Argobot

Yes. And Infinite Jest was definitely worth the struggle of reading because it was one of the smarter, more honest books I've ever read. My enjoyment of Lot 49 means that I will probably attempt Gravity's Rainbow at some point, or at least another one of Pynchon's longer, more famous novels.

And here's the follow-up to that interview where they talk more about Act II (coming in March, hopefully!): http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/23/what-lies-ahead-for-kentucky-route-zero/ My favorite part of both interviews was when they discussed the literary influences on the game. One of the reason I enjoyed the first act so much was because it perfectly captured the feeling of reading a Southern gothic novel, the atmosphere, dialogue, everything. Can't wait for the next installment.

I read an article about this -- and cannot remember at all where that was, so apologies for an unverified source -- that called this bill dead in the water. Apparently the same Senator who's proposing it now, also proposed it a few months ago, when it didn't even make it to the floor for voting. From the sounds of it, this version of the bill isn't gaining much traction either. I agree that it's a dumb proposition, but thankfully it doesn't sound like this is something Congress is taking seriously. Edit: Here's the link to the article that talks about this bill: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/184997/Two_bills_target_video_games_following_Sandy_Hook_tragedy.php#.UP2NsqE3m10

Because of the setting or the characters? Personally, I think that's an unfair assessment and as Scipio already mentioned, the book actively does a lot to introduce narratives that don't come from a 'privileged' perspective.

I said that neanderthals aren't human because they're not human. I never once said that they weren't 'persons' or entitled to the same treatment and respect that homo sapiens sapiens are. I can see how calling something 'not human,' could be interpreted as a racially charged phrase, but in this case, I thought it was fine, because neanderthals are literally a separate species from humans and therefore not human.

Ah that's a shame, but understandable.

???? Um, ok? So yeah, not homo sapien sapien. But sure, call that racist.

Um, maybe it's just me, but giving birth to a genetically engineered baby of a species that is 1. not actually human and 2. went extinct eons ago, is not only scientifically unethical, but also incredibly immoral, since you're purposefully creating an intelligent life (some might argue more intelligent than human life) to study as a science project.

That's interesting -- what struck you as uniquely American? True, there is the small, liberal arts college in the Midwest setting and the fact that there's a lot of baseball references...ok, so you're right, there are a lot of 'American' things in this book. At it's core though, I think this book is about friendship and how the evolve as we age, which I would hope is a universally relatable subject.

I read an interview with the author where he said that Moby Dick was purposefully used to highlight how male relationships have evolved over the centuries, which is reflected in the way all the men in the Art of Fielding relate to each other. That's one of the reasons I loved this book so much; it really examines how modern men create bonds with one another, which as a woman, is endlessly fascinating to me. But you're right, the ending tied everything together in too neat of a bow, but books so rarely get an ending of perfectly. I enjoyed this book for the story and characters it told.

This article on how women are portrayed in the sci-fi and fantasy genres is pretty great: http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-21033708 "People think that if you give the girl a gun, suddenly she's a strong woman," said Silvia Moreno-Garcia, a fantasy writer. "But maybe she's still a sex object. We forget that the pose, the cropping, the way it's painted [all] tell a story. So if you have one element that says strength - like a gun - but everything else doesn't follow that, that's not the narrative you think you have."

See I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with showing naked women, it's just the context in which they're shown that I have a problem with (which I think is also what your point is here). For what it's worth, I've actually heard really positive things about the movie, from men and women.

Egregious meaning extraordinarily good -- right?

Oh jeez, I didn't even realize the cover was a 'controversy.' I love feminism, I really do, but sometimes people can get carried away and end up doing more harm than good. A similar imbroglio happens any time Olivia Munn is in the public spot light. Certain feminist writers really need to learn that attacking or shaming other women is not the best way to get people to want to listen to what you're saying. Even I get tired of it.

One of the reviews I read for this book claimed that Pynchon was the first person to compare a city to a circuit board. It's such a powerful metaphor that it's hard to believer there was a time when people weren't referring to cities in this way (although I guess logically no one would be comparing a city to a technology that didn't exist yet, so there had to be a 'before circuit board metaphor' time). I really liked the interplay of entropy and communication break down in this book. Knowledge and communication are treated as their own closed systems that are slowly succumbing to entropic forces, despite, or maybe even because of, Oedpia's attempts to find an unfindable answer. Such a smart way to look at how we perceive and interact with information systems in the world.

Oh I agree for sure that men can create amazing female characters. I was generalizing a bit with my comment there. As far as the right reasons for a female character's appearance: I think there's a difference with designing an attractive character versus designing an attractive character who is purposefully their to titillate and unfortunately, most female characters fall into that latter category. Framing plays a big issue as well. Take the Cyberpunk trailer. I don't necessarily care that there's a sexy lady in it, but the way she's framed -- the close, tight shots of different parts of her body -- makes it clear that she's there to provoke a very specific response from an assumed straight, male audience. That's when the issue of sexy lady character design arises.

I think something like that is just an easy way for the creators to justify why a female character looks a certain way. They pretend to give the character agency by saying it's her 'choice' to look this way (when really the character's agency is entirely dependent on the creator, so it's really his 'choice') but then they also get to depict a gratuitously sexy lady. It's a have your cake and eat it too situation that I like to call the Cortana-paradox.

I heard that Nick Breckon is President of Space, so that's cool.

Fair enough. I generally really like the writing on the Awl, so I didn't have a problem with this article --I thought the author was leaning more towards being humorous than actually trying to make a judgement on one woman's attractiveness vs. the others-- but I can see where you're coming from. At least we all agree that the Esquire thing was dumb beyond belief.

Oh wait, you know that mild optimist I was just expressing? Well now it's gone because I read this: "And women no longer need to be beautiful in order to express their talent. Lena Dunham and Adele and Lady Gaga and Amy Adams are all perfectly plain, and they are all at the top of their field." http://www.theawl.com/2013/01/lena-dunham-adele-lady-gaga-amy-adams-all-very-ugly-says-esquire Good job everyone!

Well it's nice to hear that other people find value in the Sarkeesian videos. Like I said, sometimes I think she overreaches on her analysis, but most of the critiques she makes are worth considering. Nerd culture does not lack for terrible examples of sexism (hi Dead Island torso lady) and it's nice that there are people who aren't afraid to point out how terrible that stuff can be. That said, Sarkessian isn't the end all be all of feminist pop culture criticism, but she certainly is one of the better known figures, largely because of the harassment she received. It's weirdly encouraging that someone can go through all that grossness and actually come out ahead, makes me less afraid of talking about feminist issues on the internet.

Well since all school shootings happen in schools, we should just ban schools. There, problem fixed. That's just some good old NRA-style logic right there, as evidenced by their latest commercial campaign, where they (seriously) call the president an 'elitist hypocrite because he doesn't want armed guards in schools even though he's children are protected by a security the detail (which the ad very pointedly does not call the Secret Service). http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-unleashes-hounds.php?ref=fpa It's stuff like this that makes it really hard for me to follow the news, because I just get so beat down and depressed.

If you didn't give her money for the Kickstarter, I don't think you get to complain about how long it takes her to produce content. Her initial goal was for less than $5000 -- a modest amount, I think for producing and editing video content and then also maintaining a website to house that content, especially when this is probably your main source of income. She ended up getting well over that amount because of all the press generated by the disgusting online harassment that was leveled at her. If the harassment hadn't happened, I seriously doubt she would have made more than $5000 and definitely not the amount she ended up with. So you don't liker her videos -- fine. But maybe the new, post-Kickstarter videos well be better and you'll actually find something of value in them.

Did you actually contribute to the Kickstarter? She regularly posts updates on her website and her Kickstarter page and has already said that the first video will be out at some point this winter. Her whole angle (and here is where I state that while I do admire her, I don't always agree with her interpretations) involves a lot of research and given the epic amounts of coverage her Kickstarter saga has gotten, it makes sense that she'd want to take the time to make sure that her videos are as perfect as possible, since she's pretty much guaranteed to be met with some backlash. Not trying to be completely Team Anita here, but I really don't understand the dissatisfaction being directed at her.

Well I would say the distinction is that the 'patriarchy' is referring to systemic issue, whereas racism/sexism can refer to anything from the systemic to the individual. Plus, not all racist/sexist issues would necessarily fall under the Western definition of 'the patriarchy.' I admit that it can all get a little pedantic but I think there's a reason for the different terms, even if the reason is a little muddled.