Category Archives: Pop Culture

Dude, you are so off my list!

Posted on by

The topic of this Washington Post article by Libby Copeland is a fascinating one, in my opinion: when people shop for relationships — i.e., date — they often reject prospective mates for seemingly trivial reasons. But are they trivial? Copeland speculates that, on the contrary, a “nitpicky” criticism is

a proxy for taboos, or regrets about past failed relationships. It’s a proxy for class concerns or cultural differences, because most people want someone who looks and sounds and smells as they do.

For me, a man’s musical tastes are hugely important. I think that serves as a proxy for gauging his esthetic sensibility, moxie, cultural savvy, sensitivity, and possibly even intelligence.

Alas, that’s not very quirky, though! The WaPo article has some wonderfully quirky accounts of people who ran away screaming because of things like “he didn’t like my pixie shoes” or the relish with which a woman described mayonnaise.

I’d love to hear other people’s stories! Have you ever been on a date when something happened that persuaded you, beyond all doubt, that this was most definitely not the one?

And Part B: why were you so turned off? For what did it serve as a proxy?

Scoundrel Marketing

Posted on by

From Booksquare, on The Da Vinci Code trial (which I blogged about previously here):

[W]e do appreciate the fact that the British taxpayers are covering the costs for the most intriguing marketing campaign of the season.

Sales of the plaintiffs’ book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, are way up, of course.

I detect a categorical similarity to the post-Oprah James Frey bump. And I furthermore suggest all writers immediately consider ways they can grab headlines, post-publication, through a lurid public display of their baser natures.

UPATE: suit dismissed.

Handy promises

Posted on by

At one point, the Jenny Craig weight loss company was running ads with the tagline “lose all the weight you can.”

All the weight you can?

How handy: a promise impossible to break!

Now here’s another: according to Damian Whitworth in the London Telegraph, lulu.com will turn unpublished writers into “potential J.K. Rowlings.”

But — unpublished writers are already potential J.K. Rowlings.

Lulu.com’s found, Bob Young, had his own brush with J.K. Rowlings potentiality.

The idea for Young’s digital publishing business came when he wrote his own book about Red Hat [the open source software developer he co-founded] to counter adverse media commentary on his company. The book sold well, about 20,000 copies, but he was disenchanted by the way it was edited, the tiny amount he was paid after the publishing house had stripped out costs and the enormous number of copies that languished unsold.

I think lulu.com is a wonderful company. If you have a niche book with a clearly identifiable market, easily and cheaply reachable through a manageable marketing campaign, lulu.com is definitely the way to go.

But does anyone really think that the only thing standing between a given writer’s obscurity and his Rowlingsesque success is the physical production of his book?

Note to future self

Posted on by

According to an AP story in the LA Times (registration required), handwritten notes are becoming more prized now that so much communication is handled via email.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about a Guardian article that predicted that handwriting as a skill was in danger of being lost.

Perhaps it will be retained by elites as a “medium is the message” flourish to polite society communications. Public schools will drop it, but finishing schools will teach it, as will adult ed classes in the local libraries. If there are . . . libraries . . .

Do you read the book, first?

Posted on by

In the Washington Post, Louis Bayard considers movie adaptations of books, and remarks that he has a friend who refuses to watch an adaptation until after she’s “read the book.” He calls this an act of self-defence

because a movie adaptation, if it’s at all decent, will forever alter the way we see a literary work.

True. Yet when an adaptation is good, it gives such pleasure, doesn’t it?

What’s in a face?

Posted on by

Lots, it turns out. Our hormonal levels influence facial shape, for starters. And when we eyeball members of the opposite sex, we interpret their face shapes as indicators of attractiveness. Women whose faces indicate higher levels of estrogen are rated, by men, as better-looking.

It goes the other way as well. This story in The Economist looks at research into how women react to the shape of men’s faces — high testosterone-y, “rugged” faces vs. lower testosterone, softer features.

And then there is our response when we’re around someone attractive. Some researchers speculate that humans evolved the ability to see color because doing so helped us detect each others’ blushes.

What fascinates me most about all this is how it unconscious it is. We walk around with our big brains, interpreting everything abstractly. Meanwhile so many of our choices are influenced, if not governed by chemical signals, tiny variations in the size of facial features, tiny changes in skin color or pupil size.

We live double lives, and we don’t even know it.

Move aside, Tom!

Posted on by

I was surprised to learn that Tom Cruise can move stuff with his mind. But that was nothing. Apparently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair can summon God.

So says the AFP, quoted on JustOneMinute:

LONDON (AFP) – Tony Blair triggered strong reactions from parents of soldiers killed in Iraq and the political opposition, after the British prime minister evoked God in his decision to go to war.

The Gulf Times ran the AFP story also.

I am most impressed.

Okay: why didn’t Tom Cruise demo this on Oprah????

Posted on by

This article on Scientology in Rolling Stone, by Janet Reitman, is a long one. Covers a lot of ground. But it leaves a whole bunch of majorly pressing questions unanswered.

FOR example. We learn that if you hoist yourself far enough up the Scientology flagpole, you become an “Operating Thetan.” OT for short. And being an OT has some nice perqs:

OTs can allegedly move inanimate objects with their minds, leave their bodies at will and telepathically communicate with, and control the behavior of, both animals and human beings.

We also learn that Tom Cruise is an OT level VII, which is “near the top” of this illuminous trajectory.

Okay. We can surmise, therefore, that Tom Cruise is able to do some fairly extraodinary things, including move inanimate objects with his mind. Which raises the aforementioned questions. The first of them being:

Tom Cruise can MOVE inanimate OBJECTS with his MIND??????????

And then moving right along to:

Who ELSE can move inanimate objects with his mind? Can John Travolta? Kirstie Allie?

And: How many generic brand, joe six-pack sort of Scientologist types are running around with the ability to move inanimate objects with their minds???

Are they allowed to do this in PUBLIC? Large objects? Cars? Buses? St. Bernards? Or is this just private, in-the-comfort-of-your-own-home activity? “Honey, I was thinking, the couch would look better over there, next to the fireplace.” “Okay, lover.” Zzzzzzzzzzzztttttt.

Speaking of which, does this ability ever become a source of marital tension?

“Darling, would you PLEASE pick up your dirty socks?”

“Why should I? You’re the OT level VII. Just use your mind to pick them up.”

“Yeah well, if you’d get off your lazy ASS and get YOUR OT level VII then I wouldn’t be stuck doing all the supernatural odd jobs all the time, now would I!”

:-o

UPDATE: Reitman has written a book, Inside Scientology.

Don’t forget!

Posted on by

You can collect a cool $1000 if you can come up with an account of “repressed memory” — fictional or non-fictional — recorded before 1800.

The prize is being offered by Harrison G. Pope, Jr. and James I. Hudson, directors at the Biological Psychiatry Laboratory at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass. Their theory is that repressed memory (the notion that someone who underwent a trauma might suffer temporary amnesia) is a romantic notion rather than a scientifically valid phenomenon. If they’re wrong, they reason,

somewhere, in the thousands of years prior to 1800, would have witnessed it and portrayed it in a non-fictional work or in a fictional character.

You have to be the first one to report a qualifying account to win the money. Details here.