had ended.

Many comic fans believe that Mr. Kirby was wrongly deprived of royalties and original artwork in his lifetime, and for years the Kirby estate sought to acquire rights to characters that Mr. Kirby and Mr. Lee had created together. Mr. Kirby’s heirs were long rebuffed in court on the grounds that he had done “work for hire” — in other words, that he had essentially sold his art without expecting royalties.

In September 2014, Marvel and the Kirby estate reached a settlement. Mr. Lee and Mr. Kirby now both receive credit on numerous screen productions based on their work.

Mr. Lee moved to Los Angeles in 1980 to develop Marvel properties, but most of his attempts at live-action television and movies were disappointing. (The series “The Incredible Hulk,” seen on CBS from 1978 to 1982, was an exception.)

Avi Arad, an executive at Toy Biz, a company in which Marvel had bought a controlling interest, began to revive the company’s Hollywood fortunes, particularly with an animated “X-Men” series on Fox, which ran from 1992 to 1997. (Its success helped pave the way for the live-action big-screen “X-Men” franchise, which has flourished since its first installment, in 2000.)

In the late 1990s, Mr. Lee was named chairman emeritus at Marvel and began to explore outside projects. While his personal appearances (including charging fans $120 for an autograph) were one source of income, later attempts to create wholly owned superhero properties foundered. Stan Lee Media, a digital content start-up, crashed in 2000 and landed his business partner, Peter F. Paul, in prison for securities fraud. (Mr. Lee was never charged.)

In 2001, Mr. Lee started POW! Entertainment (the initials stand for “purveyors of wonder”), but he received almost no income from Marvel movies and TV series until he won a court fight with Marvel Enterprises in 2005, leading to an undisclosed settlement costing Marvel $10 million. In 2009, the Walt Disney Company, which had agreed to pay $4 billion to acquire Marvel, announced that it had paid $2.5 million to increase its stake in POW!

In Mr. Lee’s final years, after the death of his wife, the circumstances of his business affairs and contentious financial relationship with his surviving daughter attracted attention in the news media. In 2018, Mr. Lee was embroiled in disputes with POW!, and The Daily Beast and The Hollywood Reporter ran accounts of fierce infighting among Mr. Lee’s daughter, household staff and business advisers. The Hollywood Reporter claimed “elder abuse.”

In February 2018, Mr. Lee signed a notarized document declaring that three men — a lawyer, a caretaker of Mr. Lee’s and a dealer in memorabilia — had “insinuated themselves into relationships with J. C. for an ulterior motive and purpose,” to “gain control over my assets, property and money.” He later withdrew his claim, but longtime aides of his — an assistant, an accountant and a housekeeper — were either dismissed or greatly limited in their contact with him.

In a profile in The New York Times in April, a cheerful Mr. Lee said, “I’m the luckiest guy in the world,” adding that “my daughter has been a great help to me” and that “life is pretty good” — although he admitted in that same interview, “I’ve been very careless with money.”

Marvel movies, however, have proved a cash cow for major studios, if not so much for Mr. Lee. With the blockbuster “Spider-Man” in 2002, Marvel superhero films hit their stride. Such movies (including franchises starring Iron Man, Thor and the superhero team the Avengers, to name but three) together had grossed more than $24 billion worldwide as of April.

“Black Panther,” the first Marvel movie directed by an African-American (Ryan Coogler) and starring an almost all-black cast, took in about $201.8 million domestically when it opened over the four-day Presidents’ Day weekend this year, the fifth-biggest opening of all time.

Many other film properties are in development, in addition to sequels in established franchises. Characters Mr. Lee had a hand in creating now enjoy a degree of cultural penetration they have never had before.

Mr. Lee wrote a slim memoir, “Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee,” with George Mair, published in 2002. His 2015 book, “Amazing Fantastic Incredible: A Marvelous Memoir” (written with Peter David and illustrated in comic-book form by Colleen Doran), pays abundant credit to the artists many fans believed he had shortchanged years before.

Recent Marvel films and TV shows have also often credited Mr. Lee’s former collaborators; Mr. Lee himself has almost always received an executive producer credit. His cameo appearances in them became something of a tradition. (Even “Teen Titans Go! to the Movies,” an animated feature in 2018 about a DC superteam, had more than one Lee cameo.) TV shows bearing his name or presence have included the reality series “Stan Lee’s Superhumans” and the competition show “Who Wants to Be a Superhero?”

Mr. Lee’s unwavering energy suggested that he possessed superpowers himself. (In his 90s he had a Twitter account, @TheRealStanlee.) And the National Endowment for the Arts acknowledged as much when it awarded him a National Medal of Arts in 2008. But he was frustrated, like all humans, by mortality.

“I want to do more movies, I want to do more television, more DVDs, more multi-sodes, I want to do more lecturing, I want to do more of everything I’m doing,” he said in “With Great Power …: The Stan Lee Story,” a 2010 television documentary. “The only problem is time. I just wish there were more time.”

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at http://justforbooks.tumblr.com

[a-wandering-fool]

A few weeks ago I observed that hate crimes against Jewish persons has been on the decline in the long term, with the FBI’s Hate Crimes database showing a drop from 1182 offenses in 1996 to 635 offenses in 2014, with a short uptick in hate crimes starting in 2015 and 2016–with 2016 ending with 834 offenses: substantially higher than in 2014, but much lower than in 1996.

(And this does not factor in a growing Jewish population. Toss that in and we’ve seen a decline from 21.5 offenses per 100,000 in 1996 to 10 offenses per 100,000 in 2014.)

And I observed when the ADL “Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents” came out, that it’s claims that in 2017 there was a further 57% rise seemed both incorrect and politically motivated. That’s because this was linked hand-in-hand with the Trump Administration: the story is that Trump’s nationalism is similar to the form of nationalism we see in Europe (with cultural subgroups asserting superiority and demanding representation free of outside influence by migrants and other nations), and that nationalism has given rise to hate against Jewish groups who often are the canary in the coal mine.

I contend such an interpretation of the Trump Administration and his popularity in the United States is incorrect.

Well, the Hate Crimes statistics are now out for 2017. And what does the FBI show?

For 2017, there were a total of 976 offenses against Jewish persons–a rise from 2016 of 17%. (Note that this follows a rise of 20% from 2015 to 2016, and a rise of 9.5% from 2014 to 2015–meaning this is the continuation of an upward trend starting in 2015.)

Terrible, certainly.

But not the 57% asserted by the ADL.

My concern with the ADL fundamentally was that it involves self-reportedincidents:

The Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents is composed of criminal and non-criminal incidents of harassment, vandalism, and assault against individuals and groups as reported to ADL by victims, law enforcement, and the media.

That is, if you’re Jewish and someone uses a slur against you, well, it goes into the database. And look at what’s in the database:

Professor made anti-Semitic comments to Jewish student.

Ongoing anti-Semitic harassment from neighbor.

Perpetrator threw a coin at the victim and said “Are you going to pick it up, Jew?”

Now my point here is not to defend the anti-Semitic statements here. Piss poor behavior is piss poor behavior, and the individuals involved here richly deserve the social shunning that used to accompany assholish behavior.

But my point here is to observe that these events (and others like them) are marginal events–meaning one can either dismiss them or not, depending on how one perceives the overall culture.

That is, if someone makes a statement towards me about my own Native American heritage–I can either let the statement go (if I think it’s an isolated event by some asshole), or I can hang onto the statement and eventually if asked, report the statement (if I think it’s a trend).

And according to the media–a media which even in the words of Larry King, has become obsessed with Trump–every ill in the world can be linked to Trump, who has become to the minds of many officially The Worst Person In The World.™

It’s all Trump. There are no news.

In such an environment, there can be no isolated events. Everything is a trend.

A professor making an anti-Semitic comment? Trump. Angry neighbor? Trump. Holocaust jokes? Trump. Verbal abuse? Trump.

And when it’s a trend, you remember it. You report it. You confirm the trend rather than allow things to go–since that asshole of a neighbor is no longer an isolated incident. He’s part of a bigger movement.

And a lot of things you may have let go under a Democratic President–one whose own side tends to agree with statements like “Jews kill Palestinian Christians” (one of the incidents of harassment now reported in the ADL database)–you won’t let go under a President who you see as advocating a particularly racist form of European-style nationalism.

What makes the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics interesting is that it reports incidents of crime (including vandalism and assault) from a third party: police agencies who are charged with submitting reports to the FBI regardless of the current administration or the current political atmosphere.

There are two shortcomings of the data. First, it tends to under-report–as it requires people to contact the police and file a report. And as we all know, crimes tend to be under-reported–though in a similar atmosphere where you see trends rather than isolated incidents, you are more likely to call the police.

Second, it does not cover the entire United States–but only the 4,000-odd police agencies who feed the FBI UCR database.

However, it has the advantage over ADL self-reporting that reports funnel through a nominally impartial third-party reporter. Meaning that while the data may under-report and fail to report in certain regions–the under-reporting and reporting failures are consistent. Meaning that while absolute numbers may not be right, year-over-year trends are undoubtedly more accurate.

Bottom line: the 17% Y/Y change–one which follows a 10% and 20% uptick from the prior two years–is probably closer to the truth than the ADL’s sensationalized 57%.

Of course the ADL has picked up on this–though they seem to get other numbers wrong. (For example, they cite the increase from 695 incidents in 2015 to 834 incidents in 2016 as a “5% jump.” Sorry, but my calculator disagrees.)

And I think this is, in part, an attempt to vilify President Trump as the instigator of a form of nationalism similar to the brand of nationalism you find in Europe.

To summarize, Europe has, since the days of feudal rule under Monarchs and Manor Lords (where local society was organized around peasants working on an estate owned by an aristocrat), been caught between two opposing viewpoints: one of local control centering around a “people” who share a common culture and common heritage, and one of international control where the aristocrats cooperated under an international umbrella (first provided by the Catholic Church, later provided by international agreement).

Nationalism (centered around a common people and a common culture) verses Internationalism.

This, by the way, was the argument between Hitler and the NAZI party and the Anti-Fascist fighters funded in part by the Communist International party during World War II. Hitler was not a Fascist; Mussolini was the Fascist–a term originally derived from the Latin fasces, a symbol of Roman power. The idea of Fascism is that corporate leaders and government leaders would work hand-in-fist to create a regulated economy integrated into an overall authoritarian state–a top-down organization which treated the population as a resource to be mined or reaped, rather than as individuals whose own lives are important.

Hitler was not a fascist. Hitler was a Socialist who rejected the Communist International. In other words, Hitler believed in the direct government control of corporations (rather than the integration of public and private ownership under central authoritarian rule), and believed in that direct control “in the name of the German people.” But Hitler rejected the cosmopolitan internationalism advocated by the Communist International.

European politics has been caught in this debate for a very long time: top-down (authoritarian) nationalism (which is now driving anti-legal immigrant sentiment in Europe) verses top-down (authoritarian) internationalism–either by cooperating Monarchs, by the rule of a Roman Catholic Church, or by a Communist Party whose membership includes indoctrination of its leadership to support certain common goals, including the goal of wiping out more “offensive” cultural elements which lead to competition and conflict. (Of course those “offensive” cultural elements shift with the winds–such as homosexuality, which in later eras in the Soviet Union was seen as an aberration and a mental disease.)

The problem with using this dichotomy to describe American politics is that both sides in the European debate are authoritarian. That is, both sides ignore the individual, seeing individuals as a natural resource–like corn or coal or cattle–to be reaped, mined, and put to work to advocate national goals that have little (if anything) to do with individual desire.

(There is a reason why both Communism and National-Socialism have such high death tolls associated with them–some 11 million lost in the concentration camps of NAZI Germany, some 100+ million dead under Communist rule: because if individuals are little more than a resource to be used, “breakage” is just a fact of life. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, right?)

Americans are, fundamentally, anti-authoritarian.

But critics of the Republicans (and of Trump in particular) still try to cram American politics into this authoritarian nationalist framework–an observation that often makes little sense to Conservatives and Libertarians (in particular) who see themselves as fighting authoritarianism by reducing governmental regulatory burdens which represent the “fasces” of the State.

And that’s why groups similar to the ADL seem to be raising the alarm of nationalism. Not because the “nationalist” term fits well in American politics: after all, as an anti-authoritarian bunch we tend to shoot revenuers (and celebrate this fact), we lie on our taxes, we jay-walk when no-one is looking, and our idea of freedom includes the ability to say fuck you, President Trumpwithout being arrested for insulting the President.

Because in the framework of European authoritarian politics, the opposite of a cosmopolitan internationalism which puts power in the hands of a few for the good of “the people” is the racist nationalism of places like France, which sees any form of expression counter to French culture as an existential threat, one deserving the full power of the State to prevent.

The thing is, there is a third way–one where power originates from the individual, one where the rights of the individual is paramount, one where we believe in statements like:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…

One where nation-states are created by the people in order to secure those freedoms:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

One where the government exist solely to protect the individual and to protect individual rights, rather than to control the people like cattle on a farm.

All of this is just a long winded analysis of why organizations like the ADL are now raising the “nationalism” alarm, and why Trump’s calls for patriotism (by using the “nationlism” word) fails to understand the actual debate in play.

It explains why people are self-reporting more incidents than they were before, and why there is a concerted effort on the part of the Left to conflate concerns with illegal immigration with all immigration, by trying to reframe the debate in the United States in terms of European nationalism verses internationalism.

They are ignoring the existence of a third way–that of a free people who shoots revenuers, an “ungovernable” nation who refuses to be ridden by authoritarian nationalists and internationalists alike.

This “ungovernability” is a feature, not a bug. Because the goal of the government of the United States is not self-sustainability, nor the promotion of a single cultural expression or protecting a language or promoting a homogeneous people–but the protection of individual liberty by securing things like property rights.

And the cries of “nationalism” or the ADL’s inflated statistics are both not helpful, and they completely miss the point–which is why they’ve become increasingly shrill, not realizing that their ultimate goal of promoting a European style cosmopolitan internationalism is a Sisyphean task.

=========================

I haven’t read the full article but it looks interesting

[melbournenewsvine]

South Perth theme park and water facility under a cloud as council fighting halts progress

The city administration then issued a statement saying, “It has long been a practice in the city to put petitions on the council’s agenda to receive petitions without discussion” and now considers petitions to be normal. A climbing wall and indoor and outdoor swimming pools will be provided.attributed to him:COSP . Concept Plan Now, the community has collected the necessary 100 signatures to call a special meeting of electors to express its “distrust” of the five council members. In order not to be bypassed, Chancellor Mary Choi presented a proposal to a Tuesday night meeting asking the CEO to create a new policy for accepting petitions, which should include “respectful, polite, moderate and no disrespectful language to the Board.” This is not the first explosive step taken by the voting bloc of council members regarding the recreational facility. In June, a vote against the appointment of an independent project manager, against the advice of the mayor and city employees, resulted in the city in breach of a federal funding contract. They later voted to direct city employees to pressure the state to abide by the funding decision now, despite staff warning that this would spoil negotiations. Current and former mayors have commented in recent months that these moves reflected the failure of governance. Bad tour of the councils of Perth In the past few years, local councils in Perth have been making all the wrong headlines. The cities of Perth and Subiaco have been subject to intense investigations. Perth City Council has been suspended including former Lord Mayor Lisa Scavedi. Subiaco’s mayor’s experience with the “poisonous” council led him to decide not to take part in the campaign again. Workplace culture concerns have also led to the resignation of the former mayor of Nedlands and councilors there continue to complain about a toxic workplace culture, with one recently resigning out of embarrassment over a widely derided planning decision. Planning ministers felt obligated to intervene in planning decisions made by the cities of South Perth (twice) and Perth. Many board members on the boards of Melville, Bayswater, Cambridge and Cockburn have publicly advocated a culture of harassment and abuse. Local government ‘broken’ Former MP Larry Graham said he has been following the situation in South Perth and is summarizing the dysfunction of local government in Perth. He said that while local government was full of good people trying to do a good job in their communities, it was also broken from a democratic perspective. loading Over the past 20 years, local government ministers and regulatory departments have decided that it is too difficult to organize, “almost no one has voted” and only half of the council can vote in elections. “The only reason a local government exists is to do things for its local community. You have to take the public interest as a driver. If your elected representatives don’t do what the public demands, the public should be able to vote for them. “Recent Changes is a window that doesn’t address issues.” He was referring to Local Government Minister John Curry who announced that some councilors in the greater councils would lose their jobs under a reform programme. He also said that the minister did not have the powers to punish councils that did not implement the changes. In response to a request for comment, the minister did not reveal whether he was aware or concerned about the machinations of South Perth. He encouraged local residents who had complaints about possible violations of local government law to direct those complaints to the local government department. The state government announced the largest package of local government reforms in 25 years. These reforms were based on many years of previous work, including public consultations, and various government reports. Emma Young lives in South Perth. Source link Originally published at Melbourne News Vine