Just refound these two behind-the-scenes stills of the set of ‘↑Metropolis‘ (Lang 1927), showing how one of the most famous vistas in the history of the moving images was built. From looking at them alone it becomes understandable why the movie was ↵so costly.
You might perhaps have noticed that during the past weeks the overall number of entries here at xirdalium has substantially increased. Including this one, there now are 1058 posts all in all. This is due to my finally having imported all the content from my first blog, ye ole xirdalium, which is no longer in existence. You can access all this content via the pages menu at the very bottom of the page, via the monthly archives at the bottom of the sidebar to the right, or, best of all, via the search field, also in the sidebar. Every single post is probably indexed by ↑Relevanssi, the search module implemented in xirdalium—even the free version I am using here is excellent, employing logical search operators AND and OR, highlighting the search terms in the search results, giving you the results weighted by relevance, and so on. In contrast to the indexing for the search function, which is done by Relevanssi itself, the tagging and sorting of posts into the congeries unfortunately has to be done by me handishly—there simply is no other way. Hence the tagcloud and the congeries menu, both also in the sidebar, have not yet caught up with all the imported content. I already began with sorting and tagging, but for quite some time the search function will remain the most reliable and comprehensive means of finding things here. Above that you will run into posts which not yet are formatted properly, which lack pictures, and which contain broken links. Fixing of all this is under way, but will take some time. Nevertheless, all the text is there.
zeph’s pop culture quiz #47
Between which worlds is the man the depicted hand belongs to travelling?
Just leave a comment with your educated guess—you can ask for additional hints, too. [Leaving a comment is easy; just click the ‘Leave a comment’ at the end of the post and fill in the form. If it’s the first time you post a comment, it will be held for moderation. But I am constantly checking, and once I’ve approved a comment, your next ones won’t be held, but published immediately by the system.]
UPDATE and solution (31 October 2012):
This was a slip, I have to confess. Normally, before I post a quiz, I check for the most obvious search terms, so that the riddle isn’t solved too fast by the help of mere technological assistance. This time I omitted that step. Maybe because I found the title ‘between which worlds?’ just too compelling. Anyhow, that way ↵Alhambra immediately solved #47. Without having seen the movie, and without ever even having heard of it, as she confessed to me via e-mail. Congratulations nevertheless—‘↑John Carter‘ (Stanton 2012) it is! And here is yet another slip of mine: In the movie the hand doesn’t belong to Carter (Taylor Kitsch), but to his nephew Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara).
The movie is largely based on the novel ‘↑A Princess of Mars‘ (1917 ) by ↑Edgar Rice Burroughs, who also invented ↑Tarzan. As a homage the character of Burroughs as Carter’s nephew was put into the 2012 movie’s script. ‘A Princess of Mars,’ originally published in serialized form as ‘Under the Moons of Mars,’ was the very first story Burroughs wrote. All in all ten sequel novels followed, telling the adventures of John Carter and his offspring. Although not the first of its kind, the ‘Barsoom series’—’Barsoom’ being the ‘indigenous’ name of the planet we call ‘Mars’—is an early, well known, and very influential ↑planetary romance (a peculiar fusion of science fiction and fantasy). Another well known example are the adventures of ↑Flash Gordon, from whom we just recently heard two times (↵what is this? and the ↵the flash inspirations). While Gordon travels from Earth to the planet Mongo the ‘conventional way,’ by rocket ship that is, John Carter seems to be teleported from Earth, from the Arizona Hills to be precise, to Mars by an, at first, inexplicable force. In the novel this happens at the end of the second, and the beginning of the third chapter:
As I stood thus meditating, I turned my gaze from the landscape to the heavens where the myriad stars formed a gorgeous and fitting canopy for the wonders of the earthly scene. My attention was quickly riveted by a large red star close to the distant horizon. As I gazed upon it I felt a spell of overpowering fascination—it was Mars, the god of war, and for me, the fighting man, it had always held the power of irresistible enchantment. As I gazed at it on that far-gone night it seemed to call across the unthinkable void, to lure me to it, to draw me as the lodestone attracts a particle of iron.
My longing was beyond the power of opposition; I closed my eyes, stretched out my arms toward the god of my vocation and felt myself drawn with the suddenness of thought through the trackless immensity of space. There was an instant of extreme cold and utter darkness. (Burroughs 1917 : chpt. 2)
I opened my eyes upon a strange and weird landscape. I knew that I was on Mars; not once did I question either my sanity or my wakefulness. I was not asleep, no need for pinching here; my inner consciousness told me as plainly that I was upon Mars as your conscious mind tells you that you are upon Earth. You do not question the fact; neither did I.
(Burroughs 1917 : chpt. 3)
Another planetary romance, which I read as a teenager and admire until today, is the epic graphic novel saga around the hero ‘↑Den‘ by ↑Richard Corben—very much inspired by John Carter of Mars [and by ↑Lovecraft—a cosmic demon god in the world of Neverwhere is called ↑Uluhtc …]:
Then it came to me. My name is … was David Ellis Norman. I was mourning my Uncle Daniel’s death. They had never found him but now, after seven years it was legal. Some of his belongings had come into my possession including his collection of Burroughs fantasy novels. In the back of one was a piece of paper with an electronic schematic on it … there was also a letter … addressed to me. (Corben 1977-1978, part 2: 49)
David decides to build the device described by the plans of his uncle, takes it ‘to an abandoned farm area’ and tries it out:
Planetary romances, sometimes even dubbed as the ‘↑sword and planet‘ genre, of course are not cyberpunk at all. But it is remarkable, I think, that during the historical treshold, when the ↵cyberpunk discourse became manifest as a literary genre, Richard Corben integrated technology into the saga of Den, with otherwise comprises fantasy and the downright supernatural: David Ellis Norman is transported from Earth to Neverwhere, and is transformed into Den, by a force or principle which can be made to work by both electronics and magic:
In this I sense something similar like in the story about ↵how the cyberpunk discourse infested the zombie genre.
Two years ago I belatedly ↵reported on Shimon Schocken’s and Noam Nisan’s book ‘The elements of computing systems: Building a modern computer from first principles’ (2005). Since then quite some things have happened, and at the website ↑From NAND to Tetris you’ll now find a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC ;)—the whole course, including all the materials, has been put online open-source fashion. The idea is to lead you from the uttermost basics, in this case the logical NAND gate [Negated AND or NOT AND] to build a system on which you finally can program and run a Tetris game. The rationale behind that is to correct the fact that first principles got lost within much of our contemporary computer science syllabi. Here’s from the TED talk above:
So, it’s not surprising that about twelve years ago, when Noam and I were already computer science professors, we were equally frustrated by the same phenomenon. As computers became increasingly more complex our students were losing the forest for the trees. And indeed it is impossible to connect to the soul of the machine if you interact with a black box PC or a Mac which is shrouded by numerous layers of closed proprietary software. So Noam and I had this insight, that if you want those students to understand how computers work, understand it in the marrow of their bones, then perhaps the best way to go about it is to have them build a complete working general purpose useful computer, hardware and software, from the ground up. [from 03:30 onwards | my transcription—put the blame on me]
Whenever I hear about the first principles of computer science, I am reminded of something engineer ↑Frederic Williams (1911-1977) said. Williams, together with ↑Tom Kilburn (1921-2001), oftentimes is quoted as having invented the ↑Manchester Mark 1, the ‘Manchester Baby,’ the first stored-program digital computer. But Williams himself impressively set the record straight:
Now let’s be clear before we go any further that neither Tom Kilburn nor I knew the first thing about computers when we arrived in Manchester University […] ↑Newman explained the whole business of how a computer works to us.
Tom Kilburn and I knew nothing about computers […] Professor Newman and Mr ↑A. M. Turing […] knew a lot about computers […] They took us by the hand and explained how numbers could live in houses with addresses […]. (Williams cf. Copeland 2006: 112—bold emphasis mine)
The creation of the computer as we envision it today mainly began during World War II and came to full fruit immediately after the war. This span of time is the historical threshold of the discourse ‘modern computer,’ if you’d like it in Foucaultian terms. The sames is true for ↵cybernetics. Sometimes, especially during the 1970s, it was spread that cybernetics came first, and that the ‘invention of the computer’ was founded on it. That’s an ill conception. Rather both discourses were very much in parallel chronologically and mutually inseminated and influenced each other, had and have a dialectical relationship, if you will. Put the other way round: they depend on each other. The cybernetic cosmology, among many other things, very much influenced that shape of our educational systems. The whole idea that education and learning can be controlled, regulated and steered by using the tools of quantification stems from the enormous success of cyberntics, especially during the 1960s. In respect to this I only can ↵again urge everybody capable of reading German, to dive into David Gugerli’s great article ‘Kybernetisierung der Hochschule’ [‘Cybernetification’ of the university] (2008).
Shimon Schocken, musing about the thousands who are going through his and Noam Nisan’s MOOC, has matching thoughts:
These people can not care less about grades. They are doing it because of one motivation; they have a tremendous passion to learn. And with that in mind I’d like to say a few words on traditional college grading—I’m sick of it. We are obsessed with grades because we are obsessed with data. And yet grading takes away all the fun from failing. And a huge part of education is about failing. Courage, according to Churchill, is the ability to go from one defeat to another without losing enthusiasm. And, and Orwell—Orwell said that mistakes are the portals of discovery. And yet we don’t tolerate mistakes, and we worship grades. So, you collect your B-plusses and your A-minusses, and we aggregate them into a number like 3.4, which is stamped on your forehead and sums up who you are. Well, in my opinion we went too far with this nonsense and grading became degrading. So, with that I’d like to say a few words about upgrading. [from 10:00 onwards | my transcription—put the blame on me]
And now scroll up again and watch the whole of Shimon Schocken’s TED talk.
Back in late 2010 we had scottish illustrator and graphic designer ↑Murray Groat‘s wonderful ↑Tintin–↑Lovecraft ↵crossover covers [check out Murray’s ↑blog, ↑portfolio and ↑deviant art page—there’s more Lovecraftia to discover]. Matchingly enough in the same year a wonderful graphic novel version (Lovecraft & Culbard 2010) of H. P. Lovecraft’s ‘↓At the Mountains of Madness‘ (1936) by ↑I. N. J. Culbard was published—drawn in the best ↑ligne claire tradition. For the full experience you first might want to read Poe’s ‘The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket’ (1838) … and if you want to know every fictional story which ever happened in Antarctica, ↑here they are.
In a review of Bruno Latour’s ‘We have never been modern’ (Latour 1993 ) by Barbara Tuchanska (1995) I just found the following paragraph trying to describe the world Latour paints:
The reality of our everyday life is populated by computers that transform all spheres of
life, frozen embryos, cable television networks, psychotropic drugs, whales equipped with
radar sounding devices, sexuality changed by AIDS, poverty and the exploitation of man,
totalitarian political systems destroying ecosystems, deforestation, the ozone hole, and
thousands of other monsters that are the hybrids of nature and culture.
Now, if you got time, compare that to the 1986 Bruce-Sterling quotes I collected [and commented a bit] in ↵anthropology’s shades. And if you’re at it, and still have time, you might like to have a look into ↵our mundane world and ↵writing culture and cyberpunk, too.
↑Mike’s Amazing World of Comics features an amazing tool for historians of popular culture: ↑The Newsstand. It allows you to choose any month, beginning in 1934, and then the system will give you the covers of all comic books which were on sale [in the US of A] this very month. Included publishers are: Marvel, DC, Archie, Charlton, Dark Horse, Dell, Gold Key, Harvey, and Image.
Whenever I hear or read about the ↑quantified self—a lifestyle obviously deeply influenced by the heritage of ↵cybernetics—I am reminded of conversations I led and overheard while I still was visiting the gym regularly, three times a week. Already when just eavesdropping I was amazed by the topics the real bodybuilders talked about. The weights lifted almost aren’t a topic at all—with the exception when they spot somebody they care about using too heavy weights. This not only has negative training effects but greatly heightens the risk of injuries, too. Then, somewhat related to the former, there is the topic of correct execution of the exercises. But, roughly estimated, almost eighty percent of the conversations the big boys lead is filled with training plans and nutrition en détail. This was corroborated once I could take part in the discussions, after having been socially accepted by the circle of the big boy regulars at my gym—doing ten repetitions in the fifth set with 90 kgs on the bench is the threshold, I guess. Not that I myself was a big boy then, far from it, but to their satisfaction they had seen that I was serious about their sport and cared for it. Exactly the same experience I had with all communities of practice I ever had to do with, be they composed of hardcore gamers, game modders, Karatekas, or whatyouhave. Once you have demonstrated respect, prolongued interest, and willingness to invest, you’re in.
Anyway, back on topic. It’s obvious that the ↑quantified self movement has its roots not only in cybernetics, but also in flight medicine, sports science, and the like. I always thought that sooner or later the practices and scenes of the gym will be reconnected with the quantified self. Bruce W. Perry’s book ‘Fitness for Geeks’ (2012) does it.
Unqualified addendum: You people must have time …
PlaygroundPong is a proof of concept for inverting Avatar & Playground. The player cannot move the paddles at all like in a regular Pong game. The ball seems to move from side to side but clearly it does not! The player cannot identify with the avatar (playing object), he or she has to get to terms with moving the background (from left to right, right to left, top to bottom and bottom to top) in order to bring the paddles in a position where they manage to hit the ball back. The paddles themselves slightly move up and down according to what direction the player moves the playground to. An utterly unfamiliar set up for a player who expects to play and navigate an avatar. He or she now plays the playground and tries to keep avatars and object in position. The player needs to rewire his or her brain before succeeding with the inverted gameplay.
This reminded me of two fine ↑Quake-related Chuck-Norris jokes: ‘When Chuck Norris rocket jumps, he doesn’t launch up, the map moves down’ and ‘Chuck Norris doesn’t need to move, map moves for him.’
But isn’t that almost always the case, at least with the absolute majority of 3D-games? When playing Quake my crosshairs are fixed to the middle of the screen. When I hit ‘jump’ neither my screen nor the crosshairs attached to it move upwards, rather the representation of the map moves downwards on my screen. Same for all other directions of movement.
I hate to say that, but in this respect we all are Chuck Norris.
This somewhat awkward fact is covered by the design of gameplay mechanics, foremost by inversion of controls: when I hit ‘right’ the map moves to the left, etc.
And while we are at it, all this also reminded me of an almost six years old idea of mine, which in a way fits into the games with defects philosophy: ↵second person view.