Snob

Dicen por ahí que estamos viviendo unos tiempos de absoluta falta de valores morales. Que nos hemos olvidado de Dios y que el hombre camina solo por la vida sin preguntarse qué hay más allá de ésta.

Pero eso no es cierto. El ser humano siempre necesitará una doctrina que le enseñe el camino de la verdad. Lo que pasa es que los tiempos han cambiado, y la gente busca las respuestas en conceptos algo más modernillos. Unas religiones que denominaremos “Cultos freakies”.

Estas son trece de las religiones modernas que más daño están causando en la sociedad de este siglo XXI. Algunos de estos conceptos ya han salido en nuestra lista de modas horrorosas del 2014, pero queremos seguir haciendo hincapié.

Star Trek

Inexplicable. Es la única palabra que se me ocurre para describir el fervor que hay en torno a una serie de televisión sosa y aburrida, que cuando fue estrenada en los sesenta fracasó, pero que a base de reposiciones y secuelas se ha hecho omnipresente en nuestra cultura popular.

“Star Trek” va de una nave espacial que va volando por ahí. Creo que se dedican a labores diplomáticas. A pesar de que he visto bastantes episodios (en un desesperado intento de engancharme a algo que se supone que es cool) jamás me ha quedado claro en qué trabaja la tripulación del “Enterprise”. Y es curioso, porque tampoco se les ve nunca teniendo vida social. Kirk, Spok y los demás permanecen en su nave y no hacen nada más.

Los “Trekkies” son los practicantes de esta religión. Son personas de capacidades sociales nulas, no pueden salir a la calle más que para proveerse de objetos de merchandising relacionados con el universo trekkie en tiendas de comics donde de vez en cuando charlan con sus congéneres, aunque nunca llegan a tener verdaderos amigos.

Se visten con pijamas, se depilan las cejas para pintárselas como Spok, saludan levantando la palma de la mano con los dedos anular y corazón separados… Estas personas sueñan con huir de este planeta a bordo de un carguero Klingon , con la intima esperanza de acabar finalmente en las filas del “Enterprise”. Desde que se estrenaron las versiones modernas de Star Trek hechas por J.J. Abrams, los trekkies están muy crecidos.

Marvel/DC

Las historias contenidas en los tebeos publicados por las editoriales Marvel y DC ya superan ampliamente en extensión a otras mitologías más respetadas como la Biblia, por ejemplo. Superman, Batman, El Capitán América, Spiderman… ellos son los nuevos dioses que inspiran a los humanos del siglo XXI. Sus aventuras son comparables a las de Moisés, Noé o Jesucristo… ¡No se indignen con esta comparación! ¡Seguro que ya se les había ocurrido a ustedes solitos!

Alaska

Olvido Gara, popularmente conocida como Alaska , es la artista femenina más querida de España. ¿Quién no conoce a alguien cuya madre piense que esta cantante es “un poco estrafalaria pero se la ve muy inteligente cuando sale por televisión”?

A pesar de sus escasas capacidades vocales, su nula memoria para recitar las letras de sus canciones (mejor dicho, de las canciones que otros le escriben), su pésima relación con la báscula y que lleva más de treinta años de carrera, siempre en primera línea, nadie parece cansarse de ella. Ni la marca de cerveza que le paga por poner fotos de su producto en su cuenta de Instagram.

El culto a esta mujer es practicado desde hace muchos años por un sinfín de “fans fatales”. Ellos están muy agradecidos a la cantante pelirroja morena que se haya erigido en defensora de los derechos de los gays, travestis y demás gente de mal vivir. Lo malo es que llevan veinte años atrapados en lo mismo, así que se han convertido en algo así como los Amish que viven en Madrid.

Ya conocen a la artista que dentro de muchos, muchos años, esperemos, será llorada como la Rocío Jurado del siglo XXI.

Mario Vaquerizo

El marido de la popular cantante Alaska ha construido un imperio económico con mucho esfuerzo y tesón, a pesar de que el único talento que ha demostrado tener es el de la picaresca, que, pensándolo bien, es el único requisito necesario  para triunfar en la vida. Mario se ha servido de su desparpajo y de su supuesta incultura para erigirse como el ídolo número uno de los preadolescentes de España. Algo así como le pasó a su esposa en los años ochenta a raíz de la dichosa Bola de Cristal.

Cuarto Milenio/Milenio 3

(Sí, esta entrada ya la hemos sacado en nuestra lista de modas horrorosa, pero queremos insistir en el tema)

Iker Jimenez y Carmen Porter eran una pareja de investigadores paranormales que juntos crearon un programa de radio, Milenio 3, y su versión televisiva, Cuarto Milenio. Ambos espacios gozan de gran éxito de audiencia. A la pareja se les ha subido tanto a la cabeza que ahora se han permitido convertir a sus programas en tribunas desde las que lanzan mensajes reaccionarios. Su mayor contradicción: acusar a los medios de comunicación generalistas de estar domesticados por el poder mientras que ellos mismos caen en servidumbres como hablar de muñecos terroríficos o tablas OuiJa coincidiendo sospechosamente con los estrenos en cines de películas de temática al respecto. Ojo que este año se lanzan a dar conferencias y a montar su primer centro de peregrinación en el Palacio de Linares previo pago. Atentos porque Iker Jimenez está a puntito de convertirse en el primer telepredicador de España. Y no dudamos que fundará un culto junto a su alucinante esposa Carmen.

Jason Statham

¿Necesitamos explicar porqué este señor es DIOS?

 

Disney

Esta es una de las religiones más peligrosas que han surgido en el siglo XX. En los estudios Disney se producen películas cargadas de lecciones de decencia y moralidad.

Pero lo peor es que han desarrollado técnicas de control mental que obligan a los adultos a sentir la necesida imperiosa de coleccionar los DVDs de los clásicos Disney, que ahora han de ser reciclados y sustituidos por los Blu-Rays. Incluso los niños, siempre tan indefensos, cuando van al Carrefour con sus padres sienten el irrefrenable impulso de meter en el carro de la compra el último Blu-Ray o DVD Disney que esté en el mercado.

Walt Disney preparó su resurrección, y permanece congelado a la espera de un momento mejor, cuando ya todos los humanos estemos hipnotizados y nos sepamos las canciones de todas sus películas, para ocupar de nuevo un lugar entre los mortales y gobernarnos a todos. Él es el mesías del nuevo Milenio.

Pero la amenaza se está extendiendo, ya que Disney está comprando otras religiones modernas como Star Wars, Indiana Jones, los cómics Marvel…

Lost

No me digan que no hay que tener fe  para ser fan de esta serie. Un producto televisivo que durante años llenó de esperanza a sus seguidores y que cuando llegó al final dejó sin respuesta la mayoría de las preguntas que había planteado. ¡Igual que las religiones tradicionales! Y bueno, el final con todos los personajes en el cielo… ¡J.J. Abrams fue incapaz de disimular su afán evangelizador!

Star Wars

Cómo pueden tener tanto morro George Lucas  y Disney para colarnos esta religión cuyo principio máximo es: Cómprate todo el merchandising que puedas sobre Star Wars. Ellos lo disfrazan de autoayuda de la más barata, pero su intención es puramente mercantil. Si necesitas algún catálogo para conocer sus productos, no tienes más que comprar el pack de las dos trilogías ya editadas en formato doméstico. Las versiones normales y las retocadas. Y prepárate que llegan las nuevas películas de la tercera trilogía y los spin-ofs…

Todo lo que encuentres en esas películas está a la venta.

Divas gays

Es otro de los grandes misterios de la humanidad la fascinación que ejercen las cantantes femeninas sobre los varones homosexuales.

Está científicamente comprobado: Donde haya una mujer vestida de manera provocativa, cantando y bailando con dos ó más chulos de gimnasio, allí habrá también un enloquecido grupo de hombres afeminados gritando todo lo alto que puedan.

La vida comercial de una Diva Gay suele ser breve, pero los practicantes de este culto son politeistas, y es asombrosa su capacidad de acumular en sus altares a las mujeres más viejas y olvidadas de las listas de éxitos.

Y es que una Diva gay siempre tendrá la fidelidad de sus fans, que invertirán ingentes cantidades de dinero en toda clase de artefactos relacionados con estas mujeres: CDs, maxi singles, posters, camisetas, más CDs de importación, DVDs, CDs con remezclas O.F.I.C.I.A.L.E.S. ( y piratas también)…

Todo el mundo sabe que los gays manejan mucho dinero, por lo tanto es lógico que la mayoría de ellos estén entregados a este culto.

El Señor de los Anillos

Pero por favor… ¿Alguien me puede explicar qué tiene “El Señor de Los anillos” para que haya tanta gente haciendo cola en el cine para ver las películas por sexta vez? ¿Por qué 6 de cada 10 personas que van leyendo algo en el metro leen un libro escrito por Tolkien?

Yo no entiendo qué interés puede tener para nadie un mundo imaginario tan básico, pese a que los fans de ESDLA dicen que Tolkien tenía mucha imaginación y fue capaz de inventar un universo extraordinario poblado de seres maravillosos y praderas maravillosas… ¿De qué sirve tanto despliegue si luego todos se dedican lo mismo, a perseguir un anillo que sirve para dominar a todo el mundo? Y cuando consigues el anillo y dominas el mundo, ¿Qué pasa? ¿Puedes obligar a todos los habitantes de ese mundo imaginario maravilloso a que hagan lo que tú quieras?

Christopher Nolan

El director de aclamadas obras cinematográficas como Interstellar, Inception o “las de Batman de Nolan”, ha generado un peligroso culto a su alrededor. Millones de personas veneran las películas de este tipo, quedando su juicio nublado y demostrando una evidente incapacidad para admitir que las películas de este señor son unos tremendos aburrimientos que sabemos que no pasarán a la Historia del Cine.

Google

¿Hay algo más parecido a Dios en nuestras vidas? ¿A quién recurrimos cuando un problema nos inquieta? ¿A quién acudimos para resolver nuestras dudas? ¿Dónde buscamos las respuestas para todo? Pues eso.

 

The post Top 13 Religiones modernas appeared first on Teenage Thunder.

Youtube user dotflist has a playlist collecting classic TV themes and openings ....except something seems to be slightly off

Jonathan Chait has written an article for New York Magazine about his concerns that political correctness threatens free debate by trying to silence certain points of view.

Political correctness, in Chait's view, is a "system of left-wing ideological repression" that threatens the "bedrock liberal ideal" of a "free political marketplace where we can reason together as individuals." He writes, "While politically less threatening than conservatism (the far right still commands far more power in American life), the p.c. left is actually more philosophically threatening. It is an undemocratic creed."

But political correctness isn't a "creed" at all. Rather it's a sort of catch-all term we apply to people who ask for more sensitivity to a particular cause than we're willing to give — a way to dismiss issues as frivolous in order to justify ignoring them. Worse, the charge of "political correctness" is often used by those in a position of privilege to silence debates raised by marginalized people — to say that their concerns don't deserve to be voiced, much less addressed.

That's a much bigger threat to the "free political marketplace" that Chait is so eager to protect.

"Politically correct" is a term we use to dismiss ideas that make us uncomfortable

First things first: there's no such thing as "political correctness." The term's in wide use, certainly, but has no actual fixed or specific meaning. What defines it is not what it describes but how it's used: as a way to dismiss a concern or demand as a frivolous grievance rather than a real issue.

Chait identifies a long list of disputes that he describes as examples of "p.c." demands that are hurting mainstream liberalism. But calling these concerns "political correctness" is another way of saying that they aren't important enough to be addressed on their merits. And all that really means is that they're not important to Jonathan Chait.

An example from outside of Chait's article makes it easy to see how that technique works in practice. I, personally, think that the name of the Washington Redskins is racist and hurtful to Native Americans, and should be changed. So if someone asks me what I think of the debate about the team, that's what I say. By contrast, Virginia legislator Del Jackson Miller likes the name and wants the team to keep it. But rather than making an argument on the merits of the name, he referred to the entire debate as "political correctness on overdrive." In other words, he's saying, this is a false debate — just another example of "political correctness" — so I don't have to even acknowledge concerns about racism. (Miller, in fact, claimed that it was literally fake, an issue trumped up by a "rich member of the Oneida tribe.")

That's a failure of communication and, arguably, of basic respect. Miller isn't engaging with critics of the Redskins name by considering why they find it hurtful, and offering his basis for disagreement — he's dismissing the whole conversation as unworthy of discussion.

Likewise, Chait clearly believes that "microaggressions" aren't important enough to merit his concern, and that "trigger warnings" are a foolish request made by over-sensitive people. But he doesn't spend much time considering why the people who demand them might think they do matter. The open communication offered by platforms like Twitter has brought Chait into contact with ideas that he clearly finds weird and silly. But rather than considering their merits, or why they matter to the people who put them forward, he dismisses them as political correctness, and concludes that their very existence constitutes "ideological repression."

It's tempting to dismiss uncomfortable criticism

It's understandable that Chait, and the many others who agree with him, find it so upsetting to be on the receiving end of what he refers to as "P.C." criticism. These critiques basically accuse their targets of being oppressors, or perpetuating injustice, and that's a deeply hurtful accusation. Indeed, that kind of criticism hurts most if you are someone who cares about social justice, or do think that discrimination is harmful when it's implicit as well as when it's explicit.

But avoiding that discomfort by dismissing criticism as mere "political correctness" is no way to protect the marketplace of ideas whose fate so concerns Chait. At best, it replaces a relatively weak burden on free speech (Jonathan Chait has to listen to people scolding him on Twitter) with a similarly weak one (other people have to listen to Chait and his supporters scolding them for their "political correctness").

But the reality is that the burdens are not equal, because the arguments that get dismissed as mere "p.c." nonsense are overwhelmingly likely to be raised by people who are less privileged, and to concern issues that are outside the mainstream.

Look at Chait's own examples. Transwomen who protest definitions of "women" as "people with vaginas" aren't merely bellyaching about terminology — they're people on the margins of a group making legitimate demands for inclusion. Women of color who point out the many ways in which white feminists overlook issues that affect minority women aren't engaging in race-based arguments just for the fun of it, they're pointing out that the feminist movement had promised to protect their interests, but was in fact ignoring them.

And while I personally don't think that trigger warnings are a workable solution to the problem of trauma, and have not used them in my own writing or teaching, I think that our society does generally struggle to take women's safety into account, and I do not feel that shutting down that conversation is the appropriate solution to the problem of harassment of women.

Discrimination and safety are serious matters that actually do affect people's ability to participate in public discussion — yes, even more so than the degree to which people in positions of privilege have to hear arguments they dislike. Writing them off as frivolous disputes over what is or isn't "politically correct" makes those problems much harder to address.

There's a difference between pointing out real problems and "tone policing"

Take, for instance, a phenomenon that actually and demonstrably restricts the free exchange of ideas: the harassment of women online. It is a depressing fact of life that women who discuss controversial subjects publicly are often targeted by harassers who want to silence them. (As are many other groups, of course.) And yet, bizarrely, women's requests for safety online are often dismissed as "politically correct" threats to free speech, rather than as a way to promote it.

Last January, Amanda Hess wrote about the "trolls" who pursued her in response to her writing, including one account that had been set up for the express purpose of tweeting death threats at her. Anita Sarkeesian posted a list of the harassing tweets she received during an ordinary week last December, a never-ending mishmash of the words "kill," "whore," "bitch," "fuck," and "slut." Megan McArdle has written about her experiences with this kind of vitriol. So has Lindy West. And Jill Filipovic. And me.

We’re all still writing; none of us have been silenced. But online harassment causes real fear and stress, and for others, that has been a form of ideological censorship. Programmer and game developer Kathy Sierra, who used to write a popular blog, stopped after she was targeted with a sustained campaign of violent threats. Sarkeesian had to cancel a public speaking engagement last year after threats of a mass shooting.

Conor Friedersdorf has written in the Atlantic that women often rejected his requests for articles on controversial topics, citing "an understandable reluctance to subject themselves to the vitriol that too often accompanies being a woman who writes publicly, especially on certain subjects."

How dismissing problems as "political correctness" hinders efforts to solve them

But when women protest online harassment, their concerns are often dismissed as a politically-correct attempt to censor the views of people they disagree with. This dismissal is also often used to reject the premise that measures might be needed to make women safer.

During last year’s "Gamergate" campaign, which involved large-scale campaigns of online threats and harassment directed against women, harassers referred to their targets as "SJWs" — short for "social justice warriors." Although Gamergate's core dispute nominally concerned the way that video games are reviewed (hence the name), it quickly became clear that the online "movement" was more alarmed about women gaining power within the gaming community. Describing women's goals as merely being about "social justice" was a way to dismiss their contributions, ideas, and even personal safety as superficial grievance politics.

Nor was that attitude limited to Gamergate. Blogger Andrew Sullivan wasn't part of Gamergate, and says that he "actively support[s] suspending abusive, stalking tweeters or those threatening violence." But when Twitter announced its decision to partner with the nonprofit WAM (Women, Action, & the Media) in order to combat harassment online, Sullivan denounced the move, referring to women as social justice warriors and warning that they were going to have a "censorship field day," before dismissing WAM’s past work as crude "identity politics."

The phrase "politically correct" is a way to say an issue has no value

Chait's article does not mention Gamergate, and there's no reason to believe that he's anything other than appalled at online harassment. Likewise, Sullivan did not use the phrase "politically correct."

But their arguments are fundamentally the same: that marginalized people's demands for inclusion are just a bunch of annoying whining, and that efforts to address their concerns are unnecessary. They also betray the deeper concern: that listening to the demands of marginalized groups is dangerous, because doing so could potentially burden the lives, or at least change the speech, of more privileged people.

And you know what? They're probably right. Chait proudly praises the "historical record of American liberalism" for extending rights to "blacks, Jews, gays, and women," but Americans used to be able to refer to members of those groups as "coloreds," "kikes," and "fags," without fearing the consequences. But doing so now would result in serious social censure — exactly the kind of "coercion" that Chait looks upon and despairs in his article.

Likewise, it is possible that efforts to address online harassment will put some sort of burden on the Andrew Sullivans of this world. (Although at this point those efforts are so feeble that it's a little hard to imagine.) There is a legitimate argument to be had about how the "freedom" of social media platforms with few restrictions but lots of threats ought to be balanced against people's "freedom" to participate in online debates without having to fear for their lives or safety. But the way to deal with that is to actually have that argument, not to suggest that the people asking for protection are just trying to censor free speech.

That kind of offhand dismissal is a problem for the ideals Chait seeks to protect. Just ask Jonathan Chait:

Of course liberals are correct not only to oppose racism and sexism but to grasp (in a way conservatives generally do not) that these biases cast a nefarious and continuing shadow over nearly every facet of American life. Since race and gender biases are embedded in our social and familial habits, our economic patterns, and even our subconscious minds, they need to be fought with some level of consciousness. The mere absence of overt discrimination will not do.

by Alex Estrada

At a small midtown studio, the producers and cast of UNAUTHORIZED! met to rehearse That 80’s Time Travel Movie, a musical based on the 1985 Robert Zemeckis classic Back to the Future. I arrived around hour four as the group workshopped a number called “Forgetting You.” It’s a realization duet that follows the second act’s opener and hits like an upbeat male version of “For Good” from Wicked, heartfelt but comedic. Chris Barnes, who wrote the book and lyrics, directed actors Matt Rogers and Pat Swearingen, Marty McFly and Doc Brown respectively. The show’s composer, Ryan Mercy, provided an accompaniment as Barnes fine tuned movement and performance.

“This would be a good time for you to move to the ladder,” Barnes said, referring to a chair at the end of the room that represents the watchtower and Marty’s way back to the future. The UNAUTHORIZED! crew were in good spirits and for good reason: unlike their opening, they’ve had more than five weeks to concoct, write, rehearse, and stage this musical. Their previous two September performances played to raucous at-capacity crowds. After that, they repeated the process and result with Steel Petunias, based on the 1989 hair-salon centered film Steel Magnolias, and once more in December with Ghostcatchers, based on a movie about a group of men who bust ghosts. For their February revival, now backed by the Peoples Improv Theater, the company is focused on making the show as tight and professional as possible. “It sounds cliché,” Mercy notes, “but we take our comedy very seriously.”

The success of the UNAUTHORIZED! series speaks to the elevation of parody musicals from black box affairs to mainstream productions in their own right. The previous “cult status” of the genre can be traced to reasons practical, economic, and legal. Established theater producers, creatures of calculated risk, would not back larger ventures without obtaining proper licenses. Faced with the unwillingness of licensors to offer their work up to satire, the possibility of potential litigation, and the general difficulties of finding an audience to sustain an expensive production, the big fish opted out, leaving the task to those with little to lose and much to gain by ignoring a cease and desist letter.

The turn of the tide arguably began with Evil Dead: The Musical, based on the eponymous 1983 horror film. Created in 2003 by a Queens College theatre class, the show was performed at a Kingston, Ontario comedy club. The production became a hit as news of its existence spread among college campuses and internet message boards. It eventually came to the attention of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, who blessed the production. With Raimi’s endorsement, EDTM found producers willing, and took to workshops at Toronto and the Just For Laughs Festival in 2004 before premiering Off-Broadway in New York in October 2006. A revival in Toronto became one of Canada’s longest running shows, and the production is now on tour in various parts throughout the world, serving as a model for other successful parody musicals.

Ashley Ward, a writer and ensemble performer for 50 Shades!, a parody of E.L. James’s Fifty Shades of Grey currently running off-Broadway, met me for tea on a drizzly Sunday afternoon. Ward was fresh off the production’s sold-out Sunday matinee. 50 Shades! is put on at the Elektra Theater, previously home to the similarly punctuated Silence! The Musical, based on a Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins thriller.

Ward recounted her own experience in the show’s inception in late 2012, when she attended the Edinburgh Fringe as part of famed musical improv troupe Baby Wants Candy. “(50 Shades! producer) Marshall Cordell saw a local story about hardware stores running out of certain kinds of rope are used for bondage,” Ward said, “and we knew there was something there.” A BWC member tasked Ward and her co-writers with creating and staging a Fifty Shades of Grey musical to present at the Edinburgh Fringe, and they did so in about a week. “We were held together by spit and dreams,” Ward smiles. The first incarnation of 50 Shades! premiered at the Edinburgh in August 2012, and was brought back to Chicago for workshopping before eventually arriving in New York last year. 50 Shades! is currently set to run to April, though the producers have extended it twice already. The musical tours in the United States, and numerous international productions are also in the works.

The difficulties of staging an adaptation are not lost on parodists, who must capture the essence of the original work, develop it humorous components, and set the whole thing to music. The first prong can be especially tricky in light of fan expectations, as Ward relates. “The book sold something like 90,000,000 copies,” she says, “so that’s 90,000,000 different visions of what the characters look like and who they are.” One need only look to the casting changes, reshoots, and negative buzz surrounding the Fifty Shades of Grey film adaptation, or the more unkind reactions to the upcoming Ghostbusters reboot, as evidence. Granted, the stakes are not as high with parody, but UNAUTHORIZED’s Mercy knows they are dealing with someone’s sacred cow. “What we’re doing is essentially a love letter to the original,” he says.

But love is not a deterrent to litigation, and legal obstacles loom just as large as the creative. In the United States, commercial parody is protected by the Copyright Act and well-developed case law, the Supreme Court’s holding in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music being one of the most cited cases. Under the fair-use doctrine outlined in Campbell, a court examines parody under a four part test to determine whether a it falls within the statute’s safe harbor, evaluating the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the portion and substance of the original copyrighted work used, and the effect of the parody on the market or value of the copyrighted material. The spirit of parody jurisprudence is best surmised by Justice David Souter, quoting English jurist Lord Ellenborough: “while I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not put manacles on science.”

Not everyone is moved by Justice Souter’s guidance, particularly intellectual property attorneys with clients to mind. In many cases, a cease-and-desist letter spells the end for an unlicensed adaptation, as paying an attorney to research and draft a response may often exceed the entire budget of a off-off Broadway production. Ward recalls a C&D from E.L. James’s attorney demanding a stop to 50 Shades! performances in the United Kingdom, which could have easily doomed the nascent production. Fortunately, the producers happened to have a personal connection to an attorney at the same law firm who managed to sort out the dispute before it proceeded to litigation. By coincidence, the United Kingdom subsequently amended its intellectual property laws to bolster protection for parodies of copyrighted works.

And, of course, there’s competition. By its nature, parody provides a means for anyone to take a crack at the popular or iconic. While 50 Shades! is the most well-known and successful of the Grey spoofs, several others have emerged, notably Cuff Me! And Spank! The Musical, as well as countless smaller productions that have flown under the radar. Less common, but certainly just as much of a concern, are authorized musicals, which enjoy legal protections and tend to have larger budgets. Such is the case with the Back to the Future musical set to premiere at London’s West End later this year. As to that, the UNAUTHORIZED! producers are focusing on their own future, and hope the BttF producers check out their February opening.

“There’s something really special here,” says Mercy, “and we think they’d love it.”

Photos by Carol Rosegg and UNAUTHORIZED! Productions.

Alex Estrada is a sketch comedy writer at UCB and the PIT. You can read his passive-aggressive tweets@thealexestrada. He’s also licensed to practice law in three states, but he doesn’t like to talk about that.

0 Comments

Country music reclaimed its traditional soul with the chart-topping triumph of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack. This concert sequel, recorded (and filmed) at Nashville's venerable Ryman Auditorium, reunites Emmylou Harris, Gillian Welch, Alison Krauss and Union Station, and other O Brother standouts. With little duplication, the selection extends the movie's revival of acoustic spirituals and Appalachian balladry, though the performances and pacing of the concert aren't quite as consistently compelling as the studio soundtrack. Among the highlights are a pair of originals by Welch and David Rawlings, the bluesy "Dear Someone" and the Everlyesque "I Want to Sing That Rock and Roll." Where O Brother interspersed archival recordings among the contemporary artistry, the concert finds Nashville gospel's Fairfield Four harmonizing on the chain-gang chant of "Po' Lazarus," while the late John Hartford (in one of his final performances) renews the deadpan whimsy of "Big Rock Candy Mountain." --Don McLeeseRecorded at Nashville's historic Ryman Theater as a sort of a musical wrap party for the Coen Brothers' 2000 film O Brother Where Art Thou, this album offers live versions of several of the traditional American folk songs featured in the film, with a few additions along the same vein. Sounding almost like an all-traditional country episode of "A Prairie Home Companion," the guests (including Alison Krauss, Dan Tyminski, the Whites, the Fairfield Four, and the Cox Family, among others) amiably exchange songs on-stage, reveling in the atmosphere of warm country, bluegrass, and blues music. Highlights include two non-traditional tracks from Gillian Welch and David Rawlings, whose earthy compositions fit in seamlessly with the time-honored traditional songs, and Emmylou Harris' contribution "Green Pastures" (which originally appeared on Roses in the Snow, her own Americana revival album from some 20 years earlier). Highlights include hometown favorites the Fairfield Four hair-raising rendition of the work song/spiritual "Po' Lazarus." Of particular note is fiddler and folklorist John Hartford's cheery rendition of the hobo fantasy "Big Rock Candy Mountain," which proved to be his last recorded performance before his death nearly a year later. The concert is recorded so well that it is occasionally surprising to hear applause at the end of the songs; the performances are so nearly flawless it is easy to forget that this was a live recording. Fans of traditional American folk music and those who have enjoyed the O Brother soundtrack will not be disappointed. (Allmusic)trax:

Arthur Aron lleva 40 años estudiando el amor. Y no sólo el amor: también la amistad, la intimidad y todo lo que ayuda a reforzar las relaciones personales. De hecho, este profesor de la Universidad de Stony Brook (Nueva York) es el autor de las 36 preguntas que utilizó la escritora Mandy Len Catron para enamorarse, tal y como explicó en The New York Times en un artículo que ha sido un éxito viral en internet en las últimas semanas (aquí, traducido por Verne). Pero lo cierto es que el cuestionario no estaba diseñado para eso, tal y como nos explica Aron en una conversación telefónica sobre estas preguntas, en la que también nos da algunos consejos para que nos vaya bien con nuestras parejas y nos recuerda la importancia de mirarnos a los ojos.

¿Qué le pareció el artículo de Mandy Len Catron?

Fue una sorpresa. Cuando lo vi, revisé mi bandeja de entrada para ver si había hablado con ella, porque no lo recordaba, y vi un mail suyo en el que me pedía el estudio original. Sin duda alguna, lo leyó. Este trabajo había recibido alguna atención a lo largo de estos años, pero nada comparable a lo que ocurrió cuando se publicó el artículo. Es una pieza muy bien escrita y narra una historia muy bonita. No es errónea, pero hay que decir que no escribimos esas preguntas para ayudar a que la gente se enamorara.

El objetivo de estas preguntas era generar intimidad en el laboratorio. ¿Han sido útiles como herramienta para otros estudios?

Sí, han sido muy útiles y se han usado en centenares de estudios. Hay que tener en cuenta que no las desarrollamos como un estudio en sí mismo, sino como un procedimiento de investigación que permitiera crear en el laboratorio una conexión temporal entre personas que no se conocían de nada.

La idea era aprovechar lo que conocíamos en ese momento acerca de cómo se desarrolla la amistad. Por ejemplo, el hecho de que las dos personas se abren gradualmente. Por eso las preguntas comienzan centradas en cuestiones triviales para ir pasando a asuntos más íntimos a lo largo de 45 minutos. Otro aspecto que recoge el cuestionario es la importancia de tener algo en común con la otra persona. También incluye la idea de que uno ha de sentir que le gusta al otro. Intentamos incluir todo este conocimiento en el cuestionario para crear un sentimiento de cercanía en el menor tiempo posible.

¿Para qué se ha utilizado el cuestionario?

Se ha usado para medir cómo las hormonas y los neurotransmisores se ven afectados por la intimidad y la cercanía. También y sobre todo, para estudiar los prejuicios y las relaciones entre grupos. Por ejemplo, se sabe que si tenemos amigos en otro grupo social, mostramos una actitud más positiva hacia ese grupo. En su momento no se tenía claro si tenemos menos prejuicios porque conocemos a gente de otros ámbitos o, al revés, hacemos esos amigos porque tenemos menos prejuicios.

Para comprobarlo, ha habido estudios en los que diferentes personas respondían al cuestionario por parejas. En algunos casos, se trataba de personas de diferente raza y en todos, se medían los prejuicios tanto antes como después de la prueba. Quienes respondían al cuestionario junto con personas de otra raza mostraban menos prejuicios al terminar el experimento.

El cuestionario también se ha usado con dos parejas y no sólo con dos personas. Este estudio es realmente interesante y se ha replicado en varias ocasiones. Sirve para explicar por qué las parejas que tienen otras parejas como amigos a menudo son más felices en su relación. De nuevo, la clave era averiguar cuál era la causa y cuál el efecto. El cuestionario sirvió para aclarar que la mayor intimidad con otras personas ayuda a desarrollar un amor más pasional hacia la propia pareja. Y también es una forma muy divertida de pasar una velada.

Entonces, ¿ha usado el cuestionario como pasatiempo?

Sí, durante una cena con otro matrimonio que ya conocíamos, pero no demasiado bien. Pasamos una velada muy agradable.

¿Recomienda usar el cuestionario con amigos y con la pareja?

Sobre todo con gente con la que no hay una amistad muy estrecha. También podría ayudar a profundizar una relación existente, pero no está diseñado para eso. Esto estaría en línea con lo que dicen otras investigaciones, que apuntan a que las parejas son más felices si comparten a menudo información personal. Abrirse y explicar asuntos íntimos también ayuda a afianzar la amistad.

¿Las podríamos usar en otros ámbitos, como el trabajo, por ejemplo?

Sí. De hecho, cuando desarrollamos esta técnica en 1997, la probamos con los asistentes a una conferencia, separándolos a todos por parejas. En clase lo hago continuamente: separo a los estudiantes de forma aleatoria (¡no quiero crear romances!) para que contesten las preguntas, y durante la clase siguiente hablamos sobre el cuestionario y sus implicaciones.

Mandy Len Catron habla en su artículo de que hay que terminar el cuestionario mirándose a los ojos durante cuatro minutos, pero esto no estaba publicado en el estudio original.

No formaba parte del estudio, pero tampoco se lo inventó: sí estaba incluido en una versión anterior sobre cómo se desarrollan los sentimientos románticos. Aunque eran tres minutos. Esa idea vino de una investigación de Zick Rubin, que comprobó que las parejas que decían estar más intensamente enamoradas también pasaban más tiempo mirándose a los ojos.

De esta versión anterior del estudio salió una pareja, que acabó casándose. Para este trabajo sí que buscamos a participantes heterosexuales de sexo opuesto y edad similar. El cuestionario, que era más breve, incluía algunas preguntas diferentes. Por ejemplo, se les pedía que imaginaran que participaban en una obra de teatro y que tenían que decir “te quiero” a su compañero o compañera.

¿El amor se puede buscar de forma consciente, como apunta Catron en su artículo?

Es una buena pregunta, pero realmente no lo sabemos. Nuestra imagen idealizada del amor sugiere que es más bien algo que nos ocurre, pero eso no quiere decir que no podamos elegirlo. Por ejemplo, hay matrimonios concertados que explican que han desarrollado un unos sentimientos muy románticos. Se trata de parejas en las que ha habido cierto margen de elección antes de la boda, además de encuentros previos, y eso podría apuntar que hay alguna capacidad de decisión a la hora de enamorarse. Es una idea interesante, pero difícil de probar. Si planteáramos un experimento sugiriendo que el resultado podría ser que los participantes se enamoraran, sería muy difícil que hubiera predisposición real.

En todo caso, sí que podemos elegir conscientemente profundizar y reforzar una relación que ya existe. Y también sabemos que hay circunstancias que pueden ayudar a que se cree atracción romántica, como el miedo o la tensión.

¿Resulta complicado estudiar temas como el amor o la amistad?

Sí, es difícil, pero por eso lo hago. La psicología social consiste en escoger un tema que aparentemente no se puede estudiar científicamente y dedicarte a él durante años. En gran parte, las 36 preguntas salieron de esta necesidad de controlar algo tan complejo como la amistad, y ayudar así a que los estudios fueran más rigurosos. Hoy en día contamos también con otras herramientas en este sentido, como las resonancias magnéticas del cerebro.

Usted lleva 40 años casado con la también doctora en psicología Elaine Aron. ¿Cree que estudiar estos temas le ha ayudado en su matrimonio?

Sin duda. Nuestra relación nos da ideas para investigar y al revés, nuestra investigación nos ayuda en nuestra relación.

Entonces, ¿es buena idea leer lo que dice la ciencia acerca del amor para que nos vaya mejor con nuestra pareja?

Desde luego. Además, hay que tener en cuenta que las relaciones de pareja están influidas principalmente por cuatro o cinco factores. Uno de los más importantes y sobre el que tenemos más control somos nosotros mismos. Si pasamos por una depresión, sentimos ansiedad o nos mostramos inseguros, es más probable que nuestra relación también pase por un mal momento. Hay que hacer algo para arreglarlo; por ejemplo, acudir a terapia.

Las relaciones también se ven afectadas por el estrés, sobre el que tenemos menos control. Por ejemplo, en el caso de vivir en una zona de guerra.

También se ven influidas por lo que piensan amigos y familiares sobre nuestra pareja. Esto es algo a lo que damos poca importancia en occidente, pero cuando se tienen hijos, la familia pasa a tener mucho peso.

Hay factores positivos que influyen en la relación. Por ejemplo, es importante hacer en pareja cosas nuevas y que supongan un reto al menos una vez a la semana. Hay que recordar que al principio, todo lo que va encaminado a afianzar una relación es nuevo y excitante, pero se corre el riesgo de caer en rutinas. Emprender actividades novedosas nos ayuda a reconstruir esta sensación de los primeros días.

Otro factor importante es la capitalización. Si tu pareja tiene éxito, celebradlo juntos. Celebrar los éxitos de la pareja tiene más efectos positivos para la relación que apoyarla en los momentos bajos.

Uno de mis ejemplos favoritos es personal: mi esposa había enviado un estudio a una revista muy prestigiosa y era muy difícil que llegara a publicarse. Ella estaba fuera de casa y yo recibí el correo electrónico en el que el director no sólo le decía que lo iban a publicar, sino que además le había encantado. Imprimí ese correo electrónico a tamaño póster, lo enmarqué y lo colgué en la puerta, por fuera, para que lo viera nada más llegar. Fue algo estupendo.

1. I think it’s the eating dinner alone thing. Sure, I don’t have to eat dinner alone. I could technically always find a friend to eat with. But sometimes after being busy at work all day, maybe going to a happy hour or stopping by at the gym, it’d be nice to come home afterwards and have dinner with your significant other. Adam, 26

2. Weddings. Yes, it’s cliché but it’s cliché for a reason. It absolutely sucks having to go to weddings continuously by yourself or scrambling for a date every time. It’ll be nice to have a certain date to a plus one event. Cynthia, 24

3. Sometimes you just want to know that you have someone and they are all yours. I guess that’s the difference between a friend and a boyfriend. Your friend is not just yours, but your boyfriend is all yours. It’s just nice, you know? Lexa, 22

4. You know I was actually thinking about this the other day. After a certain age it becomes nice to have someone you want to tell good news to that isn’t your mom, or sibling or good friend. All those people matter but the other day I got some fantastic news and I just really wished I had a girlfriend to tell. Mark, 27

5. Someone to dance with. I know that’s lame and there are lots of people to dance with, in theory. But every time I go out with my friends, it’s just this feeling of something missing seeing how all the couples just easily latch on to each other. And you’re there trying to see who’s around you and not look lonesome. Afon, 25

6. I love to cook, I make dinner almost every single night. But it get’s pretty lonely always cooking for one. It’s weird but that’s always the time I realize how much I don’t want this to last forever – when I’m cooking and realize I have no one to cook for. Louise, 26

7. I would say the one thing that really sucks about being single is just not being in love. Being in love is awesome. Sure, it sucks sometimes too because you have obligations and love always hurts somehow. But still, I’ve been in love and I’d give anything to be in love again. Angel, 25

8. Having someone who is there for you. I mean if you’re lucky you might have one or two good friends like that, and your family of course. But usually no one lives close to their family after a certain age. When you’re single, you’re pretty much all you’ve got. And it can be very tiring to always be there for yourself. Ndu, 24

9. I think the one thing that sucks about being single is just not always having that physical affection and intimacy with someone that most of us need. I mean sure you can kiss and have sex with a bunch of strangers in a meaningless way but sometimes that ends up being worse than accepting you’re alone. But yeah, sometimes you just want to kiss someone who feels the same way you do about them. Ryan, 26

10. For me the biggest thing is just watching how shitty many couples treat each other, and knowing that you would never do that. I see it all the time. Sometimes I just want to ask couples I’m around, “Do you guys even like each other?” And it’s knowing that you would never want to treat someone you love in such a terrible way. But there are people who have someone who do that. It just feels really unfair. Emily, 25

11. I think the suckiest part is sometimes feeling like you’re not good enough to be loved. Yes, we all hear the usual, “love your self first,” and all the rest. But really, what if I do love myself? What if I’m doing everything right, and I’ve been waiting forever, and nothing is happening. What then? Am I just going to have to settle or die alone? Why are those the only options? Neo, 27

12. More than anything else, I just hate falling asleep alone. Maybe it’s the artist in me but nighttime is such a lonely time. I stay up and tire myself out just so I don’t have to think about the fact that I’m alone every night. Marca, 24

13. The one thing that sucks about being single is feeling a little bit like you’re in waiting. No matter how much you enjoy your life, it always feels like you’re waiting for something to happen. You have control over almost every other part of your life. But you can’t control whether someone is going to love you back. Ted, 26

14. This is lame but I definitely think just feeling like you have to justify it to people. The constant, “Why are you single?” doesn’t help me or anyone else. I don’t know why I’m single. I think I’m a decent person, reasonably attractive, have a good life. I put myself out there, I go out with friends, I think I’m alright. But here I am still single and I’m okay with it for the most part. But then someone asks why or something, and all of a sudden I find myself justifying it just to show that there’s nothing wrong with me. Or maybe I justify it in a way that they can then determine what’s wrong with me. But no one seems to understand or accept that I and maybe other people might just be single for no reason at all. We’re just single. Raul, 28

15. I think at the end of the day, most of us want love in that way. And when you’re single, you don’t have it. No matter how much love you have, you don’t have that kind of love. And that sucks. No matter how much you love being single, if being crazy in love with someone who loves you just as much was an option, I think we’d all choose it. Meg, 26

16. Nothing worse than constantly being asked, “Why are you single?” I know that people think they’re being encouraging but really, it is a tiring question that nobody wants to answer. Being single isn’t sucky itself, it’s how the general population reacts to you that sucks sometimes. Lee, 27

17. Driving yourself crazy trying to find someone and then maybe giving up hope from time to time. There’s always a clusterfuck of emotions that you can go through in one day. And for the most part, you don’t go through these emotions, you’re fine. Then one night you just breakdown and cry because you’re so tired of being alone. But you wake up the next day and act like nothing happened. And you’re fine. But yesterday you cried and nobody knows it happened. Gia, 25 

---

For more good stuff from Kovie Biakolo, follow her Facebook Page:

---

Taking the steering wheel of your own life can be pretty terrifying and messy and uncertain, but here are some reasons why it can also be pretty awesome:

1. You’re getting smarter. Literally.

2. Your body stops surprising you.

3. You begin to understand your parents better.

4. You begin to understand yourself better.

5. You start eating things you used to hate (i.e. food that is green).

6. You learn to adapt to change.

7. You control your time (which means no curfew).

8. You control your wallet (which means too much Starbucks).

9. You learn how to be intentional in keeping up with the people you care about.

10. You meet new people too.

11. You realize the world doesn’t revolve around you.

12. You also realize how much you actually don’t know.

13. And because of this, you become more open-minded and humble.

14. You learn the difference between crushing on someone, lusting after someone, and loving someone.

15. You learn to see people for who they really are (yourself included).

16. You learn to accept people for who they really are (yourself included).

17. You have a better measure of which problems are small and which are big. In other words, a bad hair day is not the end of the world.

18. You gain social skills.

19. You discover your passions.

20. You learn to take care of others.

21. You fall 1000 times, get up 1001.

“Stare at blank screen, try not to cry.”

Jon Adams / BuzzFeed

***

Jon Adams is an illustrator, designer, and writer living in San Francisco with his wife and their shrimp. He's made things for MTV, Wired, Netflix, McSweeney's, lots of comic book publishers, and himself. Twitter him.

What Music Do People at a Porn Convention Enjoy?

"What does a scientific mind do in the arts?" asks Scott McCloud in a TED talk that has been viewed almost 800,000 times.

His answer? Make comic books about comic books.

In 1994, McCloud wrote a book called Understanding Comics, a game-changing publication that broke down theories of cartooning for popular audiences. Following that success, McCloud published two more books, Reinventing Comics and Making Comics, that offered further thoughtful analyses of cartooning.

Though there are plenty of academic tomes published about comics today, in the early '90s, comic writers didn't enjoy much academic respect. McCloud's deconstruction of comics could have made him an outlier — but his industry took notice. McCloud has been nominated for over a dozen Eisner Awards, winning one, and won a handful of Harvey Awards.

His first task in Understanding Comics was to define the medium, which he did, like this: "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or produce an aesthetic response in the reader."

It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, as McCloud admits, but he wanted to give a precise, almost scientific definition of what Will Eisner termed "sequential art."

McCloud's definition was, in some sense, idealistic, as Dylan Horrocks noted in Comics Journal.

By saying, ‘This is comics,' Scott is really saying: ‘This is what comics should be; it is what we should value most about them.' On the other hand, he's also saying what comics should not be, and, by implication, what we should value less about them.

To define something is to give it a boundary; to enclose it. What McCloud was trying to do, on the other hand, was to open up the form of comics, to free it from the limited way it was often understood by readers. "I wasn't so much defining comics," says McCloud, "as un-defining comics."

But he didn't stop with his (un)definition. He analyzed the space in between panels, called the "gutter." He pieced together an elaborate history of comics. He theorized about why humans are drawn to simply sketched cartoon faces. In short, he dissected comics with both the eye of a scientist and the heart of an illustrator.

His newest book bears out his twin love of cartooning and theorizing.

The Sculptor is essentially a modern take on the old Faustian bargain. David Smith, the story's protagonist, is a talented sculptor, but like many other artists in New York City, he's not achieving the level of recognition he desires. So what does he do? He makes a deal with Death: in exchange for his life, David receives the ability to sculpt with his bare hands. But will he be able to find fame before his 200 days come to an end? The story is even further complicated when a love interest captures David's heart.

While the fairy tale logic upholding the book's central action may seem other-worldly, the point of the story is to help readers better navigate this world. Comic books, says McCloud, "provide people with multiple ways of re-entering the world through different windows, which allows people to triangulate the world and see its shape."

McCloud is one of the most innovative and creative minds working in comics today. His '80s book Zot remains a classic. He's the brain behind both the Bill of Rights for Comics Creators, as well as the 24-Hour Comic. And The Sculptor, which is out in February, will no doubt satisfy his old fans and win him plenty of new ones.

I recently caught up with McCloud over the phone to talk with him about his latest book and some of his cartoon theory. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Brandon Ambrosino: How did you get into comics?

Scott McCloud: I think if there's one word, it would be: control. I'm a control freak. I'm a little obsessive compulsive. I liked the idea of being able to create a world that's all mine, in which I was able to control every aspect of creation. Movie directors, no matter how much clout they may have, still have to rely on the visions of hundreds and sometimes thousands of others. It's very exciting to create the whole thing from scratch.

My father was an engineer, so I was sort of oriented in that direction. At first, my becoming an artist — you know, I seemed to be drifting very much from that tradition. But in a lot of ways, I became very much like an engineer, a problem-solver. And for many years, that was a lot of my work: tinkering, experimenting, trying out new ideas. Then something changed with my latest project. I became interested in telling a story where the medium was transparent, where people think about the story, but forget the means by which it was being told.

BA: You spend time in Understanding Comics defining comics. How would you define the term?

SM: My definition is a bit verbose in the book, but in casual conversation I usually just describe it as: putting one picture after another to tell a story. That's the essence of it for me.

But in some ways, I wasn't so much trying to define comics as to undefine comics. That is, to me "comics" had a definition of consensus that was holding it back. People seemed to think that in order to be a comic, it had to have two staples, two sloppy, bright covers, funny animals. It's somehow defined by content, and I wanted a definition that was more content-neutral. So in many ways, I was trying to dismantle previous barriers and set up new ones.

BA: How far back do you believe comics date?

SM: When we talk about comics history, we sometimes talk about its connected history — the continuous one where you can really see the causal change. But there's no causal link that takes you from the tomb of Menna the Scribe in ancient Egypt, to Trajan's Column, to the Bayeux Tapestry. These are obviously unconnected historical events. But I would say that these were people discovering on their own a basic form of communication that has its own aesthetic identity. Sequential art as a storytelling medium is something different civilizations have discovered.

As far as a history where you can see the connections: that really goes back even further than 20th-century historical comics. Back to Rudolphe Töpffer, who was making something a lot like modern comics in the 1800s. Even European Broadsheets, if you give them a fair look, were using pretty much everything we associate with the comics form as early as the 1500s. And there was some connection there. Those broadsheets did influence people like William Hogarth, who was also working with sequential art. Hogarth no doubt influenced Töpffer, who then influenced British humor magazines, which influenced American comics.

BA: Why do you think humans are so fascinated by cartoons?

SM: First, we have to disentangle "cartoon" from other things. You use the word and many people think you're referring to animated cartoon, which we call "cartoons" for short. That's one of its definitions.

But when I use it, I mean it as not only a way of drawing, but a way of seeing. A way of rendering the world, a way of simplifying the world, but amplifying its meaning at same time. There's a tremendous power to those very simple forms. Those simple renditions of faces — from Charlie Brown and Bart Simpson to Mickey Mouse — seem to have a peculiar power to suck us in, to encourage us to see ourselves in their eyes, and inhabit their identities. To encourage us to exist in a virtual space.

These are, in some ways, the original avatars: they're these identities we step into like masks, and they exist somewhere in a realm between experience and language.

BA: Why do you think panels are so important to comics?

SM: We often talk about the collaboration between the artist and his or her audience. And in comics, that collaboration has a kind of call-and-response rhythm, where the artist gives you something to imagine between the panels.

We depend on the audience to connect the those static images, to see them as a continuous whole, to imagine movement or change in that gap. That gap is called the gutter. That was the term before I came along. It's used by professional cartoonists to describe that narrow space — usually about a quarter of an inch wide — between panels. But I liked the metaphor, so I got to play with that a little.

BA: So you see this reading-between-panels as something that all of us do on a regular basis? You call it closure.

SM: Closure is that human predisposition to take something incomplete and complete it successfully, to stitch a continuous world from one that perceptually speaking, is always just fragments. And there are a dizzying numbers of examples. You and I here on a phone call are creating continuous whole human beings from a mere voice. I stand here in this room, but I create the world outside from an act of faith, though I have no proof it's there. Many children have that fantasy that every time they turn a corner that everything they no longer see is just being rolled up, put away. How would they know? And that act of faith is the thing that propels not only this art form, but many art forms.

BA: Let's talk about your new book. The essence of the story is basically: man makes a deal with death. This Faustian theme is deeply embedded throughout works of world literature. Why do you think it's so enduring?

SM: Maybe the common denominator, whether its death or the devil, is this: what's right in front of us can seem so huge, can seem so important to us in present day. But when the dust settles, our priorities change, and what seemed important can then seem small and insignificant in the face of mortality or the afterlife, if you believe in that sort of thing.

The biggest change in this story was, it's written by an atheist. So it's the absence of the afterlife that sets the stage. Here, it's more a matter of what counts in this life as we head toward oblivion. That's a slightly different story, but certainly has similar resonances.

BA: But the characters aren't atheists, right?

SM: [My wife] Ivy's Jewish and that's why [the character] Meg is Jewish. If Ivy had been Scandinavian, then Meg would have been Scandinavian. But I'm glad my principal characters are Jewish, or, in David's case, half-Jewish.

To be Jewish in New York is often to be secular — not always, but, you know, it's a particular kind of secularism. A kind in which old religion is still in the wallpaper. It's still nearby. It still acts as a ground to the figure of one's daily life. It's just an accident of my own life circumstances that it became a big part of this story. But I like it because — I don't know? — it reaches back into history. And the history of our conception of an afterlife, or our notions of what this life is for, need to be part of the story, if only covertly, if only deep under the ground.

For some reason, the Jewish faith, or the lack of faith among people of the Jewish faith — like so many of what Meg calls "house special lo mein Jews" — just felt very familiar.  I grew up with in Lexington, Massachusetts, and many of my friends, and all of my girlfriends were secular Jews. So that felt like home to me. I might be one-eighth Jewish, but I grew up a goy. I was a Christian for a few years, but really pretty quickly became an agnostic. These days I just call myself an atheist, because … why bother?

The Sculptor is a kind of atheist folktale. When I first described the idea to the editor, I said I thought it was almost as an atheist manifesto. He wisely counseled me against that, even as another artist friend was urging me to do exactly that. I think my editor said it's much more interesting to the story if that stuff lays under surface.

BA: Also, allowing the atheism to bubble under the surface makes your book more accessible to readers of all faiths.

SM: You know, I'm not afraid of offending people who are faithful. But the way we interact with a story is far more interesting if we bring our own beliefs to that story, and they become entangled, rather than pushed away. It's an aesthetic thing rather than diplomacy. If I thought the book would have been better as an aesthetic work to be more overt, I'd have done it. There's no mistaking me for anything but an atheist.

BA: There's a tension in this book between the business of art and art proper. David wants to create work that he's proud of, but he also needs to deal with the bureaucracy of his industry.

SM: You've got art as art, and art as recognition. The business end of it is just a means to an end for David. He sees this one narrow passageway as the only possible means by which his name might stay in circulation. The official imprimatur of the art world seems to him to always proceed that act of institutional memory. He doesn't see any shortcuts for much of the story. He has to go through the gatekeepers or else he's doomed to be forgotten.

It's important to note that this is not a story about someone who yearns to be remembered. It's a story of someone who is terrified of being forgotten. There's a slight difference here. In David's case, it's an animal need, something fundamental to his nature. Something he can't shut off. It's not something he decided he wants — it's something his whole body needs.

BA: There's something very important about the name David Smith in your story. David shares a name with a very famous artist, which really seems to stress him out, because the other David has the fame that your David doesn't. Where did that idea come from?

SM: I actually had a teacher at Syracuse, a painter, whose name was David Smith. He was the first person I knew in the art world who was indeed another David Smith. This may have lodged that idea in my head of having a main character share the name of a famous artist. In the case of my character, it's an actual sculptor, making it far, far worse. At least my teacher could call himself David Smith The Painter. But to call yourself David Smith The Sculptor only conjures up one person — and that person is dead and more famous and more significant in his world than a sculptor could ever hope to be.

I liked the fact that the shared name helped connect David's plight with the plight of the vast majority of artists all over the world who toil in obscurity, and whatever their brief moments in the spotlight, probably die in obscurity. That's the great mass of humanity. If I can be a bit of an aesthetic Howard Zinn: What about everybody else? What about the other 99.9 percent of people who have a dream of doing something significant and who the world never recognizes? It's not just Shakespeare and Bach out there — that's the exception. But are the other people's dreams any less moving? Are their hopes for lasting value not worth celebrating?

Maybe i'm just Salieri here. Maybe I'm just putting in my bit to be the new patron saint of the mediocre. But I have a lot of compassion for those who paint or draw, or make comics, or their little movies, or make their record albums and put them up on the web for 10 people to listen to. And it's just all forgotten like ... old piles of photographs of people who no one knows anymore sitting in storage units or at the bottoms of landfills. It sounds hideously depressing, but there's also something to celebrate there.

Continuing to create in the face of futility is a heroic act. That's something I wanted to celebrate. You know, it's just 6 billion plants turning to the sunlight.

The Sculptor is available from First Second Books on February 3, 2015.

Correction: This article originally stated that McCloud had won dozens of Eisners, instead of just being nominated for dozens. It has been updated.

People don't buy music anymore. There's no point.

Why buy the Ariana Grande album when you can stream it on Spotify? Why pay for the new Sleater-Kinney release when it's online on NPR's First Listen before it comes out? Unless a person firmly believes in supporting the arts and musicians, there's really not much of a reason to pay for music, because it is everywhere. For free.

Nothing makes this point more clearly than the Nielsen report on music for 2014, which looks at music sales, listening, and artist impact for the calendar year of 2014. The report explains that sales for the year are down in every category except vinyl and streaming.

But that doesn't mean the music industry is dying.

Sales in 2014 were down across the board

It's not just CDs. Purchases of music in the form of digital albums and digital singles were also down across the board in 2014.

"Music fans continue to consume music through on-demand streaming services at record levels, helping to offset some of the weakness that we see in sales," David Bakula, SVP Industry Insights for Nielsen, states in the report.

Bakula is right, streaming seems to be the way of the future. 164 billion songs were played on-demand via streaming in 2014, that's up 54 percent from 2013. But consuming music and purchasing music are two totally different ballgames. We don't hear the head of Nielsen proclaiming the value of piracy to the music community, because that doesn't make a profit for the industry. The way we buy music is changing, and purchases of music are what matter to the future of the industry:

revenue in the music industry broken down by year (Digital Music News)

The only two sectors of purchasing that were up in 2014 were streaming and vinyl. Streaming is currently the topic of a hot debate within the industry. Artists feel like they aren't being paid well by streaming, and Taylor Swift even pulled out of Spotify this year. There are two cases currently before the Department of Justice about the revenue from streaming. No one — not artists or labels or publishers or songwriters — can agree on whether streaming is good or bad for them.

And vinyl? Vinyl isn't the future of music. It's the past.

Vinyl is a niche market, not a sales model

"The continued expansion of digital music consumption is encouraging, as is the continued record-setting growth that we are seeing in vinyl LP sales," Bakula said in the report. But should the rise of vinyl really be encouraging to a market that has lost its sales identity?

Vinyl's sales rose 52 percent in 2014, according to the Nielsen Music Report, but the format's total contribution to the market is miniscule. Some people will point to the rising vinyl market as a sign of music's vitality. But the return of vinyl isn't a way to save the music industry, and it certainly isn't the dominant way that people are consuming music. Here's a chart of vinyl's sales since the 70s.

Sales of vinyl music from 1973 to 2014 (Digital Music News ) [h/t Derek Thompson]

Like books, DVDs, and comics, vinyl is a form of physical media that's seeing a resurgence in popularity as physical media becomes a novelty good — something collectors can stockpile and appreciate. The problem with vinyl — in addition to not sounding as clean as digital music — is that it's not transportable.

Listeners can't enjoy vinyl records at work or in the car, which severely cuts down the amount of time that people can consume music. What that means is that while vinyl sales may be growing, they will have an inevitable cap point.

At no point will Americans return to vinyl completely, which means that even if every American bought a record player today and spent the same amount of money they used to spend on CDs on vinyl, they would still be listening to music online through streaming platforms frequently.

People are still listening to music; there's just no clear path for the money.

Music listeners around the world haven't stopped listening to music just because there are infinite other forms of media to consume.

According to the Nielsen report, 93 percent of Americans spend more than 25 hours each week listening to music. That's more than half of a full-time work week spent consuming music. (This was the first time research has been conducted on American's listening habits.) This makes sense when you think about the number of hours Americans spend in the office or on their daily commute.

Listeners streamed over 164 billion songs on-demand in 2014. The conversation around streaming's place in the future of music is often considered part of a doomsday narrative. Digital music can be accessed immediately, listened to for very cheaply, and shared with the click of a button. How the industry chooses to move forward in this new world will determine the stability of the market in 20 years.

But one thing's for certain: even if the market stabilizes completely, vinyl is never going to be the dominant way consumers listen to music. It's too limited. The future is online. Somewhere.

by Adam Frucci

The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that Paul Feig's upcoming Ghostbusters reboot has its cast: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones, and Kate McKinnon. Negotiations are still ongoing, but it appears that this is pretty close to a done deal, with shooting scheduled to take place this summer in New York.

While McCarthy and Wiig were heavily rumored to be in the cast, other names such as Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence were being thrown around as well. As for the vibe of the movie, which is being written by The Heat writer Katie Dippold, Feig has said that he wants it to be "really scary." We'll see! If it actually shoots this summer, it should be out sometime next year.

0 Comments

Video games are more popular than they've ever been, but somewhere along the way we lost something: mascots, to be specific. Once upon a time, every franchise worth its salt had an anthropomorphic rodent or high-jumping plumber on the box, a far cry from today's landscape of grim men with scars and swords and guns.

The video game mascots many of us grew up with were intrinsically tied to platformers, and it's been nearly 20 years since that genre was dominant, though several of the best-selling games of all time, like Super Mario Bros. 3, are from that 1985–1996 period. Back then, children were the biggest market in gaming, so it only made sense to develop characters that aped Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse. Developers searching for their piece of the pie looked to Super Mario Bros. as a replicable template, which led to the explosion of the platform genre and the accompanying mascots.

Platformers are defined by the gameplay mechanics of precision-based jumping and navigating obstacles between point A and point B, as well as a cartoonish aesthetic. When the industry began trending away from 2-D sprite-based graphics toward realistic 3-D polygonal models around '96, side-scrolling platformers became essentially irrelevant.

The platform mascots' jump to 3-D, as it turned out, was perilous. Many that flourished in the eight- and 16-bit eras didn't quite make it. Some faded away, some made sidesteps and found success elsewhere, and others died of humiliation. Now that it's been nearly 20 years since that fateful transitional period, I thought it'd be a good idea to take a look at the most notable platformer mascots to see how they fared.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/krDHT0xTqlY' width='640' height='480']

MARIO
Peak game: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii, 2010)

Mario is the undisputed platform alpha. The Super Mario franchise invented the platformer, then reinvented the platformer in 3-D with the crucial, clutch Super Mario 64 in 1996. His level of consistency and success is sometimes overlooked, but it's clear that the character and series is unparalleled and peerless. There's never been any real misstep in the series, and most of the games are all-time classics. He's also the consummate brand mascot and acts as the head of an empire. His protégés, Yoshi, Wario, and Luigi, have each had successful platform series of their own, and when Mario headlines a non-platform series—Mario Kart, Paper Mario, Mario Party, etc.—it's an indication that it will be reliably solid.

The only downside to Mario is his stupid voice, his insufferable face, and his complete lack of appealing personality traits. Maybe someday he can relax the Mickey Mouse schtick and be his true self: a self-medicating maintenance man who knows how to get some air on his jumps.

Mario, like rock 'n' roll, Saturday Night Live, or action movie stars, has had his fade from glory prematurely predicted many times, and each time he seems to come back as youthful and powerful as ever. Although fewer people pay attention to Mario than during the platform genre's heyday, the high-pitched toilet technician continues to raise the bar with each entry.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/XmTPzXGbNpE' width='420' height='315']

SONIC THE HEDGEHOG
Peak game: Sonic & Knuckles (Sega Genesis, 1994)

The 'tude, the 'tude! My God, but what will we possibly do with all this 'tude? Sonic the Hedgehog may be the Poochie of video game mascots, but goddamnit if kids didn't love him for it.

The genius of Sega's approach was to change the paradigm of how you evaluated the worth of a game: The way they framed the question, it wasn't about which games were better, but which were "cooler." Sonic directly challenged Mario's "coolness" as a character by being, essentially, an adventurous Mickey Mouse with a family-friendly amount of 90s irreverence. He was edgier (literally so, with those spikes on his back), he was faster, and his games used something called " blast processing" (not an actual thing).

The last of the 16-bit Sonic games, 1994's Sonic & Knuckles, remains the series high point, blending standard hop-and-bop platforming with the thrill of building momentum. On its own, the game's levels stand about equal to the other Genesis classics, but Sonic & Knuckles truly shines when "locked-on" with Sonic 3 to reveal the full experience the developers originally intended. After the 16-bit era closed, Sonic disappeared for the entire 32-bit generation, resurfacing five years later with the first proper 3-D Sonic game on the Sega Dreamcast, the uneven Sonic Adventure, and the franchise has remained messy and inconsistent since then with several very low points along the way.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/wd2NqblSmIY' width='640' height='480']

MEGA MAN
Peak game: Mega Man X (Super Nintendo, 1993)

This franchise always struck me as an almost blue-collar series, with a very workman-like attitude toward producing sequels. The original Mega Man series began in 1987 and spawned eight games in nine years, all of which were good and about the same level of quality, give or take. The games don't vary much, which is why the high points tend to be cited as Mega Man 2 and Mega Man X, two instances where substantial change did happen.

In addition to consistency, the series also was known for frequently frustrating difficulty ( as kids these days have learned), and the best video game music of the generation. Although the series found rejuvenation with 2008's retro-themed Mega Man 9 (and then 10 in 2010), creator Keiji Inafune's departure from Capcom in 2010 has left the character stranded, with no games releases since or any in development.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/rJXM4EPbPe0' width='640' height='480']

KIRBY
Peak game: Kirby's Adventure (NES, 1993)

Easily the cutest of the platform mascots, Kirby has mostly been resting on his good looks for most of his career. He started strong with two solid platformers in a row in 1992 and 1993, and then almost immediately went into coasting mode with remixes, spin-off games, and cameo appearances. In terms of gameplay, Kirby is sort of a cuter Mega Man; most of the games involve copying an enemy's weapon and adopting it as his own. Mega Man accomplishes this by defeating a boss and taking his weapon; Kirby swallows them and downloads them into his body. It's the most adorable eating disorder in gaming.

Kirby's Adventure remains the definitive Kirby experience, although a relatively recent revival, Kirby's Epic Yarn, received the most positive reviews for any Kirby game thus far.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/TZC3g-6R3a0' width='640' height='480']

DONKEY KONG
Peak game: Donkey Kong Country 2 (Super Nintendo, 1995)

As a character, Donkey Kong is pretty boring. He had more charisma in his original incarnation as a King Kong ripoff who threw barrels down construction sites. His rebooted personality featured such personality traits as "wears a tie" and "enjoys bananas." I don't even want to hear about Donkey Kong's weekend, much less go on an adventure with him, but when Donkey Kong Country debuted in 1994, the real star of the game was the then-impressive CG graphics.

Donkey Kong was such a boring guy that he was sidelined for the superior sequel in favor of his more personable sidekick Diddy Kong. In that game he gets kidnapped and Diddy, along with new sidekick, Dixie, heads off to rescue him. This became a trope, and in the third entry, Diddy is also kidnapped and unplayable along with Donkey. Donkey Kong Country remains the only platform series that insisted on benching the headliner for rookies.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/Z2lemj-MCaY' width='640' height='480']

CRASH BANDICOOT
Peak game: Crash Bandicoot: Warped (PlayStation, 1998)

Crash Bandicoot was like the Denis Leary of 90s platformer mascots: a shameless ripoff who relied on marketing. His character was a carbon copy of Sonic—an obscure mammal with an action-y name with cool accessories (jean shorts! skater shoes!) who fought an evil bald scientist. (The Crash gameplay, meanwhile, mostly consisted of watered-down versions of Nintendo concepts.) Still, Crash had an effective career, contributing to Sony's ascent to dominance with the original Playstation in the 32-bit era, but never broke any new ground.

The final effort from the original creative team at Naughty Dog was also Crash's best game. The four main series entries that have followed since have been various degrees of disappointing. After a few sequels and an obligatory kart racing game, Crash hasn't been seen since the Bush administration.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/6JvAqwl0RE8' width='420' height='315']

BUBSY
Peak game: The conception meeting, during which this probably seemed like a good idea (1992)

Bubsy was a schmuck. He was all 90s attitude, but too obnoxious, and with nothing else to offer beyond that. His first game came with a lot of pre-launch hype from an aggressive marketing blitz, but the game was, at best, "not the worst thing in the world." It would go downhill from there, as Bubsy's lasting legacy will be his hilariously failed jump to next gen with Bubsy 3D for the PlayStation in 1996. It has been widely panned as one of the worst games of all time, featuring atrocious visuals, completely broken mechanics, and absurdly torturous music.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/93osCGBFG2k' width='640' height='480']

EARTHWORM JIM
Peak game: Earthworm Jim (Sega Genesis/Super Nintendo, 1994)

Basically an outright parody of platform mascots, creator Doug TenNapel's Earthworm Jim is an ordinary earthworm who gained powers by having a super sci-fi space suit land on his head, then went on to battle his villains like Professor Monkey-for-a-head (he had a monkey for a head) and Queen Slug-for-a-butt (she had a slug for a butt). As far as video game humor goes, there's admittedly a low bar, Earthworm Jim was about as good as it got, on par with an average episode of Ren & Stimpy.

The game was an instant hit. The follow-up was equally well-received, but the next-gen attempt, Earthworm Jim 3D, was an unmitigated disaster that should've never seen the light of day.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/TlDYcXv9yM0' width='640' height='480']

SPARKSTER
Peak game: Rocket Knight Adventures (Sega Genesis, 1993)

"Who the fuck was Sparkster?"

Developed by Konami with some of the same development team behind the Contra series, Sparkster was an opossum knight with a sword and a jetpack who fought an army of robots and pigs, and as stupid as that sounds, his series of platformers were among the better ones of the 16-bit era. He was the only platformer mascot with a jetpack, which is a bit surprising considering this was the 90s, when dreams of jetpacks were rampant.

Like a lot of these mascots, he made an attempt to capitalize on nostalgia and return to gaming in 2010, but nobody cared.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/QDmyc0v13t0' width='640' height='480']

BANJO & KAZOOIE
Peak game: Banjo-Kazooie (Nintendo 64, 1998)

Banjo, like Donkey Kong, is a boring mascot. He's a bear and he goes on adventures. The bear mascots for toilet paper have more personality. What is notable about Banjo and his bird friend, Kazooie, is how they impacted the platform genre.

The original Banjo-Kazooie represents when the Rare-Nintendo partnership was one of the best gaming had seen. After Super Mario 64 invented the 3-D platformer and demonstrated how it's done, Rare's Banjo-Kazooie came along two years later in 1998 to take it to another level: The graphics, level concepts, art direction, puzzles—everything was a significant step up.

Rare had been responsible for a great number of exclusive hits on Nintendo systems in the mid-to-late 90s, starting with the Donkey Kong Country series on Super Nintendo, and including Goldeneye 007, Conker's Bad Fur Day, and others.

The Banjo sequel that followed was mostly good but, like Rare-developed games, suffered from bloat. There were too many side-quests, the stages were too large; it was a case of sometimes bigger is not necessarily better. By the time Rare released Donkey Kong 64 in 2000, it appeared the creativity had all but dried up for Rare. A few years later, Microsoft, which had just entered the video game hardware business, spent big money to snag Rare away from Nintendo, and like what happens when a desperate sports franchise overpaying for an aging free agent, the partnership was mostly fruitless.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/XpTPIXUOMzM' width='640' height='480']

RAYMAN
Peak game: Rayman 2: The Great Escape (1999, multiplatform)

Rayman is like the quiet kid of the platformer mascot class who could perhaps secretly have been the best of them all but, due to timing or circumstance, never quite found the attention he deserved. Part of the reason is that he looks stupid. He has a dumb, stupid face, and he doesn't have limbs. When I see Rayman, I think, I hate this thing, whatever it is.

But his games have always been critically acclaimed. Debuting in the 32-bit era, Ubisoft's Rayman series wisely stuck to platforming in 2-D rather than trying to make the concept work in 3-D. As a result, the series was massively underrated since gamers were more interested in 3-D games. 1999's Rayman 2: The Great Escape was regarded at the time as the finest sidescrolling platformer the genre had seen, with inventive direction and gorgeously clean graphics.

Humiliatingly, Rayman ended up taking a backseat to a spin-off, the Raving Rabbids party minigames, which have been far more commercially successful.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/g9upQVG0fdA' width='640' height='480']

COOL SPOT
Peak game: Cool Spot (Super Nintendo/Sega Genesis, 1993)

Branded content, baby! This is what we play for. The Academy may have ignored The Lego Movie, but on this list, corporate-sponsored mascots will get their due recognition.

The 7UP logo was here to not only have fun, but also to remind you to stay hydrated with refreshing, sugary beverages. His basketball high-tops and sunglasses seemed to say, "Oh yeah, this is one cool soft drink company!" Accordingly, Cool Spot's legacy as a platformer mascot remains the chillest asterisk.

In fact, there were many "adver-games" beyond 7UP's Spot games. Cheeto's had two Chester the Cheetah games; Domino's had two platformer games for their Noid mascot; McDonald's had a few platformer games, too, including Treasure Land Adventure, which at one point featured Ronald McDonald fighting an apple. If that's not art, then I don't know what is.

THE REST OF THEM

There were so many more platformer mascots in the 90s, and quite a lot of them were simply poor imitations of Sonic the Hedgehog. There's not much to say about characters like Rocky Rodent, Awesome Possum, Gex, and Aero the Acrobat, beyond the fact that they existed.

There was Boogerman and Conker in the category of "self-consciously edgy and humorous." Boogerman's joke was "lol boogers and farts." It was like the uncle who thinks he's a hit at the kids' table because he farts a lot. Similarly, the crux of Conker's Bad Fur Day was that he was a Rare-developed cute animal mascot who said "damn" and "shit" and "hookers"; in other words, a longer version of the movie Ted.

There were the underrated ones, like Ristar and Klonoa. Ristar was a cool game on Sega Genesis, but it never became a series. Klonoa was late to the party, debuting with a solid 2-D platformer on the PlayStation in 1997, and nobody really cared outside of Japan.

Recent additions to the category, like Sackboy from the Little Big Planet series on PlayStation, Ratchet and Clank, and Jak, are all fine platformer mascots, but they're part of a different generation. They're revivalists or throwbacks, like a young band trying to be the Rolling Stones.

Though mainstream gaming has moved away from platformers, developers—mostly on the indie side of things—are still making new ones, with titles like Super Meat Boy, Fez, Braid, and Spelunky leading the genre.

The old platformer mascots live on, though, in our nostalgia-soaked pop culture landscape, fan art, and, of course, the Super Smash Bros. franchise. Like bands that were once rivals teaming up to tour together, or The Expendables for old action stars, sometimes the best option is to stick together after the glory years are gone.

Illustration by Ashlyn Anstee.

Follow Grant Pardee on Twitter.

(Photo: Tampa Humane Society)

Someone in Tampa, Florida hit Bart the cat with a car. He was lying, apparently lifeless, in a pool of his own blood in the road when his owner, Ellis Hutson, found him. Hutson dug a hole and buried Bart. He and his family mourned the loss of Bart.

But Bart wasn't done yet. He had unfinished business.

5 days after he had been buried, Bart returned home, hungry, bloody, and dehydrated. Bart lost an eye, has deep lacerations, and a broken jaw. But he's alive.

How is Bart still alive? Hutson's neighbor, Dusty Albritton, has no idea:

“I saw him with my own eyes. I know he was dead. He was cold and stiff,” Albritton told ABC News. […]

“Now my kids believe their cat will also rise from the dead," she said with a chuckle. "But I told them I don't think so."

When she discovered the resurrected Bart, she said he acted “like he’s in no pain whatsoever.”

-via Ace of Spades HQ

Cargando...


Lo Diana Aller

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Melissa McCarthy has signed on to the cast of “Ghostbusters 3,” which is expected to feature all-female leads in the roles of the titular Ghostbusters, directed by Paul Feig.

Although they haven’t officially signed on yet, Kristen Wiig (who also collaborated with Feig and McCarthy in “Bridesmaids”) as well as current “SNL” cast members Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are expected to sign on. However, if this tweet by Feig is any indications, we can expect these ladies to strap on their proton packs and wielding their PKE meters for a prospective summer shoot in New York City.

pic.twitter.com/LBtv2YXfv6

— Paul Feig (@paulfeig) January 27, 2015

The development process for the long-awaited “Ghostbusters” threequel has been a slow and arduous one that’s been all but killed several times over the last decade. The movie seemed like a no-go since the passing of Harold Ramis prompted original director Ivan Reitman to abandon the project. Plus, there was always the fact that key cast member Bill Murray was never interested in reprising his role as Peter Venkman.

If anything, the project seemed like a terrible idea, and with the passing of Ramis, almost ghoulish until director Feig reinvigorated the film as a reboot featuring all-female leads.

And what female leads they are? Each one is a superb choice, especially Leslie Jones, who is a bit of a breakout star in the new edition of “SNL” cast members. Check out her verse in this “Back Home Ballers” digital short.

[The Hollywood Reporter]

By J.F. Sargent  Published: January 27th, 2015 

Steve Jobs first unveiled the iPad five years ago today. And I didn't like it.

"I don’t understand who this product is marketed for," I griped. "And I’m disappointed that Apple has decided to adopt the iPhone’s locked-down platform strategy."

We all know what happened next: the iPad was a huge hit. And my argument looks kind of silly in retrospect.

In a sense, though, my negative reaction to the iPad perfectly illustrates why the iPad was successful. The iPad wasn't designed for people like me who spend all day in front of a computer. It was designed for more casual users who value simplicity and convenience over power-user features. And there are a lot more of them than there are people like me.

Less is more

(MyLoupe/UIG via Getty Images)

The genius of the iPad was precisely that it had fewer features than a conventional PC. Most obviously, it didn't have a keyboard and mouse. It also didn't have standard ports for external peripherals and displays. And it didn't have a hard drive; its flash-based storage was a lot smaller than you could get on a laptop at the time.

The iPad software, a scaled-up version of the iPhone operating system, was more limited than PC software, too. The iPad doesn't let you have multiple, overlapping windows on the screen. It doesn't let you install software from any source other than Apple's app store. Internally, the iPad stored data in the same basic files-and-folders system as conventional PCs, but unlike on a PC the user couldn't access the file system directly.

For power users, these were intolerable limitations. We like our keyboards, our large hard drives, and the ability to have many windows open at once. But for ordinary users, the complexity of a PC offers little benefit. Most people spend more time reading content than writing it, so the lack of a keyboard isn't a big issue. They almost never installed third-party PC software, so limitations on doing this didn't bother them. And a lot of users never really understood their PC's file system anyway, so they don't miss it. The touch-based interface, which seems terribly limiting to power users, seems refreshingly straightforward to everyone else.

Stripping away these features allowed Apple to make the iPad, smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a full-powered PC. Removing the ability to install third-party software — and tightly controlling what makes it into the app store — makes the iPad less vulnerable to spyware and viruses. Eliminating access to the file system ensures users won't accidentally cause configuration problems by deleting important files.

Steve Jobs's genius was recognizing that making a successful mobile operating system required a clean break. Only by abandoning much of the complexity of Mac OS X could he create an operating system simple enough to work well on a tiny, underpowered smartphone. And that same simplicity made the iPhone's larger cousin, the iPad, more appealing to ordinary users.

This is an issue Microsoft is still struggling with. Microsoft had already been trying to create successful tablet software for close to a decade when Apple introduced the iPad in 2010. And the software giant is still struggling to get consumers to buy its Surface tablets.

But Microsoft has been hobbled by its attempts to build on its existing Windows franchise. By attempting to shoehorn all the features of a PC into a tablet, Microsoft has produced products that are too complex, confusing, and costly for the ordinary consumers who love their iPads. At the same time, most users who want the full power of a PC are just going to buy a PC.

I eventually bought an iPad, but I almost never use it. I did an informal survey of my Vox colleagues found that hardly any of them use iPads or other tablets either. But most of our parents have iPads and they love them. Many of our siblings do too.

iPad sales have plateaued

(Ryan Anson/AFP/Getty Images)

After a couple of years of skyrocketing sales, sales plateaued around 2013. It has become fashionable to dismiss the device for failing to meet the lofty expectations set during its wildly successful early years. But the fact remains that the iPad is a huge hit; Apple sells about 60 million iPads per year, three times the number of Macs the company sells.

Yet the iPad's position as a device for non-power users also explains why it hasn't reached the heights of the iPhone, which sold 160 million units during Apple's last fiscal year. The iPad primarily appeals to casual users; the iPhone appeals to everyone. And the casual users who are drawn to the iPad are the type of people who don't feel the need to buy the latest and greatest every couple of years. Now that almost everyone who wants an iPad has one, it'll be hard to convince people to upgrade.

Steve Jobs once compared PCs to trucks — there will always be some people who demand heavy-duty equipment for heavy-duty needs. But most people don't need the towing and hauling capacity of a truck, a car works fine. Similarly, most people don't need the power of a MacBook; an iPad is all they need.

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Roger Kisby

Well, maybe it is in the traditional sense. No more Sex Pistols and Dead Kennedys on the radio, even if their legacy lives on. No more Fall Out Boy and New Found Glory and all the emo bands we listened to in middle school because no one can listen to those without being embarrassed. 

In the form of new school pop-punk bands, though, punk is not dead. In fact, it’s alive and more popular than ever. This nascent genre is forging a new, exciting scene full of mosh pits and ~emotions~ that has only gained strength in the last few years, filling thousands across the country with that teenage angst we all know and love. 

Last month my friend (who is a true punk connoisseur) challenged me to listen to nothing but this new genre for a month straight. It was an enlightening experience. I listened to 30 pop-punk bands over 30 days, and chose some of the best ones to make this list.

Here are ten pop-punk/emo bands you should definitely check out and some song recommendations for each. They’ll make you feel so much angst you’ll think you’re in middle school again, and who doesn’t want that? Good times.

1. JOYCE MANOR. I first listened to the California-based Joyce Manor last spring. They’re a true classic in the punk community, and I’m not ashamed to admit I own three Joyce Manor shirts that I wear probably too often. Check out “Leather Jacket,” “Constant Headache,” or “Heart Tattoo.”

2. MODERN BASEBALL. Okay I’ve actually known and loved this band for quite a while as well. They’re incredible. Check out “Your Graduation” and “Tears over Beers.”

3. TIGERS JAW. Ugh so good. They will give you all of the feels. Check out “The Sun,” “Plane vs. Tank vs. Submarine” and “I Was Never Your Boyfriend.“

4. THE FRONT BOTTOMS. Not sure they exactly as punk as these other bands but I’m going to include them anyway because they’re way too good not to put on the list. Check out “Flashlight,” “The Beers,” and “Twelve Feet Deep.”

5. THE WORLD IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE AND I AM NO LONGER AFRAID TO DIE. Lots of Explosions in the Sky vibes (but plus lyrics). Check out “Heartbeat in the Brain” or “Fightboat.”

6. DADS. Check out “Shit Twins” or “Bakefest at Piffany’s.” 

7. PITY SEX. All of the angst ever. Check out “Coca Cola” or “Sedated.”

8. YOU BLEW IT! Pretty American Football-esque. Try “Match & Tinder,” “Award of the Year Award” or “Pinball House.”

9. BASEMENT. Cool and different because they’re from England. Listen to their whole “Further Sky” Album – it’s only twelve minutes long.

10. SORORITY NOISE. Listen to “Blonde Hair Black Lungs.”

Other good ones you should check out: Glocca Morra ,The Hotelier, Japanther, Foxing, Title Fight, Real Friends, Seahaven, Knuckle Punk, The Wonder Years, Hightide Hotel, Grown Ups

Go jump in that mosh pit.

Científicos da Universidade de Kingston revelan que facer a cama multiplica a presenza de ácaros que provocan alerxias e asma

Facer a cama é malo para a saúde en GCiencia.

Santiago Lorenzo era guionista hasta que un día le crecieron las acotaciones y no le quedó más remedio que hacerse novelista. Dos novelas después de aquel día, llega Las ganas (Blackie Books), una sobre la necesidad de eso, de hacerlo, de pasar de lo abstracto a lo concreto, de enterrar la zanahoria, hundir el Titanic, de regar la lechuga, visitar a la piña en el fondo del mar, de sacar el periscopio, de tarari tarari… ya me entienden: las ganas. “Me preocupa muchísimo utilizar la palabra follar para hablar en los medios sobre la novela, así que si me prestas lo de darle, me lo quedo”, explica Santiago Lorenzo (Portugalete, Vizcaya, 1964) al otro lado del teléfono, perdido en su casa de ninguna parte segoviana, lejos de tanto eufemismo y tabú.  

El caso es que después de Los millones y Los huerfanitos quería ponerse serio, así que ha escrito una historia sobre un tipo que lleva tres años sin eso. Benito ha heredado una casa de su abuela, aunque la vida no le va nada bien. Sitúese: Madrid, año 2000, estamos a punto de arrancar “el milagro español”, cuando todo el país era millonario y la clase media se nos quedaba pequeña. Todo era confeti y Range Rover, menos en la vida de este tipo, que cree que no pilla porque es feo, aunque el problema está en su incapacidad para comunicarse con el resto de la humanidad (gracias a unos maravillosos padres que le llamaban “el cacas”, y nada de cariñosamente).

Así que las muchas ganas son las que le comen por dentro durante toda la novela, como metáfora de la frustración por no tener lo que todos tienen. Lo que cualquiera tiene, menos él. Ya se imaginan que funciona como contrametáfora del milagro mencionado, este es el relato del desengaño español. Lorenzo rompe con el espejismo con una “novela histórica”, porque el género empieza a funcionar, según explica nuestro autor, justo con diez años de historia.

Morirse de la risa (amarga)

“Sin duda es la comedia más amarga de las tres. En realidad, no quería hacer de ellas historias graciosas”, pero el que escribe es el inconsciente y el de Santiago Lorenzo siempre tira al monte. En este caso, y a pesar de que es pretendidamente “una novela con la que te mueres de la pena”, con el resultado de una novela que te mueres de risa (amarga), el enriquecimiento del vocabulario cañí para hablar de eso es determinante, perdón, desternillante. “Vas por la calle muerto de ganas, había que inventar el término tremedal. Como porlar o mocordo”, explica.

Sin embargo, debajo de tanto camuflaje está el fracaso de la naturalidad frente al sexo. Que tenemos el sexo hecho un tabú sagrado. “Pues sí, la novela la ha escrito un perfecto ateo, con una educación católica muy marcada. Es un asco que ese tabú crezca y que entren en camas ajenas y sin permiso”, cuenta. Por eso Benito es incapaz de confesarse con los demás, por un gigante nubarrón cargado de culpa a punto de descargar.

“Uno espera que la gente se ría o vomite, pero que le pase algo, ¡que le salga sarpullido!”, dice. Pero no vale cualquier cosa. “Ponerme a escribir pornografía, con la de porno que hay en internet, me parece de una ingenuidad como para ganarse el cielo. No entiendo que alguien se compre un libro de follar teniendo internet con categorías para todos los gustos. Vamos a diferenciarnos de ellos. Me parecería penoso escribir: “Le agarró las tetas y se las estrujó”, sería penoso ponerlo sobre papel”.

Lorenzo, en su torrente fluido de ideas disparatadas y luminosas, prefiere dedicarse a los sentimientos, “que todavía no hay páginas de sentimientos en internet”. ¿Entonces, es pornografía sentimental? “Eso es. Si escribes cosas que te da vergüenza escribirlas lo has hecho bien, es buena señal”. Por eso siempre le hemos oído decir que escribir una novela se parece más a dirigir una película, que a escribir un guion. Aunque esta novela esté escrita a bocajarro.

El marketing cada vez está más preocupado en proporcionar una experiencia sensorial sugestiva al consumidor, incluso a través del sonido (audiobranding). Cada clic importa, desde la música ambiental en un supermercado hasta el ruido de la puerta de un coche nuevo al cerrarse.

Y es que el simple ruido es capaz de provocar que valoremos mejor unas patatas fritas frente a otras, aunque estemos comiendo exactamente las mismas. Ello se debe a que asociamos la frescura con lo crujiente.

Es algo que demostró experimentalmente un estudio publicado en 2004 por el Journal of Sensory Studies por dos investigadores de la Universidad de Oxford. Para valorar la importancia del crunch en las patatas, sometieron a una cata a una serie de voluntarios.

Las patatas empleadas para el experimento eran ésas que se almacenan en tubos, reconstruidas a partir de patatas deshidratadas, que presentan una homogeneidad de forma, textura y aroma ideal para un experimento: las Pringles.

Los envases cilíndricos, tanto de sabor barbacoa, crema y queso y páprika, fueron diseñados por un tipo que, al fallecer, lo usó a modo de féretro en el cementerio de Springfield donde estaban enterradas sus cenizas. También hay que recodar que, de este tubérculo, los snacks de Pringles sólo disponían de un cuarenta y dos por ciento, lo cual, técnicamente, les arrebataba el estatus de patata (y también les exoneraba de pagar los impuestos consiguientes).

El crunch de la patata

Los voluntarios del experimento de las patatas debían encerrarse en una cabina. Tenían que morder las patatas solo con los incisivos, y luego masticarlas. Todo el ruido de su boca era registrado por un micrófono, y posteriormente el sonido se enviaba a otro grupo de voluntarios que lo escuchaban todo a través de unos auriculares.

En el experimento debían calificarse las patatas de cero (blanda, caducada) a cien (super crujiente, como recién hecha) el crujido y la frescura de cada patata. Sin embargo, había una pequeña trampa, algunos crujidos se modificaban, ampliándose o reduciéndose al modificar la señal sonora, tal y como explica Pierre Barthélémy en su libro Crónicas de ciencia improbable:

Pese a que todas las patatas eran idénticas, la nota sobre lo crujiente iba de 54 por término medio, cuando el sonido se había disminuido, a 85 cuando se había aumentado y, además, destacaban las frecuencias más altas. El sonido verdadero obtuvo como nota un 71. La evaluación de la frescura siguió una curva muy parecida. Con un experimento relativamente sencillo lograron manipular las sensaciones de los participantes. Además, el 75 % de éstos pensaron que las patatas fritas que probaban procedían de paquetes distintos.

-
La noticia Lo crujiente nos parece más fresco o por qué el ruido de las patatas influye en nuestra valoración fue publicada originalmente en Xataka Ciencia por Sergio Parra .