Simpsons by the Season: 16

"When you work in the business as long as I have, you're bound to repeat yourself."

My typical approach for these blogs is to find a common theme of the season and express how many of the episodes fit within it. Lately, they've been scathing, frustrated reviews where the average episode has repeated itself, become too foolish, or has the characters become mockeries of their former selves. This post won't be one of them.

I hesitate on saying this season is a return to form, as that would imply it was a good season. It wasn't. However, it was a return to sensibility. Rarely was the plot so ridiculous it was hard to watch, and there were a scant few occasions where the characters lost their true selves. The only major exception to this is Bart and Millhouse needlessly ruining the visit of a tourist coming to Springfield, but hey - as they say in Australia, pobody's nerfect.

There's simply not a lot to hate about this season. There are a few repeat episodes, but nothing egregiously ripping themselves off. Homer gets a motor home again... they visit Canada once more, but at least this time for a longer time with better results... yet another future episode... another episode that ends by someone yelling "party"... but nothing I'm up in arms about. As with last season, there are a few notable continuity errors, but again they're few and far between (namely Nelson saying his dad left him, although his father came back the previous season and Lisa saying Bart's never done anything for her in spite of a whole montage of them being friendly siblings in the Lisa vs. Bart hockey episode). 

Overall, it's a reasonable, safe season. The problem is it's not a very funny season. There are no standouts on either end of the quality scale, with no terribly regrettable episodes but free from anything that really makes me glad the show has continued its exceedingly long run. This is what the show has come to - not interested in staying relevant, but rather simply staying. Sadly, that's the best we can hope for. Not being angry at this show is the best I've felt in six seasons.

Best Quotes:

"I realized I was an adult when the judge says 'we are trying you as an adult'". 

-Kearney

"Now let's go murder our enemies. Peace."

-Alcatraz, rapper

"Why did Lisa dump me? Is it because of my small calves? They're the hardest place to add mass!"

-Millhouse, large, strong, future version

Best Episode:

Sheesh. I guess I'll give it to "Midnight Rx" in which Homer goes to Canada to get cheap prescription drugs. It's really nothing special, but the Canadian bits are pretty good. I guess this one wins off writer home country bias.

Worst Episode:

Lately this has been pretty easy. Homer destroying churches, being made into a prank monkey, and fighting a bear tends to leave a nasty enough taste in my mouth to barely having to consider my pick. This time around it will go to "Goo Goo Gai Pan" in which Selma goes to get her daughter from China, not because it's a terrible episode but it's the weakest of an entirely mediocre crop. I've grown weary of the "Simpsons visit another country" style episodes (no, Canada doesn't count - it's right there and we're too alike) and it comes across as weaker than the rest and mostly boring.

Blood in the Cage: Book Review

"Blood in the Cage: Mixed Martial Arts, Pat Miletich, and the Furious Rise of the UFC" chronicles the history and main players involved in ultimate fighting's sudden, explosive burst of popularity. The story itself is genuinely really entertaining - and this is coming from someone who has no vested interest in the sport. The struggle of going from an underground fighting league to popular pay-per-view television and mainstream appeal makes for a good read, and on that the book delivers very well. The transition from the first matches of horribly mismatched opponents and tournaments that have fighters battling multiple times a night to the highly trained super-athletes on television today is worth more than a passing glance.

The early days of UFC are essentially a twelve year old's dream; a schoolyard argument between "I bet this kind of fighter can beat up this kind of fighter" brought into reality. The author himself speaks to that when determining who are the toughest guys out there in his explanation on who would win between a boxer and a mixed martial artist: "If an MMA fighter slipped the punch and kneed the boxer with a Muay Thai clinch or got him on the ground and manipulated a joint, the fight would be over just as fast [as if a boxer connected on a strong punch]". While it sounds comically similar to ten year olds discussing if The Hulk can take Iron Man in a fist fight, this sort of stuff is where the book flourishes; the basic history of how it came to be and the intensely violent and slimmed down rules of the early days, pitting sumo wrestler against kickboxer, boxer against wrestler, karate master against some other form of karate master.

The book also details the later years when the UFC began to find a foothold legally (the league had tremendous difficulties legitimizing the sport) and when it finally started enticing mass audiences. It also provides compelling arguments about the high levels of safety (relatively, considering what is happening). The story behind the scenes is compelling and the individual fighters adds a great deal of personal interest and appeal.

What the book lacks is an even hand. The author, L. Jon Wertheim, is so obviously in love with the sport he cannot see any flaws behind his rose-coloured (blood-tinted?) glasses. A chapter dedicated to the flaws of the UFC (issues with cheating and rampant substance abuse) is an insignificant footnote, reaching only six pages. Any negatives towards ultimate fighting are either dismissed or mentioned only in part. Just a few chapters after his abridged version of the low-points, he opens with comparing ultimate fighting to "space travel and neurosurgery". Later he likens it to ballet. I understand that there is a tremendous level of technical skill involved in the fighting, but at the core of it it's two men beating the life out of each other in a cage. It's not art. It's not beautiful. It may require countless hours of dedication and training but it's one sport that won't find the nickname "the beautiful game" (even though in the first chapter of the book he calls it "majestic").

Wertheim somehow sees no irony in claiming it's a "sport for Hemingways in a society of Dr. Phils" when on the same page they quote the UFC president as saying the league "is going to be the hugest f***ing thing in the f***ing world since sliced f***ing bread." I haven't read much Hemingway, but I don't recall a strong resemblance to that sentence and anything from "The Old Man and the Sea." This and countless other examples cheapen the book, as it tries to make the UFC something that it most assuredly is not . You cannot call the fighters "authentic and accessible" when later talking about Tito Ortiz's former meth addiction and his proclivity for wearing shirts with slogans such as "I just f***ed your a**" after defeating an opponent. He tells the stories of how these men, perceived as barbarians, are always willing to give autographs - but mentions afterwards they're contractually obligated to do so.

Yes, this book is flawed - but give it a read. It's an undoubtedly interesting topic that amid a few frustrating problems is laid out well. You just have to take everything - including a number of unverifiable Pat-Miletich-is-hardore stories - with a grain of salt. That, and ignore a bunch of lazy metaphors like "applied a chokehold" when referring to gaining a demographic and providing a "stiff jab" to overprotective people as those tend to pepper the pages throughout. But that shouldn't be enough to dissuade anyone from reading it; it's fascinating, for fans and non-fans alike.

Simpsons by the Season: 15

"Everything's back the way it was, which is the only way it should ever be."

If you read my previous entry in this series, the crux of the fourteenth season centred around nostalgia. This time around they moved from remembering the better days to rehashing them in hackneyed episodes in which they reuse main plot points from previous years - sometimes from incredibly poor episodes, as well. That's like reanimating the dead and choosing to make zombie Hitler. Here are a few.

1. "Fraudcast News" has Mr. Burns - much to his surprise - find out he's not well liked by the town. This of course has already happened in the reprehensible "Monty Can't Buy Me Love" in which he tries to win over the public by capturing the Loch Ness Monster, so he shouldn't be too surprised.

2. In '"Tis the Fifteenth Season" Homer usurps Ned's position as the nicest guy in town. If that doesn't ring a bell, think back to "Homer Loves Flanders" in which... well, Homer usurps Ned's position as the nicest guy in town. In one episode Kent Brockman states "there's an even fatter man holding families at nice point" while in the other a newspaper article claims "Big Fat Man Has Big Fat Heart" as a headline. It's like they're doing mad libs with whole episode arcs.

3. In "Regina Monologues" Homer causes an incident where he rear-ends the Queen while on a trip to England. Of course, Homer has a bad history in causing international incidents with major political figures, as he's already thrown the Japanese Emperor into a pile of laundry in "Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo". Maybe they'll come to Canada next and Homer will punch Stephen Harper in the face. Actually, I'll be OK with that one.

4. I know this one is vague, but Bart finds yet another love interest in "Wandering Juvie". This time around, it's a new girl ending in an 'a' sound - no, not Laura, Jessica, Greta, or Clara - but Gina! For a ten year old, Bart gets around.

5. In "Millhouse Doesn't Live Here Anymore" Homer discovers that he can beg for money on the street pretending he's crazy, and make a lot of cash doing so. It's slightly less awful than his grifting, but really, it's the same plot - Homer gets rich off something akin to stealing. Marge eventually finds out much the same way as before. Why they would want to recreate such a terrible plot is beyond me.

6. The Pie Man, Homer's alter ego super hero, eventually is found out by Mr. Burns who threatens to reveal him if he doesn't do his bidding in "Simple Simpson". Much of it ends up being frustratingly similar to Homer being Mr. Burns' "prank monkey" in arguably the worst episode in the series, "Homer vs. Dignity" (it's the zombie Hitler thing!). Homer even has to "pie" a girl scout much the same way he throws a pudding at Lenny as his first assignment in respective episodes.

7. "The Ziff Who Came to Dinner" is a conglomerate of two episodes. Artie's fall from grace and living with the Simpsons is basically early Herb Powell. Homer becomes the head of Ziff-Corp, inheriting the legal obligations, much the way he took over the power plant from Mr. Burns. We've seen it all before.

At the very least, if they're going to be redoing old episodes, at the very least I wish they would get the Simpsons cannon right. In "The Way We Weren't" - an episode that hinges on the Simpsons' past - Millhouse accidentally kisses Homer in a game of spin the bottle. He then says "my first kiss..." seemingly forgetting about poor old Samantha Stankey.

Best Episode:
The best is awarded to "I (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot". The plot is like a new age, original version of what made the Simpsons great; Homer genuinely wants to be a good father, but his lack of intelligence holds him back. Nevertheless, he tries his best - this time fighting robots (which sounds at least a little stupider than it is). It's funny, and Homer isn't a monster, but a decent albeit bumbling father.

Worst Episode: 

Although there are a number of poor episodes, few are truly awful. The worst goes to "The Fat and the Furriest" in which Homer is shamed by a bear, fashions a suit of armour, and ends up saving it. It's another example of the show adding animals and flying off the rails. As a sidenote, Homer also throws himself into a pile of toilets to hide from the bear, once again removing any semblance of dignity from a beloved character (pictured on the right). I really wish they'd stop doing that.

Best Quotes:
"We weren't as well behaved as our goody-two-shoes brother Canada - why by the way has never had a girlfriend - just saying..."
-Homer on the U.S. and Canada

"Ladies and gentlemen - ah, who am I kidding? Just gentlemen."
-The announcer at the Ultimate Robot Fighting tournament

"This is the little hooker line; all the girls your age are wearing it - except the freakishly unpopular."
-A salesman to Lisa

Dataclysm: Book Review

If you searched for this blog, you theoretically typed in "Dataclysm book review", sifted through the results to about page fourty or so, and decided on my blog for reasons beyond my understanding. Through that, you've done much more than you've realized; you've given Google a very minute amount of money for your search, added a tally on their search results, perhaps slightly altered the ads that will appear on your future pages, and provided one more page count on my blog (bringing it up to, in all likelihood, one). If you write about this book on Facebook, that throws you into many more metrics. Whatever race and gender you fall under, you're throwing a dime in the well for what you and yours collectively gravitate towards. You helped describe what your demographic talks about, how they speak and what's important to them - all by simply going about your daily routine. This in turn can be used to create ads that use this data from agencies that are run by people I can assume look something akin to the child of Snidely Whiplash and Mr. Burns due to their secrecy, wealth, and menacing hand motions. Now lets say you steal that line from me, post it on Facebook, and 'like' your own status as all good people do. Well, what you 'like' also says an awful lot about you as well - and don't think they (that mysterious, all-knowing 'they' that records such things) aren't paying attention. There have been programs created that judging strictly off Facebook likes that can predict within fairly reasonable accuracy whether or not you're a gay male (88%). It also has a high chance of guessing if you're black or white, Republican or Democrat (or some third party voter, or even stranger, Canadian) and it might even know if you've got a bit of a drug habit - whether you admit it or not. So if you're interested in the same sex and cocaine, be careful - your family might not know, but Facebook has got a good feeling.

All of this comes together in an umbrella term called metadata. It's all about the clicks and likes and tweets that we do on a daily basis, and how they're recorded. Dataclysm takes those numbers and shows them to us raw and uncut to demonstrate the relations between race, gender, and dating profile preferences. It's important to note that the author, Christian Rudder, is one of the founders of OkCupid, the online dating service, which provides a wealth of information on much more than you would consider at first glance. Many of the numbers and statistics come from that very site, many of which are rather expected, things you feel like you sort of knew all along but now have proof; for example, Belle & Sebastian, an indie band from Scotland, is not particularly well-received by African-Americans. I mean, if you had to bet on it, you probably would. Then it delves into some other, more surprising territory. A prime example is how men and women view each other according to attractiveness on average. Men, in spite of all the perfectly photoshopped models that abound on television, magazines, billboards, and... well, everywhere, view women's average attractiveness almost on a perfect bell-curve - in a sense meaning it's somewhat right where it should be. Women on the other hand view men much more harshly, making the average man only slightly above a 2/5. 

Rudder hits you with these facts chapter after chapter, backed up by numerous very telling graphs on each segment. The result is an enthralling page-turner that allows you to look deeply into the collective lives of large groups - which is the essence of metadata itself. It's slightly unnerving that we participate in these numbers, either unwillingly or unwittingly or both, but nevertheless they're fascinating. The range is so vast and the sample size so massive and encompassing the numbers are terribly hard to deny. It leaves precious little room for argument. On an individual level, we may not be able to use much of it for more than dinner conversation but I can guarantee you that if you read this book you certainly will wish to discuss it. It's not like it's far from the media as it is - you've almost certainly heard of the NSA and their spying tendencies as it's been at the forefront of the news for some time now. Canada just passed Bill C-51 in spite of massive opposition. This kind of information is only just dawning now, with little in the way of long-term studies to harvest from but still there is so much that can be taken from it (and argued about). Metadata is not something that will slow - we're far past that point now - and it will only become more pervasive in the years to come. Dataclysm, if anything, provides you with an early taste. 

Rudder gives his take on whether or not all the personal (yet almost undoubtedly impersonal) data collection is an evil or a blessing. We wouldn't have such wonderful free features like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Reddit and so forth if it weren't for that ad revenue that's largely fuelled by metadata. On the other hand, at what point does it feel like a flat out invasion of privacy? Like all things there's a balance somewhere in between, and it's an awfully delicate one. Dataclysm shows you the results of all that mining, for good, evil, or simple human interest. Or, just to know for sure that a very rare thing for an Asian person to type into a dating profile is "6'4".