Academic literature on the topic 'Glen Brothers'

‘Everyone who now reads and writes in the West, of whatever racial background, sex or ideological camp, is still a son or daughter of Homer.’ While the extent to which this claim is accurate has been disputed, it is not wrong in our own day to grant the highest honours for ongoing influence to the author of the Iliad. All the more so in Late Antiquity, a period frequently viewed as hermetically isolated from the classical world, but which resolutely viewed itself as part of that unbroken cultural and literary continuum. One of those who made repeated use of Homer's epic was the Emperor Julian (a.d. 331–63), one of the most prolific writers among Rome's emperors. In the fourth century a.d., Homer's influence was still predominant, not only being Julian's favourite and most frequently cited author but also forming for Libanius of Antioch ‘one of the pillars of rhetorical teaching’. Despite Glen Bowersock's statement that Julian's many writings offer unique insight into his character and disposition, Julian is still a historical character who is not easy to ‘know’. Julian's life was shaped by the murder of his father, brothers and uncles by a cabal involving, if not orchestrated by, his cousin Constantius II. This was followed by the removal of his trusted confidant Salutius, again by Constantius. These experiences exhibit an unusual phenomenon, in that, when Julian referred to them, they were prefaced by a spate of Homeric allusions. Julian's wrath at people taken from him was both genuine and politically useful, but the expression of it was dangerous enough that he expressed it obliquely in the language of Homer. These citations and allusions, drawn primarily from the Iliad, were far more than Julian's flaunting of his education, but were rather a tool for subtly conveying his desired message, a message with strong political tones. I will treat these passages in the order in which Julian wrote them, although that places the events reminisced about in the reverse order.

Turning to the novels, Les Misérables, The Brothers Karamazov, and The Plague, this article focuses on theist–atheist encounters within fiction as guides and challenges to contemporary atheist–theist dialogue. It first provides a discussion of definitions pertinent to our topic and a reflection on the value and limitations of turning to fiction for the study and development of theist–atheist dialogue specifically, and interreligious dialogue more broadly. In examining each of the novels, I will first provide a very brief historical context of when each novel was written, the time and place the covered scenes transpire in the novel, and the authors’ positions toward religion(s) when writing their books. I will close the article on some lessons to glean from these fictional dialogues for contemporary theist–atheist dialogue.

The light-emitting diode (LED) has been widely used in the food industry, and its application has been focused on microbial sterilization, specifically using blue-LED. The investigation has been recently extended to characterize the biotic and abiotic (photodynamic) effects of different wavelengths. Here, we investigated LED effects on kimchi fermentation. Kimchi broths were treated with three different colored-LEDs (red, green, and blue) or kept in the dark as a control. Multiomics was applied to evaluate the microbial taxonomic composition using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and the metabolomic profiles were determined using liquid chromatography–Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Cell viability was tested to determine the potential cytotoxicity of the LED-treated kimchi broths. First, the amplicon sequencing data showed substantial changes in taxonomic composition at the family and genus levels according to incubation (initial condition vs. all other groups). The differences among the treated groups (red-LED (RLED), green-LED (GLED), blue-LED (BLED), and dark condition) were marginal. The relative abundance of Weissella was decreased in all treated groups compared to that of the initial condition, which coincided with the decreased composition of Lactobacillus. Compositional changes were relatively high in the GLED group. Subsequent metabolomic analysis indicated a unique metabolic phenotype instigated by different LED treatments, which led to the identification of the LED treatment-specific and common compounds (e.g., luteolin, 6-methylquinoline, 2-hydroxycinnamic acid, and 9-HODE). These results indicate that different LED wavelengths induce characteristic alterations in the microbial composition and metabolomic content, which may have applications in food processing and storage with the aim of improving nutritional quality and the safety of food.

Haydn’s mehrstimmige Gesänge , composed between 1796 and 1799, have mostly been given but scarce attention by scholars. In this paper I strive to re-contextualize the partsongs both as regards Haydn’s own oeuvre and the history of the genre in general. I argue that, while the composer may have been aware of the male quartets by his brother Michael, and was certainly familiar with the English glee tradition, his partsongs consciously seek to redefine the genre by raising its compositional, as well as performing, standards to a uniquely high level (hence the word “utopia” in my title). While the composer’s aim appears to have been to set an example by exploring diverse artistic possibilities of the genre, the reception of his partsongs proved highly selective: the religious songs were praised as worthy models by conservative writers, whereas the comic pieces puzzled critics with their combination of highly elaborate music and resolutely lowbrow texts, which did not seem to deserve, as it were, such compositional care. Thus, the reception of the partsongs reinforces a common Haydn stereotype of the early 19th century: he is seen as a master of outstanding originality and compositional skill, whose achievements can only be admired, but whose example is not always to be followed.

To say something is complex can often be conclusive. It can mean that an issue or an idea is too difficult to explain or understand, or has too many aspects to examine clearly. In many ways the designation “complex” can be an abdication, an end to an argument or discussion. An epochal change in thinking about complexity dates from post structuralist challenges to the idea that the world was known by arguing that everything was indeed much more complex than master narratives would suggest. In the last decade a social scientific engagement with complexity theory has meant that social and cultural meanings of “complex” and “complexity” are being explored. “Complex” has also made a renaissance within the popular and everyday imagination. Reference to “complex” and “complexity” can be found in advertising campaigns for Sydney City Rail (Figure 1), as well as advertising for a telecommunication company (Figure 2). Figure 1 Figure 2 In our feature article Bob Hodge provides a detailed analysis of Sydney City Rail’s “Rail Clearways” advertising campaign. In a comparable campaign, a telecommunications company claims “Simplicity trumps Complexity”. It seems that advertisers will call any networking system “complex” because its binary is “simple”, from the Latin simplex. Simple versus Complex creates a nice image of a telecommunication company possessing a SIMPLE solution for any COMPLEX networking system. “Simplicity trumps Complexity” denotes a competition between the two meanings and a “simple” solution for “complex” networking needs can be found within this company’s product portfolio. Rather than position “complex” in competition with “simple”, we wanted to explore the possibilities of “complex”. The idea of “complex” as a beginning, not a conclusion, has been the driving concept behind this journal edition. This M/C Journal edition assembles seemingly disparate interpretations of “complex”. We did not want to reduce a journal edition on “complex” into “simple” neat links. Instead, we have grouped the articles together under four titles: “‘Complex’ and Affect: Complexities in the Concept of Love”, “Situating ‘Complex’ within Fixed Social and Cultural Systems”, “Positioning ‘Complex’ in Cultural Theories” and “Locating ‘Complex’ in Design”. This thematic arrangement demonstrates how each interpretation of “complex” forms assemblages and from this other assemblages can be formed. Such an approach reveals the way in which “complex” entities emerge from “complex” processes. Our feature article, “The Complexity Revolution”, outlines and categorises complex(ity) in its varying forms. Bob Hodge positions complex(ity) in popular culture, science and humanities. Complex(ity)’s popular meaning reduces the concept to something that is intricate, involved, complicated or multi-dimensional. In a more negative sense complex(ity) is often stripped to simplicity. This article decodes Sydney City Rail’s “Rail Clearways” publicity campaign “untangling our complex rail network” to illustrate how complex(ity) is not reducible to simplicity, it is not strictly a positive or a negative but encompasses many meanings located with popular culture, science and humanities. “Complex” and Affect: Complexities in the Concept of Love “The Heart of the Matter” positions romantic love as productive force and explores the complexity that lies within the notions of love and desire. Richard Carpenter examines why romantic love is so complex by exploring its development from a romantic ideal to encorporating notions of desire. Carpenter explores the move from love as fusion, encapsulated by the movie Jerry Maguire (“you complete me”), to Anthony Gidden’s “plastic sexuality” where desire is detached from reproductive imperatives. It is not that we have moved past romantic love, Carpenter argues, but that we should explore the complex range of possibilities created by its productive force. Adding to this exploration of love’s complexities, Glen Fuller uses the film Punch Drunk Love to illustrate the contingent nature of contemporary romance. Inspired by a conversation with a woman who claims “everyone does rsvp” this paper probes the very notion of love by relating the experiences of the film’s lead characters, Barry and Lisa, to theories by Badio and Deleuze. The continual striving for an elusive harmony is presented as the materiality of love; reconciling love’s contradictions by suggesting it is the problematic nature of romance that elicits the “wonder at the heart of love”. Situating “Complex” within Fixed Social and Cultural Processes Mario Lopez’s article explores contemporary Japanese-Philippine relations through an ethnographic study in Japan on marriages between Japanese men and Filipino women. In this article, he focuses on one aspect of his research: Filipino women attending a ‘care-giver’ course and the outcomes. Japan’s aging society and a shortage of labour in Health Care Facilities has sparked an effort by the Japanese State to source and educate Filipino women to fill the labour void. “Bride to Care Worker” outlines how Filipino women are located within a complex system of nation-state relations. It has become common to claim that we live within a culture of fear and a by-product of this is increased surveillance technologies. “Commodifying Terrorism” explores London’s Metropolitan Police use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras to monitor and control public spaces. Yasmin Ibrahim examines how surveillance systems like CCTV locate the body and its everyday actions as stored data in an effort to “combat” terrorism and make public spaces “safer”. The ramifications are that it constructs and supports new power relationships and new risk hierarchies; raising questions of how surveillance technologies are making us safer. In “Decisions on Fire” Valerie Ingham asserts one thought process or model cannot encompass the complex decisions made on the fire-ground. Ingham argues incident commanders use “Multimodal Decision Making” a term that she developed from her ethnographic research with fire-fighters. “Multimodal Decision Making” illustrates how sensorial awareness and experiential knowledge is used when assessing and recommending a course of action to fight fires. Positioning “Complex” in Cultural Theories Sarah James examines one mural, from one street in San Francisco’s, predominantly Mexican, Mission District. She assesses how it is symbolic of complex assemblages denoting a diasporic community, post colonial histories and cultural hybridity. “Culture and Complexity: Graffiti on a San Francisco Streetscape” argues complexity theories can extend and contribute to established concepts in humanities such as post colonialism and cultural hybridity. Karen Cham and Jeffrey Johnson argue that complex systems are cultural systems. They trace the developments within interactive digital media and industry design practice to illustrate the relationship between art and complex systems. This relationship is epitomised by the possibilities inherent within interactive media for experimentation and innovation. Drawing on post-structural, science and art theory, Cham and Johnson suggest that digital mediums serve as a model that highlights the nature of complex adaptive systems. Locating “Complex” in Design A labyrinth epitomises complexity in design with its numerous choices of pathways and directions. In “A Vision of Complex Symmetry”, Ilana Shiloh applies a complexity perspective to the Coen Brothers’ neo-noir film The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001) by arguing its symbolic relationship to a labyrinth. Shiloh uses the labyrinth as a metaphor to highlight the difference between rationalistic genre in detective fiction in which complexity is simplified by the work of the detective to film noir in which the audience is taken deeper into the labyrinthine maze of a story where little makes sense and nothing is what it seems. Vince Dziekan’s curatorial project during his recent “Remote” exhibition inspired his interactive piece for our journal edition. In his paper Dziekan’s explores the creative process behind curatorship, presenting it as a design process which adds levels of complexity to the experience of the gallery space. By creating an interactive element to his work, Dziekan’s draws the reader into the experience of curatorial design, using layers of black, magenta, cyan and yellow. Each colour represents an aspect of design: the ‘black’ layer is a synopsis of curatorial design and complexity, the article is situated within the four magenta layers, the cyan layer provides a visual experience of the exhibition and the yellow layer embodies Marcel Duchamp’s “Mile of String”. Dziekan’s work is symbolic of “complex” representing layers of concepts each interacting, reflecting and affecting the other. Through these papers this journal edition presents an exploration of the idea of “complex”. A complex “revolution” (in a quiet way) infuses the vast range of topics by adding depth to challenge all types of research. This journal, in keeping with the idea of complex, illustrates the possibilities from which to start/continue in an effort to expand rather than limit the possibilities of further explorations of “complex”. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Cahir, Jayde, and Sarah James. "Complex." M/C Journal 10.3 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0706/00-editorial.php>. APA Style Cahir, J., and S. James. (Jun. 2007) "Complex," M/C Journal, 10(3). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0706/00-editorial.php>.

Critics are always trying to catch up with the phenomena they analyse, and critics of celebrity culture are no different. For most of its history, the celebrity apparatus has had a vested interest in staying invisible. So long as it remained illegible to cultural analysis, it could claim to be simply a transparent medium for exhibiting star quality. The celebrity’s public profile could appear to be the well-earned result of talent and determination, or the seemingly magical crystallization of his or her personality. But recently, some of the mechanics of celebrity culture have gained their own prominence. This hypertrophic state produces new cultural mutations and opens new possibilities for critique. Celebrity culture has a long history of structuring the production, distribution and reception of texts around the mystique of a particularly fascinating individual (Braudy). While apparently revealing the deep selfhood of a famous person to a mass audience, the cultural apparatus of celebrity concealed the industrial conditions in which its texts were produced. The hagiographic writings of journalists and biographers, meanwhile, focussed on the unique qualities of celebrated individuals and thus functioned as an adjunct to the apparatus. Recently, an academic critique of celebrity has emerged, which strategically brackets the experience of the individual in order to focus on the phenomenon’s cultural scaffolding. P. David Marshall theorised celebrity’s place in the circulation of power, Joshua Gamson used audience interviews to broaden our understanding of how it is consumed, and Tyler Cowen analysed its effect on the economy. Richard Dyer, Joe Moran and Charles L. Ponce de Leon considered celebrity’s place in film, literature and journalism respectively. And critics such as Carl Freedman, David Shumway and Sharon O’Dair observed its incursions into politics and the academy. These studies made it possible to think critically about the mechanisms that celebrity culture had traditionally kept hidden. But I contend that celebrity culture has changed the way it operates, reflexively revealing some of its mechanisms. The structure of the apparatus is becoming as much an object of fascination as the individuals it promotes. An organic structure becomes hypertrophic when it grows in such an exaggerated way that its function in the organism or ecosystem is affected. Hypertrophic celebrity now requires cultural critics to develop new kinds of insight and sophistication. Hypertrophic celebrity culture has seen the rise of several formats for interactive cross-platform content; they include Pop Idol, Pop Stars, Fame Academy and Big Brother. Generically related to “reality TV” – whose affinities with surveillance and social control have been remarked by Andrejevic, Grindstaff and Johnson, among others – these formats also have wider significance for celebrity culture. Whilst they remain primarily broadcast television programmes, their makers are keen to maximise the possibility of interacting with them via digital TV, the Internet, email, WAP, PDAs, SMS and the telephone. Moreover, they thrive on the free publicity provided by talk shows, magazines and so on. This platform-hopping exploits an important characteristic of celebrity culture that has not previously been so apparent. Although it appears to be centred on an individual, celebrity culture is in fact radically rhizomatic. It operates as an intertextual network in which texts from several media (film, TV, photography, print) collectively create a public profile that is not, finally, under anyone’s control. The first symptom of this hypertrophy is a shift in how celebrity culture holds our attention. Each new celebrity product has to be dynamically different from what the celebrity has done before, yet also reassuringly familiar. The new work must offer new satisfactions, without detaching itself completely from a winning formula. The “classic” response to this dilemma was to structure a celebrity career around a developmental narrative of subjective growth. This marketing strategy underwrote a key element of bourgeois subjectivity. At the limit, it could lead to the multiple reinventions practised by, for example, Madonna or David Bowie, where the celebrity’s different incarnations appear to be linked by nothing but their own will to self-creation. With nothing else to lend continuity to their protean careers, we fall back on the assumption that it must be the hidden depths of their subjectivity that fascinate us so much. But the new celebrities, like other consumables, come with built-in obsolescence. Rather than developing, they are discarded. Take David Sneddon, winner of the first UK Fame Academy. His first single went straight to the top of the charts in January 2003, but by 2004 he’d quit singing to write songs instead. Or take One True Voice, the boy band constructed by Pop Stars: The Rivals. They split after releasing only two singles. As these examples suggest, what endures now is not the celebrity but the format. Just as postmodern architecture displays the ducts and pipes that make a building function, so hypertrophic celebrity foregrounds the mechanisms that manufacture celebrities. The Idols format, developed in the UK by Fremantle Media, has now reached 100 million viewers around the world. Its marketing rhetoric reveals its inherent contradictions. On one hand, it presents itself as “the televised search for a new national solo pop idol”. On the other it “continues to create major recording artists in all territories in which it airs”. Are these people discovered or created? The producers try to pander to our supposed preference for “organic” artists (The Beatles) over “manufactured” ones (The Monkees), by maintaining that they are seeking out star quality, and exposing performers to a public that can recognise talent when it sees it. But they remain fascinated by the structures that support a celebrity profile, and the Frankenstein-like possibility of creating a celebrity from scratch. Fame Academy, developed by Initial (part of Endemol UK), is even more conflicted about the status of its contestants. On one hand it presents them as hard-working young hopefuls who undertake a “gruelling” schedule in an “Academy” which appears as a parody of an English boarding school. (The press release specifies that they have to sew name-tags into their underwear and go to bed at 11pm.) They compete for a record deal with Polydor, “the UK’s leading record company”. On the other hand the producers recognise that they are not nurturing talent but constructing celebrities. The prize also includes “a show business lifestyle for a year”. The producers are clearly aware that to nurture another modestly successful recording artist is not their aim. Musical success is only one element of a package that comprises a flat, a car, a holiday, a personal stylist and tickets to “VIP events”. Since these undertakings are more concerned with the mechanics of celebrity culture than with any particular individual, it seems fitting that the formats have been far more successful than any of the contestants. The Idols format has been broadcast in 22 territories, from the USA to Kazakhstan; 6.9 million votes were cast in the first season of Fame Academy; and a third season of Pop Stars is planned. Most successful of all, however, has been Big Brother, the format developed by Endemol in the Netherlands, and exported to twenty other countries. While the other formats discussed here remain caught between paradigms of discovery and construction, Big Brother makes no pretence of searching for exceptional or talented individuals. Instead, it explores the idea that anyone can be turned into a celebrity. Exhibit A: Jade Goody. A 21-year-old dental nurse, Jade was a contestant (not the winner) on Big Brother 2 in the UK. During the series, she appeared on the front page of tabloid newspapers eighty-seven times. She went on to appear on the cover of the highest-selling issue of Heat magazine (547,000 copies), to feature in her own documentary (What Jade Did Next), to release two diet and exercise videos and to return to reality TV in Celebrity Wife Swap. Since Jade’s selling point is her entertaining ignorance, the publicists had some difficulty describing her, relying on the vague tautology “irrepressible and unstoppable”. Daniel Boorstin’s classic definition of the celebrity as someone who is “famous for being famous” does not begin to describe Jade. She is famous for having been made famous. She is the product of our new fascination with the mechanisms that make celebrity function. But while some of the mechanisms that drive that apparatus now appear on the surface, they conceal a further layer of manipulation. Behind the pseudo-democracy of American Idol lies the watertight contract that the contestants were required to sign with 19 Group, founded by Simon Fuller. It owns the rights to the names, voices, likenesses and biographies of the contestants, everywhere and forever. It also has an option on the recording, merchandising and management of the ten finalists. Behind the disembodied voice of Big Brother lies the work of a production team driven to improve audience share, advertiser revenue and viewing figures. And behind them lie the four men who form the Executive Board of Endemol, whose companies turned over 914 million Euros last year. The hypertrophy of celebrity culture leaves us once again trying to catch up. No sooner had academic critics begun to theorise the apparatus of celebrity than it started to spawn new and self-conscious mutations in which the apparatus no longer relied on its own invisibility to do its work. We will need to be light on our feet to keep up with its ongoing metastases. References Andrejevic, Mark. “The Kindler, Gentler Gaze of Big Brother: Reality TV in the Era of Digital Capitalism.” New Media and Society 4.2 (2002): 251-70. Boorstin, Daniel J. The Image, or, What Happened to the American Dream. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961. Braudy, Leo. The Frenzy of Renown: Fame and Its History. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Cowen, Tyler. What Price Fame? Cambridge MA: Harvard UP, 2000. Dovey, Jon. “Reality TV.” The Television Genre Book. Ed. Glen Creeber. London: British Film Institute, 2001. 134-5, 7. Dyer, Richard. Stars. London: British Film Institute, 1998. Freedman, Carl. “Polemical Afterword: Some Brief Reflections on Arnold Schwarzenegger and on Science Fiction in Contemporary American Culture.” PMLA 119.3 (2004): 539-46. Gamson, Joshua. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. London: U of California P, 1994. Grindstaff, Laura. “Trashy or Transgressive? ‘Reality TV’ and the Politics of Social Control.” Thresholds: Viewing Culture 9 (1995): 46-55. Johnson, Katie N. “Televising the Panopticon: The Myth of ‘Reality-Based’ TV.” American Drama 8.2 (1999): 1-26. Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. Moran, Joe. Star Authors: Literary Celebrity in America. London: Pluto Press, 2000. O’Dair, Sharon. “Stars, Tenure and the Death of Ambition.” Michigan Quarterly Review 36.4 (1997): 607-27. O’Dair, Sharon. “Academostars Are the Symptom: What’s the Disease?” Minnesota Review: A Journal of Committed Writing 52-54 (2001): 159-74. Ponce de Leon, Charles L. Self-Exposure: Human Interest Journalism and the Emergence of Celebrity in America, 1890-1940. Chapel Hill and London: U of North Carolina P, 2002. Shumway, David. “The Star System Revisited.” Minnesota Review: A Journal of Committed Writing 52-54 (2001): 175-84. Shumway, David R. “The Star System in Literary Studies.” PMLA 112.1 (1997): 85-100. Links http://www.popidols.tv/theshow.stm – Official Pop Idol site from the UK’s ITV Network. http://www.19.co.uk/site3s.html – 19 Group, who manage the finalists of American Idol. http://www.fremantlemedia.com/page.asp?partid=12 – Fremantle Media, producers of the Idols format. http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/09/18/idol_contract/index.html – Salon.com article revealing details of the contracts Idols contestants were required to sign. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/07_july/15/fame_academy2.pdf – Fame Academy Press Pack from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/07_july/15/fame_academy_series2.shtml – Fame Academy Press Release from the BBC. http://www.tvtome.com/PopstarsTheRivals/ – Unofficial guide to the second season of the Pop Stars format. http://www.endemol.com – Endemol, producers of the Big Brother format. http://www.endemoluk.com – the UK arm of Endemol, parent company to Initial, who produce the Fame Academy format. http://bigbrother.channel4.com/bigbrother/ – Big Brother website from the UK’s Channel Four network. http://backtoreality.gonna.co.uk/celebs/jadegoody.htm – Profile of Jade Goody. http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/B/bigbrother/news/newsstory00015.html – Press release for What Jade Did Next. http://www.davidsneddon.tv/ – Official David Sneddon Website. http://www.endemoluk.com/initial/ – Initial, “the UK’s leading producer of music entertainment and live event television”, responsible for the Fame Academy format. Part of Endemol UK. http://idolonfox.com/ – Fox TV’s American Idol Website Citation reference for this article MLA Style Mole, Tom. "Hypertrophic Celebrity." M/C Journal 7.5 (2004). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0411/08-mole.php>. APA Style Mole, T. (Nov. 2004) "Hypertrophic Celebrity," M/C Journal, 7(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0411/08-mole.php>.

Sometimes people engage in joking talk that might be characterized as blatantly sexist.1 A judgmental label such as "sexist" does not mean the same thing to different people. I've picked instances of joking that I think most readers would judge as sexist. That is not a claim that the participants themselves orient to the talk as sexist; or if they did, that they would agree that such joking is problematic. Indeed, one purpose of undertaking such analysis is to attempt to characterize what the talk is and what it is doing for its producers in the first place. What do people accomplish in and through joking based on negative sexual stereotypes? Three examples are presented below. One involves demeaning joking about categories of women; the other two involve demeaning joking about particular individuals. 2 In all three cases, this talk provides a resource for participants to mark aspects of identity and relationship while furthering joking and laughter. The laughables and laughter provide sequential warrants for extending such talk. Furthermore, analysis will show how participants may implicate themselves more or less in offensive talk; there are minimal ways to play along just as there are ways to mark one's full cooperation in what is getting said. These issues will be taken up in the discussion of each instance and in the closing remarks. Example 1: Stan and Dave Two university students are talking on the phone. At the moment of interest, Stan is telling of his recent whereabouts. Dave takes this mention of a wedding to make a comment (line 39) that opens up a sequence of demeaning talk about women: Dave's initial assessment of the "wool" at weddings is gratuitous in that it takes one element from Stan's prior telling and uses it to sexualize the talk. Weddings are now occasions for noticing good-looking women. Stan immediately agrees with Dave's assessment3 and provides an alternative term, "coot" (line 40), thereby implicating himself fully in the demeaning talk. Their use of metaphorical language helps key a shift into a play frame (Goffman, 1974), and they sustain it with additional metaphors ("shit," "dog meat"). Stan compares girls "down here" (in the college town) to the city girls "up there" (in the big city in that state) in terms of their desirability, sexual availability, and demeanor (lines 44-54). They compare overweight girls to livestock and laugh (lines 58-66). Following Dave's laughter, Stan poses a question that takes them to another topic (lines 67-68). The sexist nature of this talk lies both in the activities done and in the terms used in doing those actions. They refer to women in colloquial, sexual, reductionistic terms, based on the objectifying male gaze. They assess women as either good-looking and a "challenge" or overweight but "easy to grease," both sets of comparisons playing on derogatory stereotypes (cold/standoffish v. easy/sluttish; thin/desirable v. overweight/undesirable). They compare women to wool, coot, shit, dog meat, and livestock. We can see these young men doing identity and relationship work through this talk. By making the blanket assertion about "wool" at weddings, Dave positions himself as worldly and knowledgeable enough to make this assessment. Stan's agreement asserts his membership in the club of discerning, heterosexual male. They claim knowledge of whether women are "easy to grease" or not. Dave positions himself as picking and choosing women for sexual partners, provided they keep themselves thin enough. They are also accomplishing relationship work. Dave is the leader who initiates the assessments. Stan is the follower who reinforces Dave's claims and laughs at Dave's jokes. "Women" serve as topical resources for these endeavors. Example 2: Dan and Jeff Two men talk on the phone, interspersing playful joking with family news and business (Apparently, Dan manages an apartment complex and Jeff does work for him). After a couple of minutes of conversation, Jeff asks Dan's Thanksgiving holiday plans and Dan replies that he and his wife will leave town and leave another person in charge of the apartments. Reference to this person moves them into blatantly sexist talk: Dan's initial reference to Dana as "one a the girls" (line 79) genders the scene4 , but he does not refer to the specific woman until following Jeff's show of interest (line 82). He identifies the "girl" by first name only in a question that calls on Jeff to confirm recognition of her. Jeff does so by providing an additional descriptor of her as having "big- wangers" (line 84)--hearable as a colloquialism for breasts. Jeff's questioning intonation invites Dan to confirm that they are talking about the same person. In this way it slips sexism in as part of the ongoing talk activity5 . It also serves to shift the talk from the topic of holiday plans to Donna and her appearance. Dan produces an unenthusiastic confirmation (line 86) and a nonsexual reference to her by a room location (lines 88-89). Jeff again assesses while shifting the referent from breasts to the whole person ("Big girl, bi:g.="). Dan seconds this assessment and links back to the previous "wangers" reference by adding that "everything's" big on her. Jeff's expressed appreciation (line 94) of Donna draws laughter from Dan but no reciprocal appreciation. Jeff again appreciates (line 98) and Dan agrees but does not share the assessment, implicitly marking it as Jeff's alone (lines 100-101). Dan then asks Jeff's holiday plans, and this moves them away from the playful talk about Donna. Like in the preceding instance, here both playfulness and sexism get keyed by an assessment employing metaphoric language that reduces a woman to a (presumably sexually attractive) body part and instantiates the objectifying male gaze. By this assessment, Jeff identifies himself as heterosexual male who notices women's possible sexual attractiveness. Unlike the previous instance, however, here a co-participant displays some resistance (Glenn, 2003, p. 150). "Wangers" poses a test of sorts for Dan: to "get it" he must recognize the colloquialism, know what constitutes "big," and show whether or not he has noticed this part of Donna's anatomy. To do so is to participate in sexist talk. Dan shows that he understands the talk and has noticed Dana's appearance; he also shows resistance to participating in the sexualized assessments of her. Nevertheless, the "wangers" talk provides a resource for pulling them into joking interaction. While joking they can display identities as heterosexual males who recognize and can talk about sexual, visual features of women. Example 3: W and T Two university students talk in a dormitory room6 . W is telling a story about Monica, who is his "little sister" via his fraternity. Such a relationship implies in part that they spend time together in non-dating, non-sexual relationship. As we pick up on the story in progress, he is telling about her coming out of her room and asking him how she looks. His reference to not starting with her "on the wrong foot" suggests that she was treating him (inappropriately) like a date. In overlap with his talk that would return to events in the story (line 34), T offers a negative assessment of Monica's looks. From there they move into joking talk about Melissa as a possible sexual partner: T packages his assessment of Monica's looks (lines 35-36) with a tag question that explicitly seeks W's agreement. W's ambiguous response marks his unwillingness to agree with the assessment. Orienting to this, T produces a subsequent version (Davidson, 1984) that begins with a more positive but also more explicitly sexual description (lines 39-40). W affiliates by assessing Monica's breasts (line 42). This line also helps key a shift into playfulness by its repetition of the three part assessment: "XXX little XXX" ("nice litt:le- bo:dy" and "cute little breasts"). 7 In a mock-Southern dialect (associated with a stereotypical "redneck" identity), T invokes and then declines the possibility of doing her violence (line 44). W affiliates in expressing sexual desire "in character" also using a mock-Southern dialect (lines 46, 48-49). He makes a sexual pun on the word "rise" (51) which T reworks (52). After lengthy shared laughter, W resumes his story (line 58). These two young men talk about Monica, not as a "little sister" (her role in W's story) but as a sexual object. They describe her body parts in demeaning terms. They invoke joking identities as sexually violent characters who might consider killing a girl if she isn't attractive enough. They get to this talk by T derailing W's story in progress and W going along with the derailment. Derailing the story also means unmasking W's character in the story as someone who is concerned that his "little sister" might be treating him as a date. Dislodging W's big brother identity brings him to acknowledge that he, like T, has turned the male gaze on Monica and can provide assessments of her body and attractiveness. It allows space for them affiliate as heterosexual males who view women and women's bodies. More specifically, they align in their (mildly) positive assessment of Melissa. Talking about Monica as a sexual object provides them a basis for joking, doing character voices, punning, and sharing laughter. Discussion These three instances share several common features. In each, Speaker A is engaged in an extended talk activity (listing events, recounting holiday plans, telling a story). Speaker B plays off of some aspect of Speaker A's talk to introduce a sexually-based assessment of a woman or women. Speaker A responds and the participants move into joking and laughter. All three instances involve "dissector" talk (Hopper, 2003, p. 149) that reduces women to supposedly desirable body parts (wool, wangers, and breasts). The sexual items B Speakers introduce are gratuitous in that they do not pursue the topic of talk on the floor but rather seize an opportunity to sexualize the talk. In the course of doing so they accomplish moving the talk away from what it was in the preceding turn. They initiate a new sequence in which response to the sexual item is relevant. At the same time, in two of the three instances the A speakers explicitly provide a basis for gendering the talk in their previous turns ("one of the girls" and "let's not start this off on the wrong foot"). Joking and laughter occur within sequential environments conducive to producing sexually demeaning talk that forwards an ecology of prejudice. Such talk provides materials for participants to display interactional intimacy. A speaker may introduce sexual references in order to move towards displays of like-mindedness. In each of the three instances, the B speaker produces an impropriety-a potentially offensive comment or term. Jefferson, Sacks, & Schegloff (1987) show the range of responses relevant to an impropriety, ranging from disaffiliation to appreciating with laughter and/or talk to escalating with a new impropriety. To disaffiliate from such an impropriety is to reject the proposed intimate relationship and impose distance. An escalation following an impropriety ratifies a mutual display of interactional intimacy. A first joke or humorous remark prompting laughter provides a sequential warrant for any speaker producing another such to extend the laughter (Glenn, 2003, Ch. 4). Laughter becomes a goal for its own sake. Thus it is no accident that such intimacy sequences routinely accompany (and get accomplished through) joking talk. A second speaker producing a next humorous or playful impropriety both forwards the laughing environment and ratifies like-mindedness. The introduction of sexual joking, whether it involves assessments, metaphorical language, or stereotyping, presents a potent interactional crossroads. By acknowledging the sexualized items the A speakers implicate themselves in this kind of talk. However, if the A Speakers disattend the sexual talk they risk being treated as naive, hypocritical, puritanical, unfriendly, or (perhaps worst of all for these individuals) not a "real" man8. For all these reasons, it is not surprising to find sexually demeaning talk occurring in environments characterized by joking, humor, and laughter. Affirming identity and pursuing relational intimacy are not in and of themselves problematic actions. Neither, of course, is joking. We can ask ourselves what alternatives exist for these men to joke, affirm masculinity, and affiliate, without demeaning women. Yet asking such questions and labeling this talk "sexist" are part of our interaction as writer and reader, not theirs. They produced their talk for and with each other, 9 and substantive critique of such talk will benefit from coming to grips with how it unfolds in situ and what it is about for the people producing it. Otherwise we risk reifying a divide between participants' and analysts' worlds that trivializes both. Notes 1. For a discussion of sexism see Hopper, 2003, 27-30. 2. That these all involve (presumably heterosexual) males talking about females is a matter of convenience sampling. It does not mean that only males engage in such talk, although it is possible that certain groups do so with greater regularity. 3. Interestingly, Stan locates his assessment in a single wedding; Dave's assessment is of weddings, generalized. 4. See analysis of this in Hopper, 2003, pp. 122-123; also see Hopper and LeBaron, 1998 characterizing how participants bring gender into talk 5. See Sacks and Schegloff (1979) regarding rules for person reference in conversation. 6. See insightful analyses of this conversation in Beach, 2000, and Hopper, 2003, p. 162. 7. For a discussion of repetition's role in triggering play, see Hopper and Glenn, 1994. 8. Sacks (1974) shows how in a teenage group therapy session dirty jokes may pose "understanding tests" for which those caught not "getting" the joke may be teased or regarded as naïve. Glenn (2003) shows how a hearer failing to get a sexual joke leads him to be a victim of laughing at. 9. Their talk may also orient to other present and future listeners; we can only speculate how knowledge of being recorded might have figured in their interactions. Works Cited Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177-193). New York: Ballantine. Beach. W. A. (2000). Inviting collaborations in stories about a woman. Language in Society, 29, 379-407. Booker, J. L. (1991). The Jewish American Princess and other myths: The many faces of self hatred. New York: Shapolsky Publishers. Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102-128). Cambridge University Press. Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis; An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row. Hopper, R. (2003). Gendering talk. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Hopper, R., Glenn, P. J. (1994). Repetition and play in conversation. In: B. Johnstone (Ed.), Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Vol. II (pp. 29-40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hopper, R., & LeBaron , C. (1998). How gender creeps into talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 1, 59-74. Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152-205). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337-353). London: Cambridge University Press. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language; Studies in ethnomethdology (pp. 15-21). New York: Irvington. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press. Links Transcription symbols http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/notation.htm Citation reference for this article MLA Style Glenn, Phillip. "On Sexism in Conversational Joking" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture <http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/1-glenn-feature-sexism.html>. APA Style Glenn, P. (2003, Nov 10). On Sexism in Conversational Joking. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 6, <http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/1-glenn-feature-sexism.html>

Several jazz films made just before, after, or during World War II draw or suggest parallels between jazz bands and military units. Some jazz bands benefit from a strong sense of mutual support and commitment to the greater good, as in Blues in the Night. Bands in others movies are challenged by wartime problems: sabotage, mutiny within the ranks, and personality clashes among the leadership (in films involving, respectively, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, and Jimmy and Tommy Dorsey). Two films by director Howard Hawks are examined, Ball of Fire and its remake A Song Is Born, focusing on the latter’s (mis)use of critic Winthrop Sargeant’s analytical work Jazz: Hot and Hybrid. Other films are also discussed.

The article considers the reliability of the news contained in the texts of the Borisoglebian cycle, in which Svyatopolk the Cursed is described as a murderer of Boris and Gleb. The truth of this news aroused and raises doubts among a number of historians who are inclined to consider this version of the events of the death of at least Boris falsified either during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise or in times of his sons. Scientists — supporters of the ‘conspirological’ hypothesis believe that the real killer of at least Boris was in fact Yaroslav the Wise. In their opinion, the truth is preserved in the Icelandic text — Strand about Eymond son of Hring (Eymunder páttr Hringssomur), which tells about the murder of the Russian king Buritslav (identified by these historians with B ris) on the orders of his brother Yaritsleiv (Yaroslav the Wise). The article first of all considers the arguments put forward by one of the supporters of this hypothesis K.A. Kostromin. It is proved that Svyatopolk had real reasons for killing of Boris and Gleb, and that there is no obvious speculation and contradictions in the works of the Borisoglebian cycle that testify to their unreliability.