Jacob's Font of Perspicacity

I very recently had the good fortune to watch Star Wars: The Last Jedi , and while there were a host of things I liked about the movie, there was one which especially stood out: the identity of Rey's parents. Now, if you haven't seen the movie yet, please go do so before reading the rest of this post. It really is excellent and will be better the less you know about it going in (I purposefully did not watch any previews or trailers beforehand, and that definitely enhanced the experience). Now that you've returned (or have already seen the movie, or just don't care about spoilers) I will continue. In The Last Jedi , it is revealed that Rey's parents were... (drumroll, please)... not named characters, but a pair of inconsequential nobodies who sold her to buy alcohol. Yes, that's right, Rey is not descended from anyone important. It may strike you as odd that I would be so excited by this, so I will endeavor to explain why it's one of the better parts of...

As you probably remember (if you're in Mr. Starace's class at least), Ms. Heitz semi-recently gave us  this article  explaining what magical realism is and how it differs from fantasy. As I read it, I became more and more irritated, finally deciding that I needed to write something demonstrating how it is emblematic of a significant problem in how those who analyze literature view certain genres. Luckily, I have a blog where there is a possibility that someone might actually read my rant on the subject, so here are my thoughts on why magical realism is not a distinct literary genre, but a category of fantasy literature. Literary critics, wanting to feel more discerning than the average reader, are loath to ascribe literary merit to popular "genre fiction": fantasy, science fiction, mystery, horror, etc. They were thus presented with a conundrum when a new style of writing arose in Latin America. It was full of supernatural elements, and thus fit the standard defi...

The discussion of narrowcasting we had in class reminded me of this fascinating video on the surprisingly complex process which determines what ad you see when you click on a video on Youtube. The short version is this: In the millisecond between you clicking the video and the ad playing, Youtube's algorithms analyze the video (looking at its title, views, comments, etc.) and analyze you (trying to determine your age, gender, location, etc. based on your watch history) and then give those pieces of information to the algorithms of the advertisers, which have been programmed to target certain kinds of videos and specific viewer demographics. The advertiser algorithms then hold an auction to determine what commercial you see when the video loads. While this process is certainly useful for Youtube, advertisers and content creators, it has some disturbing implications. If you and someone else watch the exact same video, you may well see completely different ads. This, as with all ...

The Senate's Republican majority recently passed a bill which would dramatically overhaul the American tax code; on this fact everyone seems to agree. However, the varying language used by different news media outlets reveals that despite their pretensions of objectivity they have directly opposed opinions on the bill's merit. For example, the word choice of  Fox News' article  on the subject is quite supportive of the legislation. The headline is resoundingly positive, including words like "victorious" and "confident" and speaking of "avoiding shutdown." It goes on to quote a number of Republican politicians who voted for or otherwise supported the bill, without including any opposing viewpoint. In fact, the only reference to Democrats in the article is a segment about how Republican concerns that they would attempt a government shutdown in protest of the bill were averted. Throughout this, word choice remains consistently positive, with t...

I recently watched Thor: Ragnarok , the latest in Marvel's seemingly endless torrent of superhero comedy/action movies. While I generally enjoyed it (at least compared to other films in the same genre), I found myself rather bored during many of the scenes which were intended to be the most dramatic. The movie puts an enormous amount of effort into epic music, gratuitous explosions, and intricately animated fight sequences, but many of its action scenes just felt like something to be waited through until something more interesting happened. In fact, I think you could cut out a solid 10 minutes of absurdly acrobatic duels and massacring of minions and the film would't actually lose anything of value. Now, I should say that I am not bored by all action scenes. For example, Mad Max: Fury Road  managed managed to keep me on the edge of my seat, and that movie is probably around 50% giant explosions. So what exactly did Thor: Ragnarok lack? After a fair amount of thought, I have...