Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind a listener mail. This is Robert Lamb and
Speaker 1: this is Joe McCormick, and it's Monday, the day of
Speaker 1: the week. We read back some messages you've sent into
Speaker 1: the show account, which I always say at the end
Speaker 1: of the episode, I'll say at the beginning this time
Speaker 1: it is contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot
Speaker 1: com if you ever want to get in touch, maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit more accessible up here, Rob did did
Speaker 1: you and Seth do some kind of teenage Mutant Ninja
Speaker 1: Turtles related uh listener mail episode? While I was out? Yes,
Speaker 1: basically we I pulled up to listener mails. UH one
Speaker 1: about elden Ring and Cauldron's Okay, are you have you
Speaker 1: played that game? Do you have any Yeah? Yeah, I have.
Speaker 1: With this Cauldron character, I think maybe I think I've
Speaker 1: come across him once. Okay, I'm I'm progressing very slowly
Speaker 1: in elden Ring. Okay, well, I guess it's this is
Speaker 1: what you missed that one because it has spoilers in
Speaker 1: it for elden Ring. But yeah, we also talked about
Speaker 1: the new Teenage meeting Ninja Turtles arcade game Shredders Revenge,
Speaker 1: So that was pretty fun, just a little reminiscent about
Speaker 1: old Turtles games and Turtles movies and the cartoon a
Speaker 1: little bit. Well, we got some feedback on the episode
Speaker 1: coming up later on, but first, I guess we should
Speaker 1: talk about document duplication because we got this message from Ian,
Speaker 1: who has written in before to provide a lawyer's perspective
Speaker 1: on several issues. Always nice to have, and Ian had
Speaker 1: thoughts about originals and copies. So Rob, if you don't mind,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna jump right into this one. Go for it.
Speaker 1: Dear Rob and Joe. I was recently listening to your
Speaker 1: two part episode about the history of duplicating documents, and
Speaker 1: I was struck by your discussion of the fact that
Speaker 1: in ancient times, the written record of an agreement or
Speaker 1: other legally significant proclamation would sometimes embody the legal rights
Speaker 1: in responsivelities associated with it, and that destroying the record
Speaker 1: would be tantamount to terminating those rights and responsibilities. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this was in the context of of practices in ancient
Speaker 1: Greece having to do with like uh contracts and decrees
Speaker 1: by rulers and treaties and so forth, that there was
Speaker 1: a widespread assumption that in order to show that this
Speaker 1: document was no no longer held true or was no
Speaker 1: longer in force, you would have to destroy all the
Speaker 1: copies of that document. Ian continues. You mentioned that in
Speaker 1: modern times we do not think of written records in
Speaker 1: this way, and for instance, would not have to destroy
Speaker 1: an out of date employee handbook as a way of
Speaker 1: showing it was no longer in force. You're absolutely correct
Speaker 1: in most instances. But as an attorney, I am well
Speaker 1: acquainted with one area where originals do carry the metaphysical
Speaker 1: embodiment of abstract concepts they represent. That is the law.
Speaker 1: The law, particularly trial procedure, is filled with instances where
Speaker 1: originals have a level of importance that exceeds what society
Speaker 1: in general gives them. With wills, for example, the original
Speaker 1: truly embodies the wishes of the uh. Oh, I don't
Speaker 1: know this word. Testator or testator, I'm gonna say testator, uh,
Speaker 1: the person who made the will, to the extent that
Speaker 1: if the testator voluntarily destroys the original will, it does
Speaker 1: render that will null and void. And even if copies exist,
Speaker 1: they are of no effect. So while a scene in
Speaker 1: a movie with a character tearing up an iou may
Speaker 1: not actually have any meaning. If they tear up a will,
Speaker 1: it most certainly does. More generally, there is a principle
Speaker 1: in courtroom procedure known as the best evidence rule, which
Speaker 1: requires that the original of a document or a video
Speaker 1: or audio recording, etcetera be presented rather than a copy.
Speaker 1: A copy is only allowed if the original has been lost, destroyed,
Speaker 1: or is otherwise unavailable. Even then you're not technically admit
Speaker 1: the copy is direct evidence in its own right. It's
Speaker 1: always the original that is legally relevant, and the copy
Speaker 1: is merely admitted as evidence of what the contents of
Speaker 1: the original were. So if so, if you have a
Speaker 1: theft caught on security video and do not have access
Speaker 1: to the original video, you may present a copy not
Speaker 1: to prove that the accused committed the theft, but to
Speaker 1: prove that the original video showed the accused committing the theft.
Speaker 1: It's definitely a case of legal hair splitting, but as
Speaker 1: a practical matter, copies are typically treated as simply admissible,
Speaker 1: at least in my jurisdiction. But that is the technical
Speaker 1: legal theory underlying that sort of evidence, and I suspected
Speaker 1: dates back to a time when copies of documents were
Speaker 1: uncommon or inexact. Yeah, this sounds like it would be
Speaker 1: based on a world where copies may introduce changes or
Speaker 1: errors as a as a regular matter of course, rather
Speaker 1: than an era of digital duplication Inan goes On. Also
Speaker 1: tangentially related to the legal realm, if you ever get
Speaker 1: a speeding ticket, you may encounter a modern use of
Speaker 1: carbon paper. Many police still write their tickets on a
Speaker 1: stack of carbon paper, which yields the original ticket and
Speaker 1: two copies for us locally, the bottom or pink copy
Speaker 1: is given to the person who got the ticket, the
Speaker 1: middle or green copy goes to the court, and the
Speaker 1: original white copy goes to the local prosecutor. It has
Speaker 1: always seemed odd to me that the copy that is
Speaker 1: the hardest to read is the one given to the
Speaker 1: person accused of the traffic violation. Uh. And then finally,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna summarize Ian's last point, But it's an interesting
Speaker 1: comparison between illuminated manuscripts, which we talked about in the
Speaker 1: with relevance to the idea of fact simile, that sometimes
Speaker 1: copying a document is not only accurately capturing the code
Speaker 1: of its text, but literally capturing every element of the
Speaker 1: design of each page, such as with you know, medieval
Speaker 1: manuscripts that might have illustrations or beautiful calligraphy or something
Speaker 1: like that. And Ian compares this to the novel House
Speaker 1: of Leaves, which I think is a great point of comparison,
Speaker 1: because that's a novel that is not just the code
Speaker 1: of its text, but it is how each individual page appears,
Speaker 1: because it's a lot many parts of that novel are
Speaker 1: sort of weird sort of artifacts or imagery that they're
Speaker 1: like documents as documents, not documents as just the text
Speaker 1: of the document. Yeah, it's it's kind of it's kind
Speaker 1: of a one of a kind book. Uh, quite a
Speaker 1: rewarding experience, but yeah, difficult to compare to most other books.
Speaker 1: I think you might be able to compare it to
Speaker 1: like William Blake, you know, the Originals, where the poems
Speaker 1: are associated with with paintings or illustrations. There's kind of
Speaker 1: an appearance of the page that adds to the value
Speaker 1: of the text. Yeah. Yeah, it's it's one of these
Speaker 1: which you do have to read it in in that
Speaker 1: original format. You can't, like I can't imagine reading it
Speaker 1: on a an e book format or an audio book format,
Speaker 1: and certainly, uh, there's been a lot of discussions about
Speaker 1: any kind of film or TV adaptation, though apparently was
Speaker 1: sort of in the works not too long ago. But
Speaker 1: I don't think it went anywhere. I don't know how
Speaker 1: that would work. That doesn't I think it seems unadaptable.
Speaker 1: I think if memory serves, like the principle was this is,
Speaker 1: this cannot be a complete adaptation. It has to be
Speaker 1: something that is kind of auxiliary to it. So sort
Speaker 1: of like a continuation of the House of Leaves project
Speaker 1: um as opposed to a a film version offset project.
Speaker 1: You know. Yeah, and then finally Ian says thank you
Speaker 1: as always for your entertaining and lightning podcast. I'll leave
Speaker 1: you with one final thought about modern infinite copying and distribution.
Speaker 1: If you mark every email as important, then none of
Speaker 1: them are what wise words and I agree, um so yeah,
Speaker 1: a couple of comments on that. Number One. I have
Speaker 1: in my life received a speeding ticket that was written
Speaker 1: on carbon paper, and I the copy I got, I
Speaker 1: could not tell you what it said. It was not text,
Speaker 1: it was just squiggles. And I always wondered that if
Speaker 1: I'd had the resources of the time to like take
Speaker 1: it to court and fight it out. I wonder if
Speaker 1: the fact that the copy I had was completely illegible
Speaker 1: would have been able to get me out of that ticket.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Yeah, I don't know. We'll have to
Speaker 1: I'll have to ask for more more legal insight from
Speaker 1: listeners on that one. But yeah, this was I guess.
Speaker 1: I was a teenager at the time, and I got
Speaker 1: it in a place different from where I lived, so
Speaker 1: it just wasn't yeah, I could do really, I just
Speaker 1: had to pay it, all right. This one comes to
Speaker 1: us from Laney. Hey, Robin, Joe, my name is Laney
Speaker 1: and I'm from cut Off, Louisiana, and you can say
Speaker 1: it on air. I wanted to write into you about,
Speaker 1: in effect simily episodes. Even on the first episode, I
Speaker 1: kept waiting for you all to talk about carbon copies.
Speaker 1: I had to laugh when Joe talked about carbon copies
Speaker 1: in the twenty one century, because I still use them today.
Speaker 1: I'm a middle school teacher, and our behavior Consequences sheets
Speaker 1: are on carbon cop our behavior and fractions fall into
Speaker 1: three categories. Recessed attentions, minor infractions, and major infractions. Major
Speaker 1: infractions are done completely on the computer, but our recessed
Speaker 1: attention forms and minor infraction forms are on carbon copy
Speaker 1: paper handouts for recessed detentions and minor infractions. The original
Speaker 1: copy is for the students to bring home and have
Speaker 1: the parents signed. The first carbon copy goes to the
Speaker 1: teacher who writes the infraction ticket to keep their records,
Speaker 1: and the second carbon copy goes to the disciplinary and
Speaker 1: at school still using them in two and I don't
Speaker 1: see them going away since. Also I remember when I
Speaker 1: realized the CC on email stood for carbon copy mind blown,
Speaker 1: mind blown emoji. Thanks for the incredible work you do,
Speaker 1: Lanni from Louisiana. I thought this email was either a
Speaker 1: very interesting coincidence or somehow indicative of something in the zeitgeist.
Speaker 1: That two major remaining uses for carbon paper that have
Speaker 1: been mentioned by listeners have to do with punishment, speeding
Speaker 1: tickets and disciplinary records. Also interesting that in the school
Speaker 1: the offender gets the original copy, or at least their
Speaker 1: parents do, and in the speeding ticket the offender gets
Speaker 1: the worst least least fidelity uh fight. What's the adjective
Speaker 1: version of fidelity? The least uh? The least good copy.
Speaker 1: Have you Have you ever gotten carbon paper from a
Speaker 1: school or is that another thing here? I'm trying to
Speaker 1: remember the last time I received a carbon A lot
Speaker 1: of times, you know, you get carbon copy on stuff
Speaker 1: and it's, um, it's not important. It's something that's it's
Speaker 1: almost instantly thrown away. UM. So I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: they're still using it in terms of like place places
Speaker 1: I've been going in, like the local school. I don't know.
Speaker 1: All right, you're ready to move on to some responses
Speaker 1: to Cauldron's. Oh yeah, Cauldron's it's the it's the flavor
Speaker 1: of the month. Let's do it, okay. Uh, we got
Speaker 1: a cool message from Michaela. I'm gonna summarize and paraphrase
Speaker 1: a few parts of it. So Michaela begins by saying
Speaker 1: some nice things about the show and by recommending we
Speaker 1: check out an email newsletter called Dracula Daily, which is
Speaker 1: an interesting concept. Basically from what I can tell, it's
Speaker 1: that since Dracula is an epistolary novel, meaning you know,
Speaker 1: it's made up of fictional letters, diary entrees, newspaper articles,
Speaker 1: and so forth. But I'll have a date attached to them.
Speaker 1: You can actually serve up the novel along its own timeline,
Speaker 1: So subscribers to Dracula Daily apparently receive the individual parts
Speaker 1: of the novel on the dates of the year that
Speaker 1: those parts are written or published within the fictional timeline.
Speaker 1: I like that idea. Yeah, yeah, that's an interesting idea.
Speaker 1: But finally, MICHAELA had something to add about our discussion
Speaker 1: of stone soup. So to briefly refresh on the concept
Speaker 1: of the sound stoop sound stoop stone soup tail. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, the story is that like someone in the story,
Speaker 1: maybe a soldier or a traveler or a beggar or
Speaker 1: somebody crafty, comes into a town and they have no
Speaker 1: food of their own, but they bring a pot and
Speaker 1: they put some water in it, and they put a
Speaker 1: stone in the pot and they start to boil it.
Speaker 1: And then locals come around asking, hey, what are you
Speaker 1: doing there? And they say, well, I'm making some stone soup.
Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be delicious, but you know, I need
Speaker 1: a little bit of garnish, right, there's one ingredient I
Speaker 1: don't have. And uh, they say, would you happen to
Speaker 1: have an onion? That would really make the stone soup perfect?
Speaker 1: And then I'll share it with you, and the person says, well, sure,
Speaker 1: I'll contribute one onion, and by that same strategy they
Speaker 1: can get in some carrots and some garlic and some
Speaker 1: herbs and some seasoning, some salt and pepper, and some
Speaker 1: meats and stuff, with each person thinking well, I'm just
Speaker 1: contributing a little tiny bit, and then I get some
Speaker 1: of this delicious soup, and by the end you have
Speaker 1: an actual soup that's full of nutrition and flavor that
Speaker 1: was built with no starting ingredients. So I think the
Speaker 1: story is mostly supposed to be a parable about resourcefulness
Speaker 1: and sharing and communal activities and stuff. But uh Michaela
Speaker 1: contributes a sort of literal interpretation of the story. She says,
Speaker 1: I don't remember where I heard this, but there was
Speaker 1: a version of the story where the stone itself actually
Speaker 1: added flavor to the stone soup. The story was that
Speaker 1: it was still a ruse, but the stone carried some
Speaker 1: flavors from previous soups it had been in. Perhaps the
Speaker 1: stones used back then also contributed to the flavor of
Speaker 1: the soups they were used in, not just if they
Speaker 1: had been used in a soup before, but from minerals
Speaker 1: that would leach out, adding to the overall nutrition via
Speaker 1: small doses of iron, calcium, or salt and the like.
Speaker 1: I don't know how scientifically viable this is at all,
Speaker 1: but it makes some sense in my head. Well, MICHAELA,
Speaker 1: I looked this up, and sure enough, I found several
Speaker 1: accounts of people actually claiming to have used or two
Speaker 1: have known people who use stones in soup for different
Speaker 1: reasons such as supposedly adding flavor or nutrition. And again,
Speaker 1: like you, I can't vouch for this actually working to
Speaker 1: add much flavor nutrition, but that was the reasoning, and
Speaker 1: it seems like this was a practice in some Depression
Speaker 1: era American cooking, like with the idea that if you
Speaker 1: had a stone that was used in a pot that
Speaker 1: cooked previous soup, you put that stone in the next
Speaker 1: soup pot. It's like a way of adding extra flavor.
Speaker 1: It just you know, but brings it from the last spot.
Speaker 1: But MICHAELA also had some comments on our discussion of
Speaker 1: the earliest cooking pots, of those Joeman ceramic cooking pots
Speaker 1: having round bottoms rather than flat one. So some of
Speaker 1: the earliest ceramic cooking vessels were actually things that wouldn't
Speaker 1: stand up on their own. They either probably had to
Speaker 1: be suspended over a fire or or held in some
Speaker 1: kind of holding frame or something. So MICHAELA says, spherical
Speaker 1: earthen pots could have a few advantages off the top
Speaker 1: of my head, being that a sphere has the greatest
Speaker 1: volume to surface area ratio, It could proportionally hold more
Speaker 1: than a cylindrical pot, and it would retain heat for longer.
Speaker 1: I can also imagine if you're putting stones in it
Speaker 1: to heat it up, having a spherical shape would mean
Speaker 1: the rocks would fall to the same central point, less
Speaker 1: fishing around for them. That that last idea, That that's
Speaker 1: interesting anyway, Kala says, feel free to read this on
Speaker 1: listener mail, edit out whatever to make it fit. I
Speaker 1: would be delighted and to make my like decade. I
Speaker 1: would love to see you guys if you come to
Speaker 1: the Twin Cities. Well, if we ever, if we're ever
Speaker 1: on tour, we will certainly announce it ahead of time.
Speaker 1: So yeah, if if we make it up that way,
Speaker 1: you can be there. You can't help a thing back
Speaker 1: of the stone soup thing though, and think, well, you
Speaker 1: can also have certainly some magical thinking related the to
Speaker 1: the idea that this stone was once in a really
Speaker 1: good soup. If this stone were to be in your soup,
Speaker 1: then surely years would be as delicious. Uh. In the
Speaker 1: same way that you know, we've talked about this on
Speaker 1: the show before, like ideas of say, um, you know,
Speaker 1: treating a weapon to to cure the wound, sort of
Speaker 1: a situation exactly. Uh. And it also makes me think
Speaker 1: it could be a sort of magical version of the
Speaker 1: idea of the infinite broth. I'm sure you've heard of.
Speaker 1: You know, there are places that will just keep the
Speaker 1: same pot of souper stew or broth bubbling for maybe
Speaker 1: years at a time, and you'd be constantly taking parts
Speaker 1: of it out to eat, but also adding to the
Speaker 1: same pot. And uh and like they're I think there
Speaker 1: are restaurants that do this. I can't remember where I've
Speaker 1: read about this happening. I think I think this might
Speaker 1: be a sort of Eastern phenomenon. But you just keep
Speaker 1: the same pot going and uh. And I think the
Speaker 1: idea is it just continually develops more and more complex
Speaker 1: flavor over the years. Well, this reminds me though some
Speaker 1: of the like the Irish and or Welsh smiths we
Speaker 1: were looking at and talking about the cauldron as as
Speaker 1: a source of infinite goodness. Perhaps that has some connections
Speaker 1: to this as well. All right, let's go to another
Speaker 1: one here. This one comes to us from Matt good Day.
Speaker 1: Fellas really enjoyed the series and cauldrons. It was great
Speaker 1: to hear so many insights about a significance of such
Speaker 1: objects to Gaelic and Britonic cultures, as well as many
Speaker 1: others mentioned. Discussions of cauldron esque ups and the communal
Speaker 1: nature of cauldron's reminded me of the Gaelic and Gaelic
Speaker 1: warning um um. They pronounced this wrong. Uh koatch, also
Speaker 1: commonly known as quake, which I think is a Scots
Speaker 1: version of the older Gaelic name a quat katch, is
Speaker 1: a sort of ceremonial drinking vessel used for special occasions.
Speaker 1: I've always pronounced it like quake, but I'm a full
Speaker 1: blooded Canadian, so I leave it to our Scottish and
Speaker 1: Irish cousins to clarify. So quake, uh kowatch, quatch quake Um.
Speaker 1: I'm not not sure where to land on this one,
Speaker 1: but not quatto, not quato. Anyway, my friends and I
Speaker 1: have employed the We'll go with quake, since this is
Speaker 1: in his voice to imbibe in a wee drum during
Speaker 1: Robert Burns night suppers before COVID. Anyway, I believe they
Speaker 1: are also used as part of wedding ceremonies. Despite getting
Speaker 1: kilted up for my own betrothal, though my wife and
Speaker 1: I did not share a drink from a quake at
Speaker 1: our own ceremony, However, I have heard of others doing so.
Speaker 1: I thought it was an interesting example, if not just
Speaker 1: an extension of the discussion around the role of cauldron
Speaker 1: like vessels in community relationships, feasting, etcetera. I imagine the
Speaker 1: quake was an object for every day use back in
Speaker 1: the day, but additionally would take on a ceremonial role
Speaker 1: during events or cultural formalities uh such as when to
Speaker 1: clan chieftains meet or when welcoming a stranger seeking shelter.
Speaker 1: I don't have much direct knowledge myself. It just seems
Speaker 1: logical given the nature of older clan based societies where
Speaker 1: hospitality played such a critical role in community relations those
Speaker 1: of the Gaelic world, just being one of many examples.
Speaker 1: That's it. Just thought you might find it an interesting example. Matt,
Speaker 1: that is interesting. I don't think I knew about this, uh,
Speaker 1: this type of artifact though. Of course even in our
Speaker 1: our episodes we talked about sometimes the gray line between
Speaker 1: a bowl and a drinking vessel. Uh. Yeah, so there's
Speaker 1: there's a certain amount of overlap. I think, yeah, what
Speaker 1: is a grail? You know, you watch Monty Python. It's
Speaker 1: a drinking cup, right, But but isn't a grail originally?
Speaker 1: I mean something like cauldron or maybe in some context
Speaker 1: it does, all right. This next message is in response
Speaker 1: to a previous Listener mail where somebody wrote in about
Speaker 1: a traditional Mongolian dish and some interesting methods of animal
Speaker 1: butchery and cookery. So this is from m M. Says Hi,
Speaker 1: Robert and Joe. A couple of weeks ago, somebody wrote
Speaker 1: about a traditional Mongolian dish where a goat's skull and
Speaker 1: hide is used as a sealed vessel for cooking other ingredients,
Speaker 1: and you asked about other cuisine traditions that did something similar.
Speaker 1: Here in Colombia, we use that method to cook the
Speaker 1: traditional lechona Spanish for suckling pig. Although the modern version
Speaker 1: uses a full grown animal instead of a small one.
Speaker 1: It evolved from an older Spanish tradition that was basically
Speaker 1: an oven cooked spatch cocked piglet. To make lacona, the
Speaker 1: pigs meat, bones, and organs are removed, while keeping the
Speaker 1: skin of the back and torso with the head intact.
Speaker 1: The meat is cut in small pieces and stuffed back
Speaker 1: into the skin, mixed with spices, onions, green peas, sometimes
Speaker 1: rice because it's cheap but sacrilegious according to the traditional recipe,
Speaker 1: and then you stitch the skin to seal everything inside,
Speaker 1: bathe it in orange juice, and cook the whole thing
Speaker 1: in a brick oven until the inside is done and
Speaker 1: has infused with the drippings from the skin's fat, and
Speaker 1: the outer layer is thin and crispy, similar to the
Speaker 1: skin in peking duck. A single achona can feed a
Speaker 1: small army or an average Colombian family gathering winky face emoji,
Speaker 1: with each person getting a generous scoop of the stuffing
Speaker 1: along with a square of the thin, crispy skin. It's very,
Speaker 1: very good, despite some people finding the side of a
Speaker 1: pig's head a bit grotesque in medieval but let's not
Speaker 1: forget that you guys over there didn't just put the
Speaker 1: herbs and spices inside. The thanks Giving turkey. You used
Speaker 1: to put pretty much all of the things that are
Speaker 1: now served as side dishes inside the bird, so they
Speaker 1: would cook with it and mix with its own flavor.
Speaker 1: Today's practice of cooking the turkey on its own and
Speaker 1: the stuffings on the side came with the popularization of
Speaker 1: stovetop cooking and the appearance of some sanitary concerns in
Speaker 1: the seventies. Keep up the good work, Love the show
Speaker 1: m in Columbia. That's that's good. That reminds me of
Speaker 1: something in Martin Wallon's book on Squid. I talked to
Speaker 1: him on a recent episode of the show. Uh talks
Speaker 1: a little bit about ancient use of culinary use of
Speaker 1: of squid and how you would have it stuffed with,
Speaker 1: say sheep's brains, at least according to one ancient recipe,
Speaker 1: but that later on its discussed that the squid body
Speaker 1: is essentially the perfect the perfect thing to stuff anything into,
Speaker 1: Like it's just the perfect body cavity to make and
Speaker 1: it's like nature's ravioli. I guess so Nature's dumpling, or
Speaker 1: you can think that the ocean's sausage casing in it's
Speaker 1: a tube like a like a sheep intestine or whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I'm I'm all for yes, keep the pigs head
Speaker 1: on it. Maybe, yes, it could be a big growth,
Speaker 1: tesque and a bit medieval, but you know, people need
Speaker 1: to know where their their porks coming from. Look a look,
Speaker 1: your your your your feast in the face. All right.
Speaker 1: This one comes to us from Ben Ben Rights in Hello,
Speaker 1: stuff to blow your mind people's. I was so stoked
Speaker 1: to hear your last email bag episode. I started typing
Speaker 1: this message before the episode was over. I've been following
Speaker 1: the progress of this game, Teenage Muting Turtles Shredders Revenge, uh,
Speaker 1: uh and um for over a year, and I'm well impressed. Uh.
Speaker 1: And from here, he goes into a number of details
Speaker 1: about his excitement for the game, his experience with the game. Uh.
Speaker 1: Suffice to say he was very excited and very impressed.
Speaker 1: But then he also mentioned Robert and Seth spoke of
Speaker 1: the other teenage Meeting Ninja Turtle properties in the episode,
Speaker 1: and I would like to throw in another couple. The
Speaker 1: Last Ronan is a comic from I d W Publishing
Speaker 1: that is being released as a trade paperback next month
Speaker 1: and looks amazing. Also check out the most recent Teenage
Speaker 1: Muting Ninja Turtles cartoon Rise of the Teenage Muting Ninja
Speaker 1: Turtles available via Nickelodeon and Paramount Plus. Both are different
Speaker 1: takes on the franchise on very opposite points of the spectrum.
Speaker 1: Thank you for all the great content you make. I'm
Speaker 1: glad I have stb y m as quote friends in
Speaker 1: my ears. Keep up the great work, Cowabunga Dues Benjamin ps,
Speaker 1: I'm a Raphael. What does that mean? If you're a Raphael?
Speaker 1: Does that mean you're like moody and angry? Well, this
Speaker 1: is one thing. Seth and I discussed that if you
Speaker 1: have to select a turtle to be in one of
Speaker 1: these games. Uh, there's the discussion that does this say
Speaker 1: something about me? Uh? So Seth and I are both
Speaker 1: Donna Donna Tello's I don't know if you have a
Speaker 1: gut answer to which turtle you are, which one you
Speaker 1: would select. I think I was also a Donna Tello,
Speaker 1: But I don't know if that's psychologically revealing. I think
Speaker 1: it was just because I regarded their weapons and thought
Speaker 1: that his bow staff had the longest reach, which was
Speaker 1: true in that really hard side scrolling in the S game. Ah. Well,
Speaker 1: it helps to in this game as well. He does
Speaker 1: have very long reach with it. My son, by the way,
Speaker 1: is Rafael. So there you go. The other thing. I
Speaker 1: did look up this this. Yeah, I mean Rafael in
Speaker 1: their teenage years, you gotta watch out. Yeah, well Rafa
Speaker 1: Rafael has got some some good news in that game. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is the last Ronan. I did look up, and
Speaker 1: it does look kind of interesting it. I think it's
Speaker 1: like a futuristic situation where there's only one Turtle left,
Speaker 1: uh kind of deal, and he's having to fight the powers,
Speaker 1: the d and so forth. That's interesting. So I wonder
Speaker 1: what Benjamin means here about saying the Last Ronan and
Speaker 1: and Rise of the Turtles or opposites. I assume he
Speaker 1: means like one is very dark and one is more
Speaker 1: light and fun. Yeah, I think one is still for
Speaker 1: the kids and one is for the more of the
Speaker 1: you know, the not necessarily grown up audience. But you
Speaker 1: know that the edge or comic book content I'm imagining,
Speaker 1: which I think that has roots back to some of
Speaker 1: the original uh comic book stuff regarding the teenage mutant
Speaker 1: Ninja Turtles. Are you ready? Could could you? Or maybe
Speaker 1: you and Seth take a stab at a couple of
Speaker 1: random Turtles questions that popped into my head. They're both
Speaker 1: about fashion in the Tin Tinja Turtles. Okay, so the
Speaker 1: first one is, are Bebop and rock Steady supposed to
Speaker 1: code as punks? Like Bebop's got the mohawk and the
Speaker 1: nose ring and the fashion glasses. Is he supposed to
Speaker 1: be a punk or is that just like as just
Speaker 1: random uh stuff to to make him look cool? And
Speaker 1: if he is supposed to be a punk, or if
Speaker 1: they're both supposed to be punks, are they like, are
Speaker 1: they into the music or did they be? Were they
Speaker 1: transformed into punks after being exposed to the ooze? Could
Speaker 1: they have become surfers or goths? What's the what's the
Speaker 1: origin on this? Here? Well, Seth what and I have
Speaker 1: to chime in? But my recollection on this is that
Speaker 1: they were human beings already belonged to these subcultures and
Speaker 1: then they got used and transformed. But maybe I'm wrong
Speaker 1: on that. Maybe they were an actual rhino and an
Speaker 1: actual pig of some sort. Oh, Okay, I think I'm
Speaker 1: going more with like the Ninja Turtles movie too, where
Speaker 1: you just start with regular animals and then they're transformed
Speaker 1: into human forms, but if they started as humans, that
Speaker 1: would make way more sense. Okay, here's what I know. Okay,
Speaker 1: hello everyone, it's out here. Um So, if you watch
Speaker 1: the animated series. Now I know all of the series,
Speaker 1: whether it's the comics, the movies, the animated series, et cetera,
Speaker 1: they each have slightly different timelines. But picture those street
Speaker 1: punks from Jason Takes Manhattan, Okay, the ones where it's like, gosh,
Speaker 1: isn't New York or dirty filthy city? All these kids,
Speaker 1: we don't understand where they're coming from. They're wearing crazy fashions.
Speaker 1: What's with this? If you see pictures of bebop and
Speaker 1: rock study before they mutate, that's exactly what they look like.
Speaker 1: Those like filthy you know, nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties street
Speaker 1: kids in New York. That that that that was our
Speaker 1: five very Warriors, esk. You know they are there are
Speaker 1: punk slash heavy metal criminals, as would appear in a
Speaker 1: movie made by people who don't really understand these music
Speaker 1: genres exactly that they there are mainstream cultures bastardizations of
Speaker 1: these subcultures, and so therefore, yes they are punk. Yes
Speaker 1: they are heavy metal, but only in the regard that
Speaker 1: like a forty year old man who is writing a
Speaker 1: children's cartoon show under sticking these concepts very good. I've
Speaker 1: got a second question. Are you ready? I'm ready? Okay.
Speaker 1: Also about fashion in Ninja Turtles, can anyone explain why
Speaker 1: the reporter April O'Neil has classically been depicted wearing an
Speaker 1: all yellow jumpsuit? Is that just random or is this
Speaker 1: an outfit associated with TV journalism in some context that
Speaker 1: I don't know that I'm not aware of. I have
Speaker 1: my interpretation. How about how about you, Robert? Do you
Speaker 1: do have a word on this? I never really thought
Speaker 1: about it, but uh, I mean a good jumpsuit, A
Speaker 1: jumpsuit is a good look, so I never right yellow.
Speaker 1: I mean you could like super visible. I guess like
Speaker 1: you're not. Here's Here's always been my interpretation. I bet
Speaker 1: there's a real reason somewhere deep and like you know,
Speaker 1: the the red conning of the Ninja Turtle world, I
Speaker 1: always figured it was to let us know as the
Speaker 1: audience that this is an action oriented woman, that she
Speaker 1: is going to get out there and she's going to
Speaker 1: run around, She's gonna do some stuff and then in
Speaker 1: addition to that, this part is probably the childhood speculation.
Speaker 1: The only yellow clothes that I would see as a
Speaker 1: kid would be like a yellow like rain suit. So
Speaker 1: I was assumed that she was like basically environment ready.
Speaker 1: She could run down into the sewers. She could be
Speaker 1: out on a dirty street and she could you know,
Speaker 1: just you know, just just just just stay dry, mobile,
Speaker 1: you know, well protected and in this in this jumpsuite.
Speaker 1: I know what you mean. Actually, when I was a kid,
Speaker 1: I think the closest way I had to make sense
Speaker 1: of that was that it looks kind of like a
Speaker 1: radiation suit. M hmm. It does give her like a
Speaker 1: sense of official belonging, like she's you until it is
Speaker 1: almost like a uniform, like I am supposed to be here,
Speaker 1: I am here on official business, I am a reporter. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we should bring that back the TVs TV
Speaker 1: journalists on the scene now, full body, yellow jumpsuit. Okay,
Speaker 1: thanks for your input, seth Rob. Do you want to
Speaker 1: tackle one more message here? How about how about doing
Speaker 1: this one about weird hout cinema? All right, this one
Speaker 1: comes to us from James. James says, hello again, gents,
Speaker 1: So I don't remember what James said last time, but
Speaker 1: now he's saying stuff again. Um. I was excited to
Speaker 1: see returned to the expansive collection of classic horror flis
Speaker 1: referenced by The Misfits on your recent episode of Weird
Speaker 1: House Cinema covering a Fiend without a Face. Well that'
Speaker 1: saw that James was someone who wrote in about the Misfits.
Speaker 1: James continues, I immediately felt a sense of obligation to
Speaker 1: seek out a used VHS copy on eBay and re
Speaker 1: listen to the podcast after viewing it. Apologies for my
Speaker 1: late email about this topic. Shipping took a while. Overall,
Speaker 1: I thoroughly enjoyed both the movie and You're Hilarious in
Speaker 1: depth analysis of the film, those sound effects were truly
Speaker 1: something else, and I still ponder the folly work used
Speaker 1: to produce the walking through the kicks cereal while slurping
Speaker 1: noodle soup monster sounds. While the first two thirds of
Speaker 1: the film did have me asking when are they going
Speaker 1: to get to the fireworks factory, the climactic scenes at
Speaker 1: the end made the whole experience well worth it. The
Speaker 1: obviously dated, yet surprisingly good and gory stop motion animation
Speaker 1: Battles left me yearning for a video game adaptation of
Speaker 1: this schlocky old Jim Oh, that would be great. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can, as long as you focused on again, the
Speaker 1: last thirteen minutes of the film, don't. I guess you
Speaker 1: could do a role playing sort of a thing with
Speaker 1: the rest of the movie. I guess you could, or
Speaker 1: I feel like it would be a great opportunity for
Speaker 1: one of those side scroller movie adaptation video games that's
Speaker 1: full of things that are not in the movie at all. Like,
Speaker 1: so you play a guy jumping on platforms with the
Speaker 1: pistol and there's brains flying at you. But then there's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, you know, clowns popping up out of
Speaker 1: trash cans to bite you or something. That's how all
Speaker 1: those those movie games were. They had stuff that was
Speaker 1: never in the movie. Well, we know what the power
Speaker 1: up would be in the game, that's for sure. Oh,
Speaker 1: Ben's a drain, right, Yeah, you have to keep popping
Speaker 1: those bensa drains in order to keep up with the
Speaker 1: brain monsters. Yeah, all right, Well, James continues Random Tangent.
Speaker 1: In a previous episode, one of you mentioned a friends
Speaker 1: band doing a bluegrass cover of the Misfits Astro Zombies,
Speaker 1: and this song has coincidentally been a staple in my
Speaker 1: own solo acoustic open mic set for years. Smiley Face,
Speaker 1: I'll start working on Fiend without a Face next. Perhaps
Speaker 1: I'll try to send a recording someday. As always, I
Speaker 1: am really enjoying your pod and appreciate the diversity of
Speaker 1: topics and themes you cover. After the Ninja Turtles chat
Speaker 1: with Seth, I'll have to seek out that new beat
Speaker 1: him up game soon too, cheers James, Thank you, James.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we're gonna go ahead close up the
Speaker 1: mail bag there, but we'd love to hear from everyone
Speaker 1: out there. Uh So, right in you can find our
Speaker 1: listener mail episodes on Mondays and the Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: Your Mind podcast feed Uh yeah, so right in past episodes,
Speaker 1: current episodes, future episodes. Anything's fair game Huge thanks as
Speaker 1: always to our excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. Uh.
Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us
Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest
Speaker 1: a topic for the future, or just to say hello,
Speaker 1: you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is
Speaker 1: a production of I heart Radio. For more podcasts for
Speaker 1: my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.