I don't know about this... Think about the best American comic right now, Louis CK. His on-stage (and on-screen) persona almost exactly fits what Fry describes as the British archetype. And he's not alone: think about Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm, George Costanza in Seinfeld, Homer Simpson, even Lucille Ball.

On the flip side, British comedians like Russell Brand, Jimmy Carr and Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder (except for the first season) are more like Fry's description of American comedy. It seems to me that what Fry has done here is come up with a nice neat story about differing national character based on broad stereotypes rather than acute observation, turned that into a theory of comedy, and then cherry-picked examples that fit his theory without mentioning exceptions. It all sounds very impressive given his amazing facility with language and rhetoric, but it's not very good analysis.

>> ^jmzero:

I liked the original Guild Wars. It had a short, tight, enjoyable narrative that served pretty much as a tutorial - and then you played an interesting multiplayer game that revolved around skill choices and interactions between different characters across team archetypes. The team arena in Guild Wars was somewhere between Magic: The Gathering (you kind of built a deck almost) and Defense of the Ancients, with just a hint of Diablo gear collection and what not. I thought the skill acquisition system was great, and there was a great variety of skills (though the skills often felt underpowered). I only quit playing because it was stagnant, and I was quite looking forward to the sequel (especially when reviews were generally good).
I should have paid more attention to what they changed.
The new one is just a slightly different flavor of WoW, and I assume the glowing reviews are from people who generally like WoW but wanted a different flavor (or no monthly charge). It has nothing to do with the original game. It's the fastest I've ever completely given up on a game I spent $60 on.


GW2 is very very good indeed, and because arenanet is actually paying attention to what people are saying its getting better. Many player suggestions were implemented weeks into release, with more to come.

As for jmzero... I dont think hes even played it. There are many things you can say about GW2, both good and bad, but "slightly different flavor of WoW" isnt one of them. And as for the "its has nothing to do with the original game" comment.... yeah nothing.... except it continues the story from GW1, has characters from GW1, has the same races and many of the professions from GW1, then theres the areas, music, signet based skill system etc... christ it even uses the same engine and instancing backend (tho now with persistent zones).

But... if he doesn't like it, fine.... his opinion.

I liked the original Guild Wars. It had a short, tight, enjoyable narrative that served pretty much as a tutorial - and then you played an interesting multiplayer game that revolved around skill choices and interactions between different characters across team archetypes. The team arena in Guild Wars was somewhere between Magic: The Gathering (you kind of built a deck almost) and Defense of the Ancients, with just a hint of Diablo gear collection and what not. I thought the skill acquisition system was great, and there was a great variety of skills (though the skills often felt underpowered). I only quit playing because it was stagnant, and I was quite looking forward to the sequel (especially when reviews were generally good).

I should have paid more attention to what they changed.

The new one is just a slightly different flavor of WoW, and I assume the glowing reviews are from people who generally like WoW but wanted a different flavor (or no monthly charge). It has nothing to do with the original game. It's the fastest I've ever completely given up on a game I spent $60 on.

@Sagemind

A quibble or two aside, just about everything you said, I think, is spot on, but I don't agree with your conclusion that this isn't a useful project, or that video games aren't going to change. What you're missing is that just about every female that we're presented with across all media is from a narrow band of disempowering clichés. It's the "disempowering" part that's key. Yes, there are relatively few male archetypes in video games, but they're almost always valued for their strength, leadership, intelligence, wit, athleticism, skill, sense of humour, bravery, accomplishments, etc. -- in other words, all positive attributes, things most of us would openly encourage in our sons. Women, on the other hand, are almost always portrayed as eye candy, fuck toys, rewards to a man for saving the day, helpless victims, evil bitch nemeses (the only time a woman may commonly achieve self-determination without showing cleavage), selfless helpers of men, and so on, none of which are positive or even neutral models for our daughters.

Awareness of the types of characters we're presenting to children to identify with is important. To a lesser degree, it's also important for adults in terms of not reinforcing those stereotypes. I already consume video games with this kind of critical eye. I'd noticed how cool it was that the Portal games had a main character who's a woman, who's awesome, but who's never sexed up at all. I thought that showed some real balls (ahem) on the part of the developers. Skyrim too seems decent. It has a lot of female characters, and most of them are just whoever they are. None are sexy window dressing, a couple are flirty, and only one that I've come across is overly sexed-up, and then, only in the 1-900-voice-acting department, not her character or appearance.

That two major recent titles avoid female stereotypes is a huge thing, and I think a very positive thing. The more awareness there is of this, the better, IMO.

>> ^VoodooV:

[...] but it just bugs me that we'll listen to someone like him and not someone who has actually done the research.


Think about it- the job of the scientist is not necessarily to sell an idea- it is a to find it- likewise, the job of a politician should be to deal with the formalities (legal consequences, society framework) of said idea.
The job of a "POP-STAR" should hence theoretically be as a archetype citizen, i.e. to focus support/interest and ideally "playtest" or introduce models/ideas for society (that is why we are interested in them).

That is how it is supposed to work in a confetti unicorn way- something, we often forget.

As an example:
imagine Cristopher Walken explaining Stephen Hawking's theories.
imagine Justin Bieber educating the youth on globalism.
confetti and unicorns...

Ah, okay, thanks!
In reply to this comment by kir_mokum:
my only point is that she's really talking about an ancient story archetype that isn't new or contained in the realm of contemporary pop culture. it's going to be a long time before we breed this meme out of our cultural DNA.


In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I don't think I get your point. Care to elaborate?
In reply to this comment by kir_mokum:
damsel in distress is still used and is usually sexist. gotcha.

my only point is that she's really talking about an ancient story archetype that isn't new or contained in the realm of contemporary pop culture. it's going to be a long time before we breed this meme out of our cultural DNA.


In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I don't think I get your point. Care to elaborate?
In reply to this comment by kir_mokum:
damsel in distress is still used and is usually sexist. gotcha.

>> ^probie:

Glad they're finally catching up to the meat of the story. Am also glad they're hardening up Rick; was afraid they were going to keep Andrew Lincoln as the archetypal good guy leader for the sake of TV. They've got me for season 3; I guess this gives me enough time to go back through and catch up as I still need to read #7 HC.


It was a cliffhanger. It always does that.

Glad they're finally catching up to the meat of the story. Am also glad they're hardening up Rick; was afraid they were going to keep Andrew Lincoln as the archetypal good guy leader for the sake of TV. They've got me for season 3; I guess this gives me enough time to go back through and catch up as I still need to read #7 HC.

1. Yes, Randall should die. It's unfortunate, but by his own admission, he's already confirmed that the group he was with are not the most savory characters. He knows where the farm is and who Maggie and her family are. Plus, he knows that most of Rick's group are keen to kill him, which makes his motive for escape that much more enforced. At least his former group never tried to kill him. (We can't speculate here; only that facts that are presented to us, the audience) So he's definitely a liability to Rick's group.

2. Karl wants to prove himself. He's got two father figures telling him what to do, on top of a guarding mother. How should his parents approach the situation? Well...they haven't seen anything "wrong" yet, other than mouthing off to Carol. They don't know he stole Darrel's handgun, or confronted a zombie in the woods, etc. As for Karl wanting his Dad to shoot Randall, I'm sure Rick will have a sitdown and try to explain to him the logic behind his initial decision, and then the subsequent change of mind. Will he confess responsibility about the zombie? Tough call; if the writer's stick with the old Karl, he will. But Karl has changed (per his actions in this episode) and we never saw an apology to Carol. He could just shut down and harden up. Will the guilt get the better of him? I'd say yes, due to 1) he seems to have been brought up with a sense of justice and "doing the right thing" in part because of his father being a cop, and 2) at that age, when you screw up that bad, you don't just hide it away. He'll either confess, or confide in someone. I would have said he would have confided in Dale, but...well...you know....

3. Was it the right time to kill off Dale? Is it the right to ever kill of a character? Well, seeing as they've COMPLETELY strayed from the original Dale/Andrea story line in the original source material, I guess now is as good a time as any. My guess his Hershel will step up and take the mantel of the archetypal wise old man; it could give his character some redemption, if the writer's choose to go that route.
My immediate reaction to him dying was thinking "Well, Jeffrey DeMunn's off the show....I wonder what he'll do next with Frank Darabont..." Was his early death motivated by television politics....who knows. It seems to me that when you get an actor/director pairings, like DeMunn/Darabont, Russell/Carpenter, Depp/Burton, those tend to be pretty strong allegiances. I'm sure if there was some background gaffing over Darabont leaving the series, DeMunn was more than onboard with Darabont and wasn't surprised his character was killed off. I'll wait for the eventual news story/tell all book.

***Possible spoilers ahead if you haven't read the graphic novels***
As an aside, I'll cut back to season 1 for a moment, and what Jenner whispered to Rick before blowing up the CDC. I don't think he whispered some major secret to Rick; I have a feeling Jenner explained to Rick that "they" were the walking dead, and not the creatures outside. This is given in a huge, revelatory speech at the end of one of the books, don't remember which, after Rick breaks down from all the stress/guilt/death (that will eventually happen?). Seems a perfect fit into the storyline as they haven't mentioned it since the beginning of season 2 (when he's trying to reach Morgan on the radio). And I'm still waiting on Merle to show back up as the Governor.

Fridges built in the 1950s still work just fine and look fantastic. Does that mean we should all be using them? Of course not. They weighed a ton more, used 'environmentally unfriendly' coolant, and were much less efficient. So even though the old timey 1950s fridge is not 'obsolete' in the sense that it is still functional, it very much IS obsolete in the sense that modern options are far superior.

This concept that every product ever made should be some sort of immortal, immutable Jungian archetype is just some person's idiotic fantasy. I've had the same fridge, microwave, dryer and dishwasher for over 14 years. Our clothes washer was also that old and was still working like a champ, but I got a new front-loader because they are more efficient. As my life goes on, I will replace these older 1990s appliances with newer ones that are better. And I will not feel either (A) guilty about it or (B) ripped off as if I was somehow being gypped.

furthermore, the oversexualization and base degradation of women is seen all over the media and culture at large. a lot of it can be passed off as an archetype. a lot of it seems innocuous and goes largely unnoticed. but we are incultrated from birth with a sense of our sexual identity. infants are dressed in pink or blue in case people have a hard time knowing which gender to treat them as in the first years of life. on the surface, i have no problem with pink or blue. my kids wear pink and blue. my daughters walls are pink. it's just a color.

but saying that identity is almost entirely genetic and not imposed by society is certainly naive.

there is a distinct lack of pro-social female role models for little girls in the media. girls are bombarded with images, with what to emulate as grown ups, what to pretend during playtime, how they should be. and those images are largely of the sexpot or the saint. there's very little female archetypes that embodies the middle ground. there are very few females represented by the media and marketing that are neither whores nor saints. that are just women, comfortable with their sexuality and their bodies, but not consumed by it either. women in movies rarely talk to other women in movies and those conversations are very rarely about anything other than men.

i'm reading the golden compass to my daughter right now. and it's a rocking book for little girls. phil pulman is an atheist novelist who noticed there were no kickass female protagonists in kid stories. and that the only action/adventure/fantasy novels were judeo/christian in nature, see narnia. so he wrote a book for his daughter.

the protagonist is a badass little girl. she goes on an epic battle against the oppressive church, fights the forces that want to control the masses with imposed morality and sexual repression. at the end of the series, she finds and kills god. everyone should read this shit to their kids. it's amazing.

@spoco2 i highly recommend reading it to your little girl when shes older.

it's also helped initiate an age appropriate "what is sex" talk with my daughter. in the beginning of the first book they use the word "sex" as like, the biological sex, male vs female. and my daughter stopped me and asked "which kind of sex are they talking about" ... so i realized she's picked up on the existence of the act of sex and has probably been formulating her own ideas about it.. so we've been slowly having the "talk". it's terrifying and awesome.

i don't feel like there has to be a difference in the rhetoric and the reality. and find that statement kind of cynical.

my kids are allowed all kinds of crazy freedoms with their hair and dress and expression and creativity and language and their interests are almost always highly encouraged by me and my tribe.

princesses weren't a non existant part of playtime when my daughter was younger, at that point i thought it was an archetype and all little girls go through that phase. and i still kind of think that. but i think it can be overly nurtured in ways that are obnoxious. anyway, princess phase was short lived and generally took a back seat to her desire to be a fairy or a piano playing shark. i could think of million reasons to hate barbies, but i decided not to, she has barbies ... she just isnt real interested in them. bratz dolls are actually just amazingly whorey and negative and are just way overboard, so.. fuck no. she's too old for them now anyway.

my biggest issue is over commercialization, so we simply have no television. they watch movies and what not. and actually i feel like limiting the television and commercialization has helped them development loads of creativity. which is actively encouraged around here. it's totally possible to imbue your kids with your values without forcing your political agenda down their throats.

i'm extremely interested in how much of my kids personalities and social skills are due to their lack of exposure to what's "trendy" and how much of it is just inherent. . my niece is the same age as my daughter, she's been hooked on the disney channel since birth. "fitting in" and keeping up with trends and being "like" her peers is extremely important to her. my kid couldn't care less. but that was also the difference between her mom (my sister) and i when we were kids.

i used to worry more about my son being able to fit in with more mainstreamed peers. seeing as we have no television, he knows 0 about spiderman or transformers or sports, he has 0 male role model to emulate and has been raised entirely by a bunch of women. but he's having no trouble "fitting in" with other boys. my daughter on the other hand is having loads of issues with socialization. she has no interest in what other 8 year old girls seem to be interested in. honestly, at this point, if hannah montana would help her make friends, i'd consider getting cable. but she just thinks it's stupid.

i'm interested to know if that's her just being a mature, heavily artistic, tomboy, with a dose of shyness or if the persona's of little girls are just so entirely shaped by television and trends that she's finding it impossible to relate them without it. i suspect its probably a bit of both. and i find the latter extremely sad.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kids.videosift.com/member/spoco2" title="member since August 21st, 2006" class="profilelink">spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.
I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

>> ^WKB:

Quite possibly the most underrated show of all time. Such a shame that all the spin offs crapped out.


Ya, the universe they created was pretty interesting. Much beyond the typical star trekesk stereotyping of races as archetypes of the human condition. While many episodes are very single serving, the overall story arch of years or more was welcome, as it is so rarely or poorly done. My favorite dynamic was the role of the elder species, very neat concept of good and evil.

Great monologue.

Assuming you are truly an insider, and not just some confused kid trying to emulate an archetypal corporate villain, then why have you spent so much time on this site, rambling inanely about politics? Why are you so adamant about pushing RC cola on Coke and Pepsi fans if it's all the same, corruptible shit?

I've been trying for years to prove to blankfist that all of that free market talk was just a ruse to morally justify economic elitism. Could you confirm to him that this is the case? If you do, I promise to continue to always use the kind of toothpaste you want me to use (Why Aquafresh?). Anyway, I think you might have helped my side of the argument here today. Thank you for that.

BTW, who did you vote for?

>> ^imstellar28:

Interesting, tell me please who you voted for this week? If you think the democratic party hasn't been bought and sold by corporations a hundred times over, you are quite delusional indeed...
Let me tell you as an insider, we couldn't be more amused that the internet is filled with the inane babblings of people who think corporations care whether a "democrat" or "republican" is in power. We could care less who you vote for, as long as you believe it makes a difference. Humans are bought and sold as easy as livestock. We don't need to buy your party, when we can buy you. We control how you spend your time, what you see and hear, what you think you know about the world, even what you want and hope for in life. We control what you eat when you're hungry, what you drink when your thirsty, what you brush your teeth with before you go to bed at night. Your life is nothing but a series of false choices. Coke or Pepsi. You really think it makes a difference to us? You have been helplessly brainwashed. You are nothing but one of millions; silent, droning workers who line our pockets and support our lifestyle.
Thanks for voting!
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You tell me. How does corporate cock taste?
>> ^imstellar28:
If corporations are evil for "buying" elections, what are the people who "sold" their votes?