Today in things that weren't:

Like the 21st century, it was an era that
was simultaneously inventive and dumb. 

Disabused! That's what I've been. Of a fact I thought was a fact but is actually not, and now the world is slightly less interesting. What fact?  you might ask. Well, let me tell you. I read this book a couple of years ago called How Shakespeare Changed Everything by Stephen Marche both because I'm pretentious and because I find the early modern period of European history fascinating. It's sort of the transition between the Middle Ages and the now times. Like, they had the printing press and double entry accounting, but still bled people with leaches and believed in unicorns. 

Above: Schieffelin, looking
exactly like you'd expect a 19th
century eco-terrorist to look. 

But this isn't about that exactly, this is about a 19th century pharmaceutical company owner called Eugene Schieffelin. But unlike contemporary pharma bros, Schieffelin was into things like nature and the environment and Shakespeare instead of profiting off of human misery--although, it was the 19th century and profiting off of human mystery was like all rich people did back then, so it was probably more of a yes and. Doesn't matter, the point is that he was a member of something called the American Acclimatization Society who decided, in classic old tyme disregard for environmental concerns, to bring European bird species to the US. Sort of like feathered colonialism. But not just any birds, but birds referenced in Shakespeare's plays. The work of an obsessed fan, right? It would be like learning to speak elvish because you're just super into Tolkien. And also in this scenario, speaking elvish has dire ecological consequences.

It turns out that research requires
 more than access to google.

Ok, bad example, but it's still an interesting story, right? Yes, but then a YouTuber I watched this evening said it was nonsense. So which is it? Desperate to know one way or there other, I did my own research (research being defined a brief internet search until one finds the website or article that aligns with whatever point one is trying to make) and yeah. Whomp whomp. While Schiefflin did bring starlings to North America, he wasn't the only one to do so, and it probably had nothing to do with Shakespeare.  

A nature writer in the 1940's who didn't bother to verify the story, just repeated it as fact, resulting in the wide acceptance of the story today. And thus a story about how one nerd's obsession with Shakespeare being directly responsible for the introduction of an entire species to a region it has no business being is now just a story about the reckless but successful introduction of an entire species to a region it has no business being. But this time without the fandom. 

Above: perhaps nature's most basic bird,
now stripped of the one thing that made it interesting.

Oh, the other F-word...

I'm kidding, they're equally transphobic.

I don't want to tell the Pope how to pope, but seriously. Seriously. Ok, obviously he didn't write his own apology, someone on his staff did and--huh? Oh! You didn't hear? Pope Francis, you know, the Cool Pope dropped the F-word in a meeting. No, not fuck the homophobic F-word. Specifically the Italian version of it. Evidently he and some Italian Bishops--which I gather are like, the Jedi Council for Catholics--were discussing whether or not to allow gay men to enter seminaries--which are like, I don't know, Hogwarts for priests only not as transphobic?

It's from the latin meaning "seed plot,"
so like, get your mind out of the gutter.

Are there like a ton of gay men knocking on the doors of seminaries? Who even knows? Although on paper it does seem like a great place to meet single men. Doesn't matter, the point is Cool Pope was having none of it saying that there was too much--and trigger warning if you speak Italian--frociaggine--in seminaries already. Which, yikes. So first of all, you can probably work out what that word means from the context, and I can assure you, it's not--as one might guess--a variety of pasta. And secondly, is that a thing? That seminaries are famously gay? 

"Seminaries, amiright guys?"

-The Pope, evidently

So much so that Catholic upper-management jokes about it? But ok, fine, whatever. Maybe he's not as cool a Pope as we all thought. I mean, he's maybe less openly hostile towards queer people than the rest of the organization, but he's still on team "no gay stuff." And he is pushing ninety. That's not an excuse, I'm just saying that sometimes people say shitty things becaus they're set in their ways. What's bothering me is the apology Matteo Bruni, the Director of the Holy See Press Office issued. 

Um, we're all aware of the articles.
That's what the internet is for.

First, after acknowledging that the Pope is "aware of articles" about him dropping a homophobic slur, he goes on to say:

"The Pope never intended to offend of express himself in homophobic terms, and he apologizes to those who felt offended by the use of a term, as reported by others."

-Matteo Bruno, il dottore in giro

"Technically, no. It's a pretty sweet deal."

-The Pope, infallibly

He doesn't use the conditional apology. Instead it's: "he's sorry if anyone was offended," which is like, spokesperson 101 for when you want to suggest that the people who take issue with something are wrong to be offended. But he does expertly distance the Pope from any sort of responsibility. "...to those who felt offended..." and "the use of a term..." Oh, and "...as reported by others." I mean, did he drop the F-word (again, not fettuccini) or did other people just report that he did? Is anything his fault?

So like I said, I don't want to tell the Pope how to pope or his press secretary how to bullshit, but conditional apologies and laying the blame on the people you've just offended for being offended makes one sound cheap, and not very, what's the word? Papal? Oh, and while I'm at it, it sounds like the seminaries are already full of gay men who are willing to look past the Church's medieval views, so maybe stop insulting your own? And better still, maybe rethink some of those views?

"We'd also like to take the opportunity to apologize to anyone who, over the past
thousand years or so, might have felt burned alive for heresy...as reported by others."

-Matteo Bruni, covering some bases

Face Palme d'Or

Um, yeah, but they have a point. Who and what about? you might reasonably ask? Why, the anonymous critics who suggested that the first six Star Wars films weren't exactly cutting edge when it comes to representation.

Pictured: Director George Lucas on the set of Star Wars trying
to remember which of the two white guys he cast is Luke.

In his defense, if you want fascist space
colonizers you can't go wrong casting a
bunch of white British guys. 

Last week, George Lucas was in conversation with someone from the Cannes Film Festival before they bestow upon him the Palme d'Or in recognition of his contribution to the industry and that's great. He 100% deserves it. To be clear, I like George Lucas and Star Wars. It's great, he's great, and good on him, but I mean, his films, that is the original and prequel trilogies, don't exactly have the most diverse casts and pointing this out isn't, you know, unfair.

I'm going to suggest that bringing up the aliens
in Star Wars is maybe not the best move when
responding to criticisms about diversity?

He addressed this criticism of Star Wars, unsolicitedly mind you, saying:

"There are certain aspects of that movie which say, you know they would say well, there's no, it's not uh, it's all white men. I said: it's not. Most of the people are aliens."

-George Lucas, evidently referring to

some other series of sci-fi fantasy movies?

Fine, there were two if you count the guy
with the ice cream maker in Cloud City.

Um...I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that having space aliens in your movie isn't the same as representation, but it gets worse. He goes on to awkwardly remind us how Billy Dee Williams and later Samuel L. Jackson were in the films which, yes they were. Billy Dee Williams played like, the only Black character in the three original movies. And Lucas kind of makes it sound like Samuel L. Jackson begged him to do the film which seems unlikely and kind of comes off like he's telling us how some of his best friends are Black. 

Pictured: that time Jabba fed a third of
the film's female characters to the Rancor

It's an uncomfortable, cringey discussion, so obviously I decided to watch the whole thing and then try and count the number of characters in both the original and prequel trilogies who aren't white men. Ready? Here goes. I've already mentioned Billy Dee Williams, so moving on to women in the original films: Carrie Fisher. Ok, I kid, there are others, but I think I can count them on one hand Aunt Beru, Mon Mothma, and Oola. 

Four if you count the Jedi in the wide shots at
the end of Episode I who's definitely not Samuel L.
Jackson's character. Let's call him Mace Windon't.

As for people of color in the prequels, there's the aforementioned Samuel L. Jackson's Mace Windu, but the ratio of the main roles is not much different from that of original trilogy. That is, the leads are still two white guys and one white lady. There are some people of color in minor roles, like Padmé's body guards Captain Panaka, and later Captain Typhoon. So not counting single-line extras, that's three named, speaking Black characters over three movies, and except Mace Windu, none are as memorable as Billy Dee Williams's Lando Calrissian.

"I'm afraid she's dying. It's wandering womb,
or possibly hysteria. It's impossible to know."

-Some Robot

There are more women in the prequels: Shmi Skywalker, young Aunt Beru, and Padmé's handmaidens, but no leads other than Padmé. Padmé who--in the prequel movies anyway, as opposed to her extended universe appearances--is a noticeably weaker character than Princess Leia. Like, she falls for a whiney child-murderer and then dies in childbirth from sadness. Because emotions. And again, I'm not ragging on George Lucas or these films. I've come to enjoy them, but they were products of the times in which they were made. 

That's not an excuse, it's just that back then, there was maybe less of an expectation that the cast would be anything other than almost all white. And acknowledging that, and using that as a springboard to discuss how the industry could be more inclusive and have better representation seems more productive than getting super-defensive about it. 

George Lucas coming dangerously close to reminding us how
he made Redtails and is therefore immune to criticism.

Today in: Really? That guy?

Again, far be it from me to criticize the film industry and how it--huh? Yes, ok, I do do it all the time, but I don't like, know what I'm talking about. I'm just talking, you know? So when I say how come that guy is in charge of making the next Star Trek movie, know that it's coming from a place of uninformed, yet surprisingly strong, opinions.

Above: a spool of movie, uh, film and the clack thing
you clack when you say action. See? I know some things...

Stewardship largely entails eating cherry
tomatoes while a hobbit sings a haunting tune.

That said, how come that guy is in charge of Star Trek? Which guy? Simon Kinberg. He's evidently going to be the producer of the next Star Trek film, and is maybe also going to be the "'new steward of the franchise'" which is the wording used in the article I read about this, and which I take to mean: the person in charge of the general direction of the series. Begging the question: really? That guy? And to be clear, I don't know Simon Kinberg, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I have seen some of his movies.

The bad X-Men movie is a tittle it
held for like, a couple of years at most.

Back in 2006 he wrote X-Men: The Last Stand, which at the time was widely regarded as "the bad one," but is now simply thought of as the first bad one. It was the point at which that series began the downward spiral from which it only occasionally, and briefly recovers. He went on to produce several more genre movies including a few X-Men movies including Deadpool and Logan which were great, and X-Men: Apolcalypse which was also a movie.

He also wrote and produced Dark Phoenix; essentially a remake of The Last Stand that was somehow even worse. Oh, and he directed it too, so, there's that. 

"Let's get, you know, whatsisname? They guy that fucked it up last time?"

-someone at 20th Century Fox, evidently

I guess if someone came in to buy 2.8
million copies of Anne Pachett's Tom Lake,
and I just kicked them out or said no?

Like I said, I don't know much about the movie business at all, but I do have access to the internet and can do searches for X-Men movies by box office and X-Men movies by critical score he's got like, less than a fifty percent hit rate. Like, if I did something at work that lost a hundred million dollars of money--admittedly difficult given that I work in a bookstore and not a film studio--I'd probably be fired or at the very least wouldn't be put in charge of an entire film franchise. So why--and again, nothing against Simon Kinberg as a person--but why would they give him the keys to another one?

I suppose, as we've discussed before, that movie making is a business and more about returns rather than quality, and surely somehow the decision to put Simon Kinberg in charge of the Star Trek films must math out in some way that makes it look like a good idea. I can't fathom how, but it has too, right?

Unless we live in a culture where certain people are allowed to make mistakes
while other, less privileged people's failures have permanent consequen--oh, right.

Today in why we can't have nice things:

Instead of whisking you away to alien
planets full of people with Canadian accents,
it's a livestream video with Irish people.

Remember that portal thing between New York and Dublin? I mean, it's not like, a portal portal. You can't step through it or anything. Instead, it's an art piece. Sort of a Stargate-looking disc with a giant screen behind it, and well, you get the idea. There're a few of these around the world and you know, it's nice. There's one each in Vilnius, Lithuania, Lublin, Poland, Dublin, Ireland, and New York City. The idea was that it's always on, and people in City A can look at people in City B and, I guess wave, or something. 

But then it's that or something that has now become an issue because the New York/Dublin portals were temporarily shut down last week because people just can't behave I guess. 

In many ways, they should have been prepared for what would happen
when you set up a live public livestream on the streets of New York.

This peace sign is a wrist flip away from
sparking an international incident.

At first it was all peace signs and friendly vibes, but then came the middle fingers, flashers, and holy shit, swastikas? No, seriously, randos in Dublin were waving around pictures of the Twin Towers collapsing and Nazi symbols, which I mean, coming from a country that opted to stay neutral during World War II is a little, you know, extra tasteless? But I'm not picking on Dublin here, I'm sure New Yorkers started it. But whatever, doesn't matter, the point is can we seriously not, like, as a species, have nice things? 

I know this thing is a glorified zoom call we're all supposed to pretend is bringing the world together, but is it so hard to look at a piece of public art meant to bring people together and not flip them off? Or pull out your 9/11 photo collection? The thing about art uniting people is that it really can like, if you want it too. Although step one would be not acting like a bunch of middle school jackasses.*

Above: In one of history's more catastrophic misunderstandings, Rebecca Henderson
made the hand heart gesture as a symbol of goodwill, completely unaware that it is 
identical to a British gesture expressing support for the re-conquest of Ireland.

*I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to kids in middle school, New Yorkers, and the people of the Republic of Ireland. 

Today in fictional murder sprees:

So at 439 kills across four movies, Wick
more than doubles history's worst serial killer.
Which is weird, because he's the good guy?

So I kind of liked John Wick. I mean, as a movie. It was mind-numbingly violent and while puppies are inarguably adorable, and the Russian mob as portrayed in the film--and probably in real life--is monstrous, but killing seventy-seven people is well beyond a proportional response and puts it firmly into war crime territory. And while I've never really bought the idea that movie violence breeds real-life violence, that it sells the way it does is, I don't know, unsettling? But again, despite my qualms about all the murder, I thought it was a good movie.

I mean, at this point, just call it Fast & Furious:
Narratively Linked Content and be done with it.

But then there was another movie. And then another movie. And then--wait for it--another movie. There's also a spin-off series called The Continental, and oh, another movie. This one is also a spin-off and it will be entitled John Wick Presents: Ballerina. Which is both a lazy, and a clumsy way of making sure you know that it's connected to the series, but isn't a direct sequel. Sort of like that time Fast Ampersand Furious Presented some other movie.

"Must...voice...unqualified opinion..."

-me, evidently

I mention all this because there's another, other movie in the Wickiverse just announced today. This one starring Donnie Yen as his character from JW4 (which is what all the kids call John Wick 4*). And no, I've not seen JW4, or JW3 for that matter. Or the TV show. And I don't really have any interest in the movies themselves, I'm just having opinions about things I have no connection to because the internet exists and I find myself thinking about the stupefying proliferations of various CU's. That's cinematic universes I'm acronyming there.

An era inn which everything was in
black and white, and Glenn Miller's
In the Mood played on a constant loop.

This phenomenon wherein all visual narrative media (is that a thing?) has some connection to some other, previously successful piece of visual narrative media. And we as consumers (a term I hate), now use phrases like IP's and Franchises like we're marketing people or something. I think it's generally accepted that this is all Kevin Feige's fault. He didn't invent the idea, like, Universal Studios was doing this back in the days of war bonds and fedoras with their monster movies, but he did, you know, steal it and use it to make twenty eight billion--with a b--dollars. Yes, of money. Can you believe it?

Yup, it takes a real visionary to take a thing someone else did before and apply it to other people's creative works. 

Movie executives are like remora, except the sharks are grossly underpaid.

Pictured: the role Sir Keanu
Reeves was knighted for (source?).

But then I guess that's just business which I suppose is what I'm talking about. Like, we don't need another John Wick. That's not a knock on the movie or the writer and it's certainly not me ragging on Keanu Reeves who, by all account, is the single nicest human being who has ever lived and truly shined in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. But it is an observation--and not an original one--that popular entertainment is, or at least feels (I don't have statistics or anything), more driven by financial factors than creative ones. 

There're not four or five John Wick sequels, or half a dozen new Star Trek and Star Wars streaming shows, or another season of whatever because these are stories that must be told. They exist because an algorithm told the marketing people: "thing=money, so more thing=more money." Is this a bummer or just an it is what is it thing and I should just up and binge X-Men '97?

A secret, unseen world that coexists with our mundane reality and has its own rules,
terminology, and even currency? Is John Wick just Harry Potter with assassins?

*no it's not.

Nobody asked you JK, nobody asked you.

Before moving on to exclusively hate-
filled tweets, Rowling previously
wrote children's fantasy novels. 

Recently, noted transphobic shitshow, and self-appointed arbiter of everyone else's genitals, JK Rowling decided to lay into the manager (that's British for coach, I think. I'm not sure, I didn't really watch Ted Lasso) of the Sutton United women's football (that's soccer to those of us who call lifts elevators and live with crushing medical debt) club (team? It's both British and sports-related so cut me some slack) in Britain for daring to be trans. And, I mean that's whatever. Of course she did. 

What exactly did she say? Doesn't matter. It was mean-spirited and she sucks. What I do want to talk about is these headlines:

I remember when a Double Down was a
sandwich with chicken in place of bread and
not a phrase meaning "leaning into vitriol."

"JK Rowling row continues after she doubles down on mocking trans football manager Lucy Clark"

-The Hindustan Times

"JK Rowling is accused of cruelty as she mocks transgender football manager by comparing her to a 'straight, white, middle-aged bloke"

-Daily Mail

To be clear, even Elon Musk thinks she's gone
off the rails. And he came up with Cybertruck.

"JK Rowling accused of bullying transgender women's football manager"

-The Telegraph

Notice anything about them? That maybe they all, in general, frame the party who starts tweeting hateful nonsense at a complete stranger as being the aggressor and in the wrong?

I ask because this is the Fox News take of the story:

Suddenly Fox News cares about soccer?

Pictured: Lucy Clark, football managing.
Not pictured: Literally anyone asking
JK Rowling what she thinks about it.

JK Rowling leads criticism? Wow, not all heroes wear capes I guess. This kind of makes it sound like the celebrating of Lucy Clark's position as manager warranted not only comment but criticism and only JK Rowling was brave enough to look at something that was in no way her business, or really anyone's business but Lucy Clark and I guess her boss, and give her take. Her unprovoked, shitty take that basically took the form of a funny funny joke about how trans women are just dudes.

"More on the woke agenda turning your
kids gay after these commercials for gold."

-Fox

Beneath the headline is a subheading reading "Lucy Clark, who manages Sutton United, fired back on X." Like this is a dispute or a debate when really Rowling just started tweeting at this woman. It's almost like Fox News deliberately tailors their headlines to appeal to a particular type of person who feels threatened by change and by the increasing visibility of people different from them. And just reassures them and reinforces their worldview instead of asking them to think critically or question their values.

Now, I know what you're thinking, is this--huh? No, it's a figure of speech, I have no idea what you're thinking. Although, you might be wondering if the other news outlets quoted above are editorializing when approach the headline from the position that Rowling is out-of-line in making her comment? Maybe? I don't know. But I don't think so. You wouldn't describe an armed robbery with a headline like: Mugger liberates wallet as random passerby walks down the street. Unless you were like, pro-mugger, so...

Although, in a sense, Fox News kind of is pro-mugger.

Always read the room, specifically the floor.

Did you know why you shouldn't walk past the line on a bowling lane? I didn't. I'm a forty--cough--something year-old adult, and until yesterday, I didn't know this.

"Yeah, we knew."

-everyone in the world, evidently

Why anyone would willingly agree to
not only watch, but entertain fifteen kids
that aren't even theirs is beyond me.

I was attending a friend's child's sixth birthday party at the bowling alley/family fun center and--huh? Yes, I did a sport yesterday. I even knocked down most of the pins each, uh turn? Period? Whatever a bowling match is divided up into. Let's say quarter. Doesn't matter, the point is I acquitted myself quite well and ate three entire slices of pizza I knew to be terrible and yet kept coming back for more. Anyway, back to my humiliating discovery of a fact that literally everyone in the world knew but me. 

No, I don't know how much they make,
but it's a safe bet they're underpaid.

So we're bowling, when one of the kids--I don't know who's, kids all look alike--anyway, one of the kids got their ball stuck in the gutter. The bowling alley has these automated bumpers that can be deployed to eliminate the frustration and entire point of the game, and this particular number was damaged and causing the bowling ball to get stuck. We kept having to call the underpaid bowling alley attendant whose job it was to retrieve it and I felt badly for them and took matters into my own hands. "I'll get it!" I said, heroically striding up to the stricken bowling ball.

Above: some dumb idiot haplessly
attempting to cross into the forbidden zone.

To be clear, on the floor there is a line that separates the place where one approaches the lane and the lane itself. It's known as the foul line, and beyond it is a forbidden zone where none may tread for fear of incurring a penalty. There is even a warning not to do so, but there was this kid whose bowling ball was helplessly stuck in limbo so I figured I could just grab it and we could all resume the game. I figured it was just against the rules of the game to cross that line, I didn't realize there was an actual slip hazard.

Pictured: me, yesterday.

Interestingly and in the defense of the bowling alley proprietors, the aforementioned warning reads: SLIP HAZARD--DO NOT CROSS THE FOUL LINE. Ok, what followed may have been at least partially on me. Upon crossing into the zone and triggering an unimpressive alarm buzzer, I, as the kids might say, wiped out. My feet flew out from under me and I comically sailed into the air. Like Icarus I had flown too close to the sun and for my hubris was pushed. Mine was a humiliating prat fall, which, to the credit to those around me, was met with concern and not the peels of laughter such as I deserved, but for real. 

Fortunately, the only thing injured was my pride, and possibly my ulna, we're still waiting for the x-ray.* I tell you this not to illicit your sympathy, nor to amuse, but to urge you to heed warnings you read on the floor of bowling alleys. 

How could I possibly known?

*I'm just kid, I kid. This is America, I can't afford an X-ray.

Welcome to Lassie Lunch

I ask you, what even is this? What's what, you might reasonably reply? Why this:

"Wait, what? Is Jesus about to make out with that Scottish woman?"

-everybody

To be clear, Amazon is garbage and 
I used a private window to cover my tracks.

Ok, well obviously it's The Lassie Eunuchi by Laurie Perkins, but more to the point, why is it? And furthermore, is this even real? Because I have my doubts. The subtitle "The Savior's Love Story" sums it up nicely, as this is--and I'm quoting the Amazon description here--"...a uniquely tender love story about a beautiful, yet resilient, woman who marries The Saviour, even [sic] Jesus Christ." Even Jesus Christ? What does that mean? It's...just tip of the iceberg...a weird, possibly fake iceberg. 

Typos are the least weird thing about this, although check this description out from the book's website, exactly as it appears:

You all know the renown hero Jesus, right? 
He's famous for protecting the woman He loves?

"Rightly so, the literary world is inundated with famed story lines disclosing the struggles between the forces of good and evil. In the fictional novel. "The Lassie Eunuch". the antagonist is none other than Lucifer, himself, the Master of Darkness! Lord Jesus is the renown Hero! He must do what He does best. He must protect, restore, redeem the woman He loves."

-actual quote, presumably from someone 

who stared into the abyss too long

Above: some of Jesus's wives.

That's from www.thelassieeunuch.com although the title tag reads "welcome to lassie lunch" which is bananas, but only slightly more bananas than the actual title: The Lassie Eunuch. Speaking of, who's the eunuch in this equation? What is a renown hero? And how does one use a comma anyway? There're no rules, right? You can just throw one anywhere? And I'm no theologian, but isn't Jesus famously single? Except of course when it comes to nuns who are all married to him. Or Him, I guess. Look, like I said, I'm no theologian.

Pictured: Lylyana, a person who exists and
who wrote a review that isn't at all fake.

The whole thing sounds a little, I don't know, blasphemous? Which is weird because author Laurie Perkins describes herself as religious in the "about the author" page of the site. But whatever, let's see what the reviews say, and again, these are taken directly from the website. Specifically from the "Our Satisfied Readers" section. According to Randy, who is definitely real: Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet..." While Lylyana raves "Ut enim ad minim veniam."  

So between the Lorem Ipsum reviews, the befuddling grammatical errors, and the ludicrous premise of the book, I'm beginning to suspect we've been had. Is the book real? Is Laurie Perkins real? Is this whole thing just AI nonsense? And not even like, good AI. AI that, when assigned the admittedly difficult task of writing copy, took a Burger King ad, replaced "all-beef patty" with "books" and "grilled" with "written" and called it a day. 

Personally, I only read books that have been written to perfection.