http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:06:21 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/08/220621.php Kevin MurphyI suppose it all started for me at the age of three when I won a tiddlywinks "tournament" at a friend's birthday party. I have been an avid player of non-sporting games ever since. In the old days the games came in heavy boxes and were physical representations; now they are mainly video/computer games. I find them both relaxing and stimulating, a combination hard to find. Now Professor James Paul Gee claims that the oft maligned video games can be a great way for kids to learn: "I was 53 when I began and was blown away by how long, challenging, and complex games like Deus Ex were. Yet millions of people pay a lot of money to buy them and they learn them very well, including kids who wouldn't spend twelve concentrated minutes really learning algebra in school. It dawned on me that good games were learning machines. Built into their very designs were good learning principles, principles supported, in fact, by cutting-edge research in cognitive science, the science that studies human thinking and learning. Many of these principles could be used in schools to get kids to learn things like science, but, too often today schools are returning to skill-and-drill and multiple-choice tests that kill deep learning. Games are good at getting themselves learned for good old Darwinian reasons, namely, the ones that can't get learned, don't get bought and the companies that produce them go broke (Suikoden III is a good example of a very good game that does a poor job helping the player learn how to play it). What makes the situation interesting is that game designers can't make games easier to learn by dumbing them down, since players want ever longer, more challenging, more open-ended games." The book is an odd mix in that the good professor provides a scientifically rigorous look at games we all know and love and never thought about in a rigorous way before. But I have to admit that looking back my lifelong playing has provided me with not just hours of enjoyment, but I have learned a lot. And the learning has not just been facts, but problem solving and ways of looking at and experiencing the world around me. No doubt this book will start a wave of educational inquiry, debate, and of course, books. Gaming6817@blogcritics.org Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:06:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/23/220908.php Kevin MurphyThe story of E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne experiences in World War II makes for interesting reading. Band of Brothers starts in July of 1942 with the formation of the unit and continues through November 1945 when it was deactivated and finishes with accounts of the postwar careers of some of the soldiers. Mainly concerned with the combat experiences of the men who made up the unit, it also details the training and the personal responses to the intensity of combat. The book has the feel of a biography, but the biography of a group of men rather than just a single one.Even though Steven Ambrose was a history professor, he writes accessible books. Having seen several of interviews of him, I find it hard not to hear his gruff and gravely voice when reading his works. If his greatest strength was his ability to tell the personal stories of people who made history, his greatest weakness is his lack of providing the larger context. This is not a history of any of the campaigns the 101st fought; it is the grunt eye view of the battles. The book is woefully short of maps and those that are present are small and not very helpful.Ambrose interviewed the soldiers who made up Easy company in the early 1990s and weaved those interviews into the narrative of the book. He points out that often the men gave contradictory accounts and he had to synthesize what he felt to be the most likely version; sometimes he points out where those accounts differ.Since I've never been in combat, I can't say how well Ambrose captures the experience. But he seems to do a good job. There are plenty of interesting nuggets: The men who parachuted into Normandy and stormed an artillery battery that was raining down death and destruction on Utah beach were going into combat for the first time and took risks that as veterans they would never do again; the men of Easy Company liked the Brits, didn't like the French whom they found to be ungrateful, lazy, and dirty, loved the Dutch whom they found to be brave, resourceful, and grateful, and felt closest to the Germans who seemed to the G.I's to be "just like us."You don't have to be a history buff or a military enthusiast to enjoy the book, but it certainly helps. Books4819@blogcritics.org Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:09:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/20/214944.php Kevin MurphyThe amazing post-punk/folk group Screaming Yellow Fungus has relased their debut recording Spores. Screaming Yellow Fungus was formed when the post-punk band Screaming Yellow combined forces with the retro beat group Fungus. Screaming Yellow axman and leader Timothy Yellow explains the merger this way: "I was in this lounge trying to talk to this blonde and she couldn't hear me over the band. I couldn't believe how loud their vocalist was, way louder than ours. And this guy wasn't even amped. It was just him yelling poetry and this other guy beating on these funny little drums. I told myself this guy would be perfect for our group. Finally they took a break, I got the blonde's phone number, and I went over to talk him into joining. He wouldn't do it without his side man, so I figured, who cares if he beats away on those stupid little things, nobody will hear him anyway, not when vocal man is yelling into a mic. So we all agreed to give it a try." Charles Clayton, the bongo player for Fungus, describes their first gig together. "We rehearsed one time beforehand, and Peter [Poindexter] and I had some trepidation about the whole idea. We wanted to bring back the wonderful folky feel of the Beats, and Screaming Yellow was this obnoxious thrash band. But at our first performance, they had these very good looking groupies, knockouts all of them, and we were used to flat scrawny girls with stringy hair who didn't shave their pits, and Peter and I looked at each other and smiled, because we knew that this was the direction we needed to take our music."Peter Poindexter, lead vocalist for the group, reflects on the difficulties in merging the two groups. "Tony was pretty upset at first about not being lead vocalist anymore. But his brothers really helped out with that. They told him he was only in the band because he was their brother, and he only got to sing because he couldn't play any instruments, and then when he started crying they wrote this song just for him -- "Tony the Tiger", which has become our signature song in the clubs. It's the song that got us the record contract. The song really captures Tony -- how he's always getting to fights but he's shy around girls, which they love of course. And we think "Don't Call Me Anthony" is going to be another big hit, since it captures the rage and alienation of youth so well. Now Tony is happier than ever because he isn't tied to the microphone anymore, but can roam around stage and really put on a good show."Thomas Yellow on the band's success: "What makes us so successful is our honesty -- I think that really comes through in our music. I was so shocked when I found out the Ramones weren't really brothers. We'd looked up to those guys for years, really idolized them, and then were totally bummed when we found out they were fakes. Gabba Gabba Fake. We'll, the Yellow boys are really brothers - Timmy and I are twins, you can't get more brother than that. And that really comes through in our music."Now you can buy this seminal work of genius of what's bound to become the super group of the naughties, available only from Murphco. This recording is available only from Murphco Enterprises Music1414@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:49:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/13/231904.php Kevin MurphyPeter Spier is an award winning author and illustrator of children's books. I know when I was reading to my children, I was always on the lookout for good books. I could always rely on Peter Spier to provide great stories and great art. So I thought I'd help out my fellow parents and provide a quick guide to the Spier books I've read. I never found one I didn't like, so I can unhesitatingly recommend any of his books. NOAH'S ARK This award-winning book shows the story of Noah with text only at the beginning and the end. The pictures are beautiful and exquisitely detailed, easy allowing the grown up to tell the story, and later the child.PEOPLE This book is all about people the world over. Not a narrative, it celebrates people, telling about all the different people in the world, showing them at work and at play, describing our differences and similarities. Like all of Spier's books, the artwork is amazing.RAIN My personal favorite Spier book, this picture book graphically (there is no text) tells the tale of a brother and sister's rainy day, both indoors and outdoors. It captures the simple joys of childhood wonderfully. CIRCUS This book tells the story of a visit from the circus, from the empty field it will occupy through putting up the tents, putting on the show, the performers, the animals, taking down the tents, and the return of the field to emptiness. What child (of all ages) doesn't like the circus?BORED, NOTHING TO DO Two bored boys build and fly their own airplane from materials around the house and in the garage, until dad makes them take it apart. This book is a lot of fun and hopefully will inspire you and your children.OH, WERE THEY EVER HAPPY The baby sitter is late, but mom and dad have to leave. The children pitch in and take care of the important chores, like painting the house, because mom and dad will be happy to see how helpful they've been. When mom and dad come home, oh, were they ever happy! Books1280@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Oct 2002 23:19:04 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/07/233128.php Kevin MurphyI found this album when searching for "surf guitar." It's not Dick Dale, but it is mighty fine. The Ventures were one of the top instrumental groups of the sixties with guitar driven twang. This best of album includes twenty-five songs (none of them longer than three minutes), providing a chronological look at their music from their first hit, "Walk Don't Run" through their last big hit, the theme from Hawaii Five-0. Also included are several vintage radio commercials for their albums, which are a real hoot, a six minute interview with the band from "Rocketing Rhythms", and extensive liner notes (printed so small none of their originals fans can possibly read it.)The Ventures were a simple band - drums, bass, and two guitars (except for Hawaii Five-0). They wrote plenty of their own good stuff, but covered with abandon. They have a great guitar sound - driving beat, twanging guitars - the archetype sixties guitar music. There are jazzy (Walk -- Don't Run), bluesy (Night Drive), and psychedelic (Underground Fire) songs. My favorite is "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" - it's the kind of song that you makes you understand how you can talk about both lead vocals and lead guitar, all the while undergoing numerous tempo and style changes -- all packed into a two minutes twenty song. You owe it to yourself to check this great music out. Music1148@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:31:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/07/232559.php Kevin MurphyI have reappraised Disco music recently. Mainly because my daughter enjoys it, but also because it is enjoying a resurgence in popularity. When Disco first came out, I hated it. I hated it in that way only a teenager with a passion for music can hate - with utter assurance of the correctness of his hate, his disdain, his artistic vision. Anyway, now I enjoy it, and I enjoy it for what it is - fun dance music. It does a great job of conveying a certain mood. What more can be said?That has led me to a further consideration of criticism in general. Most criticism is artistic. Music, movies, plays, writing, artwork, artistic endeavors all are the usual subject of critics and criticism. But how absurd! Is one person's reaction to art any more valid than someone else's? No, if I have learned anything since my earlier, utterly assured days, no. There is nothing objective about the criticism of art. The worst a critic can say is that the artwork did nothing, provoked no response in herself. But that doesn't mean that the same artwork won't elicit a profound response in someone else.Criticism really falls into two categories - engineering analysis and art itself. When the critic tells you that the trumpet player blew a flat note at an important moment - that's engineering analysis. When the critic describes the effect of the music on herself - that's art. Of course, most reviews mix both. Still, engineering analysis of art is difficult because it requires an assessment of how well the artifact met its creator's goals, which assumes you understand her goals in the first place, and it requires an assessment of how much the intended goals matter to everyone who encounters it. Consequently, the engineering analysis that is undertaken is usually of the most superficial nature and it serves the purpose of demonstrating to the critic's audience that she knows what she's talking about.But does the critic need to be accomplished, let alone competent in the field they are criticizing? For engineering analysis, this is of course important, but for art, who cares? We all have a soul, don't we? Does Roger Ebert have to a master film maker to be a great critic? Or is it more important to have a love and appreciation for the subject? Art and Science are both concerned with experience -- science with the repeatable, and art with the extraordinary. A good critic must be able to have an extraordinary experience and bring it back alive for the rest of us. Culture1147@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:25:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/07/232114.php Kevin MurphyThe Amazing Race has started its third run on CBS, Wednesdays at 9PM Eastern, 8PM Central. My trouble is that I don't enjoy the shows I'm supposed to, like ER, Law and Order, or CSI (if only because I never tune into them). Instead, I like shows like Survivor, or Trading Spaces, or King of Queens (I admit I have a soft spot in my heart for any show that has a man of heft married to a babe), or, stop me before I hurt myself, The Amazing Race. The premise of the show is simple - 12 teams of two race around the world - I mean that literally, they circumnavigate the globe for the race - and are eliminated one by one until only three remain for the final two hour show down - in a sweeps month, of course. They always start in some spot in the US (year 1 was Central Park, year 2 was Death Valley, and this year it was the Everglades). Each team gets the same instructions and has to follow the same course. In this race, there are thirteen legs, with thirteen pit stops (12 hours of rest.) They are given limited spending money (although some teams have been known to panhandle to raise more); airfare is handled separately (I assume through a special credit card). Not only do they race around the world, they have to do stuff in exotic locations. Sometimes you get a choice of who has to do it, and sometimes you get a choice of which thing -- typically a choice between something scary and fast or something easy and slow. I could never be on the show because once a race you have to do something that someone with a fear of heights can't do. This year they got it over (well, maybe not, there could be more fear inducing stunts) by having the teams choose between riding a long way in a donkey cart, or skydiving right to a waiting car. It must be hell to be on the show, what with the constant stress -- you're in a race, you're changing time zones like J-LO changes husbands, you're eating food from all over the world, and a cameraman is recording your every meltdown. But it's great fun to watch - you can tape it and watch it whenever you want in the comfort of your own living room, you're getting to see fun activities and exotic locations, and you get to see every meltdown of the crazy people on the show. What could be better? Video1146@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:21:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/10/07/231119.php Kevin MurphyThe Second Brain by Michael Gershon is a fascinating book. I came across it in an advertisement for Science News Books in Science News Magazine. Part of the reason I read it was the blurb mentioned Irritable Bowl Syndrome and, at the risk of providing too much information, I was suffering mightily from it at the time. The book is part memoir, part textbook, part science mystery, and all good.The structure of the book is provided by the argument (I'm sure in scientific circles they have another word for it) over whether there is an independent central nervous system (AKA "brain") in the gut or the neurons in the gut are part of the peripheral nervous system. Consequently, you are treated to a description of the people (memoir) and evidence (textbook). The book provides a great primer of both the human nervous system and digestive system, their structures, functions, and taxonomy. It also provides a good firsthand account of the personalities and mechanics of scientific inquiry.The book ultimately concludes that indeed, a second brain is responsible for digestion, and is responsible for the control of internal organs extending from your mouth to your anus, with other organs such as your pancreas along the way. The characteristics include the use of the same neurotransmitters as brain number one, and crosslinking of neurons.The book explains how digestion is carried out when it works properly, and many of the ways it can go wrong. It's a fascinating book that despite its heavy dose of science is an engrossing and engaging read.Oh yeah, my IBS is probably due to the mental illness of my second brain. I suppose that instead of reaching for TUMS, I should reach for prozac next time it acts up. Books1145@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:11:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/24/223657.php Kevin MurphySTAR TREK I - THE MOVIE Boy, did me and my friends anticipate this movie. A new Star Trek, and on the big screen. That's all that we needed to know or cared about. Unfortunately, that's all the producers, writers, and director cared about as well and so we got stuck with a complete clunker that could only appeal to a trekkie fanatic. Long, loving shots of the Starship Enterprise. Long, loving shots of everything Star Trek. The movie was nothing but long loving shots and a bald chick in a short skirt. No plot, no wit, no charm, no interplay between Jim, Bones, and Spock. Avoid it like the awful movie it is.STAR TREK II - THE WRATH OF KHAN This movie hasn't held up well compared to the other movies. When it first came out, it shined in comparison to the first one. This time the starting point was a TV episode wherein Ricardo Montalban played Kahn, a twenty-first century superman who along with his followers took over the Enterprise briefly but who was then marooned on an earth-like world. In the movie, the planet didn't stay earth-like for long and Kahn gets his revenge, complete with over the top dialogue and acting. Still, it is a good, solid movie and sets the stage for the next Star Trek installment.STAR TREK III - THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK This movie is set up by the previous one. Spock is dead, or is he, let's go find out. Those naughty Klingons, led by the Reverend Jim, oops, I mean Christopher Lloyd, interfere and pay the price for their meddling. This movie isn't awful, but it isn't very good.STAR TREK IV - THE VOYAGE HOME This is the funny Star Trek movie. It's different as well in that it takes place on the Earth of today with no Starship Enterprise at all. It was destroyed in the last movie and this one takes up right where the last one ended. This time, the crew of the Enterprise must save the whales to save the earth. Set on current day Earth, the movie has a lot of fun with modern day life (it could have been the pilot for Third Rock from the Sun). I missed the space ship battles, Kirk never gets to say "set phasors on stun", and Bones never gets to say "he's dead, Jim". Still, it is Star Trek, and it's the second best movie of the bunch.STAR TREK V - THE FINAL FRONTIER This movie didn't make much sense to me when it first came out, and after seeing the beginning of it again recently it still doesn't. It is dark in both tone and look. Spock's mystic half-brother takes control of the Enterprise (I wish I had a nickel for every time that happens in Star Trek) and set's off for the center of the galaxy to find, like, God, or perhaps just a god. The only good part is that they are chased by a couple of Klingon sisters in their bird of prey (that's a spaceship for you uninitiated out there) who are the only ones to provide any delight or characterization - only partly due to their push-up bra's being set to kill. Fortunately the movie didn't live up to it's title, and so you can skip this one and rent the next one in the series instead.STAR TREK VI - THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY This is the best of the Star Trek movies (which for the general movie-goer isn't saying much). The Klingon empire suffers catastrophe, and so wants to end hostilities with the Federation. Kirk is assigned to escort the Klingon leader to the peace discussions and then the fun begins. Christopher Plummer gets to do Shakespear as a warmongering Klingon and it works. The whole movie worked for me, and I think it will for you too.STAR TREK VII - GENERATIONS Between Star Trek - The Next Generation being a big success and the original actors getting, well, a little old for this sort of thing, this movie is the handoff between the two versions. The problem was afterwards, I would rather have seen more movies with the originals than with the TNG cast. Anyway, we find out the origin of Guinan, Data finds out emotions aren't all their cracked up to be, and the crew of the enterprise must find out what the wacky doctor Soren is up to and put a stop to it. STAR TREK VIII -FIRST CONTACT This movie is all TNG characters. The Borg, stalemated by the Federation in the present (the future for us), go back in time to stop the Federation before it gets started (still in the future for us), and so once again the Enterprise and her crew must time travel to earth to save the universe from the bad guys. This movie has some good parts (like when the crew is still on the Enterprise), but they've mined the time travel to earth angle pretty heavily over the years so there isn't much left -- no Edith Keeler Must Die! moment in this one.STAR TREK IX - INSURRECTION My wife and I finally got around to renting this movie - after re-renting Generations by mistake. Captain Picard and crew investigate why Data ran amok while under someone else's command and don't like the answer enough to go to war over it. This could have been a much better movie if they would have taken just a little more time to explain and develop the plot lines. At 103 minutes long, they had more time to do the job right. Nobody likes a taut movie more than me, but I don't want to keep thinking to myself "what was that all about." Proper pacing was always an issue for Star Trek TNG as a TV show: the worst was the three part season cliffhanger where they found Data's head in San Francisco and then with about five minutes left just deus ex machina'd the ending to get it done on time. This time, rather than rush the ending, they rush the middle. Video793@blogcritics.org Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:36:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/16/201845.php Kevin MurphyA new TV season is upon us, and all the media is talking about is The Soprano's. Apparently, life's worth living again, now that Tony is back. Well, I've never seen an episode, and nobody I know talks about it. However, mention Trading Spaces and heads pop out of cubicles at work, perfect strangers start talking to you in stores, even feuding neighbors put aside their differences to chat about this show. "Did you see the one where the lady cried and had to leave the room" is the most common remark I hear. "Yeah", I always reply, "And Doug didn't even touch her precious wood mantle." I'm amazed at how many people watch this show, although they usually don't mention it until you do. It's a guilty pleasure, I suppose. The Learning Channel had the good sense to take the British show "Changing Rooms" and make into the American "Trading Spaces", which ought to satisfy all the highbrows out there that you're watching quality televisionTLC runs two episodes on Saturday night, plus one every weekday afternoon. And if you've been good, they run marathons some weekends. The premise of the show is simple: two sets of neighbors redecorate a room in each others house and can't see the results until the job is complete. Each team of two has two days, $1000 dollars, and help from a professional designer and carpenter. Each show has the same outline: The interview with the homeowner(s), meeting the designer and carpenter, swapping keys to each others house, the first day, homework, the second day, "time's up", the before and after shots, the interview with the designers, and the reveal. The reveal is the high point of the show - this is where the neighbors get to see what's happened to their room. Some people have been known to cry. Others are more low key, but clearly dislike the transformation. Most of the time, people are happy. They tell you not to say "Wow" or "Oh my God", but everybody does. Even if they hate it. Why is it so popular? It combines the reality show (or "life unscripted" which is TLC's tagline) with the home improvement show, recasts it as a mystery, and throws in some fun and personality. First Alex was the hostess, but she moved on, and now we have perky Paige, the younger sister next door. There are two regular carpenters (only one per show): Ty Pennington, who's a funny flake, and Amy Wynn Pastor, who's a babe. They have a bunch of designers -- who you don't get to pick. Frank, dear old cherubic Frank, the beloved designer, the buddy, "thank God it's Frank!", the designer who always adds a personal touch of painting, the designer who listens to his people and changes his plans Frank.Hildy, stylish Hildy, "Oh, it's Hildy", spare Hildy, the sophisticated designer, clad in black and shod in heels, don't talk back to the designer Hildy, "magenta taupe, magenta taupe, all around the room".Doug, boo hiss Doug, Mr. Aloof, Mr. Sneer, Mr. my way or the highway, the designer who most closely resembles Snidely Whiplash, "Oh No, it's Doug!", Mr. Modern Dark and Brown.Laurie, nice Laurie, pregnant and now mother Laurie, Laurie of the Red Curls, the elegant designer, the Southern Belle, "Oh, it's Laurie".Vern, small but mighty, wielder of Feng Shui, "Oh good, it's Vern", the clean and spare designer, Mr. Candles and bamboo, the romantic designer.Genevieve, "Oh good, it's Genevieve", clad in black and bare of foot, Genevieve of the long dangly earring, the creative designer, the fun gal, the designer who always uses an inspiration piece, Genevieve the voluptuous.This year there are two new designers, Edward and Kia, added to the mix. Will Trading Spaces be able to keep my interest? I don't know, but I expect so. They keep adding new designers, the neighbors are new every episode, and they provide both aid and comfort when it comes to decorating. Aid in that they give you some great ideas, and comfort in that they show even professionals can screw up. My favorite disaster was when Hildy decorated a room for a toddler by gluing straw to the walls. When the neighbor mentioned that the child would pick all the straw off, Hildy replied that all you had to do was tell the child not to -- end of discussion. Yeah, right. When Doug redid a family room as an art deco movie theater, I had to applaud the execution but wonder at the idea. And when they showed that the "screen" was a puny 19" TV, I had to laugh.And what is the deal with the designers and ceiling fans. I love mine, but the first thing that goes in any room on this show is the ceiling fan. I was shocked that on the latest episode, Edward only repainted the ceiling fan. Maybe he represents knew thinking on the ceiling fan. Maybe they just haven't informed him of the requirement to get rid of them yet.If you're looking for something different on TV, give Trading Spaces a try. Video: Documentary624@blogcritics.org Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:18:45 EDT