@Pumhart_von_Steyr: Instead they go for super-villainy. In the form of insanely good music that makes the rest of the world feel small.
In the endless battle between Puberty and Panophobia, Ms. Moretz just scored a point for the Home Team.
Sure, Iceland doesn't spank their children. But somehow I think that punishing your children by making them trek through blizzards to seek council from the Elder Ones (at the top of a volcano) is much more violent.
Pssh...Vader didn't need this shit. He just reached out. :)
@Trai_Dep: On the contrary, it amplifies my ability to read what is really being said. For example, this exchange right here. It looks like a clever commenter playfully poking fun at another commenter. When in reality, you are obviously an imposter. Some fly like creature from another system sent here to study and catalogue, but after years of Earthling culture you have been poisoned, by this alien concept of Boredom, making the Internet your obvious choice for study (escape.)
I see right through you Trai Dep. Or shall I say DipTera?
:)
It seems that this type of article is popping up more and more frequently around the internet. This "type" being iPad saves all things good from all things bad. Understandably. Apple really does know their business, at least now they do. In fact, I remember a time not too distantly when Apple was something that people snickered about. So what is the change? Is it the new products? Partly. Is it the super honed marketing strategies? Mostly. Apple has gone from a punch line to the "obvious answer" to most technological needs.
And it is for this reason that I spend more time on the comments sections of these types of articles than the articles themselves. For if a company is able to pull itself out of the muck and into the clouds with the other Giants of Industry through their marketing skills, wouldn't it make sense for them to have people traverse the internet dropping positive reinforcement here and there.
Look to your left. Now look to your right. How well do you know the people you see? One never knows when an agent of Apple is near. Maybe he's nice. Maybe he's too nice.
Just saying.
@CuriousYellow: I guess to a certain degree it makes sense that genre fiction would go missing the most, just look at its target audiences versus say, Dan Browns?
And no, people were not breaking into my home but I was definitely not lending them out either. I gave up that masochistic practice a while back. This is just as simple as Friend comes over, Friend starts conversation about collection, Friend notices full Delany collection, Friend makes fun of full Anne Rice collection, Friend goes home.
Some time passes and I find that Dhalgren is missing. They are guilty but it isn't blatant enough to call them on it. Can't go burning bridges based on circumstantial "facts".
I guess it's still possible that I am feeding the Delany addiction of some ninja-thief with a penchant for homoeroticism set against a wasteland backdrop though. In fact, it's decided, that is exactly what is happening.
I have purchased more copies ofDhalgren than any other book in my life. I own a whopping zero right now. And not by choice. I have never had anyone steal anything from my collection except for copies of Dhalgren. I used to think it was poetic that people would steal such a book. Now I just find it insanely annoying.
@Pope John Peeps II: as I read the line in the article I turned to my coworker and said the same exact thing. It's not just that he did it, it's that he did it so fucking cavalier.
@TheGreat&PowerfulTurtle: We are talking about the hero that can't go more than a few months without signing up some maladjusted youth to his cause, right? I understand what you are saying though, Bats works alone. Unlike Superman and his sidekick. Or Wonder Woman and her sidekick. Or maybe Flash and his sidekick. The list goes on and on. Bats was made for teams, that's why he helped build the Justice League.
The only way they will pull off a Justcie League movie is through collaborating with the myriad amateur film makers that have done it already. That and a full-scale paradigm shift.
@Athensjail: I chuckled when Aldo showed up. I would have doubled over had he a sleeveless shirt on.
I DM'd very casually. I never noticed how into I was or how much I played it until one of my players actually thanked me after a session at the Y. No joke, the guy came up to me and told me how he was having a terrible week because his mom got arrested and that my campaign had made it easier. Contrary to popular opinion, legitimate social interactions do happen during role-playing.
I can't for the life of me remember what the campaign was though. I based a lot of my campaigns on The Foundation series and, funny enough, I think that is why I like Leprechaun 4 so much.
@Smeagol92055: Aasimo: Too true...too true.
@DocSeuss: Off the cuff...absolutely not. In fact, I don't think that Wolverine even sits in the same spectrum as Superman and Batman.
Maybe I should clarify what I mean when I say mirror. Mirrors are NOT the opposite of someone. Mirrors are a very similar image that is distorted. Also, it should be noted that an individual is more familiar with their reflection than they are with how they actually look, thereby making the mirror image this weird sort of imaginary super-you, meaning, I look in the mirror every morning at a face that is backwards yet more familiar than its reality. When I see photos of myself I look strange to myself, strange enough to inspire distaste. Mirror images are not opposites, they are complementary images that inspire and change the original just by existing. Batman is a creature built on will and innovation. Because of one incident he decided to dedicate his life to a higher moral and everything that has happened to him since has made him smarter, stronger but more importantly, more resolute in his decision. Superman, on the other hand, is a creature built up by necessity and ability. He was born meant for Earth. I know, I know, that's pushing it, but he would have remained powerless on Krypton. Only on Earth is he able to become the hero we know and love. And because he was given these powers and the love and steering of the Kents, the decision to fight truth and justice was made for him.
In short, Batman was spawned out of fear and death while Superman was birthed out of hope and love.
Wolverine is just an asshole with an anger problem.
@TemporalSword: I should have italicized the "right now". Superman was born out of our necessity for hero. We have very loudly proclaimed that we don't want heroes anymore. We want fully fleshed out human beings with fuzzy morals and emotional damage. Once we tire of the Bird with the Broken Wing schtick, we will come running right back to Supes. It is cyclical. And if we tear him apart right now in an effort to make him more relevant, we will only have a mess to clean up when he is needed again. :) I love the internet.
Superman is God, Superman is pure, Superman is perfect. The internet saavy post-modernists that we are can not allow this. We reboot and revamp in a vain effort to include Superman into our "real" world. Superman is modern, almost by definition -- he almost embodies the entire concept of it. Batman is our post-modern hero. That is why it is so great to see that Supes and Bats hold each other in such high regard. Only the two greatest heroes ever could live harmoniously with their mirror image. I hope this doesn't come off as pompous or blown out. I wholeheartedly disagree with a Superman revamp. Reboots are okay, that is just origin-play, an attempt on the writer's part to keep things exciting. But a revamp is an effort to keep things relevant and Superman cannot be relevant right now. If the big-wigs at DC were smart they would spend their efforts glorifying Superman's unchanging qualities. Market Superman as a sort of club. A club where every member takes pleasure in the fact that Superman represents something that we don't want or believe but something that we desire and believe in...like God.
My two cents.
@Strakus: Well thank you sir. Very helpful although I am walking away with the words "sweet spot" in my head.
@tetracycloide: For reference, see -- Beanie Baby
As I understand it, a creature's intelligence can barely be supposed by brain size. We have hard time tying intelligence to any specific portion of the brain. Some say it is largely in the grey matter, some say it is mostly the frontal lobes and I am sure there are thousands of other theories as well. The question being, sure, we may have larger brains than animals and we may be smarter but is there any verifiable evidence that we are smarter because of our larger brains. It seems elementary to say this is the case but where is the proof? I am not making a point here, I am truly hoping someone will clear this up or lead me in the right direction. As it stands, if we are not able to determine intelligence using a live brain for experiments then how can a few bone fragments even barely suggest possible intelligence? How do we know those massive brains weren't just for show?
@Rat_Korga: Glad to hear we are still out there, and by we I mean Delaney fans.
