Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of
Speaker 1: My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind.
Speaker 1: Listener mail. My name is Robert Land, and I'm Joe McCormick.
Speaker 1: And hey, you've written into us. Now we're going to
Speaker 1: share back with you. Are you ready to get started, rob,
Speaker 1: Let's jump in. Oh what is this you've got right
Speaker 1: here at the top? Oh? Well, I I threw some
Speaker 1: stuff in here. So a lot of the stuff we
Speaker 1: hear from from our listeners comes in via our email.
Speaker 1: I guess that's still the primary way we communicate. But
Speaker 1: we do have a discord channel, um, which well, it's
Speaker 1: kind of it's kind of hard to get to. I
Speaker 1: think you have had to have been in the Facebook
Speaker 1: group for Stuff to Blow your Mind, and that's where
Speaker 1: the invite for the discord is. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: barely understand how discord works, but I had to. Don't
Speaker 1: think I was even aware of this? Really? Oh I
Speaker 1: thought you were aware. Well, anyway, there is a Stuff
Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind discord channel. I wish I could
Speaker 1: tell you how you can access it. Um, maybe you
Speaker 1: should tell me if you want access to it, right
Speaker 1: in to our email address and I'll send you the
Speaker 1: link or whatever. Uh, But I heard from a couple
Speaker 1: of our listeners there about our episode on the Whispering
Speaker 1: Sword about sentient weapons and mythology and legend, and of
Speaker 1: course we we primarily looked at a few different, uh,
Speaker 1: mythological and folkloric examples, and we alluded to some fictional examples,
Speaker 1: but we didn't really spend a lot of time there,
Speaker 1: and we said, hey, let us know about some of
Speaker 1: your favorite fictional sentient weapons. And so I have a
Speaker 1: couple of good responses here. So matt on Discord shares
Speaker 1: the following quote love the cold open on whispers of
Speaker 1: the Speaking Sword episode, and honestly, the narrative readings and
Speaker 1: skits are always a highlight. Joe's comment on swords being
Speaker 1: entitled to the tribute of cleaning to keep them happy
Speaker 1: and that cleaning a sword is also important for maintaining
Speaker 1: it makes me wonder if irish myth is where the
Speaker 1: concept of the mechanicalsts belief. He's referring to something in
Speaker 1: Warhammer forty thousand and uh in machine spirits and the
Speaker 1: need to placate them was drawn from in the Warhammer
Speaker 1: forty thou universe upkeep of technology has become ritualized to
Speaker 1: the point that a firearms spirit must be placated by
Speaker 1: annoyting it with sacred oils lest it fail in combat,
Speaker 1: with no consideration given to the physical impact that the
Speaker 1: oil has in the weapons operation. The ritual of annointing
Speaker 1: the weapon has the desired effect, just not for the
Speaker 1: reasons they think. You know, it's funny. I can imagine
Speaker 1: things uh happening in the real world in a in
Speaker 1: a fashion like this, though not understanding the real reason
Speaker 1: you're performing maintenance on something and turning it into it
Speaker 1: like a religious ritual would certainly make the practice less adaptable,
Speaker 1: like you wouldn't you know understand as well, like how
Speaker 1: you need to change the practice to respond to changes
Speaker 1: in conditions. Yeah. Yeah, but but I think he may
Speaker 1: be into something here, because yeah, there's a lot in
Speaker 1: in that universe about you know, forgotten technology, technology that
Speaker 1: can no longer be replicated but can only be maintain
Speaker 1: aimed and is maybe the only half understood at best.
Speaker 1: Fletch on Discord Shairs the following that was a great episode,
Speaker 1: but no mention of Stormbringer lric of Melnibone's bloodthirsty demonic
Speaker 1: blade Uh, this is, of course, we're referencing the books
Speaker 1: by Michael Moorecock, um, which I think I've I've actually
Speaker 1: read one of them and I enjoyed it. And then
Speaker 1: Michael Moorecock also wrote the lyrics to Veteran of the
Speaker 1: Psychic Wars by Blue oysterc Cult, among as many other accomplishments.
Speaker 1: I know you've had that on your mind lately. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a solid jam um. Fletch continues. Also from the
Speaker 1: Odyssey quote the blade itself incites two deeds of violence
Speaker 1: um was used as the title of Joe Ambercrombie's first
Speaker 1: excellent fantasy novel, or an even better translation of the
Speaker 1: same phrase for iron by itself can draw a man
Speaker 1: to use It seems super relevant when Robert and Joe
Speaker 1: were talking about how tools can encourage you to see
Speaker 1: every problem in terms of their use. Oh yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: And you can realize this in a million different ways.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, for example, if I'm remembering this right,
Speaker 1: I think Emmanuel Kand wrote about the idea that a
Speaker 1: a country that has a standing army will always be
Speaker 1: tempted to find uses for the army in the same
Speaker 1: way that a person who's holding a weapon will be
Speaker 1: more tempted to think of ways that a weapon should
Speaker 1: be used in a scenario where, you know, if they
Speaker 1: didn't have the weapon on their person, they might not
Speaker 1: think that it was so important to to to choose violence. Now,
Speaker 1: speaking of British sci fi and warfare science fiction, Fletch
Speaker 1: also shares, Oh, another one just sprang to mind. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if it's a bit obscure, but Rogue Trooper,
Speaker 1: the genetically engineered super soldier from those two thousand a
Speaker 1: D comic strip had a rifle, helmet and backpack that
Speaker 1: had the personality chips of three of his dead comrades,
Speaker 1: Gunner Helm and Bagman or Bagman uh that would talk
Speaker 1: to him and could operate equipment by themselves. Interesting. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with this comic. I'm familiar with it,
Speaker 1: but I've never read it. I've when it comes to
Speaker 1: two thousand a D. I've read a lot of Judge
Speaker 1: Dress and um, I don't think i've read any Roade Trooper. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's okay. Judge Drey is two thousand yeah, okay, but
Speaker 1: there are several like he's probably the most well known. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's definitely the most well known two thousand character and
Speaker 1: win world. But but there are various other settings and
Speaker 1: worlds that are popular underberneath that umbrella as well. I
Speaker 1: hear he is the law, Yes, yes, all right, So
Speaker 1: we've been getting tons of emails in response to queueing.
Speaker 1: This has got to be one of our one of
Speaker 1: our highest mail bag ratio episodes of all Definitely we've
Speaker 1: gotten the same way that probably still the most we
Speaker 1: ever got, I would guess was the one about school dreams.
Speaker 1: Those still trickle in. Yeah, yeah, those all the time.
Speaker 1: We've got so many of those, we couldn't even scratch
Speaker 1: the surface. But we've also got a lot about queuing,
Speaker 1: so we'll try to catch up reading some of these.
Speaker 1: Sorry if you were one of the many emailers on queuing,
Speaker 1: and sorry we we can't even come close to reading
Speaker 1: all of these, but I grabbed a few here and
Speaker 1: and I guess will dip in. So uh. This first
Speaker 1: message comes to us from Max. Max says Hi, Robert,
Speaker 1: Joe Seth and Carney. Longtime listener here from Sydney, Australia.
Speaker 1: I was talking about your episodes on queueing with my
Speaker 1: partner who lives in Singapore and has always said, Singaporeans
Speaker 1: love to cueue, and she reminded me of a cultural
Speaker 1: queuing experience that took me by surprise a few years
Speaker 1: ago Wilston, Singapore. She brought me to a reputable Michelin
Speaker 1: Star restaurant to eat chicken rice. Waiting for food was
Speaker 1: handled in an orderly manner by means of a ticketed
Speaker 1: queuing system. However, finding a table in the dedicated dining
Speaker 1: area required self governance. This manifested as unseated patrons analyzing
Speaker 1: people who were already seated to determine who would finish
Speaker 1: eating the fastest e g. Do they have a child,
Speaker 1: are they talking a lot? How full are their plates?
Speaker 1: Et cetera. A sweet spot in the room could then
Speaker 1: be selected for standing and waiting in until a nearby
Speaker 1: customer finished their meal and yielded their table. I must
Speaker 1: emphasize the nearby in this statement, as there were many
Speaker 1: other people doing the same thing in different areas. My
Speaker 1: partner assured me that this was common practice, yet I
Speaker 1: still felt uncomfortable with both waiting purposefully in order to
Speaker 1: encourage people to eat faster, and then later with the
Speaker 1: experience of others waiting for us queues for food court
Speaker 1: seating in general are a little bit lawless at the
Speaker 1: best of times. However, this was not a public food court.
Speaker 1: Thanks for your episodes over the years, and also for
Speaker 1: recommendations such as Blind Site and the Rifters series. Looking
Speaker 1: forward to that future Star Trek episode, Max, Yeah, we
Speaker 1: do need to do something Star Trek related eventually. I
Speaker 1: was just thinking about that the other day. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is really interesting because of course you're talking about
Speaker 1: like pairing the different kinds of waiting experience is one
Speaker 1: that is like just opportunistic and self governed, and the
Speaker 1: other that's an orderly, first come, first serve q uh.
Speaker 1: And it's funny that the first come, first serve q
Speaker 1: is the first half of the experience. But then you
Speaker 1: have to find a place to sit. I've into places.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's even like a food court type place
Speaker 1: here in Atlanta that I've been several times that it
Speaker 1: is much like this. You know, you you wait in
Speaker 1: line to get your food, but then you've got to
Speaker 1: find a table, and that's actually the really stressful part
Speaker 1: um But because at that point you've got your food
Speaker 1: like on a tray in many cases, and then where,
Speaker 1: like where are you gonna go like that's the worst.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh man, uh, I'm not gonna have to
Speaker 1: like squat and gobble this this uh this this meal somewhere. Yeah, totally.
Speaker 1: And and then the other interesting thing about it was
Speaker 1: how it changes your mentality about queuing and ordering access
Speaker 1: when what you're trying to get access to is not
Speaker 1: like a good or service that you, you know, get
Speaker 1: done and then you can leave, but an experience, like
Speaker 1: if you're, you know, sitting down to have a meal,
Speaker 1: is you're you're paying to have a nice experience that
Speaker 1: is going to be pleasant. And obviously if that experience
Speaker 1: is tempered by the fact that you're aware of people
Speaker 1: are like looming over your shoulder hurrying you to get up,
Speaker 1: that doesn't think that I don't know, but it sounds like,
Speaker 1: you know, for people who are used to it, and
Speaker 1: this is a common way of ordering restaurants, uh uh,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're used to it, I guess it
Speaker 1: just doesn't bother you. I guess it's like and this
Speaker 1: I'm very much talking pre pandemic times here. It's it's
Speaker 1: like if you travel to somewhere like New York City
Speaker 1: and you realize, oh, if I go to eat at
Speaker 1: a restaurant, I'm going to be exceedingly close to everybody
Speaker 1: else in that restaurant, because that's just how dining spaces
Speaker 1: tend to work. In a city like this, like that
Speaker 1: can be shocking, Uh, if you're coming from a place
Speaker 1: where you tend to have like, uh, you know, more
Speaker 1: of a you know, spacious dining experience. But if you
Speaker 1: if you've experienced enough, if you've been in New York
Speaker 1: City long enough, then you would grow accustomed to that
Speaker 1: sort of environment, and it just makes sense that you're
Speaker 1: this close to other people. Yeah, Rob, I wondered if
Speaker 1: you might want to read this one from Matt because
Speaker 1: I wonder if you've had a similar experience to what
Speaker 1: Matt describes here with with air travel. Okay, uh yeah,
Speaker 1: Matt rides Hello, Robert and Joe. I love the show
Speaker 1: and really enjoy the deep ways you've think about topics.
Speaker 1: I have three thoughts about waiting in line. Firstly, at
Speaker 1: the airport gate, when they call my section to board
Speaker 1: a plane, a hundred or so people jump to their
Speaker 1: feet to make a long line, while I prefer to
Speaker 1: stay in my seat as long as possible. Being six
Speaker 1: too tall, I don't see the point of rushing to
Speaker 1: leave my chair with plenty of leg room to squeeze
Speaker 1: into the tiny and cramped coach seat on the plane,
Speaker 1: let alone stand in line a line that doesn't help
Speaker 1: me in any way to gain a better position on
Speaker 1: the plane. Secondly, I would like to point out the
Speaker 1: disappointing feeling that occurs when you join a line and
Speaker 1: nobody else joins the line for a long time or never.
Speaker 1: It makes the time spending the line feel like so
Speaker 1: much more of a waste when I could have done
Speaker 1: something else productive for all that time and not missed
Speaker 1: out on my place in line. And Lastly, when I
Speaker 1: was in elementary school in Australian in the nineties, kids
Speaker 1: would frequently ask for backage, being asked can I have backage?
Speaker 1: And it meant may I get in line behind you?
Speaker 1: The person would usually grant the backage if they liked you,
Speaker 1: and hence you'd only ask for backage from a friend
Speaker 1: because it was an unofficial law amongst the kids. Although
Speaker 1: the kids trailing in line were unhappy about it, they
Speaker 1: would never complain about the injustice. Thanks for all the
Speaker 1: learning I get, Matt Rob. I could be mistaken, but
Speaker 1: I feel like what Matt describes about the airport experience
Speaker 1: sounds like a rant you've given me before. Am I
Speaker 1: wrong about that? I don't know. Possibly. I mean airports
Speaker 1: make people rant, and I'm no exception to that rule. Um,
Speaker 1: I would say the only exception that I have to
Speaker 1: to Matt's statement here is that, yes, of all things
Speaker 1: were equal, I would prefer not to wait in line
Speaker 1: to then go get on a plane and be cramped
Speaker 1: in a seat. However, more often than not, part of
Speaker 1: wanting to get on the plane first is not so
Speaker 1: much about getting your seat, which is generally on most
Speaker 1: flights anyway. I mean, I think there's some airlines where
Speaker 1: it is kind of first come, first served, but for
Speaker 1: the most part, yeah, your seat is guaranteed, but not
Speaker 1: necessarily space for your bag in the overhead compartment. So boy,
Speaker 1: that is that is what makes ends up making me
Speaker 1: nervous because I'm like, oh, all these people are already
Speaker 1: on the plane, am I going to have a space
Speaker 1: to put this? Or in any cases, you get the
Speaker 1: chance to like go ahead and check your carry on,
Speaker 1: and sometimes I do that just to avoid that particular headache.
Speaker 1: So if you've ever had a checked bag lost. Then
Speaker 1: that probably makes you a lot more hesitant to uh,
Speaker 1: just like hand over your bag at the gate. It's
Speaker 1: not fun. But I don't know. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I've been fortunately, I don't think I've had a bag
Speaker 1: ever lost like that. But I still I guess some
Speaker 1: of these unknowns right that ultimately make one nervous, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a line, how's it gonna work? What
Speaker 1: section am I in? And then is there gonna be
Speaker 1: a room for my bag? And I need to pre
Speaker 1: check the bag? Now it's I'm you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: kind of all over the place mentally. At that point,
Speaker 1: I wondered if you were going to do an Australian
Speaker 1: accent for the Australian elementary schoolers think apologize for that.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think by Australia an accent was
Speaker 1: ever very good at it kind of falters and becomes
Speaker 1: a bad Irish accent later on. Alright, this next message
Speaker 1: comes from somebody who just identified themselves as the letter A.
Speaker 1: So uh that is just fine, A, says dear Robert
Speaker 1: and Joe. So many things to write about Q theory.
Speaker 1: I consider myself a good natured pedant with an appreciation
Speaker 1: for the categorical imperative. For decades, I have gleefully and
Speaker 1: cautiously zoomed past dutiful fellow Midwesterners who start lining up
Speaker 1: single file at the first notice of a lane closure.
Speaker 1: My conscience is clear, as I'm mentally broadcast. Actually, it
Speaker 1: is better for everybody to use all the available lane
Speaker 1: capacity upon merging at a late enough entry point to
Speaker 1: get a little bit of a thrill. I will gladly
Speaker 1: let somebody else in front of me, and at times
Speaker 1: when I'm caught waiting through the long backup, I'll still
Speaker 1: happily let in someone who is on their game and
Speaker 1: gets in at the last minute, saluting them for their
Speaker 1: good use of the road. I related something like this
Speaker 1: to my boss on the way to a job site,
Speaker 1: and he said that people who wait until the last
Speaker 1: minute to merge should be taken out of their cars
Speaker 1: and publicly executed. Fortunately, he's hard of hearing, so he
Speaker 1: just assumed I was complaining about those who use all
Speaker 1: of the road that the public has given. He's quite reasonable,
Speaker 1: and normally we would be up for a loud discussion
Speaker 1: about a traffic study, but I let the matter rest
Speaker 1: This reminds me of the thing about I think the
Speaker 1: conclusion I came to about the late merging thing is
Speaker 1: that obviously, yes, it is clearly logical that that everybody
Speaker 1: should use all the lanes and do the late merging thing.
Speaker 1: But the problem is not everybody knows this, and until
Speaker 1: it is widely known and everybody gets it, you still
Speaker 1: maybe like have disincentives from doing it just because like
Speaker 1: people freak out, yeah, or it's just not the cultural norm.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like, um, it's like like eating bananas.
Speaker 1: So if you were hanging out with some with some people,
Speaker 1: or you just in an environment where hey, everybody has
Speaker 1: a banana. Now everybody gets to eat a banana. Are
Speaker 1: you going to open your banana the human way? Or
Speaker 1: you're going to open it the way that I believe
Speaker 1: primates have been observed to open it other non human primates, uh,
Speaker 1: from the bottom of the banana. Which I've heard the argument,
Speaker 1: and I don't know if this is actually the case,
Speaker 1: but I've heard the argument being made that this is
Speaker 1: the better way to open the banana. But if everyone
Speaker 1: else is doing it the other way, you're gonna feel
Speaker 1: social pressure to uh to to follow their suit right. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but also I mean there is a there is more
Speaker 1: of an illusion of a competition for resources in the
Speaker 1: traffic situation. Whereas a few people would want to shoot
Speaker 1: you in the face for the way you open a banana,
Speaker 1: people actually would say they want to do that about traffic.
Speaker 1: But of course, please nobody never engage in violence over
Speaker 1: even if somebody is actually genuinely very rude in traffic,
Speaker 1: Come on, it's not worth it and let people eat
Speaker 1: bananas how they want to eat bananas. Don't be a
Speaker 1: jerk about that either. I'm just gonna put that out there,
Speaker 1: So A goes on. I believe Q theory has some
Speaker 1: interesting applications in other dynamic road settings. When I'm on
Speaker 1: foot and need to cross street, I would much rather
Speaker 1: a multi ton vehicle keep its momentum rather than stop
Speaker 1: for me to cross and have to accelerate again. Um,
Speaker 1: that is really admirable global energy conservation thinking. A my
Speaker 1: hat is off to you, uh goes on, particularly when
Speaker 1: there are no other cars and everyone would be on
Speaker 1: their way more quickly if I only had to wait
Speaker 1: for them to cruise past my crossing point rather than
Speaker 1: waiting for them to come to a full stop before
Speaker 1: I cross in front of their deadly vehicle. I would
Speaker 1: consider this to be a good example of a parado improvement.
Speaker 1: I will typically conceal my intention to cross in order
Speaker 1: to facilitate this. Also, I'd much rather wait for a
Speaker 1: slug of traffic to clear the road than to make
Speaker 1: multiple cars stop just for me and mess up the flow.
Speaker 1: Where I live, people seem to fall all over themselves
Speaker 1: to stop their car for pedestrians waiting to cross. I
Speaker 1: believe this is the law, and there are obvious situations
Speaker 1: where it is the right thing to do, but it's
Speaker 1: clear that the system is flawed. Oh. I've certainly been
Speaker 1: in situations where clearly the pedestrian has the right away
Speaker 1: and there is a crosswalk, but traffic is terrifying, and
Speaker 1: therefore I might wait for, yeah, for there to be
Speaker 1: like a slight clearance, Like I'm not gonna be the
Speaker 1: one to like. I mean, my right of way only
Speaker 1: goes so far if a car actually hits me. Um,
Speaker 1: And sometimes I'll wait and for another person to want
Speaker 1: to cross as well, and we realize that their strength
Speaker 1: in numbers, surely they won't run over two or three
Speaker 1: of us. Or do you ever wait for a cyclist who,
Speaker 1: at least in my experience, for some reason, just seem
Speaker 1: to be more fearless. Maybe the fact that people on
Speaker 1: bicycles are just so constantly threatened and menaced by people
Speaker 1: in cars that like they become immune to it. Uh. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I always try and be very careful around uh bicyclists.
Speaker 1: You know that they say share the road, but I
Speaker 1: feel like yield the road is a little a little
Speaker 1: more accurate. Um, And I'm fine with it. I would
Speaker 1: rather I would. Yeah. I mean it's difficult because a
Speaker 1: lot of roads in modern cities and places are just
Speaker 1: not designed with cyclists in mind. I mean it's quae
Speaker 1: if they are like bike lanes or protected bike lanes
Speaker 1: or whatever. A lot of roads just like this is
Speaker 1: clearly this was not built to accommodate bicycles. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: um yeah, I mean I have friends who have have
Speaker 1: been in some some rough um scrape ups between their
Speaker 1: their bicycles and other cars. So I mean I always
Speaker 1: always be careful around bicyclists. A goes on. While I
Speaker 1: was visiting South Korea a while back. It was the
Speaker 1: norm for drivers to blow through red lights when no
Speaker 1: other vehicles were in sight quite rightly, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: it makes sense to reject the one vehicle queue. Also,
Speaker 1: they definitely didn't treat pedestrians waiting to cross with the
Speaker 1: same indulgence they get over here. I'm no expert, but
Speaker 1: it seems like widespread modern traffic is maybe more recent
Speaker 1: and even a developed country like South Korea, and that
Speaker 1: perhaps a country's general approach to traffic queuing situations will
Speaker 1: change as more generations go by widespread automobile use. I
Speaker 1: believe this was the case in the US as cars
Speaker 1: became more common, although that is obviously a bit different.
Speaker 1: Why do we wait at red lights at three am
Speaker 1: when no one else is on the road. When did
Speaker 1: we start doing this? Is this from our culture or
Speaker 1: because vehicular travel has reached a level of maturity or
Speaker 1: more abundity in our society. It seems counter to the
Speaker 1: American ideal of individualism. I mean, I guess in my
Speaker 1: perspective on that it would depend on you would want
Speaker 1: to be really sure that you were actually able to
Speaker 1: see clearly in every direction and make sure that you
Speaker 1: weren't mistaken about the fact that somebody wasn't coming. Though
Speaker 1: I guess that's also true of just to stop sign Yeah,
Speaker 1: our our turn signals, you know. I mean, that's always
Speaker 1: a situation where the turn signal lets people know what
Speaker 1: you're going to do, including people that you might not see,
Speaker 1: someone who might be in your blind spot, etcetera. Finally,
Speaker 1: a truly egregious cue violation is when a car intending
Speaker 1: to travel straight through an intersection stops in order to
Speaker 1: yield to a vehicle queued up to turn left, waving
Speaker 1: them through the intersection and into the path of other
Speaker 1: cars that are still following the natural queuing order and
Speaker 1: may not be able to react to this apostasy. This
Speaker 1: mock politeness is nothing more than a thoughtless, self serving
Speaker 1: grab for warm feelings and can be deadly. However, I
Speaker 1: do not believe it warrants public execution. Love the show
Speaker 1: A Oh yeah. I mean I encounter a version of
Speaker 1: that a lot where I'm I'm in a turn lane,
Speaker 1: or I'm trying to make a turn across traffic, and
Speaker 1: there I have to go across two lanes of oncoming traffic,
Speaker 1: and a person in one lane will suddenly stop and
Speaker 1: try and wave me on, but they can't see I
Speaker 1: can't see the other lane. They're not there. They probably
Speaker 1: have an entirely different view of this whole scenario. And
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna venture into this this danger, but it
Speaker 1: puts you in a tough spot because one person is
Speaker 1: trying to be polite. They're just you know, they don't
Speaker 1: have all the they don't have the virtues of your
Speaker 1: perspective on the situation which in which you realize that
Speaker 1: there's danger in following, uh, following their advice. I think
Speaker 1: the correct solution to this is that all settled areas
Speaker 1: of human habitation aations should be fully grid grid mapped
Speaker 1: in terms of road access, and left turns should all
Speaker 1: be illegal, so everywhere you get you go full right
Speaker 1: turns and nothing. But yeah, maybe so all right, we
Speaker 1: have another bit of listener male about sentient weapons here.
Speaker 1: Uh shall I read this one? Go for it? All right?
Speaker 1: This is from camera and hello Robert and Joe. I
Speaker 1: just listened to your episode Whispers of the Speaking Sword.
Speaker 1: I wanted to point out a couple of examples of
Speaker 1: such weapons. I am familiar with. The first, perhaps unsurprisingly
Speaker 1: considering the mythological origins comes from J. R. Tolkien. Token
Speaker 1: encountered the Calavaga before his earliest Middle Earth writings were begun,
Speaker 1: and some aspects of some of the stories would become
Speaker 1: the sill Marillion can be traced back to it. In particular,
Speaker 1: Token's tragic character Turin Tourambar from the chapter of Turin
Speaker 1: tour Rambar in the Silmarrian also and also from the
Speaker 1: longer version of the same tale has published more recently,
Speaker 1: The Children of huran Um. Anyway, they continued. This was
Speaker 1: inspired by Kolervo and even has a talking sword of
Speaker 1: its own. Turin's sword, named Girthong, appears to speak to
Speaker 1: Turin just before Turin uses it to commit suicide after
Speaker 1: discovering the truth about his accidentally incestuous marriage to his sister.
Speaker 1: This is of course, right out of the the Kalavala
Speaker 1: here Um Anyway, they continue. In earlier versions of the
Speaker 1: sill Marillion, this same sword is prophesized to be used
Speaker 1: during the final battle Degre Degre to defeat the first
Speaker 1: dark Lord more Goth when he returns from the void. Additionally,
Speaker 1: sentient or at least intelligent weapons also appear in um
Speaker 1: In Shin shah Uh. This is I believe literally Immortal
Speaker 1: hero Uh, the genre of Chinese fantasy literature where they
Speaker 1: are often referred to an English translation and as spiritual weapons.
Speaker 1: These weapons often appear to have some sense of preferences
Speaker 1: or intentions, a strong spiritual connection to their users or makers,
Speaker 1: and sometimes the ability to act with some degree of autonomy.
Speaker 1: I am personally very new to this genre, but a
Speaker 1: recent example has gained popularity in the US and the
Speaker 1: live action drama The Untamed, which includes a few examples
Speaker 1: of spiritual weapons being used by its main characters. Thanks
Speaker 1: for another enjoyable episode. Camera. You know my current D
Speaker 1: and D campaign. One of the members of our party
Speaker 1: is a cleric, and he's got a He's got a
Speaker 1: really good spiritual weapon. It's a big old ghost hammer.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, spiritual weapon. That's a that's a good, a
Speaker 1: good cleric spell. And every time he uses it, I
Speaker 1: end up singing that Snoop Dogg song spiritual weapon. I
Speaker 1: think the radio edit is called sensual seduction, but I
Speaker 1: seek spiritual weapon. Okay, And I've say I'm not familiar
Speaker 1: with this. Untamed TV series appears to be a two
Speaker 1: thousand nineteen Chinese television series adapted from a non full
Speaker 1: so it looks interesting, but I'm assuming this is one
Speaker 1: that has available, Uh, internationally on one service or another.
Speaker 1: So if you're interested in that, look it up. All right, Joe,
Speaker 1: do we have any weird house cinema listener mail to
Speaker 1: round things out with? Oh yeah, we got a bunch.
Speaker 1: I guess we've only got time for a couple right here,
Speaker 1: but i'll read this first one from Stacy since it's
Speaker 1: about Deep Blue Cy. Stacy says, hello again, gentlemen. I
Speaker 1: have indeed seen Deep Bluecy at the movies when it
Speaker 1: was new. I loved it then and still do. The
Speaker 1: biggest thing being talked about in my circles of the
Speaker 1: time was how this movie mercilessly killed off almost its
Speaker 1: whole cast. Whole families were saved in Jurassic Park, not
Speaker 1: so with the Smart Sharks. Also, I always thought Michael
Speaker 1: Rappaport's character was more of a facility engineer type. I
Speaker 1: think she's answering the fact that I said he was
Speaker 1: the scientist, so apologies about that, but she says he
Speaker 1: knew about the emergency hatch ladder. That's that's a good memory, Stacy.
Speaker 1: Best regards Stacy, and uh yeah, we're regarding your comparison
Speaker 1: to Jurassic Park, which is relatively uh very wooly, uh,
Speaker 1: compared to the way this movie treats its characters. I
Speaker 1: wonder if this is what the Jurassic Park franchise was
Speaker 1: trying to fix by filling Jurassic World with absolutely totally
Speaker 1: inappropriate deaths by torture of characters who had done nothing wrong. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's that whole sequence with the the lady getting scooped
Speaker 1: up by the Daranodon and then or or screaming or yeah,
Speaker 1: and then she's dropped into the tank with the Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's rough. I can't remember if I've ranted
Speaker 1: on this show before about how much I hate Jurassic World,
Speaker 1: that I found that movie just repellent. Um. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: remember disliking the tone of the time I first saw,
Speaker 1: but then I watched it again with the boy with
Speaker 1: my son and uh, and he seemed alright with it,
Speaker 1: so I'm kind of like, Okay, maybe I'm overreacting. Um.
Speaker 1: And then we watched that more recent one, which I
Speaker 1: don't know if I've mentioned this on the show before,
Speaker 1: but I found it interesting that it's it's essentially a
Speaker 1: Hannibal Lecter movie with but with dinosaurs. Was the Haunted
Speaker 1: House one? Yeah, yeah. Oh I liked that one more. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because that one was just absolutely that was goober licious.
Speaker 1: It was I don't know how else to put it.
Speaker 1: It was a Haunted House movie, but with raptors instead
Speaker 1: of ghosts. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I can I can
Speaker 1: definitely see I can see the Haunted House comparisons. I
Speaker 1: I do think it does have some It's kind of
Speaker 1: like if Thomas Harris wrote a dinosaur movie as well.
Speaker 1: There's some some some areas of it that I think
Speaker 1: line up with Hannibal elector fiction. But yeah, it was
Speaker 1: pretty fun. All right, I'm gonna read one here from Dan.
Speaker 1: Dan says, hello, Mr Rob and Mr Joe. I love
Speaker 1: Brad Doris and I'm so glad you finally discussed one
Speaker 1: of his movies. Why is Blood Next? I've never seen
Speaker 1: Spontaneous Combustion, though it sounds like something I might have
Speaker 1: watched on the Sci Fi Channel or T and T
Speaker 1: in the mid to late nineties, possibly with Joe Bob
Speaker 1: Briggs intro. Highly possible they continue. Two movies that show
Speaker 1: Doriff's range as an actor that you did not mention
Speaker 1: or talk much about that I'd like to recommend are
Speaker 1: Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning and Werner Herzog's The Wild Blue Yonder,
Speaker 1: the former being about the FBI investigation into the murders
Speaker 1: of three civil rights workers in Mississippi, in which Dorof
Speaker 1: plays a sheriff's deputy and KKK member involved in the killings,
Speaker 1: while the later is pure uncut doriff crazed intensity, in
Speaker 1: which he plays the alien that's all caps or at
Speaker 1: least capitalized, who spends much of this documentary quote unquote
Speaker 1: ranting to the camera about how he came from another
Speaker 1: galaxy and how we earthlings think aliens are so powerful
Speaker 1: but in truth just suck. Um. I um. It's been
Speaker 1: a long time time since I saw Mississippi Burning. I
Speaker 1: think I'm you know, I was like in junior higher
Speaker 1: so when I saw it, So I don't remember much
Speaker 1: of of Doriff's performance. I I definitely I remember of
Speaker 1: what's the who else? In that gene Hackman? Um. I've
Speaker 1: never seen it, obviously, dealing with the much more serious
Speaker 1: subject matter than anything we usually do in weird house cinema. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's one of well we'll come back to.
Speaker 1: But I remembered as is being a good film. It
Speaker 1: has what's his name? Green Goblin? Oh, Willem Dafoe. William
Speaker 1: Dafoe is in it. He's he's good. Uh. And I
Speaker 1: think it has some other actors of note. Uh. And
Speaker 1: I haven't seen The Wild Blue Yonder. There's another one
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with. I definitely know it's one of the
Speaker 1: Herzog Dorriff joints, but it's not one that I've seen anyway.
Speaker 1: Dan continues speaking of aliens. What is it about Alien
Speaker 1: Resurrection that Joe hates so much? I haven't seen it
Speaker 1: in a long time, but I don't remember it being
Speaker 1: that terrible. Was it that they brought Ripley back as
Speaker 1: a clone with Zeno morph d n A. On another note,
Speaker 1: I just want to say that I enjoy how Robert
Speaker 1: calls movies films, motion pictures or just picture. I think
Speaker 1: it brings a lot of classiness to the show. I
Speaker 1: hope you're doing well. Love the show, Dan. I think
Speaker 1: for some reason you were saying motion picture a lot
Speaker 1: in the episode on spontaneous combustion just in the air
Speaker 1: that day. I don't know, I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: it's probably elegant variation on my part, but but now
Speaker 1: maybe I was trying to class it up a little
Speaker 1: bit too. About Alien Resurrection. It's not any particular broad
Speaker 1: plot decisions. I mean, I think most broad plot decisions
Speaker 1: I could be okay with, if you know, if they're executed. Well,
Speaker 1: it's just something I just find the movie esthetically nauseating,
Speaker 1: just like every single frame of it and the way
Speaker 1: it looks, the way it sounds is just disgusting to me.
Speaker 1: M I have to say, I don't know much about
Speaker 1: like the making of story on that one, but it
Speaker 1: clearly has It has so many talented people involved in it.
Speaker 1: Uh the I mean, the the whole cast we we
Speaker 1: mentioned briefly, I think the last one. How how many
Speaker 1: great names are involved in that one? Um uh, you know,
Speaker 1: bit players and the main characters, and of course the
Speaker 1: director Jean Pierre Janet, who did such films as a
Speaker 1: Malay and Delicatessen, UM, Very Long Lost Children, Yes, did
Speaker 1: City of Lost Children as well, which you know is
Speaker 1: is these are all films that really pop visually and
Speaker 1: and and I really like. Uh. Resurrection is not a
Speaker 1: film that I'm tremendously opposed to, but it's also not
Speaker 1: a film I've I've really watched a lot and I
Speaker 1: would be curious as to what it's production history is
Speaker 1: because I know, when you're dealing with an Alien film,
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a you know, a huge corporate product. Uh.
Speaker 1: And of course they're stories, especially like Alien three, about
Speaker 1: how susceptible that product is to like produce or tinkering
Speaker 1: and so forth. Yeah, I mean, I guess, just being
Speaker 1: a huge fan of the first two Alien movies, I
Speaker 1: have a lot of strong feelings about it too, so
Speaker 1: uh though I actually really appreciate a lot of things
Speaker 1: about Alien three. I mean, Alien three is a hard movie,
Speaker 1: uh to judge in terms of quality, because I think
Speaker 1: I've said this on the show before, but I sort
Speaker 1: of have to regard it as an unfinished film. It
Speaker 1: is a movie that has a lot of good stuff
Speaker 1: on the screen, a lot of good creative energy behind it,
Speaker 1: some really great actors in it. Of course, Sigourney Weavers
Speaker 1: wonderful as always, Charles Stutton, you know, that's all great stuff.
Speaker 1: And I really like some of the production design on it.
Speaker 1: And and basically the premise of the movie is interesting
Speaker 1: and very gutsy in a way. But also I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, having read about the production, I can understand
Speaker 1: why Fincher tried to disown it. The director David Fincher,
Speaker 1: I think just because like it's a movie that, uh,
Speaker 1: he was not allowed to complete in a way that
Speaker 1: was creatively acceptable to him. And so in a way
Speaker 1: what we have is just sort of like a an
Speaker 1: unfinished film held together by duct tape and staples. Resurrection
Speaker 1: I find absolutely revolting and it literally hurts the viewer
Speaker 1: um as once you get back into the modern era.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen Prometheus again since I saw it in
Speaker 1: the theater, and I wonder what I would think of
Speaker 1: it now. I mean, my memory of it is, uh
Speaker 1: that it was very beautiful to look at and had
Speaker 1: some really good sequences, but overall not make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense and and kind of irritated me. And then
Speaker 1: once you get into oh what was the one after
Speaker 1: that one called Covenant? Alien Covenant, once you get into
Speaker 1: that area, it's like so stupid that it can just
Speaker 1: be pure fun again. Uh So that's one of those movies.
Speaker 1: I think I've said this about a few movies recently.
Speaker 1: It's one where almost everything I can think of to
Speaker 1: say about it as a criticism and yet I really
Speaker 1: enjoyed it I love how in the middle of the
Speaker 1: movie you have no choice, like your eyes just turned
Speaker 1: into ping pong balls. It is it? Uh is? It
Speaker 1: turns into this Island of Dr Moreau movie with with
Speaker 1: with Michael Fastbender in the in the Moreau role. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's so weird and so dumb and makes
Speaker 1: so little sense, but it's a lot of fun. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think Alien Covenant is essentially there three films in there,
Speaker 1: and I love two of them. Um, but but but
Speaker 1: what about the a VP films? Joe, you just get
Speaker 1: right over him. You can't talk about dumb alien films
Speaker 1: without touching touching in on those right. Oh yeah, that's
Speaker 1: a different kind of dumb. I haven't watched those in
Speaker 1: a while. I think I remember the first one being bad,
Speaker 1: but you know, in an enjoyable kind of schlocky movie
Speaker 1: that I would definitely watched a couple of times in college.
Speaker 1: There was one that came after that. There was like
Speaker 1: set in an American city. It was more like the
Speaker 1: you know, trying to do the thing that that the
Speaker 1: more recent Predator movie was also doing, just like unleashing
Speaker 1: these on suburbia or whatever. I remember thinking that that
Speaker 1: one was really gross and unpleasant. Yeah, I think what
Speaker 1: the world needed. I don't know if this is still
Speaker 1: a viable option, but I'm thinking underworld versus alien versus predator,
Speaker 1: that's what the world needs. You get you get your alien,
Speaker 1: I mean, you get your aliens in there, eena more
Speaker 1: so you have your predators in there. You also have
Speaker 1: werewolves and vampires. How about and leprechron also because you
Speaker 1: gotta have brad Dora. Oh yeah, yeah, why not? Why not?
Speaker 1: How about alien versus Chucky? There you go. Alien is
Speaker 1: not gonna know what to do. This is just a
Speaker 1: stuff toy, right right? Or let a man lebra con
Speaker 1: What's he gonna do is grant a wish to a xenomorph?
Speaker 1: But what does the xenomorph dream about? I wish for meat? Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: we've gone too long, alright, alright, Well we're gonna go
Speaker 1: ahead and close it up here. But we thank everybody
Speaker 1: who wrote in shared messages with us. Keep keep them coming.
Speaker 1: We don't have time to respond to all of them.
Speaker 1: We don't have time to read them all on the show,
Speaker 1: but we we do. We do read them when they
Speaker 1: come in, at least to ourselves internally, in our own brains. Uh.
Speaker 1: So yeah, if you have thoughts on recent episodes, um,
Speaker 1: past episodes, Uh, if you have episodes on I mean
Speaker 1: you have thoughts on possible future episodes, or if you
Speaker 1: have episodes on possible future thoughts, Uh, just let us know.
Speaker 1: You know how to get in touch with us, and
Speaker 1: you can find listener mail every Monday and the Stuff
Speaker 1: to Boil Your Mind feed Core episodes on Tuesdays and
Speaker 1: Thursday's Artifact on Wednesday, Weird House cent them on Friday.
Speaker 1: That's our time to just set most of the science
Speaker 1: aside and discuss a weird film. And on the weekends
Speaker 1: we have a rerun for you Huge Things. As always
Speaker 1: to our excellent audio producers Seth Nicholis Johnson. If you
Speaker 1: would to get in touch with us with feedback on
Speaker 1: this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for
Speaker 1: the future, or just to say hello, you can email
Speaker 1: us at contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts my Heart Radio, visit the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.