Argobot

For those who might be interested, here are the two articles about how art gets valued: http://www.vulture.com/2012/09/grizzly-bear-shields.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/movies/the-paradox-of-art-as-work.html?_r=0

I know it's all selection bias so the survey results shouldn't get that much weight, but it's still a bit of a bummer.

Game jam gam games by James

Choosy mom choose Jiff and choosy dads remind you that it's pronounced "jiff" because one time there was NY Times article that said so

The author of that Slate article had a short NPR interview wherre she acknowledged that there is good and bad fiction in YA and "adult" spheres. She wrote the article on YA specifically because of the current popularity that stuff like The Fault in Our Stars is enjoying. Her argument against adults reading YA wasn't so much about quality, because she states that there are good YA books, but more that YA isn't really relevant to adults with their adult experience. The benefit that a young person gets from reading YA versus what an adult would get is huge, or at least I hope it would be.

I think that the HP epilogue is in line with the general tone and structure of those books. That doesn't make it good or bad, it's just not out of place. What it does do, I assume unintentionally, is show how bad the Chosen One trope is. The disconnect between being a wizard Jesus and being just a normal dad is so bizarre.

Unfortunately inflammatory headline aside, that Slate article wasn't claiming that there is no value in fiction geared towards young people. It was just making the case that fiction aimed at teens isn't relevant to the lived experience of being an adult and maybe adults should be more conscious of potentially stunting themselves by only reading YA fiction. I thought the actual content of that article was very well argued and I wish that more people would have approached it without expecting to find a condemnation of an entire genre (because that's not what it was). Knowing what your tastes are and forming opinions based off of them is not a bad thing. That's not really a strawman, that's just being aware of what you like.

So I ended up relistening to this episode. The structure of "here are three books we want to recommend" isn't the best for a deep dive into one specific thing, but the enthusiasm that everyone had for Dirk Gently was pretty apparent. And that's fairly interesting in its own right. The discussion reminded me how much I enjoyed the beginning of this book, where it drops you into this very bizarre scene with the Electric Monk and doesn't bother explaining anything to you. There's a lot of confusion and joy built into those first few pages, and I'm a little disappointed with myself for not being able to hold onto that thread for the entirety of this book.

This thread seemed like the best place to put this: I just finished reading the first Dirk Gently book and overall I feel let down by the experience. This was the first time I've ever read a Douglas Adams book, and I'm fully willing to admit that I probably would have loved this book if I was 10 years younger. As it stands, the whole thing failed to connect with me, especially at the end. The first 200 pages or so are really fun; just enjoyable to read. If the book had stayed contained like it is for the first two-thirds, my opinion would be much more positive. But the plot just explodes into a zany madness (ghosts, now time travel, now time traveling ghosts, now time traveling alien ghosts!!) that never felt justified. I can see the connections and I get what the "joke" is supposed to be, but that kind of absurdity for absurdity's sake doesn't really appeal to me. The leap from a holistic detective who sees the connections in the universe (which is what I wanted the whole book to be about) to space ghosts was just too much for me take. What was straightforward to the characters was flummoxing to me, and what flummoxed them felt so painfully telegraphed while I was reading. I haven't listened to the cast yet, but just reading through the thread and seeing people mention this book started off as a Dr. Who script doesn't surprise me. I definitely got that vibe while I was reading, and it's probably another reason I ended up having a lukewarm reaction to this story. All this aside, I'm still happy that I read the book. I honestly did enjoy the majority of it, and I even laughed out loud at some of the better witticisms that Adams likes to drop. Ultimately though, it's just not a book for me and my tastes. I am looking forward to relistening to the cast and hearing Jake's opinion of this book because I'm sure it'll help me think through some of my fuzzier criticisms.

Fair enough. I was interested in seeing this movie but the dumb, epic battle stuff they keep advertising it with has really turned me off it. I'm not sure if this story angle is enough to get me to change my mind but it's interesting that they tried to do something different with the story.

Christ what a strange thing this movie must be. http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/telling-an-old-story-anew

Post-ep Mad Men discussion made me go back and watch that last scene. It really was ludicrously perfect. Matthew Weiner has been doing the post-mid-season finale journalist circuit and his interview with Vulture is by far one of my favorites. I just love that he is completely baffled by the wild speculation that "people on the Internet" have about what goes on in his show: http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/matthew-weiner-interview-mad-men-mid-season-7-finale-joan-hates-don-bert-cooper-dance.html My favorite quote: "I'm not going to pass judgment on people who have never had the experience of seeing something that's not there or who want to define the language of the show. That is the language of the show."

This is a good piece on the futility of speculation http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117922/elliot-rodger-race-isla-vista-shooter-was-not-just-white-guy-killer

That's fair. It definitely was the result of a lot of horrible factors. Sadly, plenty of men are fully capable of acting violently (albeit on a smaller scale) in the absence of a severe mental disorder.

Yes, but those other delusions are all traceable to the generally toxic attitudes that our culture imbues in young men. I would say that the feelings of sexual inadequacy, financial inadequacy, and maybe even some of the mental issues all stem from the pressure that men are under to behave a certain way. It's all from the same source. I, however, do think it's really important to remember that these MRA communities probably didn't give him the tools to act this way, as you already said.

Twig, have you ever been fitted for running shoes at a professional store? The better ones will often make you run in the shoes before you buy them, to make sure that your body distribution is correct. I've done that before and it has generally worked out for me. I ran my first 10k Sunday around Seattle's Lake Union. It was a beautiful course and despite some lingering soreness, I'm pretty happy with how it went.

This was pretty good http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/your-princess-is-in-another-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html

http://the-toast.net/2014/05/27/movie-girlfriends-hate-heroism/: LADY: dont go to the big Thing tonight HERO MAN: i have to otherwise the guys wont be proud of me LADY: ill still be proud of you HERO MAN: lol no offense but that doesn’t really count i already have sex with you i dont really need your respect

I'm glad that all of you can be so open about this stuff. What you're describing isn't uncommon to women either; there are plenty of women who at different stages in their life, have felt like they are inherently unlovable or unattractive to people. The difference is that men are taught to feel entitled to sex and relationships, while women are taught that we have to earn the latter and gatekeep the former. If you're not in a relationship, then you're not doing something right (and here are the 10 cosmo tips on how to change that!) or if you're having sex but are not in a relationship, then you're a slut who no one will ever want to date. That kind of social conditioning doesn't lead to the anger that a lot of you have described, but it definitely can create a lot of feelings of self-loathing in women. Not sure if that is worthwhile to the conversation, but I felt it might be good to contribute at least one perspective from the other side.

Nope.

Sorry, I have to also stand up for Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. For me, they both are in the same group as The Producers: films that are satires of specific genres. I definitely agree that Brooks' later work gets weaker. A fun experiment is watching Young Frankenstein and Spaceballs back to back and realizing how much you prefer the former. Absolutely nothing wrong with this reference and I can say that with absolutely no bias.

Here are two pretty good articles about the comic book movie bubble (the first deals specifically with X-Men and the second is a more general overview): http://grantland.com/features/x-men-days-of-future-past-brian-singer-sequel-review/ http://grantland.com/features/comic-book-movies-marvel-x-men-batman-dc-comics/

Nietzsche's Dog

I know, isn't it wonderful?

I don't understand what all the mufasa is about over these puns.