Are Apple and Microsoft Being Evil?

It seems as if computer giants Apple and Microsoft have begun experimenting with unavoidable software advertising, as Apple filed a patent application for technology that would plant advertising in its products and test to see whether users were paying attention.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has begun tinkering with the idea as well, announcing plans to release a product called Office Starter 2010 early next year that will include bare-bones versions of popular Office programs, but also include a tiny Microsoft ad in the screen's corner.

These invasive forms of advertising seem to be the next precursor of spyware and adware, but they beg the question of "Why would a user pay to be advertised something that they likely already have?" Unfortunately, today's advertisers and technology manufacturers have created a "Next Big Thing" culture that demands consumers buy the newest innovation, ignorant of the price and whether or not it actually offers any sort of improvement.

More often than not, these technologies offer a step backwards for the programs, as they ignore the adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For prove of that, just look at Microsoft's Windows Vista, which represented a gigantic step back from Windows XP. If the companies are right, though, people will buy the new software, fully cognizant of the fact that it includes these pesky and demanding ads, simply putting up with the demands in order to have the shiniest product.

Unfortunately, they may very well be right. Consumers have begun to define themselves as "Apple" or "PC" people, meaning that they place all of their trust in one of the companies, defending its decisions at any cost and ignoring the actual repercussions of them. Ultimately, though, they end up looking extremely similar in their battle to constantly one up each other, meaning that their competition is little more than manufactured entities to drum up interest in their newest products.

Is Will Ferrell the Worst Leading Man in Hollywood?

Forbes Magazine released its annual list of Hollywood's Most Overpaid Stars yesterday, with Will Ferrell supplanting Nicole Kidman as the list's "winner."

The list complied its rating by taking the 100 biggest stars in Hollywood, meaning they must have starred in three films that opened in 500 theaters or more over the last five years. They then took all of those actors' last three films, found the operating income of those films, and divided that by the stars' total compensation for their work, creating a return on investment number. Ferrell's return on investment was a paltry $3.29 for every dollar he earned, while second-place Ewan McGregor's was $3.75.

Ferrell's time as a comedy king is clearly coming to a rapid end, as the star has performed essentially the same role in all of his recent films, including box office clunker Land of the Lost, the disappointing Semi-Pro and the successful Stepbrothers. The actor is constantly reprising the role of the idiot guy who simply refuses to grow up.

At some point, though, that role stopped being funny, as people grew tired of paying between $6.50 and $10 to watch the same movie in a different locale. Some could even argue that the last truly funny Ferrell film was Talladega Nights, while his last great role was his guest appearance as a funeral crasher in Wedding Crashers.

America's audiences simply can't afford to laugh at the same joke over and over again and, at some point, Ferrell needs to realize that before audiences begin laughing at him instead of with him or, even worse, rendering him irrelevant.

Chipmunks are the new money saver, really?

If there is one certain bet in Hollywood this holiday season, it is that Avatar will be panned by critics despite all of its supposed innovation. Fox seems to have realized this and anticipated something of a box office flub for the James Cameron film, which cost somewhere over $200 million to make and possibly as much as $300 million more to market.

The manner in which the company is hedging its bet, though, is odd, as it is relying on an old staple-"Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." The first Chipmunks movie earned $217 million at the box office in 2007, proving to be a huge money earner for Fox, which only paid around $60 million to make the film.

The concept of some type of financial padding is very interesting for the movie industry, as box office flops like "Kingdom of Heaven" have done so poorly that they put entire companies out of business. Granted, Avatar doesn't carry that kind of risk, but Fox wants to ensure that it ends up earning money this year, so it is releasing a movie that it knows will be a hit just in case its absurdly expensive blockbuster doesn't pay off (and just because critics will hate the film's merits, moviegoers will almost certainly fall in love with the fictional world of Pandora).

It is reflective of the current economic climate (and, yes, we are recovering, but that doesn't mean we're safe yet) that even movie companies are making sure they aren't hit too hard by any type of failure, even with what should be one of the biggest box office hits since Cameron's other hit, "Titanic."

World Series represents the benefits of good management

Football may have supplanted baseball as America's game, but baseball still represents the economic norms of America better than its more violent cousin. This year's World Series, more than any other in recent memory, is indicative of that.

Both the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies are amongst the game's more venerable institutions, but both have reversed their trends and made significant changes to their typical way of taking action in order to achieve a new level of success.

The Yankees, run for years on George Steinbrenner's money are giving their ancient owner, whose health is as much of a secret as Fidel Castro's, at least one more chance to see the team he has invested so much money in play for the trophy its won more than any other. Players like Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera are still performing at high levels for the Bronx Bombers, but newcomers like C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Joba Chamberlain are just as important to the team's success.

Until this year, though, the Yankees were associated with a prickly, almost mechanical kind of winning. They may have been good, but the team was completely devoid of personality. By bringing in some more interesting personalities and playing a different type of baseball, one predicated on pitching shutouts when Sabathia or Burnett start and outhitting the team whenever someone else pitches, the Yankees have, as ESPN's Bill Simmons noted in a recent column, come to represent the thrilling Red Sox teams of a few years ago.

The Phillies, on the other hand, have a lengthy history of losing. Until the Pirates broke their record this past season, the club had endured the longest streak of futility in the history of professional sports. Like the Yankees, the Phillies have a homegrown core - namely Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard and Chase Utley - that they added to through trades (ace Cliff Lee) and free agency (sluggers Jayson Werth and Matt Stairs). (It is worth noting that Lee and Sabathia were both in the Indians' starting rotation two seasons ago and now are pitching against each other for the game's biggest prize in what has to be a somewhat uncomfortable situation for both of them.)

Both teams have had their bad times (granted, bad times for the Yankees are the equivalent of winning the lottery for most of the teams in the game), but by developing their own cores and then adding to them when necessary and completely changing their mindsets, these two teams have shown themselves capable of reaching the game's ultimate moment and putting themselves in the position to win a championship.

Rand's message isn't accurate anymore

The thoughts of an expatriate are regaining importance to many Americans this week, as a new Ayn Rand biography is released. Rand, whose philosophies have come to represent an entire generation of conservatives, is closely followed by modern conservative power brokers such as Glen Beck and Alan Greenspan.

Many of Rand's ideas involve thinking that government is little more than a concentrated power sucker and that individual freedoms are central to living life as it is. Ironically, however, Rand refused to allow her followers to think for themselves, meaning that she didn't follow the typical notion of practicing what you preach.

Rand's philosophies may have some merit in modern America, as it is beginning to look more and more like a country in desperate need of hope may have crowned a false messiah. The basic problem with Rand's ideas, though, is that when put into effect result in little more than chaos, not some paradise where all men are created equal.

Rand's ideas are so popular because they emerged from the fringe, from a spot where a young girl watched her father's pharmacy taken from under his nose by the government that was supposed to be protecting him. They did not, however, anticipate a world with the complexities and sophistication that ours has. It isn't an understatement to say that the last decade have been the busiest in human history.

Unfortunately, nobody quite knows the answers to the questions that need to be asked about the economy, or the environment or other tricky issues. Part of this is that we are still figuring out the questions that need to be asked.

Unfortunately for Rand and her followers, though, the answer is not a return to some archaic mode of thought. The world isn't going to get any simpler, as the webs that link us all are going to become more and more intertwined in the near future. The answer to solving the weaknesses in those webs is not to burn them down and walk away, but to take a step back and realize what needs to be solved.

Rand makes some valid points, but ideas that may have made sense in a cleaner world only further muddy the scene today.

U2's YouTube stream could mean more to come

When one of the world's most influential bands joins up with one of its most important websites, the show is stunning and U2 did not fail to disappoint during their performance tonight, which was streamed live from the Rose Bowl via YouTube.

U2's current series of stadium concerts is expected to be one of the biggest tours the world has ever seen, as they are performing from a gargantuan stage, which the LA Times profiles here. Furthermore, Bono's dreams of ruling the world have reached unprecedented heights (check out this article if you don't believe me). The interesting element of last night's concert, though, was not U2. It was Internet superpower YouTube, which is slowly dipping its toe into the mostly unexplored waters of live streaming.

As Mashable's Pete Cashmore notes here, Justin TV and Ustream have pretty much dominated the field so far, but if YouTube chose to become involved, their resources would make for a pretty lopsided competition. Furthermore, the Google power behind YouTube has the wealth to take the sometimes shady world of live streaming and completely legitimize it.

This could be both good and bad for the Internet, as it would be providing better service and showing companies how to make a profit, but, at the same time, moving further away from the open source heritage of the Internet's past. If YouTube could find a way to continue live streaming, albeit more in the vein of the smaller sites that are doing so right now, it would be a major step in the online revolution that we are in the midst of right now. If it was a step towards monetizing the Internet, though, that step may be futile.

(If you can't tell, I have extremely complicated feelings on this matter as a journalism major. On one hand, I want companies and organizations to be able to make gobs of profit off of the Internet so they can take advantage of the abundance of opportunities that it allows. On the other hand, though, I am an Internet consumer and like being able to find what I want for free. This may be the topic of another post soon.)

Why do we hate Kanye?

Kanye West is one of the most talented and influential music artists of the past decade, as The College Dropout and Late Registration both went triple platinum, while Graduation went double platinum. Even West's latest album, the polarizing 808's and Heartbreaks reached number one on the charts. The question then, is why were people so quick to jump on the "Kanye's Dead!" bandwagon last week when an unverified report claimed that the rapper had died in a car accident reminiscent of the 2002 one that the song "Through the Wire" is based off of?

Part of it may be that, for both better and worse, West has managed to hang onto the front pages of tabloids for much of his run. From the car accident to his mother's bizarre 2007 post-plastic surgery death to the drunken Taylor Swift incident to the Spike Jonze-directed short film that features a drunk (again!) West's demon stabbing itself (see below), Kanye always seems to be up to something. Much of this is undoubtedly self publicizing, but on the other hand much of it is also not West's fault.

Sure, the Taylor Swift incident was boorish and appalling, but, at the same time, he couldn't do anything about his mother's death and had the same initial reaction that many people do when tragedy hits them, turning to the bottle for comfort.

We are uncomfortable with Kanye because he is living out the same dramas that we do everyday on the stages where we expect perfection. It is not uncommon for the normal person to embarrass themselves, whether it is by innocently tripping down some stairs or saying something insulting while drinking. We don't like to be reminded of this, though, while we are watching entertainment. Watching the 19-year-old accept her pop star is much more comforting than watching the rap star come to the stage and interrupt her speech.

Kanye may be inappropriate at times, but, intentionally or not, he is one of the biggest acts in music and deserves to be treated as such. If the rumors of West's demise were true, the tabloids and music magazines would, at the very least, be much less interesting places.

Why Did We Care About Balloon Boy?

Last Thursday, the nation sat captivated as a silver object floated through the Colorado sky, supposedly carrying a 6-year-old boy as its passenger. Authorities couldn't figure out a way to free the boy from his shiny cage, so they sat helpless on the ground, waiting for the balloon to fall and hoping the boy would survive.

Once the balloon came down, though, it proved to be empty and the search began anew, as police believed that the boy had fallen out at some point during his flight. It was, therefore, much to the relief (and now anger) of everyone when Falcon Henne was found hiding in a box in his family's attic's garage the entire time.

The story wasn't one that we should have cared about, though, during a time when developments overseas could affect foreign policy, health care legislation is still developing and the economy is just beginning to peek out from the blanket of recession. So why has this story dominated our news cycles all weekend?

The answer is actually fairly simple. Originally, the story seemed interesting because a small child was in danger in large part due to the fact that his family was building an absurd-looking aircraft. Children in danger always capture the interest of the public, but we are even more fascinated by UFOs and crazy inventors than we are by kids. This story, therefore, was a huge story waiting to happen.

Then, once the story proved hoax-y and had a "happy ending," America began to wonder how it had been fooled, going from interested to angry. The United States is a country fascinated by news and by news cycles, so when something fools us as bad as this story did, we immediately want to know how and why it got past us. The next week or so will be followed by allegations and denials, but, ultimately, this story will be completely unimportant, just like it was from the very beginning.

Why Sunday Night Football is more important than Monday Night Football

When ESPN took the vaunted Monday Night Football franchise away from ABC four years ago, the sports giant assumed that the weekly games would maintain their dominance on the sporting landscape. Once that move was made, however, NBC instantly snatched up the floundering Sunday Night game that ESPN had relinquished and, ever since, the two franchises' roles on the weekly football landscape have been reversed.

There are several reasons for this, with the topmost being that NBC is a network while ESPN is on cable. America still has some subconscious discomfort with cable dating back to the days when ABC, CBS, and NBC were the only networks on the air. These are the networks that our parents' generation is most comfortable with despite the innovation of cable. For instance, when considering the new season's TV shows, the networks that receive the most attention are ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC, with cable shows receiving a lesser degree of attention. This has changed a bit in recent years, but that has more to do with the cable generation coming of age than anything else.

The other reason that NBC is more interesting is the presentation. To put it mildly, NBC's presentation is just sexier and stronger than ESPN's. NBC has put together the strongest announcing booth in the game, with Cris Collinsworth and Al Michaels serving as the only team worth listening to right now. ESPN, however, has failed to find the proper chemistry in the booth, experimenting with people like Tony Kornheiser that just seem uncomfortable. ESPN may be a sports conglomerate, but NBC is a media conglomerate and can afford an overall sleeker presentation.

The final reason that NBC is stronger than ESPN is the flex schedule that Dick Ebersol ingeniously insisted on working into the contract. With the plan, NBC has a game that it schedules in the beginning of the year and then, 12 days before the game, the NFL and NBC can change the game that has been selected for the game of the week in order to stir up interest. ESPN, though, doesn't have this power. For this reason, ESPN is going to be stuck with games like the Giants at Washington in week 16, Arizona at San Francisco in week 14 (even though these teams are bad, it may matter in their division race), Tennessee and Houston in week 11, and Baltimore at Cleveland in week 10. There are restrictions on the games that NBC can pick, but instead of being stuck with games that don't matter, NBC can pick the game that matters the most.

Football will always do well in America, but right now NBC has managed to make the NFL an all-day Sunday thing (take today, for instance, when 1 o'clock featured a Saints-Giants and Ravens-Vikings matchup while 4 o'clock featured an excellent Bills-Jets game and the Sunday game featured a scintillating Bears-Falcons game), while Monday Night Football has lost some power since moving to ESPN.

Miley says goodbye

Miley Cyrus has decided that having a Twitter isn't worth it anymore and, in lieu of simply saying bye, the teenage superstar decided to instead go viral with this video:



Despite the obvious production value behind this clip, it does demonstrate something important about using the Internet: It no longer belongs to the technorati. Instead, stars are capable of turning to the Internet to further their own agenda, thereby spurning the view of the Internet as some kind of wild, wild west that belongs to the margin of society.

Someone like Cyrus can get fed up with the realities of the Internet and, instead of taking herself offline entirely, simply turn to a different element of the Web to make her point. By doing this, Cyrus is demonstrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Internet. She was able to delete her account entirely, simply wiping herself off of the map and effectively editing the past.

Those self-edits were, however, recorded for all posterity by the countless members of the media who were following the story. If Cyrus had been a more normal citizen, she would be able to self-edit herself even more easily than she was able to.

Cyrus, however, demonstrated the various uses of the Internet by producing an unfortunately not self-parodying rap video that comes off as more of a juvenile prank than something of actual value. The importance of it, though, resides in the idea that Cyrus was capable of deleting her Twitter and then creating an immediate, accessible response to the people who are concerned about why or who would attempt to criticize her.

Miley Cyrus is still a very small chip on the cultural mosaic, but her use of the Internet's various outlets demonstrates a valuable understanding of the modern media landscape.

Should children's classics be made into films?

It seems as if Hollywood is running out of original source material and, in a desperate effort to regenerate interest in non-Pixer blockbuster films, is turning to the one genre that people of all ages could enjoy: the children's classics.

Perennial favorites such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Fantastic Mr. Fox have either all been made into or are in the process of being made into feature films, and this may indicate a disturbing future for these stories.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the first one of the three to have come out and, considering that it was not only my favorite as a child but that it's a claymation film, I am not interested in seeing it. I recall Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs as an unintentionally dark tale of greed and unintended consequences, but the film has turned it into a fun romp featuring actors like Mr. T and Anna Faris. Furthermore, the film suffers from not being live action. Much of the draw of making the classic children's book into a movie would be showing the massive pancakes slowly floating over the town like suffering zeppelins or showing boulder-sized meatballs forcing families inside by landing violently in front yards.

Maybe this would make the story a bit too dark, but it would certainly make the world hunger subplot more prescient than the silly and outdated claymation style does.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox will also suffer from this, but hopefully the Wes Anderson-written script will protect the aesthetic of the Roald Dahl novel without sacrificing any of the book's relatability. One thing that I am worried about, particularly with this film, is Hollywood's effect on the film. Dahl, who also wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and its much darker sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, didn't write time-wasting dialogue into his novels. Instead, he wrote frank and clear conversation that advanced the plot. Having playful, wasteful conversation would completely ruin the story, and Anderson must be aware of that.

Ironically, at least for me, Where the Wild Things Are could be the most successful and accurate of the movies, actually adding to the value of its source material as opposed to detracting from it. As a child, I never enjoyed Maurice Sendak's novel. Something about the large, furry creatures just seemed odd to me, maybe because I was freaked out by them or maybe because I didn't quite understand just why they were there. Unlike the other two films, though, Where the Wild Things Are is live-action, giving it the benefit of added believability (and, therefore, added meaning) when compared to its two brethren.

I'm not sure that the Spike Jonze adaptation will be the gift to film that some seem to think it will be, but out of these three films it certainly seems like it will be the most entertaining and potentially important. The goal of any adaptation should be not only to do justice to the original story, but also to give it additional meaning and to open the story to new audiences. Unfortunately, only one of these films seems guaranteed to succeed on that goal.

Letterman apology fascinating, terrifying

If you haven't seen it yet, David Letterman's nerve-racking 10-minute apology at least provides for enthralling television. Part of the reason for this is certainly that Letterman gave America something that it doesn't see from its celebrities very often - complete and total honesty on a national stage. Before I go into the matter any more, check out the video:



What is perhaps most striking about the clip is the audience's reaction. They start the clip by laughing along with Letterman, expecting this to be a prototypical late-night monologue from a man who has established himself as one of the snarkiest commentators of the late night scene. Around halfway through, however, they suddenly realize that Letterman is not kidding, at all.

We as a culture have become so used to our celebrities being little more than glorified goldfish parading down runways in designer clothing that when one of them takes the step of exposing his own flaws before the media can do it, the step seems nearly unprecedented.

The Internet plays a major role in this, as we all seem to know everything about anyone. Once the tentacles of gossip and rumors extend into very private details like they did Thursday, they acquire a degree of menace that is absent from People Magazine and E!

Letterman took what could have been the scariest moment of his life and, by stepping up and addressing it on his own terms, managed to turn it into one of the most positive moments of his public life.

Roman Polanski isn't worth it

Hollywood has undoubtedly produced some of the most important pieces of art of the last 100 years, but directors like Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen should keep their opinions about Roman Polanski's arrest in Sweden last week and potential extradition to the United States for raping a 13-year-old girl 32 years ago to themselves.

Polanski may have directed some very important movies, including Chinatown and The Pianist. But Michael Vick being very good at football didn't mean he was above going to prison and, last I checked, drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl was a more heinous crime against humanity than dogfighting. Being good at something does not preclude anyone from being subject to the law.

And for those who argue that being kept out of the United States for 32 years should be punish enough for Polanski, imagine if it had been someone you love who had been drugged, given champagne and raped by the director. Would you still be protecting him?

The defense for Polanski is shocking, as the 32 years between the rape and Polanski's most recent arrest don't mean that the rape didn't happen. If anything, those years only reinforce the perception that Polanski was running from a crime that he had already pleaded guilty to committing.

If anything, that proves that he is a coward and an even more despicable human being than he had already proven himself to be.

For more on this subject, check out what Kate Harding said on Salon.com or what Kate Dailey wrote for Newsweek.

Fox's Glee deserves rave reviews

When the pilot episode of Glee aired last spring, Fox essentially guaranteed that it would be one of the smashing successes of this season's new TV shows. With Dancing With the Stars, High School Musical, American Idol and various other shows performing well in recent years, the stage has quickly become an automatic hit when it is transferred to the small screen.

The reasons for this could be argued forever, but the most simple reason is just that theatrical productions (and shows about them) seem to be more fun, something that the country hasn't been in recent years. The carefree attitude of the performers is the direct opposite of the frantic reaction to the economy by professionals throughout the land.

Glee succeeds, however, precisely because it allows the kids to shine as performers even though they all have their own set of issues that they bring to rehearsals with them. (The fact that they did one of the best versions of perennial cover-bait "Don't Stop Believing" might help, too.) The tangled plot lines are beginning to become confusing, as pregnancies, affairs, coming out and other typical teenage drama are explored, but when the lights go down, the characters all manage to excel.

The show's decision to open this week's episode with a performance of Beyonce's "Put a Ring on It" was an excellent one, as it emphasized that the show really was about these people being performers, not the performers trying to be people. When Kurt's dad comes in to find his son in a leotard, however, the fun quickly stops and lying begins, at least until Kurt performs on what his dad considers the most important stage - the football field, giving him the confidence to tell his father the truth.

Glee's over-produced set (everything looks a little bit fake) aids the show's message, as it refuses to take itself too seriously and, in turn, doesn't let viewers become caught up in all of its drama. And really, that's the message of Glee - that drama and issues do happen, but that the most important thing will always be performing when it counts.

How Kid Cudi made the song of 2009

To say that something is the song of the year is high praise, to say the least, but Kid Cudi may have nailed it on his first try. Ironically, the song is not "Day N Nite," the song he is using as the first single off of his new album. Instead, it's "Make Her Say," the Lady Gaga-sampling tune that features guest appearances by Kanye West and Common.


The reason that Cudi's song is the most representative of 2009 is fairly simple. By taking lyrics from many of the year's hits as well as borrowing the vocal skills of two of rap's superstars, the Cleveland rapper has managed to effectively utilize the spastic nature of pop culture right now.

The song directly references multiple hit songs from the past year, including T.I.'s "Whatever You Like," Asher Roth's "I Love College," Jamie Foxx's "Blame It," in addition to the omnipresent Lady Gaga.

Today's culture is a strange mixture of self-references and the same old formula, while this song points to the hits of 2009 and acknowledges them even as it makes something new out of them. By recognizing the typical creative process (and let's face it, nothing is completely new in this era), Kid Cudi has managed to make the perfect song of 2009.

Can Dan Brown save the blockbuster novel?

The death of the novel is something that critics have shouted about from rooftops for decades, claiming that the publishing industry is steadily grinding its way towards an anticlimactic demise, certain to be replaced by Kindles, e-books and other technology. To make matters worse, the only person in the entire world who is able to convince the American public that reading is a worthwhile endeavor is Oprah Winfrey, whose endorsement typically results in more than a million additional sales for a book (even though Oprah couldn't even convince America that Faulkner is worth reading).

Outside of Oprah stepping in, however, the blockbuster novel is essentially a thing of the past in America. Sure, Nicholas Sparks, James Patterson, the most recent entry in the Twilight series and the newest right wing propaganda roll of toilet paper will always sell copies. These are not, however, the books that people talk about. These are books that you read once and donate to your local library, hoping that nobody sees you furtively scanning the pages on the bus ride to work.

Dan Brown, however, seems to have somehow found the key to America's wallets. It turns out that if you lace a high-paced adventure with a story involving the church, large self-flagellating eunuchs and a dorky professor who nobody would actually like in real life (sort of like any athlete, but that's for another time) lacrosse moms everywhere will shell out 30 bucks a pop to read an absurd story. Seriously, though, Brown's latest novel, The Lost Symbol, has somehow sold "well over" one million copies.

The thinking, though, is that some kids out there will become excited about reading by Brown's novel and maybe start along the winding path towards "literature." Heck, they may even read the book on a Kindle and actually start buying books again.

I'm not sure, though, if the blockbuster novel is a reality anymore. For any fervent reader, there is already too much stuff out there, and Amazon has made everything extremely accessible. Every two years or so, a phenom like a Dan Brown novel or the newest Harry Potter (yes, I know the series is over) comes out, but the people who are reading those books are doing so more so that they can feel as if they are riding some type of paper-driven wave instead of actually sparking some type of revival of the novel.

Fiction as an art form will be alive and well as long as there are pockets of people who believe that the written word has the power to cure all. And, for what it's worth, if you are reading this post, I hope you are one of those people. The future of the novel does not reside in blockbusters, which are essentially the pop music of books, but in the novels that somehow provide us all with the sense that someone out there somehow gets it and, in turn, gets us.

After all, that's all that we really want.

An Introduction

This is a blog about popular culture, at its most basic. Over the course of at least the next ten weeks, I will attempt to determine why we care about what we care about and what implications these cultural decisions have on us. From Kanye dissing Taylor Swift to Patrick Swayze to Dan Brown's next blockbuster, I will delve into the stories that we care about the most and give my own take as well as writing about why I think they matter (or if they matter).

I should be back soon with a blogroll, but for now . . . well, I was going to make another Kanye joke, but you really don't need to hear it.