Why We Should Judge Books By Their Covers

by Will Hunter Friedman

One of the few clear lessons I still remember from my Kindergarten Teacher. Treat others the way you want to be treated, and don’t judge a book by its cover. In this, my second blog post, I am going to explain why you should through that advice out the window.

First things first, I love reading and always have. When I was young, I was fairly conservative reader. I used to listen advice like don’t judge a book by its cover. Now I don’t. When I followed that age-old rule, I would basically read my way through the fiction section of the library in alphabetical order.

It sucked. Sure, I found some really good books, but the majority of them just weren’t interesting to me. Then, I changed. I stopped going in order. I now go to the library, and walk the shelves. I look and see if there are any new books in a series I enjoy. If there are, I check them out. If there aren’t, I browse the shelves. I look at titles, authors, and most importantly, covers.

I think that covers are one of the best ways to tell if you will like a book. I know that they are for me. The artwork produces a response from my subconscious. If I like the cover, I’ll feel drawn to the book, and, more often than not, will really enjoy it. If I’m not drawn to the book, I move on. Now, I know what you are probably thinking. “Wait, won’t your system make you miss good books that you would have otherwise read?” Good question Imaginary Blog Reader! Yes, it will. On the other hand, my system also makes it less likely for me to waste time reading lots of books that I don’t like.

I know that you may disagree with me. There are those among my readers who will no doubt protest that my system is luck, or erratic. That is your right. I disagree. I have great faith in the subconscious. I firmly believe in thin-slicing, a concept that is explained in the book Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. The theory basically says that your subconscious will repulse you from books you won’t like, and will draw you towards books you will like.

Thanks for reading! If you have any questions or comments, please let me know, as I’d be happy to address them.

Like Someone in Love

by Edoardo Tarkovsky

Like Someone in Love, a film directed by Abbas Kiarostami, is a refreshing mix of throwback and neo-drama. It’s something of a comeback of a film for Japanese cinema, which in recent years has faded into obscurity in the world of international cinema.

In Like Someone in Love, we follow a young woman named Akiko in her daily life. We watch her become acquainted with an old man and run into her angry bum of a boyfriend. In a two-hour time period, the audience watches a seemingly unimportant series of events unfold.

But it would be a mistake to think of this all as pedestrian; Like Someone in Love is heavy with feminism that echoes the work of Kenji Mizoguchi, Mikio Naruse, etc. A noteworthy observation is that the men in Akiko’s life (her boss, her boyfriend, and the old man) all in some way, shape, or form make life harder for her. In a story that spans over less than twenty-four hours, she experiences a big barrage of adversity.

This film by Kiarostami is more than meets the eye. Its underlying themes really aren’t that far off from what we saw in the golden age of Japanese cinema. Like Someone in Love is at its heart a sympathetic piece of feminism. It goes back to the roots of Japanese films tastefully. From the ‘40s through the ‘60s, we had directors like Mizoguchi and Naruse distinguished by their feminism. Today, we have Kiarostami’s film Like Someone in Love.

How Could Kennedy Be So Faithful to his Country, but so Unfaithful to his Wife?

by Lucy

In the non fiction book Killing Kennedy (written by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard about the assassination of JFK) it explains President Kennedy’s faithfulness to his country, but his faithlessness to his wife. This is first explained on page 37 in the quote “which is not to say that John Kennedy limits his sexual relations to the First Lady. While happily married, he is far from monogamous.” On page 82 the Kennedy Monroe affair has been mentioned “The president is entranced by her wit and intellect and would be thrilled to add such a famous sex symbol to his list of conquests.” Page 82 also states when Kennedy invited Monroe to Palm Springs he said, “Jackie won’t be there.”

Although Kennedy had been unfaithful to his wife, he remained faithful to his country. A quote from page 24 explains Kennedy’s faithfulness to the military, “Kennedy, a member of the swim team at Harvard, tows a badly burned crew member by placing a strap from the man’s between his own teeth and pulling him.” Page 86 explains his dedication to the democratic party. “rally that raises more then $1 million for the democratic party.” Finally on page 111 Kennedy’s dedication to his country is shown. “Whatever happens next has nothing to do with being a democrat or republican, and everything to do with what is best for the American people.” 

Although JFK made mistakes in his family and marital life, he was still a devoted president to America and the American people. 

The Modern Prometheus

by Jules

“Man, how ignorant art thou in thy pride and wisdom! Cease; you know not what it is you say.” -Frankenstein (Pg.204)

That's right. I'm talking about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1816. Mary was nineteen at the time recently married to Percy Shelley. They took a trip to Switzerland and became neighbors to Lord Byron. It was a rainy summer and they were often confined to the house and as Mary Shelley put in the introduction of the book “Some volumes of ghost stories, translated from the German into French, fell into our hands.”(Pg.45) And as a group of authors, Lord Byron  proposed that they each write their own. There were four of them in this contest of sorts: There was John Polidori Byron's physician friend, Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, and Mary Shelley. Everyone thought of one except for Mary. Then one night, half asleep it came to her. She imagined the creation of Frankenstein's monster. She woke up and wrote the whole story in one night. Pretty amazing huh? 

I really enjoyed the story and I think that it's under appreciated. I think it's horror as it should be. Not full of senseless death and maiming, with over use of gore. It's classier than that. It's full of feeling and emotion with twists and turns. It's a tragedy along with a horror story. 

I also think Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is also badly portrayed in film. Frankenstein's monster isn't some green guy with bolts in his neck. He's sewn together flesh. He's a thing with emotions, not some bumbling giant. He's vengeful! He's alone! He grieves. I think the book was really powerfully written and impressive. I think everyone should read it.

Is There a Method to Hamlet's Madness?

by Sanchez C.

“Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't – Hamlet. Act 2, scene 2.

Throughout Hamlet, many characters question if Hamlet is going insane. The suspicion of Hamlet's insanity starts in act 2 scene 1, when Ophelia talk to her father Polonius, describing what a scare Hamlet gave her, when he ran into her room, pale and messy-looking “And with a look so piteous in purport/As if he had been loosed out of hell”(act 2 scene 1, line 82-83). She describes. Polonius, being a concerned father to a teenage girl, comes up with a very plausible conclusion: “Mad for thy love?”( act 2 scene 1, line 85), he questions Ophelia. As readers, we know this to be incorrect. Hamlet just saw a ghost, he's probably not going to worried about his romantic troubles with Ophelia. Polonius, of course, doesn't know this and decides to bring this to the attention of Claudius, the king.

In act 2 scene 2, Claudius, the king and Hamlet's “father-uncle” has been informed of the matter, and thinks that Hamlet's “madness” is being caused from his father's recent death. So Claudius sends for Hamlet's two old friends, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to try and cheer Hamlet up. After they leave, Polonius comes to Claudius and states his theory about Hamlet's insanity: he tells Claudius that he told Ophelia to dump Hamlet because she was out of his league, “Lord Hamlet is a prince out thy star/ This must not be”(act 2 scene 2, line 142-143) and that's why he thinks Hamlet is depressed and therefore acting mad.

So in order to test this theory, Claudius and Polonius arrange a “chance” meeting between Ophelia and Hamlet. And of course, their theory proves to be incorrect. Hamlet approaches Ophelia, telling her that he didn't love her and hypocritically blames her for being promiscuous. After Hamlet leaves Ophelia, Claudius comes to the conclusion that “Love? His affections do not that way tend.../There's something in his soul/O'er which his melancholy sits on brood” (act 3 scene 1, line 162 and 164-165). Polonius disagrees, and still sticks to what he thought before. 

Throughout Hamlet, Hamlet seems to get more and more insane. At first we see that he is dealing with the grief and frustration of losing his father and having his mother have that relationship with his uncle. “He was a man. Take him for all in all./I shall not look upon his like again”(act 1 scene 2, line 186-187). But after Hamlet sees his father's ghost, he starts becoming paranoid and progressively insane.  When Hamlet puts on the play for his father-uncle Claudius, you can see just how out of it he really is. He insults his mother, and then pretends that everything is jolly and great when his play is shut down, after Claudius leaves in fear and probably anger. Also when he goes to his mother's bedroom and coerces her to face her wrongdoings.“Come, come and sit you down. You shall not/ budge./You go not till I set you up a glass/Where you may see the inmost part of you” (act 3 scene 4, line 18-21). Of course, the argument could be made that Hamlet's insanity is feigned, due to the fact that he tells his mother in the same scene, that he is “...essentially am not in madness/But mad in craft” (act 3 scene 4, line 187-188). What is the correct opinion? You decide.

DUBSTEP 1.0

by Da Jestr

Sup bors, its Jestr again.  I have a huge obsession with the type of electronica music known as Dubstep.  My top five Dubstep producers:

1) Excision

2) Datsik

3) Vexare

4) Downlink

5) The Widdler

To me to me Dubstep is literature. Just like books give you feelings, this music gives you different feelings, and can be analyzed and close read just like books.

First off lets go on a little background history of Dubstep… It originated in London, England.  Dubstep is based on some different genres of music: Reggae, Rave, grime, 2-step, drum and bass, and breakstep.

The first major record companies were also based in England: Big Apple, Tempa, and Ammunition.  Dubstep was created in the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s. 

Right now there are thousands of deejays out there in the world, but we’re going to focus on one in particular: Vexare.

Listen to "Still Remaining" below:

           

What makes Vexare so unique is the fact that he plays with the MIDI Keyboard a lot in his songs.  MIDI Keyboards screwed up music back in the day but people are content with where the MIDI is now.  It’s with all Electro types of music.

Here’s a MIDI Keyboard:

Anyways, Vexare always messes with our minds with the soothing tones of his MIDI-started songs.  Still Remaining for instance, is one of his most intense bass drops.  Still Remaining in the beginning is a very soothing until 28 minutes in the song when the synthesizer samples start playing.  The samples are obviously bitcrushed with about 7bits maybe 8. 

Bitcrushers damage bits in songs so that it makes the bits sound kind of staticy. 

When the bass drum beat ‘builds’ up to the bass drop that’s when we assume that the ‘drop’ is going to be intense. 

Finally, when the bass drops Vexare used his really professional dee jaying skills to make wobble bass and subby bass as he’s stepping (dubstepping.) 

I’ll show you a pictures of wobble bass on the Fruity Loops Dubstep Software.

Also, what’s unique about Vexare’s songs is the different pitches and beats that he uses.  For instance in the Clockmaker, he keeps on switching to one pitch to another, very quickly.

Back to Still Remaining, Vexare has unique sounds he makes; I can’t really explain them but if you want you can listen. 

The real reason I like Still Remaining is because it has a lot of subby and wobble bass.  It also is very, very intense because: it has intense beats and a fast pace.

The different kinds of drum samples in this song are obviously unique to Vexare.  If you want to make Dubstep by yourself you need to not have a drumkit. You use drumkit samples. J

Anyways, about the beat in Still Remaining…

When I listen to it I hear: snare, hihat, cymbals, and bass drum.  The bass drum, I hear, is mostly in the build up to the drop. 

When the bass drops, mostly snare and cymbal samples are audible. 

About the dubstep parts, Vexare also uses the turntables to make the sound more, um, wobbly? J

Anyways, in the Dubstep parts Vexare switches the dials to switch pitches a lot to make more ‘intense’ sounds. 

After the first bass drop, Vexare uses synth samples and MIDI to go back to that awkward soothing/relaxing piano part. 

After 30 more seconds: the bitcrushed synth comes back a second time.  This time it sounds like there is two of the same synths (but at different pitches) at the same time. 

When it gets to the bass drop again, the synth and the Dubstep are going at the same time.  Its common in many, um lets say, Skrillex songs to have two different drops, but they have different delay, attack, and decay in them. 

Delay, attack, and decay all make the dubsteppy stuff sound good. 

            

So when you have the chance, listen to Still Remaining by Vexare.

So bors, next time let’s dubstep it up another level, next time: Swagga by Excision and Datsik.  

           

Key terms: Bitcrushers, wobble bass (wobbs,) subsonic bass (subby,) MIDI, synthesizers, hi hat, snare, kick, bassline, bass, bass drops, cymbal, delay, reverb, decay, and attack.

           

            

Cooked by Michael Pollan

by Pecan Kai

Cooked is a book that talks about the science and culture that surrounds food. It is written by Michael Pollan, who is the author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The book takes you on a journey with the 4 elements that prepare food (fire water, air and earth) along  with sharing his opinions of what it means to cook. In fire, he goes on a journey looking at barbeque. He starts in the south and ends up in the Basque region of Spain at a restaurant that smoke infuses all their food. At the beginning, they eat smoke infused butter and finish off with smoke infused cream. Smoke changes the molecular structure of foods. If you are familiar with restaurants like El Bulli which make basil foam and salad Jello(molecular gastronomy)barbeque wouldn't compare.

After reading how it chemically changes the meat though, it very well could fall into that cuisine.

To jump ahead, Water is about the essence of boiling and braising.

Braise

It focuses a lot on onions and how they are the most important part of every stew.

Air is about baking, this is where the author talks a lot about how wonder bread isn’t REAL bread. He meets with more experts on food. He talks with a baker about the perfect bread.

Earth is about fermenting. I learned a lot from this. Apparently people use all sorts of sauerkrauts and kimchis as home remedies, but Kombucha (my favorite drink)

 has supposedly been used to cure diabetes. Archaeologists found a breadfruit pile fermenting for 200+ years and it was still edible. I wouldn’t want to eat it. Towards the end he gets into the most commonly ingested kind of fermented item: alcohol. He discusses why humans and other animals like flies and bats drink it, even though it seems like an evolutionary disadvantage to be intoxicated.

Apparently in wild animal culture it helps with finding a mate and producing offspring (survival of the fittest). Who knew? Along with that it helps with survival because it is produced naturally in bruised fruits and if animals are willing to eat the yucky fruits they won’t die of starvation. That means humans don’t need it because we have mass produced food and drink! Thank you evolution!