Профиль

I really don't like this "did you say thank you???" attitude toward her, as if making some money as a side-effect of the movie obliges you to logroll it shamelessly.

Michelangelo: "All this sculpture! This painting! Returning to the classics! It's like a rebirth of civilization!" Rabelais (turning to the camera): "Oui, a Renaissance!"

now this here is what we in the business call a blooper

Homer: "Actually, I could have predicted that in 2800 years you would be able to see Odysseus' adventures as if you were there on a huge magic wall, and also that people would be so virtuous that he couldn't be shown to enjoy women outside of marriage."

Sadly, the "eight eyes" glasses trend never really took off

Time for Greece to reestablish the Tauric Chersonese?

this, but with the cyclops www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEi6...

Adam Sandler would nail the too-clever-by-half and poor impulse control

Soylent Green

The page where Perseus has just cut off Medusa's head and the other Gorgons come flying out from behind a rock was so terrifying to me that I would always skip over it.

Can't recall it at the moment but I'm sure there's work decomposing research evaluation into shared and unique factors. What I'm not so sure about is if there's work decomposing the unique part into Eureka-points that other reviewers would agree on if they realized, and points of true difference.

But then I copy and paste my old review and save those new reviewers the work ... Currently the standards are nebulous. Do reviews involve facts? Opinions? Opinions, and that's good? Of course, it's easy to say my opinions are facts, and your facts mere opinions.

I liked the audacity of this part

I wrote about the Nolan Odyssey for the LRB. I'll summarize some of my main points below, in case you don't feel like reading all that. www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v4...

Other countries: "euh euh what are the humanities good for" France: PHILOSOPHERS ARE FIRST RESPONDERS

If it's approached as an opinion-sampling process, i.e. roll of the dice, then the "fair shake" viewpoint makes more sense.

I take those reviews 100% -- search for my old file, copy, paste, send, and try to suppress the snark in doing so. If reviewing is a fact-finding process there's no harm in bringing the same facts to light once more!

The "fair chance" POV assumes that reviewing should be treated as a stochastic process ("shake of the dice"), not a fact-finding process, so I tend to disagree with it. Yes, that is often how it is, but not how it should be.

If in the first act, you place a swarm of mechanical octopuses in a tanker, in the second, they must rampage. Chekhov's rules, not mine.

Same but for Plato