#I sketched these a million years ago before Season 4 so that's why some are missing okAY?! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

seventhrounder · 3 years

Text

I went thru my folder with old hockey magazines I had saved from around 2011 to 2015 and came across this one and thought it could be a fun to make a post about now in hindsight.

This is Jääkiekko magazine from May 2012, they always have a section of "99 questions with ..." and in this issue they interviewed Teräväinen.

I’ve translated the questions I found interesting under the cut! It ended up being about half of the interview. (*) are my additions.

On the cover "seuraava superjokeri" means the next super joker, he played for Helsingin Jokerit so it's a word play from that. Under, on the blue print it says: "The 17-year-old forward will become a first round draft pick in the summer. The natural goal scorer can dominate in SM-Liiga as soon as next season."

In the 2nd photo the headline and lead paragraph goes:

"A post with dents* - A year ago Teuvo Teräväinen was known only within a small number of hockey insiders. Few passers-by recognize him now either but after a flashy rookie season the Jokerit sensation is on the radar of every NHL team and is a strong contender to become a first round draft pick. Next season with Jokerit the talented second line center will be one of the main talking points in the SM-Liiga."

(*references the net Teräväinen had in his backyard and into which he practiced his shooting)

3. You've been described as a magician, top scorer, wunderkind and a prodigy. What do you think of these descriptions?

TT: Heh, those are some descriptions yeah. What can I really say? Don't really wanna comment on them much.

4. How nervous are you about the Draft?

TT: I try not to be nervous as best as I can. In a way I don't have anything to be nervous about since I don't care which team picks me or at what number I go.

6. Which is stressing you more, English interviews or physical tests?

TT: Maybe both. Bench press (laughs) and English interviews can be tough.

12. How far along have you planned your career with, for example, your parents or your agent?

TT: Haven't really planned things with others but I've thought about them myself. I try to go step by step and not jump too far ahead.

14. How does it feel to be so young with all the star players in Jokerit?

TT: How to say it? I haven't felt like I was young but a part of the team instead. The team's been very good with me and they haven't been looking down at me like: "oh he's young". It's been fun to play in an experienced team.

15. Is there a generational gap between players?

TT: You can see the age difference, older players look older but we're all childish, at least with our topics.

17. What does a 17-year-old do in the sauna nights of the team?

TT: I actually haven't been in any yet. I've always been at national team's camps or something.

19. Did you get the number you wanted?

TT: I did, yeah. I could've taken #18 but Semir (Ben-Amor) has it. But i'm happy with #86, it's good.

23. What are your strengths as a player?

TT: Offensive play and with that playing with the puck, passing, IQ, power play and skill, just the usual skill - skill with hands.

24. And weaknesses?

TT: They are to do with defensive play, strength and physicality. Battles and such but I think I took a step forward last season. That's a good thing.

25. Have you ever been "pressed into a mold" or has your playing style gotten to develop naturally?

TT: As a kid the play was mostly offensive/attacking, I didn't have to think about playing defence. Up until 15 years old, I got to attack pretty freely. Playing defence became more important when I started to play in A-juniors a couple seasons ago.

26. On a scale from 1 to 10 how determined are you?

TT: Maybe 8, feels like an 8.

32. What kind of role are you planning to take with Jokerit next season?

TT: I think a pretty big one. I try to be a top player and not just take others' example but give others example myself too. So that someone in the team can take something out of the way I do things on the ice and off the ice.

35. If you could pick anyone, who would be your car driver?

TT: Nico Manelius for sure. He's been my driver this season. I've had others too, like Riku Hahl but he's not nearly at the same level. Nico’s clearly the best.

36. What are the most important qualifications to be a good driver?

TT: The car is obviously important. Hahl's car is totally awful, he takes a lot of heat for it from the guys too. I wouldn't dare driving with him. Manelius is a steady performer, never lets you down.

38. What sports did you play as a 10-year-old?

TT: Hockey and floorball, probably football (soccer) during the summers at the time too.

42. When did you decide to focus only on hockey?

TT: So when I stopped playing other sports? Three years ago, before that floorball was kind of a side thing, I played a couple of games in the regular season and playoffs.

45. Do you follow floorball or other sports? Go to games?

TT: I don't go to games but I like to watch floorball on TV, it's an interesting sport. Sometimes I watch football too but I don't follow it much. Feels like they never score there.

47. Have you ever played with a wooden stick?

TT: As a kid I did play with a wooden stick.

49. You won the hockey players' golf tournament last summer even though there were more experienced players too. Are you good with all stick games?

TT: Well, I've been pretty good in all of them. I've played golf for a long time and still play it.

50. How is your swing?

TT: Pretty bold, kind of a hockey swing. I don't really care where the ball goes - as long as it goes far.

52. What do you think of off-ice training?

TT: Let's just say it's more stupid than being on the ice but you still gotta do it to be better on the ice.

56. Which word describes your professional relationship (with his coach, Tomek Valtonen), tranquil or colorful?

TT: Colorful of course. At times we're joking around, other times it's more serious but the relationship is really good.

57. Coaching you has been described in many words: good, bad, worse. What are they?

TT: Heh, well... I won't tell them here. He (Tomek) keeps the discipline during practices but sometimes when things haven't gone to a plan I've had to jump on an exercise bike in the middle of a practice.

58. What have been the reasons?

TT: I'll quote Tomek: "when I haven't been present".

59. Have you ever tried to turn the resistance of the bike to zero?

TT: (Laughs) Of course I have and sometimes I've even succeeded.

60. Describe your diet in three words?

TT: Greasy, healthy and good!

64. Your first name is not common for people your age. How did your parents come up with it?

TT: I actually don't even know. Maybe they didn't want a usual Ville*....

(*very common name for men of all ages in Finland)

66. Which of these is the most important: skill, unexpectedness or courage?

TT: Skill!

68. Your longest video game stint?

TT: Six hours, at least. I've played a lot of War of Duty lately.

72. The dumbest thing that has made you upset in hockey?

TT: Probably if I didn't get an assist on a goal even though I should have. Or even worse is if I score and they mark it down for someone else.

79. Have you had any concussions?

TT: I haven't had any, I've managed to always dodge them.*

(*ouch, tho it's good the recent one is his only as far as i remember)

84. In 2011 Team Finland finished in the 5th place at the U-18 tournament. Why only as 5th?

TT: Because we lost to Team Russia in the quarter final, just as well we could have won that game too.

89. You didn't get to be on the ice to accept the SM-Liiga bronze medal (because of the U-18's). When and where did you get it?

TT: I actually still haven't received it, I don't know where it is.

93. What is the population of Helsinki?

TT: There's like 5 million people in Finland so maybe around 500k in Helsinki? (to be exact 596k) Did i really get it right...?

94. Who's the mayor of Helsinki?

TT: I don't know, I barely know the president.

95. Do you think the municipalities in the capital city area should merge?

TT: Luckily I don't have to decide but they probably shouldn't.

96. What do you check first in the news paper?

TT: The sports section.

97. Your favorite tv show?

TT: Putous* was pretty good, I liked a lot of the characters. The grandma was pretty good.

(*Finnish live improvisation comedy/sketch show (there are still new seasons, the latest just finished). Every actor comes up with a humor character with a catchy phrase and one of them wins. "The grandma" is Marja Tyrni and I just got such flashbacks from typing this sentence.)

98. Last book you read?

TT: I don't read many books. The last book was a study book, a Finnish book. I wrote an essay on Tiki (Esa) Tikkanen's biography. An eventful book, great career and a lot of chirps.

99. Who should we ask the 99 questions next?

TT: Riku Hahl could have good stories, he's also seen a lot of the world.

#teuvo teräväinen #teuvo teravainen #carolina hurricanes #canes #hockey #nhl #mp #i knew i had this mag but i thought it was from 2014 and post draft #i really didn't rmbr i've been following turbo for this many years???#good on 16yo me for spending 8 euros on this tho that was excellent thinking

85 notes · View notes

mashitandsmashit · 5 years

Text

America’s Got Talent: Season 14 - Auditions 1

Hey.

How’s it going?

So there’s this show called “America’s Got Talent”, have you heard of it?

It’s a reality talent competition...

And...

...yeah...

I got into this show ten years ago! (And yes, I’m feelin’ hella old now!) Sure, I have my issues with this show and its manipulative nature, but even with all of these other big reality game shows, this is the one that I’ve been sticking with for all these years! And the main thing drawing me in is just the variety of talents that compete! Sure, there have been other shows lately trying to copy what it’s been doing...But has anyone been hearing from them lately?

I don’t know...I’m not paying attention...I think AGT is enough for me! (Hey, that rhymes!)

All that said, I have been growing cynical about it in recent years, and something about all the promotional stuff for this season didn’t help matters, as almost everything I saw in it looked like something I’ve seen before...

Hell, they even replaced their previous black female and blonde female judges with another black female and blonde female...So far, neither of them have shown anything that helps them stand out as judges, but since it’s only their first episode, I’ll give them time to help me get to know them (because these are the first two judges in the history of AGT I know nothing about beforehand!)

That being said, the new host Terry Crews is growing on me, so that’s a plus!

But I don’t watch this show for the cast of celebrities that have little else to do in their careers...I come here for the contestants! And while almost every act making up the first audition tonight clearly seem to be some spiritual successor to other acts we’ve seen in recent seasons (primarily the previous one), I gotta admit that almost all of them legitimately impressed me!

So let’s rank them!

9: Jackie Fabulous. I said ALMOST all of them...I found this lady to be more...cute than laugh-out-loud funny...She was by no means bad, but so far she’s looking to be the black (somewhat younger) version of Vicki Barbolak, who I ALSO liked more for her personality than her jokes...But I’m willing to give her a chance...She’ll probably make some decent progress regardless...

8: The Human Fuse. On a weaker night than tonight, I would gladly rank this guy higher, because launching yourself a great distance in the air while ON FIRE is definitely worthy of some props...But I think the main reason why these acts never get far in this game (aside from the whole going outside thing) is because instead of a few minutes of a performance with various highlights, it’s just a moment of suspense, and then they do the thing...It all just lasts a few seconds, and it’s not that much more dangerous than other acts that do multiple stunts while onstage...I wish this guy the best, but there are other more deserving acts looking to do something more productive with their million than...retire...That’s a very 1% thing to do!

7: Greg Morton. When I heard his smooth, buttery voice, I thought to myself, “He BETTER not disappoint!” And I must say, for a guy just standing there doing voices, he sure can put on a show! Far more entertaining than the “Star Wars” movies that aren’t the original trilogy!

6: Sophie Pecora. As usual, any singer that writes their own songs is okay in my book! Some personal lyrics, nice singing voice and...interesting rap verse, which seems to reflect the anxiety being expressed, make this a pretty effective ballad on par with the likes of Grace VanderWaal and Mandy Harvey...And she definitely seems to have graduated from the Chase Goehring school of acoustic guitar rapping!

5: Patrizio Ratto. Okay, there’s misleading us, and then there’s straight-up false advertising! I was wondering if this guy might pull a Tokio Myers or something, but I guess I’ll settle for some robotic body-popping...Nothing super-unique about his moves so far, but he’s talented enough that I look forward to seeing what else he can do!

4: Gingzilla. So let’s see, a guy from Australia taking on this flamboyant singing diva persona? Where have I seen this before, dahlings...? Also, my reaction to this character was quite similar to my reaction to Hans: Enjoying the personality, hoping the talent and entertainment live up to said personality, and then getting exactly what I wanted and then some! While so far I would say that Hans was slightly superior in the entertainment department, this chick is definitely a superior singer, and I look forward to seeing what she brings in later rounds!

3: Kodi Lee. I think it was inevitable that I was going to share a link to this SNL sketch that aired last fall sooner or later, and this seems about as good a time as any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uysHtpAijpY...This felt just like what that sketch was joking about! But I do really like this guy, and while nothing’s certain yet, he does seem very much like a potential winner for this season!

2: Eric Chien. I think we all knew that there was going to be a magician this season piggybacking off of Shin Lim’s double-victory over the last year, and I guess if anyone can follow in his footsteps, it’s another attractive mid-20s Asian guy! (It also helps that he’s fresh off of a victory on Asia’s Got Talent!) He has a VERY TALL ORDER on his plate, and I definitely can’t say I’m rooting for him to win since he’s too similar to last year’s winner...But for now, it was an overall solid trick, and I think he deserves a chance...Who knows? Maybe he’ll make it all the way to the finals as well! But again, let’s maybe give something different a shot at the win this year...?

1: V. Unbeatable. Weird nipple-showing outfits aside, this group does show a lot of promise, even though Zurcaroh is a tough act for ANY dance group to follow! Like the previous two entries, this act could very well make it all the way to the finals, so long as they know how to up the ante! (And as yet another recent champion of a reality competition, I have no doubt that they can!)

So to sum it all up, this was like the Bruno Mars of AGT acts: I’ve generally seen it all before, but it was still just different and entertaining enough that I had a good time nonetheless! Not a bad start to the season, but I guess now would be a good time to exercise caution, because the promos still promise more soulful girl balladeers, at least one Light Balance successor, and other familiar AGT staples...And unless they can bring something fresh and new, I...do...not...care!

See you next week!

3 notes · View notes

yuniesan · 5 years

Text

Girl Meets Season 6 - Episode Sixteen – Girl Meets Self-Defense

Synopsis: The Journey from High School and into College will test everything Riley knew about her life, her friendships and her love. What life lessons will she learn in her first year of college?

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

A/N: So in DaisyAngel (on ff.net) said in one of the comments someone mentioned Maya's mother having the baby, because I used the sole focus on the first half of this on Riley, Lucas, and Zay, I never got to tell you all about the little bundle of joy, it's a boy, they named him Jonathan Chester Hunter, it's one of the reasons Maya spent so much time at home in the city on the weekends. Cory and Topanga are his godparents, and while Riley was so mixed up in helping Zay, she didn't miss anything because Josh kept her up to date, along with her parents, and I swear at some point I'm going to have to do outtakes, maybe mini drabbles, on all of these stories, because there was a lot of stuff that I took out from each season that I couldn't put in.

Sadly I couldn't finish both parts to post them today, because someone called out at work and I didn't have time to finish the second part to this.

Big note on this, I planned to write this a long time ago, yes it deals with the possibility of sexual assault, and mentions of consent and drugging, when I have chosen to write this, it had been before well before the hearings back in September. The reason why I had chosen to write this is because where I work, which is a college library, we have to have training for this and many other things that pertain to title IX, if you're not in college yet look up the law, it's meant to protect your rights if someone attacks you on campus. The talk that Riley has with her mother is actually the talk my mother gave me growing up because New York is a big city and there's always the possibility of something happening. The key thing is something I do when I'm walking home late at night, my phone is always in my pocket, and you can tap an SOS signal on the phone by pressing the power key three times and it will alert 911 to your location. I have an android phone but all phones are equip with this feature so look it up. No one ever has the right to take anything from you without your permission.

P.S. There will be more fluffy parts after this, so don't worry about that, this is just something I had wanted to do because they had done it on BMW, except this is a more modern take on the whole thing.

Also three updates in a row!!! I'm getting back into the groove of this, and I will use it to write a million life lessons if I can.

Episode Sixteen – Girl Meets Self-Defense

Riley was sitting next to Maya as her best friend sketched out a picture of her baby brother, she had wanted to use it for a painting for her parents for their anniversary, but Maya was a perfectionist when it came to her art. It was something that Riley had found hilarious at times because watching Maya disregard the world while she drew had become an adventure for the whole campus. It was right after their class, and they were waiting for Smackle and Sam to show up because it was their weekly girls' lunch date. It had started at the beginning of the semester, as a way for them to have at least an hour to catch up while also talking about their love lives.

Every once and a while Riley would refill Maya's drink as they waited, not talking, so that Maya could finish before everyone arrived. Sam was the first to get there a huge smile on her face, followed by Smackle who was engrossed in a book.

"Okay," Riley said once they were all together. "Time to put the work down, that's what we agreed on when we decided to do this."

"Fine," Smackle grumbled, before her stomach made a noise, making the genius blush.

"Don't worry I finished," Maya said smiling down at the picture of her brother. "I hope my parents love this because it's hard enough getting the kid to stop squirming so that I could get one reference shot."

"They'll love it Maya," Riley said smiling at her best friend knowing it was the truth.

"Oh, let me see," Sam said bouncing in her chair, Maya and Sam had gotten closer over the last few months, especially with their upcoming student film in the works. Which Riley opted out of seeing after they showed her one clip that made her run out of the room and towards Lucas's dorm because she was sure that she would never sleep again.

"Aww he's so cute, I could just bite his cheeks right off," Riley said when Maya flipped the picture over. Sam cooing at the image, even though she's met the little boy.

"That's not possible, unless you're a cannibal," Smackle said to them in the only way she could, and it made Riley laugh. "He is cute in the average way that all children are at that age."

"Well, there you go kid you have the Smackle seal of approval," Maya said looking down at the drawing.

"He's going to be a heart breaker that one," Sam said smiling at the image.

"God, I hope not, because from the stories my dad has told me, Uncle Shawn went through so many girls growing up," Riley said thinking about everything she had heard over the years. "And broke a few hearts along the way including Farkle's mom's which is weird enough as it is."

They all laughed at it, because while it was weird it was still a part of their families past that made up their future. As they sat there Riley watched as her friends talked, caught up and generally made plans for other things. It felt like they were all finally finding their footing after everything that had kept them apart their first semester.

"So, I heard something," Sam said to them as they finished their lunch. "Apparently there's been a series of 'hook-ups' around campus," she used air quotes around attacks which meant that there was a possibility that they weren't hook-ups at all.

"I heard about them too, and I talked to a girl who knows one of the girls that it had happened to," Maya said her voice hushed because it wasn't her story to tell. "She told me to be careful at the parties thrown by the fraternities, because someone is drugging girls without them knowing. The houses involved don't want to stop the parties until the person is found, but I don't think we should be going to any parties anytime soon."

"Why do people do things like that?" Smackle asked, because while she studied everything that she could, there were still things that she didn't know or understand. Social constructs were one of them, and she was always asking them to explain things so that she would understand better. "I know that there are certain chemicals in the brain, or how a person is raised by their family, but why would someone go after people without permission?"

"It's just one of the things that girls have to worry about Smackle," Maya said and Riley couldn't help but feel sorry for the state of the world, when girls weren't allowed to freely be themselves because there was always someone out there who wanted to do something to them.

"It's not just girls Smackle, it happens to guys too, no one is safe from a predator," Riley said knowing that after a million talks about the subject with her mother, she knew that there were too many things that could happen while she was there. Too many reasons for someone to go after her or anyone she knew, and she was afraid but she wasn't going to let it rule her heart.

"So how are we going to deal with it?" Sam asked and Riley knew that she was concerned because while no one knew who was doing it, they were all possible victims.

"The buddy system," Riley answered knowing that it was the best way to deal with this kind of problem, because being with someone lessened the risk of someone going after them. "Maya and Smackle live together, so if they have to be out at night, they need to stick close to one another, the same for us Sam, since we have the radio program, or if someone wants to go to a party only take drinks that haven't been opened, and if you see something you call the police."

"You really thought this out, didn't you?" Maya said looking at her.

"My mom talked to me a few times over the summer, there had been an incident when she had been in school, so she wanted me to be prepared if something started happening when I started here," she said thinking of her mom who had something happen to her during freshman year at college, and had told Riley about it because she wanted her daughter to be protected.

"What kind of person would go after your mother, the woman scares anyone who would dare go against her," Smackle said and they all knew it was the truth, there was no going against her in any form.

"From what I know it was a new professor, who got a little too involved with his students, my dad got suspended from school for a day because of it until they realized what had happened," she told them, it was a story that her mother had made sure that she knew because she had wanted Riley to be vigilant about what could happen. She remembered that conversation, it was one that she really would never forget.

"Riley," her mother called out from the hallway before walking into her room. "Can we talk?"

"Yeah mom," Riley said automatically walking over to the bay window, the worried look on her mother's face meant that this was the kind of conversation that they should have at the window.

"Riley, I know you're going off to college soon, and I think we should have this conversation before you go," she said her voice serious.

"Mom we had the sex talk already, we don't need to have it again."

"No this is something a little more serious, something that I think you should know about because it's something that's common on college campuses, even when I was going to school."

Riley could feel the change of tone in her mother's words, where it bordered between the lawyer, she knew her mother was and the worried parent that rarely came out because her father worried enough for the both of them. There was a story here and Riley wasn't sure if she would be alright after hearing it, but it was important for her mother to tell her which meant that it was something that should also be important to Riley no matter what.

"When I was a student in college, a professor tried to well get my attention in a way, that I didn't want," her mother took a deep breath. "I sometimes wondered what would have happened if I hadn't gotten away from him in time, or even how your father's anger would have gotten him in more trouble if people hadn't believed us."

"What did daddy do? It can't be that bad, he's a marshmallow," Riley said because she had never seen any other version of her father outside of the overprotective one, she had grown up with.

"He threw him through a glass door, and I was scared not only for what had happened to me, but also what could have happened to him," her mother took a deep breath. "Your father, he's deeply protective, not just of you but also of his whole family, and while he chases Lucas around, I think he just wants to make sure that no one oversteps when it comes to you. He trusts Lucas, I know he does, he may not show it a lot because he's still fixated on that little girl he had raised, but he does trust him."

"Mom, I'm sorry you had to go through something like that," she said taking her mother's hand and putting her head on her shoulder.

"Now for the real talk," her mother said to her, before giving her a sad smile. "I honestly wish I didn't have to give you this talk but there's enough of it on the news... and well I worry about you because you're so trusting, but if you hear about something happening, even if it's a rumor, I want you to stick close to your friends, make sure Lucas is there with you, and if you ever find yourself alone at night take out your phone in one hand with 911 already dialed, and your keys in the other."

"Why my keys?"

"If you put them between your fingers they can be used as a weapon incase anything happens. I know some places ban things like pepper spray so I want you be prepared for the worse."

"Okay so phone and keys in hand, but what happens if I drop them, or if they gain the upper hand?"

"You fight Riley, never let anyone take anything from you that you didn't consent to, and if heaven forbid that something did happen, go to the police right afterwards, and then call me because I will fight heaven and hell to make sure that they burn for what they did. Because I will protect the ones, I love the most, and make sure that you can all protect yourselves."

Riley had found out that day that her mother was fiercely protective, not only of her, but also of her friends. Protect the ones you love, and protect yourself, were words that she would always hold dearly, because her friends were like family and she didn't want anything to happen to them. So, she sat there and told them everything that her mother had said, about self-defense about the buddy system, everything because she wanted them to be able to protect themselves if anything happened.

When they separated right after Riley sent a message to Lucas, because if there was one person, she needed to talk to about this it was him. She had heard about her father's reaction, and automatically knew that Lucas would have the same, if not worse reaction, if anything happened to her. She just wanted to make sure that he didn't do anything too rash if there was someone attacking people or hurting people he cared about. Lucas was standing outside of her dorm room the minute she got there, a soft smile on his face, he was just being the same guy that she's known for years, easy going and kind.

"Hey, I um… heard about something and I want to talk to you about it," she said having the need to rip off the band-aid as fast as she could.

"Um… well sure," he said as she opened the door and let him into her room.

"I heard something from the girls as we had lunch, about… well about attacks on campus, during parties and such, and well I want you to give me your word, that if anything happened to me… that you wouldn't go all Texas Lucas."

"Riley if anything happened to you… and I couldn't stop it… Riles that would hurt me more than you know," he said a sadness in his eyes and she knew that she was asking a lot of him, but she wanted him to have his dreams come true.

"If it makes you feel better I'll take self-defense classes, I'll start a drive for girls to be better protected, I'll even talk about it on the show with Sam, Zay, and Charlie, but under no circumstances do I want you to do anything rash and stupid… please Lucas," she couldn't help how her voice broke in the end, she didn't want him to lose himself to his own anger, not after everything he's done to be a better person. Lucas knew that it was hurting her as much as it would hurt him, so when he pulled her into his arms Riley understood that he was trying his best.

They didn't say anything for a few minutes as he held her, but when he pulled away she could see the war he was having just from looking at his eyes. She reached out and touched his face, giving him a small smile and kissing him on the lips.

"I'll try my best," he said once they separated, his head resting against hers.

After that they talked, like they had promised all of those years ago, she told him about what had happened to her parents, she told him everything little detail, even the things that she hadn't told Maya, Smackle, and Sam at lunch. So of course, like her mother, Lucas set up a plan for her, even if she didn't have the chance to take self-defense classes, he would teach her. He wanted to be sure that she would be safe no matter what, even if he couldn't be nearby.

In the weeks since their conversation, Riley had set up a small network through her radio show, small gatherings for girls to understand their options, for some of the guys to know what was happening. She made sure to include anyone who hadn't felt safe on campus, because organizing things was what she did best. It worked over the years, and she wasn't going to stop now. Lucas had some guys work with their girlfriends on self-defense techniques, Maya made posters for each event, Smackle and Farkle had created little safety alarms that would sound off if the person pressed a button on their phone that signaled an S.O.S. They all worked on it in some way or another, because they all wanted to be safe.

When no other incident had been reported after a few weeks, it felt like all of them could breathe easily for once, they mostly stuck to the buddy system, and if they were alone they did what Riley had told them to do. They had all become comfortable with everything, so in the end they had let their guard down enough to go on with their lives.

It wasn't until a late night at the library, where Riley had felt like someone was watching her, as he hairs stood up almost warning her of what could happen. It was the one night where Lucas had a late class, and because it was still winter, night came a little too quickly for her. She did everything her mother had told her on the walk home, and when she had reached her dorm she had felt silly for even thinking that something could go wrong. She walked up the stairs to her floor, letting her keys dangle, and putting her phone away, because she felt stupid for having it out in the first place.

Just as she reached her door someone grabbed her and pulled her towards a dark corner on the floor, they were just at the stairs again, when she began to fight, scratching at the person who was holding onto her. Her voice muffled by their hand, she could feel them breathing against her neck and it made her want to cry. The person tightened their grip on her and kept pulling her away from the safety of her room, and when they were alone, they forced her to face them.

Riley found herself face to face with one of the dorm advisors, he wasn't the one for her floor, so she didn't really know who they were, but she knew that they were angry judging by the look on his face. She could feel her heart pounding in her chest, she wasn't sure if she would have been prepared for this in the end.

"You should have minded your own business," he said, and she knew that she was in trouble, she had blanked out for a moment, before on instinct she kneed him in the balls before taking a swing at his face. She hit him as hard as she could putting all of her body weight into it, even though she didn't have a lot of muscle she knew that she could hit. Lucas had once told her that she had a mean right hook, he had known this first hand because she had used it on him when they had been in Texas.

Once he was down she ran out the door, down the floor until all of the adrenaline that was coursing through her body had run out just as she slammed into a very familiar chest and started crying. Lucas held onto her and she knew that he didn't know what had happened, but there was something in his eyes the minute he saw her face and she knew that he knew. He pulled her into her room and closed the door before dialing 911, as she shook on her bed.

"Someone attacked her, she has a cut on her head and she's in shock," was all she heard before she heard the pounding on her door, making her jump.

Lucas looked to the door, the operator still on the other line, but the muffled sound of a very angry person on the other side made it known that the person had followed her back. She knew that they knew where she lived, he was one of the advisors for the dorm so of course he knew. The moment the sirens went off near her window the banging stopped, and she heard someone running from her door before the police showed up.

Riley could feel her hands still shaking, she didn't want to be scared, but she was, and it was a terrible feeling. Lucas held onto her while the police took her statement, before they were taken to the hospital so that Riley could be examined. It was there that her mother had found her, her mother who had gone through something similar, her mother who she had always thought was the strongest person in the world. It was there that she fell apart in her mother's arms as Lucas and her dad stood in the doorway. She had never felt so scared for her own life, because she had been so close to being attacked and no one would have known until it was too late.

#girl meets season 6 #rucas #rucas fanfic #rucas fanfiction #rileyxlucas #the girls talking #to be continued #I'm sorry for the cliffhanger

8 notes · View notes

thisislizheather · 4 years

Text

February Feats 2020

I write this from underneath two blankets, perched atop three pillows. This is day three of being sick (Nathan just joined me in illness yesterday) and I think I’m getting better but that could just be blind hope. In any case, I still have to tell you what went on last month. Forgive the tone of this post, it might be… affected.

I heard that Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker are going to be in the Paul Simon play Plaza Suite together and so I casually thought “Ooo, might be nice to catch” so I looked it up and tickets START at $700. So I guess fuck me then. I swear to god, this fucking city.

The best cover so far this year:

Above Photo: Brian Stauffer, The New Yorker

I rewatched a movie I love: The Door In The Floor and it really holds up well. Kim Basinger and Jeff Bridges and both too good at what they do. Love this movie so much.

I rewatched The Evil Dead and look I understand it’s probably a “good horror movie” especially for its time and budget, but I fucking hated it, maybe even more so than the last time that I saw it. Never again. Why do I keep rewatching things that I hate? I don’t have to like everything. I must repeat this to myself daily.

I had lunch at Daily Provisions and their lemon cruller was really good and light and the chicken club sandwich was good, too. Always a solid morning/afternoon place.

Favourite tweets of the month.

I tried Trader Joe’s Whole Wheat Couscous and maaaaan, it was so good. So I guess all couscous is good? Gotta get my hands on that pearly couscous. That seems like the money cousocus.

I made this Greek Couscous Salad for lunches for a week and didn’t get sick of it at all, I gotta remember to keep this in the rotation. I also kept the salad and the couscous separate until I wanted to eat, and then I’d join them together.

I can’t believe I hadn’t seen this sketch before (calling someone a “goofy bitch” just about killed me), also ignore how bad an actress Cardi B is.

I finished watching The Good Place and yes it was a good show. I don’t think l liked it as much as pretty much everyone else in my life who loved it, but it was definitely a good show. This scene was the best part of the finale, for sure. That song used in the scene will always elicit tears, I remember falling in love with it when it was used in the movie that everyone hated but me, Swept Away.

Again, I visited Everlane and it still disappoints. Why do I keep thinking it’ll be different each time? What the fuck is wrong with me?

I saw Parasite and it was wonderful and everyone who hasn’t seen it should see it. I haven’t heard from one person who didn’t like it. Universally liked!

I listened to the new Strokes single and hated it, so that’s something. Growth?

I haven’t seen the whole episode yet, but I really liked RuPaul’s SNL monologue.

Why isn’t everyone putting pickles on grilled cheese? Makes no sense. Fucking taste explosion.

I finally tried the (off-menu, must be requested when it’s not brunch) Cacio E Pepe at L’Artusi and holy christ, it might be better than their mushroom ragu. I KNOW. Such wild developments! (They also started serving at lunch, but only lunch delivery, not dine-in. SO this means nothing to me.)

I think I will officially stop buying candles from Bath & Body Works. The ones at Marshalls are cheaper, last longer and the variety of scents is endless. I have a candle from Marshalls right now simply called STORM and it really does kinda smell like stormy weather. Obviously I’m waiting for a thunderstorm to light that mother. I have mental issues?

I watched the newest season of Shrill (no big spoilers ahead) and loved it, obviously. The disappointing-ness of parents is so nicely shown (that moment at the restaurant when she asks her dad what he thinks of her boyfriend and he’s so indifferent, ugh so perfect), I absolutely LOVED the wedding episode (infact all of the episodes following that one are the best ones, I think I just love the episodes not centered about this not-great relationship with her and her boyfriend), the WEHAM episode is perfect (finally someone making fun of makeup for for legs), and I continue to love the character Fran. Really hoping for a third season, especially based on the season finale.

Don’t ask me why, but I watched most of the Police Academy movies and I think the Miami one might be the best one?? I couldn’t make it twenty minutes into the Moscow one, so I feel like you might want to trust me when I say that I know what I’m talking about.

These are my new favourite leggings of all time, they feel like you’re wearing nothing at all.

Cannot get over the beauty of these women and these outfits.

Above Photo: Camila Mendes

Above Photo: Nyma Tang

I watched the Michelle Carter documentary and I don’t know how other people feel, but it’s absolutely unreal that she was found guilty. Of course Nathan disagrees.

I ate at Frank for the first time in over a decade with the one and only Irene and it’s still great. Love that they do the opposite of al dente pasta here. Photos below.

Above Photo: Tagliatelle special, at Frank

Above Photo: Roasted garlic bread, at Frank

Above Photo: Mushroom pappardelle special, at Frank

I can’t find a link for them online, but I bought some reusable Leak Proof Snack Bags by Kitchen Details at Nordstrom Rack and they’re perfect since we typically use a million of those disposable ones for holding sunflower seeds and almonds

I threw out a lot of clothing/shoes/bags, so I went out and bought some things that I absolutely love. I now have a faux fur, brown evening coat that I’ve long dreamed of owning, a new everyday purse, a vintage, gold, mesh evening purse, new everyday shoes, more sunglasses and some new wedges that may or may not replace the older wedges I’ve had since 2006 (the ones lovingly referred to as my Terminators because of the massive fall that I took in them upon exiting the movie Terminator Salvation). I could show you all of the new pieces, but I’d much rather slide into a room you’re in to show you my new fur coat. However if it annoys you not to see any of these new things that bring my joy, here are two of them.

Above Photo: Classic Reeboks from DSW

Above Photo: I also got them in blue

I’ve actually started using tiny drops of facial oil mixed with my nighttime face lotion and even though I’ve only just started to do this, my face is already way less dry when waking up. I don’t know if I can do this in the hotter weather, but for now I’ll keep it up.

I know all of these are old songs, but I recently heard and fell in love with this Taylor Swift song. And this one. And this one. Oh and this one too.

I went to Giorgio’s of Gramercy again (the last time was a few years ago with Nathan) and it’s still great! I haven’t had a steak in awhile, but the one here? Holy hell. Magnificent.

I went to see the new Kubrick 2001 exhibit at the Museum of the Moving Image and it was pretty neat. They have one of his Oscars on display in a case, which was actually really cool to see.

I read and reviewed a biography of Johnny Carson that truly sucked.

So Nathan and I are in the middle of watching McMillion$ and can I just say: boooooooooooooooo. I’ve never seen a “documentary” more over-produced, self-indulgent, superfluous and WILDLY overdone. It’s a bloody six part series that could’ve EASILY been an hour and a half movie. If you ever need proof of a documentary having too much money spend, my god have you found it. Of COURSE Mark Wahlberg has something to do with it, this man needs to fucking STOP. I know they are countless other men attached to the project too, but it’s much easier to shit on just him. God, what a waste of time. The Wikipedia page is more succinct.

I watched To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before 2: P.S. I Still Love You and it was everything I wanted it to be and more. Loved the Adventures in Babysitting reference right off the top (I’ll forever love that movie and it doesn’t get talked about enough), I loved pretty much every musical choice (these are my top three songs from the movie), and I loved the idea of doing another Thanksgiving in March (although I’m pretty sure Chrissy Teigen did this a few years ago and planted that great seed in my head). Definitely the best thing on Netflix at the moment.

Seeing this restored footage of NYC in 1911 is both exciting and eerie as hell, for some reason.

Nathan and I went to the Raptors game that ended their winning streak, sorry about that.

I’ve been consumed with reading so much stuff about what’s going on right now and this was a little helpful: 4 Practical Ways to Prepare Your Home for a Pandemic. Don’t judge me for sharing this link! I’m delirious.

Things that I’m looking forward to this month: visiting Collingwood and going skiing with my family, I might splurge and get that mini birthday cake from Momofuku Milk Bar, and the new season of On My Block comes out on the 11th. I’m pretty into the idea of turning 35, usually I’m more jacked about my birthday month but I think I’m too down to care at the moment. Caring coming soon.

If you’ve got any interest in reading last month’s roundup, you can see what went down in January over here.

#monthly roundup #Liz Heather #this is liz heather #February #2020

0 notes

biofunmy · 4 years

Text

The Work Diary of an Audio Erotica C.E.O.

Gina Gutierrez gets a lot of blank stares when explaining her start-up to people: It’s called Dipsea, and it sells subscriptions to immersive, short-form audio erotica. Venture capitalists, though, get it. They want to capitalize on dual booms in digital audio and sexual wellness, and some view Dipsea as the next Calm or Headspace. The start-up has raised $5.5 million in funding.

Ms. Gutierrez, 29, and her co-founder, Faye Keegan, created Dipsea when they realized that while there were plenty of companies offering tech-enabled vibrators, no one seemed to be addressing the mental aspect of female sexuality. In December 2018, Dipsea began publishing erotica podcasts, saying, “We think it’s downright powerful for people to discover the most turned-on versions of themselves.” The company charges subscribers $9 a month or $48 a year for access to a library of 10- to 15-minute stories in categories like “open relationship,” “hookup,” “crush” and “voyeurism.” Dipsea’s app also offers guides and exercises that can be done alone (“self love sesh”) or with a partner (“erotic meditation”).

Now the company, based in San Francisco, has 16 employees, 180 stories and 300,000 downloads. Ms. Gutierrez boomerangs between “I’ve never done this before” moments, she said, while juggling investor meetings, podcast appearances, script edits, Instagram caption-writing sessions and “Sacred Planning” meetings. She also has to deal with borderline puritanical rules from the big tech platforms while brainstorming about hunks, discerning what a hug sounds like, and puzzling over why people are so into stories about threesomes.

Monday

6:30 a.m. I hate the notion that the most successful people are up at 4:30. No thanks. I work on the couch for an hour before heading into the office.

9:35 a.m. My adrenaline surges when our social media and content manager, who started less than two weeks ago, Slacks me to say she has an urgent personal update. That’s never good.

She tells me she’s accepted another role. I’m shocked. We care so much about Dipsea being a great place to work, and have had zero attrition. So, 35 minutes into my workweek I’m dealing with my first “I’ve never done this before.”

The idea of kicking up the hiring process again so quickly after we’ve ended it makes my head spin. I spend the morning figuring out the transition plan. I really don’t want to go back to writing Instagram captions in the back of Lyfts between meetings.

2:30 p.m. I owe my editing team the final signoff on this week’s scripts before they pass them to the producers for recording. A section of dialogue on this one reminds me of a part from “A Star Is Born.” I send the movie scene to the team as an awesome example of realistic dialogue.

4 p.m. I hole up in a room with Faye and two other executives to brainstorm. We block 30 minutes per idea, throw out thoughts, sketch out designs, argue trade-offs. One idea we come up with is so good, I stand up to dance.

6:45 p.m. I debate bailing on plans to see “Hustlers” with some colleagues because I’m so behind. But I go. It’s an important piece of content for women right now, for God’s sake! I’m back at my computer on the couch by 9:45.

11 p.m. Quick Slack to Faye about a lead for the social media manager role before I shut my computer. I’m tired. When’s the last time I had a sip of water? Did I eat lunch today?

Tuesday

10 a.m. I talk with our audio production team about an article on aftercare, which is essentially affection and communication after sex. It’s the default in the BDSM community, but a good ideal to aspire to in all sexual encounters. We talk about not ending our stories too abruptly.

11 a.m. We have a monthly meeting called “Postpartum” where we discuss what we learned from our last month of stories and how people reacted. Most of our narratives are crafted so a female listener can identify with the woman, but one of our recent stories is about three men at a gay club, and we discuss whether listeners identify with one character, or if they’re more of a voyeur, excited to have eyes into the whole relational dynamic.

1:15 p.m. Over tacos I get book recommendations for my upcoming vacation — the first real one I’ve taken since starting Dipsea — from our content editor and writer. The whole team is voracious. Books lie in stacks around the office, especially Dipsea-relevant reads like “Conversations With Friends,” and “A Billion Wicked Thoughts.”

2:50 p.m. A construction company works in our building and I chat with one of the workers in the elevator. The contrast between their mostly male, neon-vest-wearing crew with our almost all-female team of erotic content creators is funny, but we’re strangely symbiotic.

Wednesday

9 a.m. I get coffee with an investor that we’ve been talking to since our seed round. Meetings like this are a mutual way to keep the relationship warm even when we’re not actively raising.

10 a.m. At the office, Mel Scott, our head of growth, tells me she’s spoken to a few podcast hosts who are going to run our ads. This is exciting. Facebook makes it very challenging for us to advertise as a sexual wellness business, and it’s frustrating. Sometimes our ads perform really well; other times we discover something was disconnected. Ads that were approved mysteriously get disapproved, and we’re left guessing why.

10:05 a.m. Faye and I have a weekly one-on-one meeting we call “Sacred Planning” to remind ourselves never to book another meeting over it.

11 a.m. The founders of an A.S.M.R. app visit our office to learn about how we create our content. I’m curious to learn about their work, too. One of them says the most polarizing A.S.M.R. sound is “mouth sounds.” I tell him mouth sounds can be tough for Dipsea listeners, too.

2 p.m. Our editorial team presents a plan for a new process of developing scripts. No one has ever made exactly what we’re making, so it’s a constant learning game with no instruction manual.

3 p.m. I sit in on a “Hooked on Sonics” meeting, where our storytelling lead and one of our producers talk to the rest of the team. This one covers what feelings sound like: A hug being akin to the sonic experience of going underwater, or anxiety as a high-pitched ring.

6:30 p.m. The entire company goes to a breath-work class at Chorus Meditation. You breathe in a fast, rhythmic way that oxygenates your brain, activating your parasympathetic nervous system and relaxing you. The crazy part is, it can also have effects like tingling, visual experiences or semi-lucid dreams.

I wake up in a jolt, even though I feel mentally present: An hour has passed and it felt like 20 minutes. My body feels amazing, slow and quiet. We all eye each other, while the instructor wraps up, mouthing, “Cool, right?”

10:25 p.m. Faye texts me asking to borrow a shirt. I wonder how many other co-founders sign off with a “Night love you.”

Thursday

10 a.m. All-hands meeting. As our analyst presents which story tags performed the best, the team debates the underlying reasons. We know stories tagged as “group” or “threesome” are highly rated, but we don’t necessarily know why. The novelty? The explicitness? What are the creative differences between “crush” and “hookup” stories? They seem to overlap a lot, so what makes one more successful than the other?

1:45 p.m. I take a call with an investor who’s been persistent. He describes Dipsea as part of the “N.S.F.W. space,” which tells me I have to take a step back and explain our perspective on sexuality: We’re not interested in creating an erotic utility, we’re interested in empowering women with content designed for their pleasure. To his credit, he understands the difference.

4 p.m. “Hunks Brainstorm” session. The editorial team discusses stereotypes about attractive men that still feel relevant, or that we can modernize. A college athlete isn’t necessarily interesting without some other underlying reason. (Ah! Maybe they’re fed up with the extortive system they’re a part of and lean on a female confidante. She sees his depth in a way that her peers don’t get to. Write that down!)

We talk about the way that passionate people are attractive, and especially so if they’re a bit unattainable because of their focus.

Every “Fireman!” is met with an, “O.K., but why?”

5 p.m. I join Faye and Mel to figure out how to meet our greater goals for the quarter. Five hundred Post-its and two hours later, we take a step back to admire our work.

Friday

12 p.m. I meet with Mel to review the past week: how we spent marketing dollars, where it’s working best, trends we’re not sure what to do with yet. There’s one international market that’s going gangbusters.

12:45 p.m. We always order in and eat Friday lunch together.

5 p.m. I find a quiet booth for an interview with Tristan Taormino, host of the podcast Sex Out Loud, which I just found out is airing live. The host, a sex educator who really knows her stuff, gives us advice on creating content for older listeners, shares her favorite story (“Virgo Season”), and asks how I deal with running a women-focused company while also navigating the world of venture capital. I say it took me some time to realize I was more than one thing in different contexts, and that that’s O.K.

6:50 p.m. I find myself alone at Bamboo Hut, a tiki bar, with a blue salt rim mai tai in front of me. I’m evaluating whether this bar will fit our loose holiday party theme of “dive bar fancy.” The bartender tells me that yes, the lamps over the bar are real taxidermied puffer fish.

7 p.m. A friend texts, “‘Blue Salt Rim’ should be the name of a Dipsea story!” It’s a joke I probably hear once or twice a week but still haven’t gotten tired of.

Interviews are conducted by email, text and phone, then condensed and edited.

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/33UWzR8 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

comicsxaminer · 5 years

Text

DC AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR JOE HILL PRESENT HILL HOUSE COMICS,

A NEW POP-UP LINE DEDICATED TO BONE-CHILLING HORROR

Hill Selects Mike Carey, Carmen Maria Machado and Laura Marks to Pen New Series

Burbank, CA (June 26, 2019)—This October, DC will team up with best-selling author Joe Hill (NOS4A2, Locke & Key) to present Hill House Comics, a new pop-up line of horror comic books. DC’s long-standing tradition of publishing thought-provoking and riveting horror from HOUSE OF MYSTERY to classic SANDMAN will continue with this new line featuring five original limited series meant to chill the bones and summon nightmares with smart, subversive narratives and haunting, heart-stopping visuals. And it all begins this fall, in time for a very haunting Halloween.

“Anyone who’s paying attention knows we’re in the middle of a new golden age of horror: films like Get Out, Hereditary, It Follows and plain old It have raised the bar higher and higher,” says Hill. “Meanwhile, ongoing shows like AMC’s The Terror and Netflix’s Stranger Things have shattered preconceived notions about what’s possible in episodic terror TV. There’s great stuff happening in comics, of course—in a field of unbounded creativity and wacko visionaries, there’s always great stuff happening—but greedy me wants more.

“At Hill House Comics we aim to shock the senses and soak the page in red, with new, hooky horror from seasoned old hands and young masters of the field, all set free to share their most disturbing nightmares…for your pleasure! The books are backed by DC’s second-to-none comic book craftsmanship, and we’re working with the very best editors on parole from Arkham Asylum to craft unputdownable tales of menace and madness. I can’t wait to share some fresh scares with comic book readers everywhere. It’s going to be fun.”

The first of these new monthly comics will debut on October 30 with BASKETFUL OF HEADS, written by Joe Hill with art by Leomacs, followed by four other series in subsequent months, including:

THE DOLLHOUSE FAMILY from Mike Carey (LUCIFER, HELLBLAZER, The Girl with All the Gifts) and Peter Gross (LUCIFER, THE BOOKS OF MAGIC, THE UNWRITTEN)

THE LOW, LOW WOODS by Carmen Maria Machado (Her Body and Other Parties) and Dani (2000 AD, Coffin Bound,Deep Roots)

DAPHNE BYRNE by Laura Marks (TV writer and producer, playwright of Bethany) and Kelley Jones (SWAMP THING, DEADMAN, THE SANDMAN)

PLUNGE by Hill and artist TBD

In addition, a backup story titled “Sea Dogs,” written by Hill and featuring lycanthropes terrorizing a crew of sailors at sea, will run in the back of every issue from the line.

“Bringing horror to the forefront of our publishing plan has been a huge initiative for DC and a passion project of mine, but it was always about finding the right time and voice to mastermind it—and there is no one better than Joe Hill,” says DC executive editor Mark Doyle. “Joe is a modern master; his ability to blend visceral, high-concept horror with heartfelt characters is what has grabbed the attention (and throats!) of millions of readers. His vision and taste are unparalleled; you can see it in the incredible talent he’s assembled here, and the stories they’re crafting are bringing the next generation of horror to DC.”

“Joe Hill’s vision for this new line is incredibly exciting,” says DC Editor-in-Chief Bob Harras. “Bringing in new and well-known creative voices with different backgrounds to tell their thrilling and terrifying tales, mixed with the energy around the horror genre at large—it all makes it a great time to be a fan of DC.”

“We’re so happy to welcome Joe Hill to DC, and to partner with him on this new specialty line of creator-owned horror books,” says DC Publisher Dan DiDio. “Horror has been such an integral part of DC’s history and it’s a tradition we want to see revitalized. As a lifetime fan of horror, I know fans are going to be so excited when these books hit shelves. I can’t wait.”

Hill House Comics will get its first spotlight at this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, with a panel hosted by Hill and Doyle, with other special guests. The panel will be held Friday, July 19, at 4:15 p.m. in room 6DE.

Hill House Comics will be released under DC Black Label, as they are intended for mature audiences. For more information on Hill House Comics, follow dccomics.com.

About the series:

BASKETFUL OF HEADS

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: Leomacs

Covers by: Reiko Murakami

The rain lashes the grassy dunes of Brody Island, and seagulls scream above the bay. A slender figure in a raincoat carries a large wicker basket, which looks like it might be full of melons…covered by a bloodstained scrap of the American flag.

This is the story of June Branch, a young woman trapped with four cunning criminals who have snatched her boyfriend for deranged reasons of their own. Now she must fight for her life with the help of an impossible 8th-century Viking axe that can pass through a man’s neck in a single swipe—and leave the severed head still conscious and capable of supernatural speech.

Each disembodied head has a malevolent story of its own to tell, and it isn’t long before June finds herself in a desperate struggle to hack through their lies and manipulations…racing to save the man she loves before time runs out.

THE LOW, LOW WOODS

Written by: Carmen Maria Machado

Art by: Dani

Cover by: J.A.W. Cooper

A mysterious plague is afflicting the small mining town of Shudder to Think, Pennsylvania. It strikes seemingly at random, eating away at the memories of those suffering from it. From tales of rabbits with human eyes, to deer women who come to the windows of hungry girls at night, this town is one of those places where strange things are always happening. But no one ever seems to question why…

THE LOW, LOW WOODS is a gruesome coming-of-age body-horror mystery series about two teenage women trying to uncover the truth about the mysterious memory-devouring illness affecting them and the people of the small mining town they call home—and the more they discover, the more disturbing the truth becomes.

THE DOLLHOUSE FAMILY

Written by: Mike Carey

Art by: Peter Gross

Covers by: Jessica Dalva

On Alice’s sixth birthday, her dying great-aunt sends her the birthday gift she didn’t know she always wanted: a big, beautiful 19th-century dollhouse, complete with a family of antique dolls. In hardly any time at all, the dollhouse isn’t just Alice’s favorite toy…it’s her whole world.

Soon young Alice learns she can enter the house, to visit a new group of friends, straight out of a heartwarming children’s novel: the Dollhouse family. As the years pass, Alice finds herself visiting their world more frequently, slowly losing track of where reality ends and make-believe begins. What starts as play concludes in an eruption of madness and violence.

Childhood ends—but that little house casts a long shadow over Alice’s adult life. When the world becomes too much for her to bear, Alice finds herself returning to the dollhouse and the little folk within. The house can offer her a shelter from all her sorrows…but only if she gives it what it wants, and god help her if she tries to walk away again…

DAPHNE BYRNE

Written by: Laura Marks

Art by: Kelley Jones

Covers by: Piotr Jabłoński

In the gaslit splendor of late 19th-century New York, rage builds inside 14-year-old Daphne. The sudden death of her father has left her alone with her irresponsible, grief-stricken mother—who becomes easy prey for a group of occultists promising to contact her dead husband.

While fighting to disentangle her mother from these charlatans, Daphne begins to sense a strange, insidious presence in her own body…an entity with unspeakable appetites. And as she learns to wield this brutal, terrifying power, she wages a revenge-fueled crusade against the secret underworld that destroyed her life.

PLUNGE

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: TBD

Covers by: Jeremy Wilson

In 1983 the Derleth disappeared, wiped out in a storm on the edge of the Arctic circle—the world’s most advanced research vessel in the hunt for oil, lost in the aftermath of a tsunami.

Almost 40 years later, the Derleth begins to transmit its distress signal once again, calling in to Alaska’s remote Attu Station from the most forlorn place on earth, a desolate ring island in the icy faraway. A US salvage team made up of experts, scientists, and mercenaries helicopter in just ahead of a storm—and the Russian competition—to find the abandoned wreck hung up on the island shores of the atoll. As a wintry blizzard clamps down, anomalies begin to surface: first the samples of an oil with unlikely properties, and then the sonar readings of a sunken prehistoric civilization just offshore. Still, nothing could prepare the salvage team for the reappearance of the Derleth’s crew from the island cave, no older than they were four decades ago, every one of them struck blind by an inexplicable infection…and yet capable of seeing in new ways, possessed of extraordinary powers and stripped of all but their last vestiges of humanity…

SEA DOGS (backup story)

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: TBD

The Revolution is screwed.

In 1779 the pathetic American navy is a pile of smoldering wrecks choking the Penobscot River. Imperial Britain has amassed the mightiest fleet the world has ever known, led by the HMS Havoc, a 90-gun second rate that has sunk a forest of French, Spanish and American frigates, sketching a trail of devastation that stretches all the way from St. Kitts to Machias, Maine. The faltering Continental Congress can’t hope to match England’s sea power, and they’re just desperate enough to make a deal with the devil…or even three.

Spymaster Benjamin Tallmadge proposes allowing three lycanthropes to be pressed into British service aboard the Havoc. Three patriotic werewolves might be all it takes to butcher the ship from the inside out and paint the decks red. It’s true, their powers are infernal, their minds are mad and their loyalty can in no way be trusted. And yet what else can a desperate nation do…but let slip the dogs of war?

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

DC AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR JOE HILL PRESENT HILL HOUSE COMICS, A NEW POP-UP LINE DEDICATED TO BONE-CHILLING HORROR DC AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR JOE HILL PRESENT HILL HOUSE COMICS, A NEW POP-UP LINE DEDICATED TO BONE-CHILLING HORROR…

#dc comics #joe hill

0 notes

siphen0 · 5 years

Text

This October, DC will team up with best-selling author Joe Hill (NOS4A2, Locke & Key) to present Hill House Comics, a new pop-up line of horror comic books. DC’s long-standing tradition of publishing thought-provoking and riveting horror from HOUSE OF MYSTERY to classic SANDMAN will continue with this new line featuring five original limited series meant to chill the bones and summon nightmares with smart, subversive narratives and haunting, heart-stopping visuals. And it all begins this fall, in time for a very haunting Halloween.

The first of these new monthly comics will debut on October 30 with BASKETFUL OF HEADS, written by Joe Hill with art by Leomacs, followed by four other series in subsequent months, including:

THE DOLLHOUSE FAMILY from Mike Carey (LUCIFER, HELLBLAZER, The Girl with All the Gifts) and Peter Gross (LUCIFER, THE BOOKS OF MAGIC, THE UNWRITTEN)

THE LOW, LOW WOODS by Carmen Maria Machado (Her Body and Other Parties) and Dani (2000 AD, Coffin Bound, Deep Roots)

DAPHNE BYRNE by Laura Marks (TV writer and producer, playwright of Bethany) and Kelley Jones (SWAMP THING, DEADMAN, THE SANDMAN)

PLUNGE by Hill and artist TBD

In addition, a backup story titled “Sea Dogs,” written by Hill and featuring lycanthropes terrorizing a crew of sailors at sea, will run in the back of every issue from the line.

Hill House Comics will be released under DC Black Label, as they are intended for mature audiences. For more information on Hill House Comics, follow dccomics.com.

About the series:

BASKETFUL OF HEADS

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: Leomacs

Covers by: Reiko Murakami

THE LOW, LOW WOODS

Written by: Carmen Maria Machado

Art by: Dani

Cover by: J.A.W. Cooper

THE DOLLHOUSE FAMILY

Written by: Mike Carey

Art by: Peter Gross

Covers by: Jessica Dalva

DAPHNE BYRNE

Written by: Laura Marks

Art by: Kelley Jones

Covers by: Piotr Jabłoński

PLUNGE

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: TBD

Covers by: Jeremy Wilson

In 1983 the Derleth disappeared, wiped out in a storm on the edge of the Arctic circle—the world’s most advanced research vessel in the hunt for oil, lost in the aftermath of a tsunami.

SEA DOGS (backup story)

Written by: Joe Hill

Art by: TBD

The Revolution is screwed.

#gallery-0-4 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-4 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

DC and Joe Hill Present Hill House Comics, a New Pop-Up Line Dedicated to Bone-Chilling Horror This October, DC will team up with best-selling author Joe Hill (NOS4A2, Locke & Key) to present Hill House Comics, a new pop-up line of horror comic books.

#Comic News #Comic Preview #Comics #DC Comics #Hill House Comics #Joe Hill

0 notes

jeroldlockettus · 5 years

Text

People Aren’t Dumb. The World Is Hard. (Ep. 340 Rebroadcast)

Richard Thaler, father of behavioral economics, has been an irritant to mainstream economists. His research, about humans’ tendency to make suboptimal decisions, tarnishes their elegant economic models. (Photo: Bengt Nyman/flickr)

You wouldn’t think you could win a Nobel Prize for showing that humans tend to make irrational decisions. But that’s what Richard Thaler has done. The founder of behavioral economics describes his unlikely route to success; his reputation for being lazy; and his efforts to fix the world — one nudge at a time.

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.

* * *

The holiday season is here, which gives us the opportunity — the need, really — to open up the archives and play for you a few of the best episodes from our checkered past. Before we get to that: if you still need to buy someone a gift, I have a few suggestions. First: how about a couple tickets to an upcoming show of Freakonomics Radio Live? We’re in New York on March 8th and 9th; in San Francisco on May 16th, and Los Angeles on May 18th. For tickets, click here. Or, for a more tangible gift, click here, where we’ve got some Freakonomics Radio stuff for sale.

Now, today’s show: one of my very favorites — and, according to our top-secret download data, yours, too: nearly 2 million listens. It’s our conversation with Richard Thaler, who helped create the field we now know as behavioral economics. Which brought him, among other things, a Nobel Prize. So let’s begin … right now:

Stephen J. DUBNER: So let’s begin. If you would, say your name and title.

Richard THALER: I’m Richard Thaler. I’m a professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.

DUBNER: I see, technically, you’re called the Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Sciences, blah, blah, blah. Is that accurate?

THALER: Yeah, that’s accurate, but I didn’t want to take up the whole podcast with my title.

DUBNER: I understand. I was curious, however, I guess it’s an endowed chair, is that what that is?

THALER: Yeah. In fact, it’s a chair that has only been held by three people, all of whom have won a certain prize.

DUBNER: Interesting. More important, though, I want to know, as it’s bestowed by the Walgreen family, does the position come with a discount at Walgreens drugstores?

THALER: There is no discount that I’ve been informed of.

DUBNER: That said, you — and I guess the other two holders of said chair — you are about a million-plus dollars richer since you were last on the show, because I understand that you went out and won a Nobel Prize, and that they give you some money with that.

THALER: Now that you mention that, I won that prize in spite of your best efforts to prevent it. I think the show owes me an apology. Like, on the air.

DUBNER: This is sore winner-dom we’re seeing. You win the Nobel Prize, having been on our show previously, talking about potentially winning the Nobel Prize, and yet somehow you’re sour about our theoretically negative influence, when in fact the outcome was positive? What kind of logic is that?

THALER: Well no, but it’s not the interview with me. It was the interview with Per Stromberg, where you outed me. I’m sure you guys can find the tape.

Yeah. We found the tape:

Per STROMBERG: So I’m actually not allowed to talk so much about what happens.

The episode was called “How to Win a Nobel Prize.” Per Stromberg is on the committee that awards the economics prize. As he pointed out, he couldn’t say too much about the secret process. But, he said, his committee was very reliant on the reports they commissioned on potential winners.

STROMBERG: Our goal is to keep on scanning the field of economic sciences, broadly speaking, and to keep this up to date, we continuously send out these reports, basically scanning the field. So these are super-helpful, and they’re sent to really top people in these fields who put a lot of work into these reports. So this is probably our most important input.

DUBNER: And those reports remain confidential for 50 years, correct?

STROMBERG: Exactly.

DUBNER: So Richard Thaler tells me that he was asked many years ago to write a report — he was commissioned to write a report on the work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, who—

THALER: You described me, revealing I had written a long report on my friends Kahneman and Tversky back in the 1980’s. And you told Per I had told you that, and I think his words were, “Oh, he shouldn’t have done that.”

STROMBERG: I’m not sure he was allowed to say that, but fine.

DUBNER: Okay, well, that’s his problem, not mine.

THALER: The show owes me an apology for trying to block my slim chances and drive them to zero.

DUBNER: Well, let me ask you just to entertain the counterfactual. Maybe it made that Nobel committee think, “Oh, that Thaler, he’s his own man. He identifies what he thinks are important ideas and he feels it’s important to disseminate them even at personal risk to himself,” and because —

THALER: You know, it would be a line you could have used. I was holding off on the lawsuit until it was clear I hadn’t won, but I think you’re safe now, Steve, so we can move beyond this.

And move beyond this we shall.

* * *

Years ago, Richard Thaler became enthralled with a new line of research about decision-making by the psychologists Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman. Thaler went on to collaborate with them, thereby helping to create the field now known as behavioral economics.

To mainstream economists, Thaler’s research was often an irritant. He insisted that the elegant models they used to describe human economic activity were in fact grotesquely inelegant — because they failed to factor in how real humans actually think and decide and behave. Over time, however, Thaler’s work came to be tolerated, if not outright accepted. Along the way, he wrote a few books, including Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics and Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

Today, governments around the world are running so-called Nudge units, hoping to harness the simple power of Thaler’s ideas in the pursuit of better outcomes in health, education, personal finance, and crime reduction. Many other institutions and firms are practicing what Thaler has been preaching, often to quite substantial success. If Kahneman and Tversky were the architects of this behavior revolution, Richard Thaler was the man who turned their sketches into something we could actually inhabit.

DUBNER: I have a lot of questions for you today. And we also solicited listener and reader questions. So we’ll toss them in as we go. Here’s one from Jose Albino Sanchez. He’s an economics major who graduated from Notre Dame in 2016. So: congratulations. He wants to know, “How did you, Richard Thaler, use your behavioral-economics research to not run away with the $1 million-plus prize money of the Nobel Prize and go buy a Ferrari?” And I should say, that’s assuming you didn’t do that. But I, like Jose, am curious how you used your behavioral knowledge to spend or not spend your money.

THALER: Well, every Nobel winner, I think, is asked this question: “What are you going to do with the money?!” And they asked me this at 4:45 in the morning. The routine is, you get this call at 4:00 a.m. Chicago time, and once they’ve convinced you this is not a prank, they say, “Okay, get ready. There’s a press conference in 45 minutes.” And I hopped in the shower, and then I’m on a press conference and the first question is, “What are you going to do with the money?” And all I could think of was, “Well, to an economist this is a silly question, an impossible question.”

DUBNER: To most economists perhaps.

THALER: Well, certainly to a non-behavioral economist, it’s a silly question.

DUBNER: Because the answer would be, “It just goes into the pool with the other money. It’s no different than any other.” Is that why?

THALER: Right. The proceeds of that money, half of which will end up in the U.S. Treasury, are sitting in some account at Vanguard. And if I go out for a fancy dinner, there’s no way for me to label that “Nobel money.” Though that might be a fun thing to do. I’ve thought that maybe the hedonically optimal way to spend the money would be to get a special credit card, the Nobel credit card. And then when I decide to buy a ridiculously expensive set of golf clubs, hoping that that will turn me into a competent golfer, then I just whip out the Nobel card — that might be a good idea.

DUBNER: Now, I’m curious. You do believe — and in fact helped identify — the notion that we think of as mental accounting, which I know that the smart people tell you you shouldn’t do. You shouldn’t set aside money for vacation or for a certain project, because money is fungible. That’s one of the beauties of money. And yet, as you discovered, many people do it. And, you also argued, it’s not such a bad idea. Or, at least, since so many people do it, we should figure out how to deal with it. But is there a cookie jar on the counter where you’ve got the half a million that you can dip into whenever you want to do something fun?

THALER: Yeah. That would be a really good idea, especially—

DUBNER: And what’s your address, by the way?

THALER: Especially if we announce it on the radio!

DUBNER: But why just stick it in Vanguard, where it just becomes more dollars mixed in with the others?

THALER: Well, I’ve been busy, Steve, you’re getting me to think about labeling it. And, of course, maybe we should figure out what percentage, maybe all, should go to some cause. That would make me feel good, too.

DUBNER: If there were a cause, can you tell us just the general outlines of the cause? Would it be poverty alleviation?

THALER: You know, I greatly admire Doctors Without Borders. And they are one of the causes that we support. But I haven’t really figured out what my personal cause is.

DUBNER: Now, let me ask you this. Your wife, France, you’ve been married quite a while. I don’t know how much credit you give her for being part of the familial team that produced this Nobel Prize. If you were to divide the prize, how do you think about divvying that up?

THALER: First you try to prevent me from winning the Nobel Prize. Now you try to break up my marriage, Steve. You know, I used to think of you as a friend. I would say that France should get 120 percent of the after-tax money.

DUBNER: Good answer.

THALER: And you should get -20 percent. And I think that would be a great solution.

DUBNER: Early in your academic career — and I hope you don’t mind me saying this — it didn’t appear as if you were destined for huge distinction in your field.

THALER: I think that’s fair.

DUBNER: The undergraduate and graduate schools you went to aren’t quite elite. Your place in the economic firmament was hardly guaranteed. So what happened? How’d that guy get to here?

THALER: So, you’re right. I don’t think I was — well, I certainly wasn’t a great student. And I don’t think I was a great economist, in the way economists are usually judged, in the sense that I wasn’t a great mathematician and my econometrics skills were not superb. Suppose there was an economics combine, like the N.F.L. combine, and they did all the stats on Thaler. No one would have drafted him. And so what I really ended up having to do to survive — and this sounds premeditated, and of course it wasn’t — was to figure out a kind of way of doing economics that would be something I was good at. And had I not done that, I might well have not gotten tenure and gone off and maybe I would be competing with you in book writing.

DUBNER: You’ve summed up behavioral economics as a collection of “supposedly irrelevant factors that, when it comes to how people actually live their lives, are in fact not irrelevant.” Can you give an example?

THALER: Sure. One of the first things that I noticed back when I was a graduate student puzzling through the behavior I saw, was that people don’t follow the economists’ advice to ignore sunk costs. If you paid for some expensive, rich dessert and after one bite you were already full, and your waistline doesn’t really need it, but you remember how much you paid for it, and so you think you need to eat it, following all kinds of mothers’ bad advice to finish what’s on your plate – then you are failing to follow the economist’s advice of ignoring that money, because eating it doesn’t get the money back.

So, sunk costs are something that economists predict will have no effect on behavior. And there are a class of these supposedly irrelevant factors. In fact, it’s almost the only set of things about which economists have precise predictions. Consider supply and demand. If the price goes up, people will demand less. Well, how much less? “Oh sorry, the theory doesn’t specify that.” All it says is: less. Whereas here, sunk costs will matter precisely zero.

DUBNER: So says the theory, at least.

THALER: Says the theory, right.

DUBNER: In reality, you’re saying they matter a great deal.

THALER: Right. That’s why I call them supposedly irrelevant factors. Another example is default options, which box is ticked on a form. Again, according to economic theory, the cost of clicking the other box is infinitesimal. And yet we know that making enrollment in a retirement plan the default option increases enrollment rates to over 90 percent. And so again, economists would predict confidently that that would have a zero effect, and it has a massive effect.

In an earlier episode of this podcast, called “How to Launch a Behavior-Change Revolution,” we heard Danny Kahneman — who won his own Nobel Prize in 2002 — describe the history of behavioral economics. He pointed out something that distinguished Richard Thaler from many other economists.

Daniel KAHNEMAN: Now, Richard, he hates my saying the next two things I’ll say about him. One of them I think he would tolerate. I think he’s a genius. That one he accepts. I think he’s lazy. I’ve made him famous for being lazy.

DUBNER: You’ve been accused — or really, praised — by your collaborator and mentor and friend Danny Kahneman as being extremely lazy, and furthermore he argues that laziness has in fact been a big part of your success. What does he mean by that, and should we all try to be a little bit lazier?

THALER: Well, I don’t know whether I can recommend laziness. Danny insists in great earnestness that this was intended as a compliment. He described it as my best feature. And I object to that. I concede some laziness, but that being my best feature? Really, Danny?

So I think what he means is that — at least I’m going to interpret it this way — that I have little patience for working on things that aren’t, at least to me, both interesting and somewhat important. And so compared to too many economists or academics, I haven’t written a super large number of papers, and I don’t follow the habit of writing 20 versions of the same paper, or on the same topic, because I get bored. And the fourth paper on some topic is not nearly as interesting as the first one. So Danny claims that it’s my laziness that forces me to work on things that are important rather than unimportant. And that’s his story, anyway.

DUBNER: And the mechanism of that benefit is what? Because you’re lazy, you just don’t want to waste time on things that aren’t going to be potentially important and/or interesting?

THALER: Yeah, that’s the idea.

DUBNER: So, I hate to inject our personal history in this, but it does bring up a memory. I remember coming to visit you in Chicago. I think it was the first time we met. And it was probably 15, 16 years ago, and I had really fallen hard for this whole behavioral idea, the Kahneman/Tversky, and Thaler, and I liked the economics. I especially liked the psychology. And I came to you and I said, “Herr Professor Thaler, I — a young and ambitious journalist at The New York Times — would be most interested in writing a book that incorporates your research and incorporates your own view of the world, and I’d love to include you in it as some kind of collaborator, subject,” so on.

And if I recall correctly — I’m just curious to know what your recollection is — you basically said, “That sounds like a lot of work. And I’ve got other stuff going on, so I’ll buy you lunch but then, scram.” That was my recollection. And I’ve always been disappointed that we never worked on a book together. I’m curious if that squares with your recollection.

THALER: Yeah, it really is too bad for you, because when you got done with me, you said, “I’m going over to the Economics Department to talk to this young guy Levitt.” And then I think you abandoned the idea of writing a book with me, because sumo wrestlers are more important than mental accounting. But my recollection of the story was that I thought maybe I had a book in me. And eventually I did.

DUBNER: Obviously, you did. You had two more, and maybe more beyond.

THALER: So, this is the tallest-midget theory, but by economists’ standards, I write well. And so yeah, I thought that maybe I should write a book. And that it should probably be in my voice. And it worked out well for all three of us.

DUBNER: I do agree you write well — not even for an economist. You’re a good writer, but in economics it especially stands out. I read a piece of yours recently that I would recommend to everybody. It was published in, I believe, J.P.E. — Journal of Political Economy — and it was an essay about the history of behavioral economics. And this was so interesting to me: you write that it nearly got fully underway at the University of Chicago about 100 years ago, but didn’t catch on. Can you talk a little bit about that?

THALER: Yeah, so the background is, the University of Chicago house journal, the Journal of Political Economy, one of the top five journals in the world — they were celebrating their 125th anniversary, and they asked a bunch of Chicago faculty members to write short essays on their field and how it’s been represented in the journal. And for behavioral economics, there were pretty slim pickings. But there was this article written exactly 100 years ago in 1918 by a guy called John Maurice Clark. He was the son of a more famous guy, John Bates Clark, for whom an award is named. And he writes something like, “The economist can try to invent his own psychology, but it will be bad psychology, and if they want to stick to economics, they should borrow their psychology from psychologists.”

DUBNER: Clark, you write, ends up leaving Chicago for Columbia. And you write, “it seems fair to say that the subsequent editors of the J.P.E. did not take up his call to arms,” which was essentially to integrate psychology and economics. Why did it take so long, do you think?

THALER: Well, I don’t know really what was going on in 1918, but it is the case that economics was behavioral. Adam Smith was a behavioral economist, for sure. And Keynes was a behavioral economist. The single best chapter on behavioral finance was written by John Maynard Keynes in The General Theory, which was written in 1936. So I think until World War II, there wasn’t something called “behavioral economics,” but economics was kind of behavioral.

And then what happened is, there was a mathematical revolution that took place right after World War II. And it was led by people like Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow. And Samuelson in particular, he was a University of Chicago undergraduate, and then went off to graduate school, and his thesis was called Foundations of Economic Analysis. So all he did was redo all of economics properly.

And so starting with that, economists got busy writing down Greek letters and formalizing economics. And it turns out the easiest way to do that is to describe behavior as some kind of optimization problem. Because if you’ve taken a high-school calculus class, then you know how to solve for the maximum: you take the first derivative and set it equal to zero, and you’re done. So it was the bounded rationality of economists, ironically, that led them to make everything rational.

DUBNER: It’s interesting, because a lot of the hallmark anomalies identified in recent decades by people like you and Kahneman and Tversky — we talk about loss aversion and mental accounting, and the endowment effect; and all the cognitive biases: recency bias and status-quo bias, and the availability bias — it strikes me that none of them actually even seem remotely new. Can’t you find most of them in Shakespeare? Can’t you find them in Roman and Greek and earlier philosophy? Don’t you find them in the Bible and other ancient texts?

So if what you’re describing now is a kind of mid-century modern renaissance of a more holistic thinking about economics that was there from Adam Smith onward, until World War II — I guess the real question is, is that really worth a Nobel Prize, to have rediscovered this rich tradition of, “people say they want to do one thing, but often do another?”

THALER: I think it’s the sort of thing that your mother might say, “Really? You make a living doing that?” Much less a Nobel Prize? So I guess it’s fair to say that just pointing out that people aren’t all that smart would not get you a Nobel Prize. You had to do something with it. And that turned out to be more work than I liked. But there was a long debate. And by no means have I convinced everyone.

DUBNER: Well, you were once asked about the degree to which, quote, “mainstream economists” have embraced behavioral economics. And you said, “I don’t think I’ve changed anyone’s mind in 40 years. You basically don’t change minds. Given that, I’ve turned to the strategy of corrupting the youth.” And indeed, there are a lot of young economists really interested in behavioral stuff.

Is that really true? Did you really change no minds? And, if so — or even if not, I guess — what have you learned about the human capacity to change a mind? I mean, we don’t want to just write off anyone over the age of 25, do we, as incapable of entertaining new thoughts?

THALER: Well, it’s hard. So, I think Richard Posner, the great judge, I think he’s changed his mind a bit. But I think it is hard to change people’s minds. But economists in graduate school now, they don’t have a big sunk cost in the traditional methods. There was an economist once early in my career who said to me, “You know, if you’re right, what am I supposed to do? What I know how to do is solve optimization problems.” And I said, “You know, really I don’t know. I’m sure you’ll think of something.”

DUBNER: It’s interesting though, because if you look at the world writ large, political systems and healthcare institutions, and so on — isn’t that exactly the same core problem that we’re facing? Which is, people come along with what could be really useful solutions but, institutions being what they are, the people with the power to change have often the least incentive to change. Isn’t that a huge issue in the lack of progress?

THALER: Well, I get what you’re saying, which is, if I’m at the top of the heap, why do I need to change? But on the other hand, it’s often the C.E.O. that is the most reluctant to change, and that guy — and he’s unfortunately still usually a guy — potentially has a lot to gain from changing. If you think of companies that have come and gone, like Kodak, which invented the digital camera, but they had an almost-monopoly in film, and didn’t really think this digital thing would go anywhere. Blockbuster Video, which came along and put tens of thousands of mom-and-pop video stores out of business, only to be put out of business by Netflix.

* * *

In December of 2017, Richard Thaler went to Stockholm for a multitude of Nobel festivities.

THALER: At the Nobel Prize banquet, one winner from each prize has to give a toast. It gives you a glimpse of the grandeur.

ANNOUNCER (TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH): It is a great honor to introduce the laureate of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel: Professor Richard Thaler.

THALER: So my toast began by saying that my fellow winners had discovered things like gravitational waves, and circadian rhythms. And I discovered the existence of humans in the economy.

Then there were other events, including the Nobel lecture.

Magnus JOHANNESSON: Professor Thaler, please, the stage is yours.

THALER: Thanks to all the members of the committee. And thanks for that great introduction. So, I’ve been interested in gravitational waves for a long time—oh no!

DUBNER: In an earlier episode about the Nobel Prize and how to win one, we did speak with your colleague and our friend Steve Levitt, and he said:

Steve LEVITT: [From “How to Win a Nobel Prize”] The way I know it’s Nobel season is that around Chicago, a lot of people tend to get haircuts in the few days leading up to the announcement of the prize. And so if I see all my colleagues with really short and well-maintained hair, I know that the prize must be somewhere right about the corner.

DUBNER: So we have a question here from a listener named Aaron Wicks. He writes to say, “Dear Professor Thaler, did you get a haircut in hopeful anticipation of receiving your Nobel Memorial Prize?”

THALER: No, I didn’t. And I will also say that I have heard of economists and other scientists who set their alarm.

DUBNER: And then do they practice sounding sleepy?

THALER: — like 3:45 — so that they’ll be alert, which I was the opposite of when the phone rang. And I’m a good enough amateur psychologist to know that this is a horrible idea, a really dreadful idea. So, let’s suppose my chances of winning were one in 20. Setting my alarm gives me a 95 percent chance of being awake to get the bad news. Whereas my strategy had always been to sleep soundly and then hear on NPR in the morning or now, breaking news on your phone, “Oh, isn’t that nice that Jean Tirole, a fabulous fellow, won the Nobel Prize?” And you can be happy about that. So, no, I didn’t get a haircut, and my alarm was not set.

DUBNER: In the very near aftermath of having been informed that you won the Nobel, you said this:

THALER: [At University of Chicago post-Nobel conference] And unlike Bob Dylan, I do plan to go to Stockholm.

DUBNER: And you did go to Stockholm. Tell us about that experience …

THALER: Well it’s a week-long marathon. The laureates are there for eight days of constant interviews and dinners and talks and various things. And there’s a hierarchy in the Stockholm prizes. The Peace Prize is given by Norway, and is done in Oslo. And the hierarchy is: physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, economics. And so my line is that among sciences, the Swedes consider economics just after literature. And that’s because, of course, the economics prize, as we know, and as I’m sure some of your listeners will call in and inform, “You idiots, it’s not a real Nobel prize.”

DUBNER: Well, before you go on, let’s just get it straight. The Nobel Prize in economics is not what they call an original Nobel. It was established in 1968. It’s officially called the Central Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. But, as you point out, a small but vocal contingent always seeks to remind us of this fact whenever the economic prize is referred to as a Nobel Prize. What do you say to that small, vocal contingent that says, “Well, it’s not really a Nobel Prize?”

THALER: You know, it’s a pretty good substitute. And I will say, the Nobel Foundation makes exactly no distinction. So, you’re all treated the same way. But, because of this order, I spent a lot of time standing in lines and sitting next to Kazuo Ishiguro, the Literature winner, who was charming and wonderful.

But I will say that I found the whole thing to be pretty emotional, partly because of where I came from intellectually. So, as we were saying, I’m not someone that you would have predicted would be a Nobel Prize winner. And when that finally happened, it was an emotional experience.

DUBNER: Are either of your parents still alive?

THALER: No. They’re very slow.

DUBNER: They, the Nobel Committee, you’re talking about.

THALER: Yeah, the Nobel committee — they’re working their way through the 1980’s. So that means that people are typically in their late 60’s and early 70’s when they win the Nobel Prize, which means there are very few parents that get to see their children win.

DUBNER: Who do you think was most proud of you?

THALER: Danny Kahneman. Well, he was happiest. He kept telling me, “Come on, win this before I die!” And he’s 84, and he’s a friend, so I had to do it. The bribes were finally well worth it.

DUBNER: So let’s move on to talking about how behavioral economics has been applied by various people in various intensities in many different places around the world. You’ve said there are roughly 75 what are called “Nudge units” named after your and Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge, about using behavioral economics in policy, essentially. Policy-making.

THALER: The latest number is 200.

DUBNER: Goodness gracious, that’s a tripling in what span of time, just a year or two?

THALER: I don’t know, and I’m not the one keeping track, but someone at the O.E.C.D. has a map with 200. Some of these are in—

DUBNER: Municipal governments.

THALER: Cities — there’s one in Chicago, for example.

DUBNER: Alright, but what would you say to date has been the greatest kind of specific contribution of behavioral economics? In other words, the greatest instance in which the research and the ideas have been applied to policy in successful measures?

THALER: I guess you’d have to say retirement saving plans. Because 401(k) plans and their ilk — defined-contribution plans — have really been transformed because of behavioral-economics research, on two dimensions. One is changing the default, so what’s called automatic enrollment. So you’re in unless you actively take some step to opt out. That has gotten enrollment rates to be north of 90 percent. And then what my colleague Shlomo Benartzi and I called “Save More Tomorrow,” which is a plan where you ask people if they want to increase their saving rates every year until they hit some reasonable level. The generic version of that is now called automatic escalation.

DUBNER: So what that means is, you get a raise and you contribute a higher percentage, but because you’re getting a raise, you still are bringing home a little bit more money and you don’t feel the pain, is that the idea?

THALER: Right. And you commit yourself to this off in the future, because we all have more self-control next month, when we’re going to start going to the gym every morning at 6:00.

DUBNER: You’ve written that “the subfield of economics in which the behavioral approach has had the greatest impact is finance.” I’d love you to talk about that for a minute. One thing I’ve never understood about behavioral finance is: once the notion of behavioral anomalies is widely accepted — and they seemed to be, now, in finance and in investing — aren’t they just subsequently priced out of the market?

THALER: Well, that’s an interesting question. And the answer is, to some extent, yes. But I’ve been involved with a money-management firm, called Fuller and Thaler, that’s been around for 25 years or so. And the things we do don’t seem to work any less well than they did 20 years ago.

DUBNER: I know Fuller and Thaler describes itself as having “pioneered the application of behavioral finance to investment management.” In what ways is the firm’s strategy actually behavioral?

THALER: So we’re explicitly thinking about, what are a class of situations in which people are likely to make a mistake? So it’s like, you go into some restaurant and somebody is leading you to your table, and there’s that one step down, and they say, “watch your step.” And they say that because if they don’t, three people a night will fall down, and they’ll have lawsuits. So, you can be a spectator watching that and say, “Oh, that guy’s about to make a mistake.” Now, you would have made that mistake, too. So, what we try to do is find those steps that are not quite in sight that will throw a majority of market participants off.

DUBNER: Let me ask you a related question. This is from Colm Ryan, who writes that he’s an accountant in Dublin, Ireland. Related to what we’ve been speaking about, with very high stakes, I should say. So here’s his question: “Given that you could apply behavioral principles to help understand what led to the 2007 crash, do you see any similarities, or, indeed, differences in what’s going on in the world today?” And before we let you answer the question, we should say that you, Richard Thaler, would seem particularly well-suited to answer this difficult question because in the film The Big Short, Selena Gomez helps you explain synthetic C.D.O.’s — collateralized debt obligations.

Ryan GOSLING: Well, here is Dr. Richard Thaler, father of behavioral economics, and Selena Gomez to explain:

Selena GOMEZ: Okay, so here is how a synthetic C.D.O. works. Let’s say I bet $10 million on a blackjack hand.

THALER: $10 million because this hand is meant to represent a single mortgage bond.

DUBNER: So first of all, was she a pretty good teacher? You understood C.D.O.’s better after that filming?

THALER: Yeah, let me just say that Selena, unlike me, was very good at memorizing lines. And I think it’s fair to say — she was a very charming young woman, and I’m deeply grateful to her because being in that movie is the only thing that I’ve done that has impressed my granddaughters, who are big Selena Gomez fans — but I think it’s fair to say, Selena knew nothing about collateralized debt obligations nor blackjack.

DUBNER: So she’s a great actress, then, because the impression is, she knows quite a bit about both.

THALER: Yeah, she’s a much better actor than me. And so a possibly funny story is that in the script, the first hand, she’s dealt a 21, which of course in blackjack means you win. And she was dealt 21 and didn’t react. And so I had to take over as blackjack coach and director — both of which are uncredited in the movie, I might add — and say, “Selena, when you get dealt 21, that means you win.” And there’s a shot in there where we’re high five-ing, and that’s because she had learned in subsequent takes that when she gets dealt 21, that she’s supposed to be happy.

DUBNER: Okay, so let’s get back to Colm Ryan’s question about the 2007 meltdown and now — similarities? Differences? What do you see?

THALER: Well, I don’t think we will repeat that mistake. But that crisis followed pretty quickly after the tech crash in 2000. Right? And it started like in 2006. So we’re barely over the tech bubble, and we get this real-estate bubble. And we seem to learn one lesson and then are not able to extrapolate it to the next one. I don’t know what the next bubble will be, or whether we’re already in one. I do think that we have done some things to make banks less fragile, especially big ones. But, there are things like Bitcoin around —

DUBNER: Of which you’re not a fan, we should say.

THALER: Of which I’m not a fan.

DUBNER: You’re not not a fan of blockchain itself, correct? But as a currency, not a fan. Is that about right?

THALER: Correct. I don’t know why anyone engaged in strictly legal activities would want to use a currency that is so volatile. It’s just the opposite. Suppose you sell another book and the publisher offers you an advance in Bitcoin. Unless you were trying to cheat the I.R.S., you would say, “No, tell me what it’s going to be in dollars. Because I could end up getting half of what you’re offering me, and that’s not an attractive feature.”

DUBNER: So have you shorted Bitcoin?

THALER: No, because Warren Buffett says a lot of smart things, and one of the things he says is, don’t make investments in things you don’t understand. And I have no clue. I don’t think that the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is worth thousands of dollars. But I also think it’s entirely possible that it will go up rather than down. So “stay away” is the best advice.

DUBNER: Some people, including some economists, argue that behavioral economics is really just another way to suggest that individuals can’t be trusted to make good decisions. And so institutions, particularly the state, should take more control. Indeed, your co-author on the book Nudge, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, for several years ran a White House unit called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which sounds about as Orwellian as you can. There are “Nudge units” in dozens of federal governments around the world. You’ve described your work as libertarian paternalism, and, furthermore, argued that that phrase is not an oxymoron. Why shouldn’t we dismiss your work as a kind of new, softer form of statism?

THALER: Well, first of all, when we use this phrase libertarian paternalism, we’re using libertarian as an adjective. And so we’re trying to say we’re going to design policies that don’t force anyone to do anything. So the claim that we’re trying to tell people what to do, or force them to do things, is just completely wrong. We are also not trying to tell them to do what we think is smart. We’re trying to help people do what they want to do.

I like to use G.P.S. as an analogy of what we’re trying to do. So, I have a terrible sense of direction. And Google Maps is a lifesaver for me. Now, if I want to go visit you, I can plug in your address, and suppose I’m walking across the park, and I see, “Oh, there’s a softball game over there. I think I’ll go watch that for a while,” Google Maps doesn’t scold me. It will re-compute a new route if I’ve gone a bit out of my way. It doesn’t suggest addresses to me. It just suggests a route. And if there’s a traffic jam, it suggests maybe you should alter your route.

So, we don’t think people are dumb. We think the world is hard. I mean, figuring out how much to save for retirement is a really hard cognitive problem that very few economists have solved for themselves. And it’s not only cognitively hard, it involves delay of gratification, which people find hard. It’s just like navigating in a strange city is hard. So, why not try to help? When I first was working with the U.K. Behavioral Insight Team, the first “Nudge unit,” the phrase I kept saying in every meeting with some minister was, “If you want to get people to do something, make it easy. Remove the barriers.” That’s what we’re about.

DUBNER: Let me go back to you and the Nobel. So, what would you say have been the biggest changes in your life since winning the prize? Both of the observable sort and unobservable?

THALER: Well, I think I spend more time talking to people like you. My inbox, my email, is completely out of control. And there are some downsides. The university all of a sudden has a lot of things that they would like you to do.

DUBNER: Fundraisers.

THALER: Of that ilk. So, I was a pretty happy guy. You’ve known me for years. And we saw each other recently. Did I seem demonstrably happier?

DUBNER: You looked a little taller and better-looking, but otherwise — I think that was my perception. I think you were exactly the same, actually.

THALER: No, that was just your jealousy. But look, I absolutely don’t want to sound like a sore winner or an ungrateful winner. I’m saying that most of the people who win were already pretty successful people with pretty good lives. And there’s what psychologists call a ceiling effect. So I had a pretty happy life, as you know, I have a nice wife and I have kids I love. And yes, this made me happy. And it was very gratifying. But you have this image that you’re going to be on cloud nine. And then there is life. You still get flat tires even if you have a Nobel Prize. You still have leaks at home that nobody seems to be able to fix. So they need to fix that and say that if you get a Nobel Prize, nothing can leak in your house.

DUBNER: I’ll end with where I should have started. Congratulations.

THALER: Thank you, Stephen.

DUBNER: I know everybody who listens to you is happy for you, proud of you, and most of all, we’re pleased in a selfish way to keep learning from you, because we learn a lot. And I thank you especially for that. And I look forward to the next time we speak.

THALER: So do I.

* * *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Greg Rosalsky. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, Harry Huggins, Alvin Melathe, and Zack Lapinski. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Richard Thaler, professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago.

RESOURCES

“Behavioral Economics,” by Richard Thaler (The Past, Present, and Future of Economics: A Celebration of the 125-Year Anniversary of the JPE and of Chicago Economics, December 2017).

The Big Short (2015).

Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, by Richard Thaler (2016).

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2009).

The post People Aren’t Dumb. The World Is Hard. (Ep. 340 Rebroadcast) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/thaler-rebroadcast/

0 notes

rachelbrosnahanweb · 5 years

Text

New Update has been published on Rachel Brosnahan Web

New Post has been published on http://rachel-brosnahan.org/2018/12/12/press-alex-borstein-talks-about-rachel-brosnahan-and-why-she-loves-the-world-of-the-marvelous-mrs-maisel/

Press: Alex Borstein Talks About Rachel Brosnahan and Why She Loves the World of The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Sometimes it all comes down to having just the right chemistry. Several years ago, when Alex Borstein heard about Amy Sherman-Palladino and her husband Daniel Palladino’s idea for a television show about a woman in the ’50s doing stand-up, breaking into a man’s business and balancing family, and she was definitely intrigued.

This was two years before Sherman-Palladino actually had a script and mentioned there might be a part for Borstein, who portrays Susie Myerson, the curmudgeonly manager of Miriam “Midge” Maisel (Rachel Brosnahan) in the critically-acclaimed series from Amazon Studios.

The much-anticipated series, which garnered eight Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Comedy Series, recently returned for season 2. The third season of colorful episodes has already been ordered.

Borstein, 47, who won an Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actress for Mrs. Maisel, has two decades of show business experience in such diverse projects as MADtv, Getting On and the voice of Lois Griffin on Family Guy and films Good Night, Good Luck, Dinner for Schmucks, Ted and A Million Ways to Die in the West. She has known the creators of Mrs. Maisel for many years and appeared as a cranky harpist and eccentric seamstress in the beloved mother-daughter series Gilmore Girls, also from the same creative team.

For Borstein reading the part of Susie opposite of Brosnahan’s Midge for the first time seemed like kismet. “It is really just kind of like speed dating; either it’s there, or not and it was just there,” she recalled. “It was something you can’t really put in a script; that’s how chemistry works.”

How is the second season of Mrs. Maisel different for you than the first? Are you more comfortable in Susie’s skin?

The newness is gone and now you’re stuck with this character, and what do you do to make it different and not hit the same notes all the time? And in Susie and Midge’s relationship, the honeymoon is over. They are, ‘OK, let’s do this. Now, we’re thrust into this relationship. But do I even like you? Can I work with you? Why are you annoying? You’re passive aggressive. Well, you’re aggressive-aggressive.’ So we have all this back and forth because Susie and Midge are a kind of an Odd Couple that happens.

Did you expect both the show and your character to be so well-embraced?

I know that Amy creates incredible worlds and I knew when I read the first script that this was one of those worlds. I knew that the part was special because Susie is such a cool woman to play, as are all of the women in it…I didn’t know how this show would be received but I was pleasantly surprised that it has been so warmly embraced.

What’s it like to be in that world created in The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel? When I watch the show I see this nostalgia for those who remember that time and a yearning for it for those of us who were too young to remember it.

It’s cool because in some ways it feels like this nostalgic fantasy and kind of cozy and safe… In other ways, it was a pretty turbulent time that was coming up with civil rights around the corner… It’s taking a picture of one tiny space within that world but there’s something very warm when you show up to the set and it’s all designed in the ’50s, and the cars from that period are all parked in the streets, and everyone that walks by is Dapper Dan and dressed to the nines. There’s something very lovely and calming about it in today’s crazy world. So, then going out of that world into your real life, is that jarring to you?

Yeah. It’s quite different, but Susie, the character, is hard-assed, and aggressive, and was kind of before her time. So, she doesn’t feel antiquated or old-fashioned. She feels like she could really fit into any time period.

Talk about the chemistry between you and Rachel, because it’s pretty strong right from the pilot and it continues to increase on-screen.

I came to New York to audition for Susie. I probably spent half an hour with Dan and Amy alone and then Rachel came in and we read together. And from the get-go, the chemistry was there. We just had this Mary Tyler Richards-Rhoda kind of thing that just worked and it worked well.

What do you think are the ingredients?

I don’t want to say it was pure luck because Amy wrote it and she said she had me in mind. She’d already found Rachel, so it’s not shocking that it worked, and Amy’s taste is pretty cool, and so she knows what’s going to go together.

It is a phenomenal cast of highly skilled actors, who have really sunk their teeth into these characters.

Like, Tony Shalhoub, I have had a massive crush on him from Galaxy Quest, and I got to know him years ago when he did a guest starring role on MADtv, the sketch show that I was on. I just thought he was amazing and he was so kind, and so cool to work with, and had always been one of my favorite people. When I heard he was doing this show, it was like ‘holy cow,’ here is yet another reason that I couldn’t possibly say no.

Have you worked together yet?

In season 2, our worlds meet a tiny bit. But he and I have yet to really get down and dirty and get to really, really work together. I’m hoping as the show continues to go, there’ll be more and more.

You do work with Michael Zegen, who plays Midge’s husband Joel?

Yes, and the chemistry between Michael and I, playing Joel, is just perfect too, that there is a disdain and a competitiveness between the two characters that it’s really cool and works really well between us.

You’re both vying for Midge’s attention.

It’s a love triangle. It really is.

Have you been to comedy clubs since the show began and did Mrs. Maisel change your perspective of them?

I did stand-up for a lot of years, and I’ll go if there’s somebody I know is there to see them. I still love seeing a well-crafted set, but it’s not my choice for a night out. It’s like I don’t watch sketch comedy anymore after doing MADtv for years.

It sounds like something that your character Susie might say. You must be proud of winning the Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy. What was the experience like?

Very strange. First of all, I was very late. My parents and one of my best friends, Will, also came with me. He lives close to my parents. So, I told him to come to our house and I will pick everyone up with the car service. So, of course, he was late. We showed up and they wouldn’t let us in. They said, ‘You have to wait until a commercial break.’ And I’m getting texts of ‘Where the hell are you?’ I was like, ‘Excuse me, I don’t want to cause any trouble, but they’re telling me I need to be sitting because I think it’s time for my awards category…’ and they are not letting us sit, they are still telling us we have to wait…

That sounds nerve-wracking.

Yes. It was just very crazy, and stressful, and then finally they’re like, ‘OK, you can go in and sit down.’ Then literally, we sat down, and at that moment they announced, ‘The nominees for Best Supporting Actress are…’ So, I just made it. So when they called my name I was so not prepared in any way.

During the hiatus, are you writing? Are you acting? Are you looking for different projects?

I live in Barcelona, Spain, and I’m doing a musical with a small theater company there that opens on January 31. So, I have two children, and the bulk of my days is getting them to the bus stop, picking them up, going to piano lessons, going to dance, homework and making dinner, yelling at them, bath time, and then I go to rehearsals for this musical, which I’m just loving it so much. The musical is like feeding me.

How old are your children?

My daughter is 6 and my son is 10.

Have they seen the episodes of the Gilmore Girls that you’re in?

No, I don’t think so. I don’t think they’ve seen any Gilmore. They have come to the set of Mrs. Maisel and seen some episodes that we’re shooting. And the project I did before this was called Getting On, and they often came to the set. Well, my baby girl was born on that set, basically, so she was there every day, but my son was about 4 years old at the time and he visited a lot.

Do people recognize you from this show or any other work while your children are around, and what’s that like?

Yeah, people do. It bothers my son a great deal. If someone asks for a photo, he does not like it.

Yeah, he’s being protective.

He gets very angry and he knows that I don’t want him in any photos, so he’ll try to jump in to mess up the photo.

I used to go to Broadway shows in the ’80s and there was a group of autograph collectors who would share their stories. One guy had nearly every famous person who had performed on Broadway for some 50 years.

Well, it’s nice when someone is an actual collector. But now, people wait outside and they have 15 cards and they want you to sign them all, and you know they are going to put them on eBay that night. So I want to say, ‘What are you doing? This isn’t for you. This is Crazy!’

Well, if you put their name on the autograph they are probably not going to sell it.

Many times, I will… If someone says, ‘Can you just sign your name, please?’ I’ll write, ‘To eBay’ and then I sign my name or I sign someone else’s name and they don’t notice until they get home.

Source: Parade

#alex borstein #maiseltv #midge maisel #mrs. maisel #rachel brosnahan #the marvelous mrs. maisel #Press #Television #The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

1 note · View note

bellarminemuseum · 6 years

Text

Talking Turkey and John James Audubon

(Reposted from the New York Historical Society http://behindthescenes.nyhistory.org/talking-turkey-and-john-james-audubon/ - Guest post by Fairfield University Art Museum Advisory Board Member Roberta Olson, all images courtesy of the New York Historical Society)

Contrary to our notions of a Thanksgiving feast, the first harvest celebrated by the Pilgrims with the Wampanoag in 1621 did not focus on roast turkey. According to the one preserved written account, the menu pivoted around duck, venison, seafood, and corn. Turkey only became part of the annual Thanksgiving ritual after 1863, when Abraham Lincoln declared the national holiday.

Writing in the text for The Birds of America (1827–38), the legendary naturalist-artist John James Audubon sided with Benjamin Franklin supporting the Wild Turkey—the bird that we today associate with the holiday of Thanksgiving—as a better choice for the national symbol than the Bald Eagle:

[S]uffer me, kind reader, to say how much I grieve that it [the Bald Eagle] should have been selected as the Emblem of my Country . . . The opinion of our great Franklin on this subject, as it perfectly coincides with my own. (Ornithological Biography, volume 1, page 168)

He proceeded to paraphrase one of the versions of Franklin’s letter from Paris to his daughter Sally Bache. The recent selection of the Eagle as the national symbol and the poor design of the bird on the badge of the Society of the Cincinnati Medal—which Franklin noted looked more like a turkey—prompted the Philadelphia sage to humorously compare the two birds:

For my own part I wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our country. He is a bird of bad moral character. He does not get his living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead tree, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the labour of the fishing hawk; and when that diligent bird has at length taken a fish, and is bearing it to his nest for the support of his mate and young ones, the bald eagle pursues him, and takes it from him. With all this injustice, he is never in good case, but like those among men who live by sharping and robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank coward: the little king bird not bigger than a sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the district. He is therefore by no means a proper emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America, who have driven all the king birds from our country, though exactly fit for that order of knights which the French call Chevaliers d’Industrie. (January 26, 1784, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, 29)

Franklin also noted that the turkey is not only more respectable but also an original native bird of America, whereas eagles are found in every country. No wonder that the immigrant “American Woodsman,” as Audubon fashioned himself, assigned the Wild Turkey the place of honor as the first plate in The Birds of America. That engraving was based on his watercolor model—one of 435 for The Birds of America that the New-York Historical Society purchased from the artist’s widow, Lucy Bakewell Audubon, in 1863 and that have subsequently been deemed national treasures. It became perhaps Audubon’s most famous image.

Audubon, who became a proud U.S. citizen in 1812, so identified with America that he used “the gobbler” for his personal seal, engraved in reverse with the motto “AMERICA MY COUNTRY,” as well as for his visiting card. “The great size and beauty of the Wild Turkey, its value as a delicate and highly prized article of food,” wrote Audubon in the Ornithological Biography, “render it one of the most interesting of the birds indigenous to the United States of America.” On over 19 pages he described the species’ complex behavior, including its “love- season” and “amatory intercourse,” noting the fowl’s “purring,” “notes of exultation,” “gobbling,” and “clucking.”

In both his watercolor model and plate 1 of The Birds of America, Audubon’s majestic bird crowds the double-elephant-size paper, while the tips of its tail feathers are cropped to increase the illusion that it is striding forward through the cane, which grows on the riverbanks of the southeastern United States. The bird, which reputedly weighed 28 pounds, measured: “Length 4 feet 1 inch, extent of wings 5 feet 8 inches; beak 1 ½ inches along the ridge . . . Such were the dimensions of the individual represented in the plate, which, I need not say, was a fine specimen.” One of the people who witnessed the artist painting the watercolor commented, “Audubon . . . spent several days sketching it . . . till it rotted and stunk—I hated to lose so much good eating.” To convey the textures and tonalities of its plumage, Audubon lavished a wide spectrum of media on his depiction, including metallic pigment, most likely gold.

With the Wild Turkey as its focus, the New-York Historical Society’s intimate Audubon’s Birds of America Gallery takes flight on November 10. It offers visitors a once-in-a-lifetime experience of viewing John James Audubon’s spectacular watercolor models for the 435 plates of The Birds of America with their corresponding plates from the double-elephant-folio series, engraved by master printmaker Robert Havell Jr. Other works from the collection—the largest repository of Auduboniana in the world—illuminate the artist’s creative process, and bird calls courtesy of Macaulay Library of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology further animate the environment. In this inaugural exhibition, Audubon’s watercolor model will be joined by the copper plate used to print the Wild Turkey (held by the American Museum of Natural History) and the New-York Historical Society’s impression of plate 1 for The Birds of America. They will be reunited for the first time since 1827!

Why does Audubon’s life-size male turkey turn in contrapposto and look backwards? Was it only to allow the bird to fit onto the 40-inch-high paper? Five years before painting the male, the artist portrayed its mate sprinting with her nine poults (chicks) in tow. Therefore, Audubon’s male exhibits a characteristic species behavior as a pater familias, looking over his shoulder protectively at his family following behind. That this was Audubon’s intention is supported by no less than three oil paintings in which he portrayed the entire turkey family.

At times during Audubon’s stays in England to supervise the production of The Birds of America and to solicit subscribers, he was invited to dine in stately homes. Audubon dressed the part as the American Woodsman in buckskin attire, his long hair tamed with bear grease. Over port, he was frequently asked to produce turkey calls, owl hoots, and Indian war cries.

Conservation Status of the Wild Turkey

Heavily hunted since the earliest days of European occupation destroyed huge swaths of its range by logging and land clearing, Wild Turkeys reached a nadir in the early 1930s with a population of about 30,000 birds. Already Audubon had noted their declining numbers during his lifetime. Today, after a massive trap-and-transfer effort spanning over a quarter of a century, about seven million wild turkeys strut and gobble around the country. This inspiring story in the history of wildlife conservation involved the National Turkey Federation. While Wild Turkey numbers are stable, biologists in many southeastern states—a turkey stronghold—are concerned that populations have been tumbling, in some areas shrinking more than half with the quantity of poults dropping steeply. This suggests that there are underlying problems with their habitats that need attention.

Wild Turkeys on Long Island

Wild Turkeys and turkey rafts (one name for turkey groups) on Long Island have delighted me for many years and have taught me why Audubon painted the species in the poses he selected for plates 1 and 6 of The Birds of America. Turkey families are frequent guests to my house, and they have laid errant eggs on my patio and in my shrubs. Five years ago, walking down the driveway to the road, there was a male Wild Turkey in the grass on the right median which was turned in contrapposto gazing over his shoulder in the exact pose of the male in Audubon’s watercolor. His attention was riveted on his family trailing behind, and he proceeded to nod his head 21 times as his extended family members crossed the road to join him! In late August of this year, a turkey couple with their brood flew over the fence close to the house. In a case of nature imitating art, there were nine poults with mom in the running posture against a backdrop of foliage, just like Audubon painted his hen and chicks. When dad saw me, he proceeded to fan-open his magnificent tail feathers as in the photograph below. . . These 21st-century anecdotes about the Wild Turkey prove that Audubon was a nearly cinematic observer of avian behavior and lived up to his credo, which he frequently inscribed on his watercolors: “Drawn from Nature.”

—Roberta J.M. Olson, Curator of Drawings New York Historical Society

#audubon #americanpainting #turkeys

0 notes