Enter the Church of the SubGenius, the Parody Religion Backed by R. Crumb, David Byrne & Other Alt-Icons

You may not know much about the Church of the Sub­Ge­nius, but you’ve def­i­nite­ly seen its prophet. The inten­sive­ly groomed, Ward Cleaveresque J. R. “Bob” Dobbs (below) began as a hum­ble piece of 1950s clip art and went on to become “a way of life to mil­lions… yet half of them don’t even know it.” Or so claims the sweep­ing, absur­di­ty-laced, son­i­cal­ly (and per­haps intel­lec­tu­al­ly) twist­ed nar­ra­tion of Arise! The Sub­Ge­nius, an “instruc­tion­al bar­rage video” put out by the Church in 1992 as the most potent dis­til­la­tion of its reli­gion-sat­i­riz­ing sen­si­bil­i­ty.

Arise-Church-SubGenius

The obses­sion with world­wide con­spir­a­cies, the impor­tance grant­ed to vora­cious con­sump­tion and “remix­ing” of pop cul­ture (vis­i­ble every­where in Arise!), the hard­line oppo­si­tion to work, the all-impor­tant and nev­er-defined qual­i­ty of “Slack,” the askew escha­tol­ogy: how much of the Church of the Sub­ge­nius’ doc­trine has remained mere par­o­dy reli­gion, and how much, since its found­ing in the late 1970s, have its “followers”—a group that includes such alt-icons as David Byrne, Robert Crumb, and Mark Mothersbaugh—come to con­sid­er as good as the real thing?

But what­ev­er legit­i­ma­cy this sur­pris­ing­ly long-run­ning post­mod­ern joke has attained, we can also view it, like all reli­gions, as a cul­tur­al move­ment. This approach rais­es its own ques­tions: how, exact­ly, did Dobbs’ pipe-clench­ing, father­ly yet sin­is­ter vis­age become one of the most rec­og­niz­able sub­cul­tur­al emblems of the 1980s and 1990s? You may nev­er learn the answer, just as you may nev­er get a han­dle on the entire­ty of the Church’s ever more labyrinthine and aggres­sive­ly pre­pos­ter­ous mythol­o­gy, but you’ll cer­tain­ly find it all strange­ly com­pelling in the attempt.

And even if Arise! The Sub­Ge­nius does­n’t recruit you into the Church of the Sub­Ge­nius’ ranks, you’ve got to respect what they’ve pre­dict­ed: not the end of the world, as much as they talk about it, but our cur­rent­ly thriv­ing 21st-cen­tu­ry cul­ture of media appro­pri­a­tion, recon­tex­tu­al­iza­tion, and absur­di­fi­ca­tion. If ever there were a reli­gion for the Youtube era, here it is. And if you find noth­ing nov­el in its char­ac­ter­is­tic ambiva­lence about what counts as seri­ous and what does­n’t, maybe the Church of the Sub­Ge­nius’ teach­ings have pen­e­trat­ed even deep­er into the zeit­geist than all those “Bob” stick­ers made us sus­pect.

via Net­work Awe­some

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch 8 Clas­sic Cult Films for Free: Night of the Liv­ing Dead, Plan 9 from Out­er Space & More

When William S. Bur­roughs Joined Sci­en­tol­ogy (and His 1971 Book Denounc­ing It)

Mon­ty Python’s Life of Bri­an: Reli­gious Satire, Polit­i­cal Satire, or Blas­phe­my?

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Hear Ursula K. Le Guin’s Pioneering Sci-Fi Novel, The Left Hand of Darkness, as a BBC Radio Play

Whether they con­sid­er it one of her most or least impor­tant works, fans of sci­ence-fic­tion writer Ursu­la K. Le Guin usu­al­ly have a great deal to say about her best-known nov­el, 1969’s The Left Hand of Dark­ness. But it does­n’t mat­ter to me whether a book has won a Hugo or a Neb­u­la — and The Left Hand of Dark­ness has won both — or how many read­ers — and The Left Hand of Dark­ness has many — have slapped on it the label of “mas­ter­piece.” No, I only get intrigued by descrip­tions like the one Wikipedia puts in its open­ing para­graph on the nov­el, which calls it “the most famous exam­i­na­tion of sex­less androg­y­ny in sci­ence fic­tion.”

Among its many oth­er fas­ci­nat­ing qual­i­ties, The Left Hand of Dark­ness takes place on an alien world with no fixed sex­es, per­form­ing a nar­ra­tive “thought exper­i­ment” about what kind of soci­ety you might get when, depend­ing on the cir­cum­stances, any­one might repro­duce with any­one else. This unusu­al con­cept has drawn the atten­tion of not only gen­er­a­tions of read­ers but sev­er­al dif­fer­ent adap­tors, most recent­ly the BBC. They’ve always done a redoubtable job con­vert­ing imag­i­na­tive lit­er­a­ture into radio dra­ma — take their recent ver­sion of Neil Gaiman’s Nev­er­where, or their clas­sic one of Dou­glas Adams’ The Hitch­hik­er’s Guide to the Galaxy, con­sid­ered by many fans bet­ter than the book. Now they’ve set their sights on Le Guin’s award-win­ner.

The first episode of the BBC’s Left Hand of Dark­ness has already aired, and you can hear it free online for about a month at the show’s site. (It runs almost an hour.) Episode two is now online here. You can get a taste of the pro­duc­tion from the pro­mo­tion­al video at the top of the post; the one just above gives a scrap of insight as to how Le Guin came to envi­sion the nov­el­’s world. Per­son­al­ly, I need no fur­ther incen­tive to tune in than that the series fea­tures Toby Jones, whose pres­ence (usu­al­ly in film) reli­ably indi­cates a just-askew-enough cul­tur­al expe­ri­ence. And if you still feel wary about engag­ing with any kind of sci­ence fic­tion, know that even Harold Bloom real­ly, real­ly liked the book.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Inven­tive Sto­ries from Ursu­la Le Guin & J.G. Bal­lard Turned Into CBC Radio Dra­mas

Hear Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and 84 Clas­sic Radio Dra­mas from CBS Radio Work­shop (1956–57)

BBC Radio Adap­ta­tion of Neil Gaiman’s Nev­er­where Begins Sat­ur­day: A Pre­view

Free: Isaac Asimov’s Epic Foun­da­tion Tril­o­gy Dra­ma­tized in Clas­sic Audio

Dimen­sion X: The 1950s Sci­Fi Radio Show That Dra­ma­tized Sto­ries by Asi­mov, Brad­bury, Von­negut & More

1,000 Free Audio Books: Down­load Great Books for Free

Col­in Mar­shall writes on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, and the video series The City in Cin­e­maFol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

F. Scott Fitzgerald Has a Strange Dinner with James Joyce & Draws a Cute Sketch of It (1928)

fitzgerald drawings

The char­ac­ters in many of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s stories—rakish, drunk­en under­grad­u­ates and overe­d­u­cat­ed gadabouts—so resem­ble their cre­ator that it’s tempt­ing to read into all of his work some auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal intent. One episode in the writer’s life that didn’t make it into his fic­tion, Fitzgerald’s meet­ing with James Joyce in Paris, nev­er­the­less makes a fas­ci­nat­ing anec­dote all its own, and seems so per­fect­ly in char­ac­ter that it could have inspired an amus­ing short sto­ry for The Sat­ur­day Evening Post.

Accord­ing to Sylvia Beach, doyenne of the expat Amer­i­can lit­er­ary scene in Paris, founder of Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny Books, and pub­lish­er of Ulysses, Fitzger­ald “wor­shipped James Joyce, but was afraid to approach him.” In her mem­oir, Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny, Beach relates how in 1928 she and her friend, lover, and fel­low book­seller Adri­enne Mon­nier, “cooked a nice din­ner and invit­ed the Joyces, the Fitzger­alds, and André Cham­son and his wife Lucie.”

Scott drew a pic­ture in my copy of The Great Gats­by of the guests—with Joyce seat­ed at the table wear­ing a halo, Scott kneel­ing beside him, and Adri­enne and myself, at the head and foot, depict­ed as mer­maids (or sirens).

You can see Fitzgerald’s quirky lit­tle sketch above. Beach’s telling, it seems, omits many of the col­or­ful details of the meet­ing. Accord­ing to Her­bert Gor­man, anoth­er guest at the din­ner and Joyce’s first biog­ra­ph­er, Fitzgerald—so over­awed by the Irish author that he referred to the evening as the “Fes­ti­val of St. James”—“sank down on one knee before Joyce”—as in his drawing—“kissed his hand, and declared: ‘How does it feel to be a great genius, Sir? I am so excit­ed at see­ing you, Sir, that I could weep.’”

Most like­ly very drunk on cham­pagne, Fitzgerald’s antics appar­ent­ly quite alarmed Joyce. In her lit­er­ary his­to­ry, Noel Riley Fitch tells us that the Amer­i­can “offered to show his esteem for the Irish writer… by jump­ing out of the win­dow. An amazed Joyce is sup­posed to have pro­hib­it­ed the dis­play and exclaimed, ‘That young man must be mad—I’m afraid he’ll do him­self some injury.’” The bizarre inci­dent did not pre­vent Fitzger­ald from obtain­ing Joyce’s auto­graph in his copy of Ulysses. Nor did it pre­vent him, on a lat­er occa­sion, from threat­en­ing to jump from his apart­ment bal­cony onto the street, “drunk and depressed by his fail­ing mar­riage.” This time, he was stopped by French nov­el­ist André Cham­son, with whom he had struck up a friend­ship at the Joyce din­ner.

Beach’s mem­oir con­tains many oth­er charm­ing, and some­what dis­may­ing, sto­ries about the Fitzger­alds, most involv­ing prof­li­gate spend­ing and drink­ing of cham­pagne. We may not have the plea­sure of hear­ing these tales from the Gats­by author himself—save through his essays, let­ters, and many fic­tion­al­iza­tions of his life. But the genial Beach, who out­lived Joyce, Fitzger­ald, Hem­ing­way, and most every oth­er author of the “Lost Gen­er­a­tion,” appeared in sev­er­al filmed inter­views, in French and Eng­lish, and told sto­ries of 1920s Paris. In one such inter­view, above, hear her describe the found­ing of Shake­speare and Com­pa­ny, that Parisian lit­er­ary hub with­out which some of the great­est lit­er­a­ture of the 20th cen­tu­ry may nev­er have reached the read­ing pub­lic.

via Austin Kleon

Relat­ed Con­tent:

See F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Hand­writ­ten Man­u­scripts for The Great Gats­by, This Side of Par­adise & More

F. Scott Fitzger­ald in Drag (1916)

Ernest Hem­ing­way to F. Scott Fitzger­ald: “Kiss My Ass”

Begin­nings Pro­files Shake­speare and Company’s Sylvia Beach Whit­man

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Take a Virtual Tour of Abbey Road Studios, Courtesy of the New Google Site “Inside Abbey Road”

Once again, Google qui­et­ly drops a nifty piece of inter­ac­tive web­bery and acts like it ain’t no big deal.

Google’s new web site, Inside Abbey Road, lets view­ers walk inside Abbey Road Stu­dios, check out the famous record­ing stu­dio (home to most of the Bea­t­les’ songs, birth­place of Dark Side of the Moon, Radiohead’s The Bends, Kanye West­’s Late Reg­is­tra­tion, the list goes on) inspect the rooms, and watch inter­views and mini-docs. It also match­es up icon­ic pho­tos (includ­ing the one shot out­side of the famous cross­walk) with the stu­dio today. The site is a col­lab­o­ra­tion between Google and the stu­dio to cel­e­brate over 80 years of music his­to­ry.

Inside Abbey Road

Abbey Road exist­ed before the Fab Four and Cliff Richard, of course, and the new site includes footage of com­pos­er Sir Edward Elgar open­ing the stu­dio in 1931 and con­duct­ing a record­ing of “Land of Hope and Glo­ry.”

There’s plen­ty of mod­ern footage too, from Kylie Minogue and Rob­bie Williams to Take That and Sig­ur Rós. You have to poke around a lit­tle bit to find every­thing, but the site includes a map in case you get lost.

abbey road beatles

You can also have a go at mix­ing a four-track record­ing in the con­trol booth, fool around on the J37 tape deck that was the height of tech dur­ing the time of Sgt. Pep­per, and try to find the rumored echo cham­ber. (Trust me, it’s there.)

abbey road board

If you want to take a break out­side and watch a real-time ver­sion of this dig­i­tal loca­tion, there’s always the Abbey Road traf­fic cam, where you watch a whole bunch of tourists try to get their Bea­t­les on with­out get­ting hit by an irate lor­ry dri­ver.

Take your vir­tu­al tour of Abbey Road here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Paul McCartney’s Con­cep­tu­al Draw­ings For the Abbey Road Cov­er and Mag­i­cal Mys­tery Tour Film

A Short Film on the Famous Cross­walk From the Bea­t­les’ Abbey Road Album Cov­er

Watch Doc­u­men­taries on the Mak­ing of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here

Chaos & Cre­ation at Abbey Road: Paul McCart­ney Revis­its The Bea­t­les’ Fabled Record­ing Stu­dio

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts who cur­rent­ly hosts the FunkZone Pod­cast. You can also fol­low him on Twit­ter at @tedmills and/or watch his films here.

Günter Grass Takes On Facebook: “Someone Who Has 500 Friends, Has No Friends.”

Inci­sive social crit­ic, nov­el­ist, poet, sculp­tor, and inspi­ra­tion to such tren­chant fab­u­lists as John Irv­ing and Salman Rushdie, Ger­man writer Gün­ter Grass passed away this week with a well-defined lega­cy as “his country’s moral con­science.” Win­ner of the Nobel Prize in 1999, the author did not shy away from con­tro­ver­sial polit­i­cal stances—despite his own once-hid­den past as a teenage mem­ber of the Hitler Youth and Waf­fen-SS. In 2012, Grass caused an inter­na­tion­al stir with the pub­li­ca­tion of his poem “What Must Be Said,” a fierce cri­tique of Israel’s mil­i­tarism. The poem drew some rather pre­dictable charges, and its pub­li­ca­tion, wrote Der Spiegel, broached what many con­sid­ered a taboo sub­ject. The inci­dent rep­re­sents only one of Grass’s many pub­lic state­ments, woven through­out his art and life, against nation­al­ism and war.

Which brings us to the video inter­view above from 2013. While not exact­ly address­ing a mat­ter of dire geopo­lit­i­cal sig­nif­i­cance, Grass nonethe­less levies his char­ac­ter­is­tic crit­i­cal wit against a cor­po­rate enti­ty that threat­ens to swal­low the globe, vir­tu­al­ly—Face­book. Remark­ing on his chil­dren and grandchildren’s expe­ri­ence with the social net­work, Grass says he told one of them, “Some­one who has 500 friends, has no friends.” It’s some­thing of a famil­iar sen­ti­ment by now—we’ve all read numer­ous think-pieces more or less say­ing the same thing. But Grass goes on to define the val­ue of what he calls “direct expe­ri­ences” in spe­cif­ic terms—with the admis­sion that he feels like “a dinosaur” for writ­ing his man­u­scripts by hand and typ­ing them on an old Olivet­ti type­writer.

The idea of own­ing a mobile phone and being acces­si­ble at all times—and as I know now, under sur­veil­lance, is abhor­rent to me. With the lat­est find­ings in mind, it sur­pris­es me—that mil­lions of peo­ple do not dis­tance them­selves from Face­book and all that—and say “I want no part of it.”

Grass’ aver­sion to Facebook—and the online world in general—isn’t strict­ly polit­i­cal, but lit­er­ary as well. He acknowl­edges the ease and speed of the inter­net as a research tool, and yet… “lit­er­a­ture… You can’t speed it up when you work with it. If you do, you do so at the expense of qual­i­ty.” To hear more from Grass about the writ­ing process and his atti­tudes toward lit­er­a­ture and activism, read his inter­view in the Paris Review.

via Bib­liokept

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Prob­lem with Face­book: “It’s Keep­ing Things From You”

Stephen Hawk­ing Starts Post­ing on Face­book: Join His Quest to Explain What Makes the Uni­verse Exist

Wittgen­stein Day-by-Day: Face­book Page Tracks the Philosopher’s Wartime Expe­ri­ence 100 Years Ago

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

David Fincher’s Five Finest Music Videos: From Madonna to Aerosmith

fincher videos madonna

A whole gen­er­a­tion of film­mak­ers who came to promi­nence in the late 90s and ear­ly 00s got their start in music videos. Spike Jonze, for instance, went from mak­ing the Beast­ie Boys’ best video, “Sab­o­tage,” to mak­ing Being John Malkovich, the great­est film ever about being John Malkovich. Simon West has the dubi­ous dis­tinc­tion of mak­ing Rick Astley’s “Nev­er Gonna Give You Up,” mak­ing him the hand­maid­en to that loath­some of inter­net meme’s, rick­rolling. He then went on to make the over­stuffed spec­ta­cle Con Air, mak­ing him the hand­maid­en of Nico­las Cage’s dread­ful action career. And Michael Bay, Mr. Death-Of-Cin­e­ma him­self, made slick videos for the Divinyls before branch­ing off into explo­sion porn with the Trans­form­ers fran­chise.

Yet the most cel­e­brat­ed film­mak­er to come out of music videos is David Finch­er. Even before he made his green-tint­ed feel-bad mas­ter­pieces like Zodi­ac and The Social Net­work, he already made a deep impact on Amer­i­can pop­u­lar con­scious­ness – espe­cial­ly if you were watch­ing a lot of MTV dur­ing the wan­ing days of the Cold War. Here are five of his most famous and fine­ly-craft­ed vids.

Vogue,” Madon­na (1990)

Shot in gor­geous black and white, Finch­er makes Madon­na look like a Hol­ly­wood icon of yore while spin­ning one daz­zling image after anoth­er of well-appoint­ed, and remark­ably lim­ber, men vogu­ing. The video was report­ed­ly shot at a break­neck pace, just 16 hours, to accom­mo­date Madonna’s tour sched­ule.

Straight Up,” Paula Abdul (1989)

Finch­er cap­tures Paula Abdul’s sass and her con­sid­er­able danc­ing prowess in this stark, graph­ic video that is almost com­plete­ly devoid of grey.

Free­dom! ’90,” George Michael (1990)

George Michael refused to par­tic­i­pate in the shoot for this video. So Finch­er did what I wish I could do — call up a bunch of super­mod­els includ­ing Nao­mi Camp­bell, Lin­da Evan­ge­lista and Cindy Craw­ford and get them to help out. The result feels like a Victoria’s Secret cat­a­logue come to life.

Janie’s Got a Gun,” Aero­smith (1989)

The song might be catchy but the lyrics are about mur­der and child abuse. Finch­er shoots Aerosmith’s like­ly are­na rock anthem as a crime sto­ry, com­plete with lush col­ors and moody, expres­sion­is­tic depic­tions of the deeds. The video proved to be great train­ing for his sub­se­quent films.

Express Your­self,” Madon­na (1989)

Madonna’s “Express Your­self” was the most expen­sive music video made up to that point, cost­ing $5 mil­lion. A riff off the Ger­man Expres­sion­ist mas­ter­piece, Metrop­o­lis, this work fea­tures far more corsets, naked men and crotch grabs than Fritz Lang’s film. Madon­na had a great deal of say over the final prod­uct. “I over­saw every­thing — the build­ing of the sets, every­one’s cos­tumes, I had meet­ings with make-up and hair and the cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er, every­body,” she told Rolling Stone mag­a­zine. “Cast­ing, find­ing the right cat — just every aspect.” The suc­cess of this video land­ed Finch­er his first fea­ture film, the trou­bled Alien3.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Film­mak­ing Craft of David Finch­er Demys­ti­fied in Two Video Essays

David Lynch’s Music Videos: Nine Inch Nails, Moby, Chris Isaak & More

Jim Jarmusch’s Anti-MTV Music Videos for Talk­ing Heads, Neil Young, Tom Waits & Big Audio Dyna­mite

Michel Gondry’s Finest Music Videos for Björk, Radio­head & More: The Last of the Music Video Gods

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

Disney’s 12 Timeless Principles of Animation Demonstrated in 12 Animated Primers

Last year, we fea­tured Dis­ney’s twelve time­less prin­ci­ples of ani­ma­tion, which Dis­ney ani­ma­tors Frank Thomas and Ollie John­ston first laid out in their 1981 book The Illu­sion of Life: Dis­ney Ani­ma­tion. Even if you’ve nev­er heard of the prin­ci­ples of “squash and stretch,” “fol­low-through,” and “sol­id draw­ing” before, you’ll sure­ly rec­og­nize their appli­ca­tion — in Dis­ney car­toons and most oth­ers besides — as soon as you read their expla­na­tions in that post. Not for noth­ing has Thomas and John­son’s book attained near-Bib­li­cal sta­tus among ani­ma­tors.

These 12 prin­ci­ples give ani­ma­tion the clar­i­ty of com­po­si­tion and rich­ness of motion Dis­ney’s stan­dards have us expect­ing. But how to actu­al­ly exe­cute these 12 prin­ci­ples in your own work? Alan Beck­er Tuto­ri­als breaks it down in a series of 12 videos focused on each prin­ci­ple, clear­ly illus­trat­ing how each looks in prac­tice and suc­cinct­ly explain­ing what it takes to do it right — and show­ing what hap­pens when you don’t.

Because most of us grew up watch­ing car­toons, and more than a few of us have tak­en the inter­est with us into adult­hood, we know good ani­ma­tion when we see it. After watch­ing these brief tuto­ri­als, even if you have no pro­fes­sion­al inter­est in bring­ing draw­ings to life, you’ll find out how much qual­i­ty ani­ma­tion has to do with adher­ence to the 12 prin­ci­ples. You can learn about all of them on the series’ Youtube playlist, a view­ing expe­ri­ence that will enrich your mem­o­ries of the best car­toons you watched in child­hood with an under­stand­ing of what made them the best — and an under­stand­ing of what made all the oth­ers seem so cheap. I’m look­ing at you, Grape Ape.

via Devour

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Disney’s 12 Time­less Prin­ci­ples of Ani­ma­tion

How Walt Dis­ney Car­toons Are Made

The Best Ani­mat­ed Films of All Time, Accord­ing to Ter­ry Gilliam

Free Ani­mat­ed Films: From Clas­sic to Mod­ern

Col­in Mar­shall writes on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, and the video series The City in Cin­e­maFol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

The World Record for the Shortest Math Article: 2 Words

shortest math paper

On Mon­day, on a lark, we post­ed what we thought was The Short­est-Known Paper Pub­lished in a Seri­ous Math Jour­nal. Two suc­cinct sen­tences.

But then today, an OC read­er gave us a heads-up on a more extreme dis­play of brevi­ty. In 2004, John Con­way and Alexan­der Soifer, both work­ing on math­e­mat­ics at Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty, sub­mit­ted to the Amer­i­can Math­e­mat­i­cal Month­ly what they believed was “a new world record in the num­ber of words in a [math] paper.”

Soifer explains: “On April 28, 2004 … I sub­mit­ted our paper that includ­ed just two words, ‘n2 + 2 can’ and our two draw­ings. [See one of them above.]” The sto­ry then con­tin­ues: “The Amer­i­can Math­e­mat­i­cal Month­ly was sur­prised, and did not know what to do about our new world record of a 2‑word arti­cle. Two days lat­er, on April 30, 2004, the Edi­to­r­i­al Assis­tant Mrs. Mar­garet Combs acknowl­edged the receipt of the paper”:

The Month­ly pub­lish­es expo­si­tion of math­e­mat­ics at many lev­els, and it con­tains arti­cles both long and short. Your arti­cle, how­ev­er, is a bit too short to be a good Month­ly arti­cle… A line or two of expla­na­tion would real­ly help.

Soifer writ­ers: “The same day at the cof­fee hour I asked John [Con­way], ‘What do you think?’ His answer was con­cise, ‘Do not give up too eas­i­ly.’ Accord­ing­ly, I replied [to] The Month­ly the same day”:

I respect­ful­ly dis­agree that a short paper in general—and this paper in particular—merely due to its size must be “a bit too short to be a good Month­ly arti­cle.” Is there a con­nec­tion between quan­ti­ty and qual­i­ty?… We have posed a fine (in our opin­ion) open prob­lem and report­ed two dis­tinct “behold-style” proofs of our advance on this prob­lem. What else is there to explain?

Soifer adds: “The Month­ly, appar­ent­ly felt out­gunned, for on May 4, 2004, the reply came from The Monthly’s top gun, Edi­tor-in-Chief Bruce Pal­ka”:

The Month­ly pub­lish­es two types of papers: “arti­cles,” which are sub­stan­tive expos­i­to­ry papers rang­ing in length from about six to twen­ty-five pages, and “notes,” which are short­er, fre­quent­ly some­what more tech­ni­cal pieces (typ­i­cal­ly in the one-to-five page range). I can send your paper to the notes edi­tor if you wish, but I expect that he’ll not be inter­est­ed in it either because of its length and lack of any sub­stan­tial accom­pa­ny­ing text. The stan­dard way in which we use such short papers these days is as “boxed filler” on pages that would oth­er­wise con­tain a lot of the blank space that pub­lish­ers abhor. If you’d allow us to use your paper in that way, I’d be hap­py to pub­lish it.

Soifer con­cludes: “John Con­way and I accept­ed the ‘filler’, and in the Jan­u­ary 2005 issue our paper was pub­lished.” Vic­to­ry!

Get more of the back­sto­ry here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Short­est-Known Paper Pub­lished in a Seri­ous Math Jour­nal: Two Suc­cinct Sen­tences

60 Free Online Math Cours­es

Free Math Text­books

The Math in Good Will Hunt­ing is Easy: How Do You Like Them Apples?

Does Math Objec­tive­ly Exist, or Is It a Human Cre­ation? A New PBS Video Explores a Time­less Ques­tion

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 6 ) |

Watch The Hitch: An Indie-Documentary on The Life & Times of Christopher Hitchens

A quick note: Kristof­fer Seland Helles­mark was look­ing for a doc­u­men­tary on Christo­pher Hitchens to watch, but could nev­er find one. So, after wait­ing a while, he said to him­self, “Why don’t I just make one?” The result is the 80-minute doc­u­men­tary about Hitchens, lov­ing­ly enti­tled The Hitch, which fea­tures clips from his speech­es and inter­views. We’ve added it to our col­lec­tion of 200+ Free Doc­u­men­taries, a sub­set of our larg­er col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Christo­pher Hitchens Revis­es the 10 Com­mand­ments for the 21st Cen­tu­ry

Christo­pher Hitchens: No Deathbed Con­ver­sion for Me, Thanks, But it was Good of You to Ask

Christo­pher Hitchens Cre­ates a Read­ing List for Eight-Year-Old Girl

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 4 ) |

Mike Leigh’s Five-Minute Films: A Revealing Look at the Director’s Early Cinematic Work (1975)

Mike Leigh works like few oth­er direc­tors. While most movies start with the script, Leigh devel­ops a sto­ry and char­ac­ters with his actors dur­ing long rehearsals. Leigh then assem­bles these exer­cis­es into a script. He will shoot some of that script and then rehearse some more. The result of this unusu­al style is that the actors know their char­ac­ters down to the mar­row. The film feels alive.

Back in 1975, just as Leigh was begin­ning to devel­op his famed method, the BBC com­mis­sioned him to make a series of five-minute movies. Leigh described the con­cept of the assign­ment to writer Sean O’Sullivan:

I thought it was a crack­ing idea, and I would have done forty of them or fifty – so you’d see them all the time, and some­times you might see a char­ac­ter you nev­er saw again, some­times you might see some­body pop­ping up for a moment and then be a main char­ac­ter in anoth­er one, or there’d be a cou­ple of ones that would run on to a nar­ra­tive. It would be a whole micro­cosm of the world. There was debate about whether they should be shown at the same time or they should be dot­ted around the chan­nel, like cur­rants in the pud­ding, as Tony Gar­nett, the pro­duc­er, called it.

The project, sad­ly, was can­celed before it even aired and only five movies were made. Those five were not broad­cast until 1982 when Leigh had already become a big name in British tele­vi­sion.

In some of his best works like Life is Sweet and Naked, Leigh focused on the small dra­mas of work­ing class life, min­ing the unar­tic­u­lat­ed sad­ness and anger sim­mer­ing just beneath the sur­face of mod­ern Britain. His Five-Minute Films show ear­ly glim­mers of his lat­er great­ness.

The plot of the first film, The Birth of the Goalie of the 2001 F.A. Cup Final, is sim­ple to an extreme. The short, which con­sists of ten vignettes span­ning a half-dozen years, is about a cou­ple decid­ing whether or not to have a baby. The name­less bloke repeat­ed­ly asks his reluc­tant part­ner, “Wouldn’t it be great to have a kid?” At the end of the movie, he’s kick­ing the ball around with his young son. The end. It is almost as if Leigh want­ed to see how lit­tle back­sto­ry and char­ac­ter psy­chol­o­gy he could get away with.

The sec­ond film, Old Chums, is the dia­met­ri­cal oppo­site to the first – it’s all about char­ac­ter. The sto­ry, which unfolds in real-time, shows Bri­an, who is dis­abled and in crutch­es, walk­ing to the car as he par­ries the con­ver­sa­tion­al onslaught of a boor­ish ex-school­mate, Ter­ry. The movie buries you in names and long past events that have lit­tle bear­ing on the sto­ry, but leaves cen­tral ques­tions like “what does Ter­ry actu­al­ly want?” tan­ta­liz­ing­ly vague.

A third film, Pro­ba­tion, appears above. You can watch the remain­der of Leigh’s Five-Minute Shorts here. We’ll also add them to our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Tim Burton’s Ear­ly Stu­dent Films:King and Octo­pus & Stalk of the Cel­ery Mon­ster

Mar­tin Scorsese’s Very First Films: Three Imag­i­na­tive Short Works

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

Brian May Shows You How to Play Licks & Solos from 18 Queen Songs, and Reveals the Joy of the Guitar Riff

In the world of rock gui­tar, gear is king. And tech­nique, one might say, is queen. Both rule, but the equip­ment can receive an unfair share of roy­al treat­ment. There is good rea­son for this. Elec­tri­fied instru­ments play­ing elec­tric music require heaps of wires, cir­cuits, spe­cial­ized effects, and ampli­fiers to make the sounds we’ve come to asso­ciate with hard rock and heavy met­al. But those sounds didn’t come about by acci­dent. They were designed at par­tic­u­lar times by par­tic­u­lar gui­tarists and engineers—serious gear­heads. Per­haps the most obses­sive of them all is Bri­an May, whose flashy but taste­ful play­ing with Queen set the bar for pyrotech­nics artists and fel­low gear­heads like Eddie Van Halen. Maybe it’s his work as an astro­physi­cist (no, real­ly!) that inspired his sci­en­tif­ic approach to mak­ing music. Wher­ev­er it comes from, no one plays, and sounds, quite like Bri­an May.

In the video above from 1984, May gives lessons on how to play his famous licks and solos from eigh­teen Queen songs. But first, he gets into the tech­ni­cal specs of his ampli­fiers, effects, and his gui­tar, “Red Spe­cial,” an instru­ment of his own design and build that func­tioned like no oth­er at the time. Even today, no gui­tar but a Bri­an May sig­na­ture gui­tar—now mass-pro­duced—sounds like a Bri­an May gui­tar. At one point, May says, “I’ve had this gui­tar for 20 years, and it’s pret­ty much the only thing I can play to get the right sound.” He still feels the same way, as you can see in his much more recent “Rig Run­down,” that peri­od­ic delight of gui­tar geeks every­where in which famous gui­tarists show­case the gear that gets them “the right sound.”

May’s full immer­sion in the tech­ni­cal details of elec­tric gui­tars and ampli­fiers is rivaled only by his com­plex and intri­cate gui­tar lines. If you can keep up with him in the instruc­tion­al video at the top, you might just learn a thing or two about the so-called “lick.” Just above, how­ev­er, May helps guide us through an explo­ration of a much more direct and prim­i­tive means of expression—the riff. The BBC spe­cial also fea­tures such mas­ters of this repet­i­tive, rhyth­mic motif as Joan Jett, Wayne Kramer, Nile Rodgers, Tony Iom­mi, and Dave Davies, as well as—in archival footage—riff pio­neers Chuck Berry and Link Wray, each of them demon­strat­ing the ear­worms they’re known for. Bri­an May’s riffs—in “Bohemi­an Rhap­sody” for example—may be more clas­si­cal than most, but they’re no less mem­o­rable. And after watch­ing his extend­ed les­son, you now know exact­ly how he built them, piece by piece.

via Men­tal Floss

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Bri­an May’s Home­made Gui­tar, Made From Old Tables, Bike and Motor­cy­cle Parts & More

Gui­tarist Bri­an May Explains the Mak­ing of Queen’s Clas­sic Song, ‘Bohemi­an Rhap­sody’

Queen Doc­u­men­tary Pays Trib­ute to the Rock Band That Con­quered the World

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness


  • Great Lectures

  • Sign up for Newsletter

  • About Us

    Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.


    Advertise With Us

  • Archives

  • Search

  • Quantcast
    Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.