How Do Computers Work?: New Video Series Explains the Inner Workings of the Device You Use Every Day

How do com­put­ers work? Yes, that appli­ance you use every day? To help answer the ques­tion, Code.org (a non-prof­it ded­i­cat­ed to expand­ing access to com­put­er sci­ence) has put togeth­er a col­lec­tion of primers that explain some of the oft-dis­cussed com­po­nents of computers–circuits, mem­o­ry, CPU, etc. And how they all fit togeth­er.

The first video starts off with an intro­duc­tion by Bill Gates. Watch the remain­ing five videos (each about five min­utes long) just by let­ting the playlist run above. Or see this video col­lec­tion on YouTube.

h/t Paul

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Com­put­er Sci­ence Cours­es

Learn to Code with Harvard’s Pop­u­lar Intro to Com­put­er Sci­ence Course: The 2016 Edi­tion

Free Text­books: Com­put­er Sci­ence

Learn Python: A Free Online Course from Google

Learn Python: A Free Online Course from Google

Read A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, a Hilarious & Informative Collection of Early Modern English Slang (1785)

A deep appre­ci­a­tion for pro­fan­i­ty may rate high as a mark of a sophis­ti­ca­tion and authen­tic­i­ty. Cog­ni­tive psy­chol­o­gist Steven Pinker has made the neu­ro­science of swear­ing an object of study; leg­endary com­ic actor, writer, and “lan­guage enthu­si­ast” Stephen Fry declares the prac­tice a fine art; stud­ies show that those who swear may be more hon­est than those who don’t; and if you have any doubt about how much swear­ing con­tributes to the lit­er­ary his­to­ry of the Eng­lish lan­guage, just do a search on Shakespeare’s many pro­fane insults, so rich and var­ied as to con­sti­tute a genre all their own.

Not all vul­gar speech is con­sid­ered “swear words,” ref­er­enc­ing sex acts and bod­i­ly func­tions, but many a crit­ic and lex­i­cog­ra­ph­er has nonethe­less decid­ed that slang, obscene or oth­er­wise, doesn’t belong in polite com­pa­ny with for­mal dic­tion. Samuel John­son, the esteemed 18th-cen­tu­ry essay­ist, poet, and com­pil­er of the 1755 Dic­tio­nary of the Eng­lish Lan­guage deemed slang “unfit for his learned tome,” writes The Pub­lic Domain Review. So, enter Fran­cis Grose to cor­rect the error thir­ty years lat­er with his Clas­si­cal Dic­tio­nary of the Vul­gar Tongue, a “com­pendi­um of slang” chock full of hilar­i­ous idioms of every kind.

There is the bawdy (“Sug­ar stick—the vir­ile mem­ber”), the scat­o­log­i­cal (“Cack­ling farts—eggs”), the odd­ly obscure (“Kit­tle pitchering—to dis­rupt the flow of a ‘trou­ble­some teller of long sto­ries’ by con­stant­ly ques­tion­ing and con­tra­dict­ing unim­por­tant details, espe­cial­ly at the start”). Puns make their inevitable way in (“Just-ass—a pun­ning name for jus­tice [judge]”), as of course do com­ic images for body parts (“Tallywags/Whirligigs—testicles”). Much of this Ear­ly Mod­ern Eng­lish slang sounds to Amer­i­can ears just as col­or­ful­ly askew as con­tem­po­rary Eng­lish slang does (“Dog booby—an awk­ward lout”; “Cap­tain queernabs—a shab­by ill-dressed fel­low”).

Grose, com­pil­er of the dic­tio­nary, “was not one for library work” and pre­ferred to col­lect his spec­i­mens in the field where slang lives and breathes—the streets, pubs, and hous­es of ill-repute. “Sup­port­ed by his trusty assist Tom Cock­ing [your joke here],” Grose “cruised the water­ing holes of Covent Gar­den and the East End, eat­ing, booz­ing, and lis­ten­ing. He took plea­sure in hear­ing his name pun­ning­ly con­nect­ed to his rotund frame. And he pro­duced a book brim­ming with Fal­staffi­an life.” Very much a Shake­speare­an bon vivant, Grose appears as some­thing of a rib­ald dop­pel­ganger of the rotund, yet moral­is­tic and often scowl­ing Dr. John­son. (See his por­trait here.)

The so-called “long 18th-Century”—a peri­od last­ing from the restora­tion of the Monar­chy after the Eng­lish Civ­il War to around the French Revolution—presents a tra­di­tion of lewd wit­ti­cism, from the poet­ry of John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, to Jonathan Swift’s “The Lady’s Dress­ing Room,” to the sor­did fan­tasies of the Mar­quis de Sade. Such porno­graph­ic humor and rude earth­i­ness offered a coun­ter­weight to heady Enlight­en­ment phi­los­o­phy, just as Shakespeare’s insults pro­vide need­ed com­ic relief for his bloody tragedies. Grose’s dic­tio­nary can be seen as adding need­ed com­ic local col­or to the many seri­ous dic­tio­nar­ies and stud­ies of lan­guage that emerged in the 1700s.

But A Clas­si­cal Dic­tio­nary of the Vul­gar Tongue is also an impor­tant aca­d­e­m­ic resource all its own, and “would strong­ly influ­ence lat­er dic­tio­nar­ies of this kind,” notes the British Library—those like J. Red­ding Ware’s 1909 Pass­ing Eng­lish of the Vic­to­ri­an Era: A Dic­tio­nary of Het­ero­dox Eng­lish, Slang, and Phrase. We can see in Grose’s work how many slang words and phras­es still in com­mon use today—like “baker’s dozen,” “gift of the gab,” “birds of a feath­er,” “birth­day suit,” and “kick the bucket”—were just as cur­rent well over 200 years ago. And we get a very vivid sense of the world in which Grose moved in the many metaphors employed, most involv­ing food and drink. (A “butcher’s dog,” for exam­ple, refers to some­one who “lies by the beef with­out touch­ing it; a sim­i­le often applic­a­ble to mar­ried men.”)

But we needn’t wor­ry too much about schol­ar­ly uses for Grose’s work. Instead, we might find our­selves moti­vat­ed to do as he did, hit the streets and the bars, and maybe bring back into cir­cu­la­tion such locu­tions as “Bet­wat­tled” (sur­prised, con­found­ed, out of one’s sens­es), “Chimp­ing mer­ry” (exhil­a­rat­ed with liquor), or, per­haps my favorite so far, “Dicked in the nob” (sil­ly, crazed).

Page through Grose’s dic­tio­nary above or read it in a larg­er for­mat (and/or down­load as a PDF or ePub) at the Inter­net Archive.

via Pub­lic Domain Review

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Largest His­tor­i­cal Dic­tio­nary of Eng­lish Slang Now Free Online: Cov­ers 500 Years of the “Vul­gar Tongue”

The Very First Writ­ten Use of the F Word in Eng­lish (1528)

Peo­ple Who Swear Are More Hon­est Than Those Who Don’t, Finds a New Uni­ver­si­ty Study

Stephen Fry, Lan­guage Enthu­si­ast, Defends The “Unnec­es­sary” Art Of Swear­ing

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

When the Sex Pistols Played at the Chelmsford Top Security Prison: Hear Vintage Tracks from the 1976 Gig

Seri­ous fans of live record­ings well know that such pro­duc­tions are usu­al­ly doc­tored before they reach the mass­es, with effects added to sweet­en the mix, record­ing errors cor­rect­ed, instru­ments and crowd noise over­dubbed, tracks rearranged, and per­for­mances from dif­fer­ent nights com­bined. It’s a com­mon prac­tice and shouldn’t alarm any­one expect­ing absolute doc­u­men­tary fideli­ty. If you couldn’t make the show to expe­ri­ence the band first­hand, they’d at least like you to hear them at their best. (Who could resist the oppor­tu­ni­ty to revise, say, a pub­lic speak­ing gig after the fact?)

When record com­pa­nies are involved, every effort can go into mak­ing a saleable prod­uct, but heavy edit­ing usu­al­ly doesn’t hap­pen to taped bootlegs. One notable excep­tion hap­pens to come from an excep­tion­al gig, when the Sex Pis­tols fol­lowed John­ny Cash’s exam­ple and played the Chelms­ford Top Secu­ri­ty Prison dur­ing their first major tour of Eng­land in 1976 for an audi­ence of 500 pris­on­ers. Part­ly due to a seri­ous record­ing issue—the near total fail­ure to cap­ture orig­i­nal bassist Glen Matlock—and part­ly to a “con­fused idea of what would make for a wor­thy release,” writes Ned Raggett at All­mu­sic, the band’s sound­man Dave Good­man decid­ed to make sev­er­al alter­ations to the record­ing.

These changes, in turn, gave rise to a mythol­o­gy sur­round­ing the show, rais­ing its rep­u­ta­tion to the lev­els of chaos for which the Pis­tols are renowned. That rep­u­ta­tion itself large­ly revolves around Sid Vicious’ lat­er onstage antics, and is at times inflat­ed. The Pis­tols could be a great live band—Steve Jones, Paul Cook, and Mat­lock were all more than capa­ble musi­cians, and John­ny Rot­ten was a per­fect punk spec­ta­cle all his own. But the ele­ments didn’t always come togeth­er amidst the band’s unre­hearsed dis­or­der.

The audi­ence at Chelms­ford were, please excuse the pun, a cap­tive one, and there­fore, unable to dis­play the same unbri­dled enthu­si­asm as the band’s usu­al crowds of rub­ber­neck­ers and scen­esters. To play up the gig, then, Good­man dubbed in the sounds of “ran­dom crowd and vio­lence noise” and sirens. He didn’t only see fit to over­dub Matlock’s miss­ing bass, but also added in “an incred­i­bly poor Rot­ten imi­ta­tor goad­ing the ‘pris­on­ers’ on between songs,” Ragett notes, “as well as often singing on top of the real Rot­ten him­self!” That first 1990 release of Live at Chelms­ford does not so much gild the band’s musi­cal strengths as it “plays on the revolutionary/anarchy side of the punk image to no avail.”

Luck­i­ly, the orig­i­nal record­ings remained, and were released lat­er on the Sex Pis­tols Alive com­pi­la­tion, in their orig­i­nal order, and, rearranged, on a sec­ond Live at Chelms­ford Prison CD. It is the orig­i­nals, with min­i­mal treat­ment, that you can hear here. At the top is “Anar­chy in the UK,” below it “Sub­mis­sion,” and a sneer­ing cov­er of The Who’s “Sub­sti­tute” fur­ther down.  The giant hole in the mid­dle of the mix where Matlock’s bass should be is hard to ignore, but over­all, these are some occa­sion­al­ly great per­for­mances, par­tic­u­lar­ly from Cook and Jones, whose pound­ing drums and blis­ter­ing gui­tar come through loud and clear, often bury­ing Rotten’s voice, which is mud­died through­out.

But a good record­ing of half the band hard­ly sells the leg­end of the Sex Pis­tols, espe­cial­ly the Sex Pis­tols in prison. “By all accounts,” writes Raggett, “it was a bit of a har­row­ing expe­ri­ence.” But you’d have to have been there to know it, and you prob­a­bly wouldn’t want to be. So it’s no won­der Good­man saw the need to spruce things up with what Discogs’ notes describe as “a canned audio track of a riot (com­plete with shout­ing, scuf­fles, break­ing glass, etc.)” A lot of peo­ple hat­ed it, but if you’re real­ly curi­ous, you can grab a copy of the over­dubbed ver­sion and hear for your­self. Or lis­ten to the full, undoc­tored, record­ing on YouTube.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Sex Pis­tols Make a Scan­dalous Appear­ance on the Bill Grundy Show & Intro­duce Punk Rock to the Star­tled Mass­es (1976)

Watch the Sex Pis­tols’ Christ­mas Par­ty for Children–Which Hap­pened to Be Their Final Gig in the UK (1977)

Watch the Sex Pis­tols’ Very Last Con­cert (San Fran­cis­co, 1978)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Noam Chomsky Explains What’s Wrong with Postmodern Philosophy & French Intellectuals, and How They End Up Supporting Oppressive Power Structures

Noam Chom­sky has always had iras­ci­ble tendencies—when he doesn’t like some­thing, he lets us know it, with­out ever rais­ing his voice and usu­al­ly with plen­ty of foot­notes. It’s a qual­i­ty that has made the emer­i­tus MIT pro­fes­sor and famed lin­guist such a potent crit­ic of U.S. empire for half a cen­tu­ry, vig­or­ous­ly denounc­ing the Viet­nam War, the Iraq War(s), and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of a cat­a­stroph­ic war with North Korea. Chom­sky isn’t a pro­fes­sion­al his­to­ri­an or polit­i­cal philoso­pher; these are avo­ca­tions he has tak­en on to bol­ster his argu­ments. But those argu­ments are strength­ened by his will­ing­ness to engage with pri­ma­ry sources and take them seri­ous­ly.

When it comes, how­ev­er, to his much-pub­li­cized feud with “Post­mod­ernism,” a term he uses lib­er­al­ly at times to describe almost all post-war French intel­lec­tu­al cul­ture, Chom­sky rarely con­fronts his oppo­nents in their own terms. That’s large­ly because, as he’s said on many occa­sions, he can’t make any sense of them. It’s not exact­ly an orig­i­nal cri­tique. Man­darins of French thought like Jean-Fran­cois Lyotard, Jacques Lacan, and Jean Bau­drillard have been accused for decades, and not with­out mer­it, of know­ing­ly ped­dling bull­shit to a French read­er­ship that expects, as Michel Fou­cault once admit­ted, a manda­to­ry “ten per­cent incom­pre­hen­si­ble.” (Soci­ol­o­gist Pierre Bour­dieu asserts that the num­ber is much high­er.)

But Chomsky’s cri­tique goes fur­ther, in a direc­tion that doesn’t get near­ly as much press as his charges of obscu­ran­tism and overuse of insu­lar jar­gon. Chom­sky claims that far from offer­ing rad­i­cal new ways of con­ceiv­ing the world, Post­mod­ern thought serves as an instru­ment of oppres­sive pow­er struc­tures. It’s an inter­est­ing asser­tion giv­en some recent argu­ments that “post-truth” post­mod­ernism is respon­si­ble for the rise of the self-described “alt-right” and the rapid spread of fake infor­ma­tion as a tool for the cur­rent U.S. rul­ing par­ty seiz­ing pow­er.

Not only is there “a lot of mate­r­i­al reward,” Chom­sky says, that comes from the aca­d­e­m­ic super­star­dom many high-pro­file French philoso­phers achieved, but their position—or lack of a clear position—“allows peo­ple to take a very rad­i­cal stance… but to be com­plete­ly dis­so­ci­at­ed from every­thing that’s hap­pen­ing.” Chom­sky gives an exam­ple above of an anony­mous post­mod­ernist crit­ic brand­ing a talk he gave as “naïve” for its dis­cus­sion of such out­mod­ed “Enlight­en­ment stuff” as mak­ing moral deci­sions and refer­ring to such a thing as “truth.” In his brief dis­cus­sion of “the strange bub­ble of French intel­lec­tu­als” at the top of the post, Chom­sky gets more spe­cif­ic.

Most post-war French philoso­phers, he alleges, have been Stal­in­ists or Maoists (he uses the exam­ple of Julia Kris­te­va), and have uncrit­i­cal­ly embraced author­i­tar­i­an state com­mu­nism despite its doc­u­ment­ed crimes and abus­es, while reject­ing oth­er modes of philo­soph­i­cal thought like log­i­cal pos­i­tivism that accept the valid­i­ty of the sci­en­tif­ic method. This may or may not be a fair cri­tique: polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tions shift and change (and at times we accept a thinker’s work while ful­ly reject­ing their per­son­al pol­i­tics). And the post­mod­ern cri­tique of sci­en­tif­ic dis­course as form of oppres­sive pow­er is a seri­ous one that need­n’t entail a whole­sale rejec­tion of sci­ence.

Are there any post-struc­tural­ist thinkers Chom­sky admires? Though he takes a lit­tle dig at Michel Fou­cault in the clip above, he and the French the­o­rist have had some fruit­ful debates, “on real issues,” Chom­sky says, “and using lan­guage that was per­fect­ly comprehensible—he speak­ing French, me Eng­lish.” That’s not a sur­prise. The two thinkers, despite the immense dif­fer­ence in their styles and frames of ref­er­ence, both engage heav­i­ly with pri­ma­ry his­tor­i­cal sources and both con­sis­tent­ly write his­to­ries of ide­ol­o­gy.

It is part­ly through the inter­play between Fou­cault and Chomsky’s ideas that we might find a syn­the­sis of French Marx­ist post-struc­tural­ist thought and Amer­i­can anar­chist polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy. Rather than see­ing them as pro­fes­sion­al wrestlers in the ring, with the post­mod­ernist as the heel and head­lines like “Chom­sky DESTROYS Post­mod­ernism,” we could look for com­ple­men­tar­i­ty and points of agree­ment, and gen­uine­ly read, as dif­fi­cult as that can be, as many of the argu­ments of post­mod­ern French philoso­phers as we can (and per­haps this defense of obscu­ran­tism) before decid­ing with a sweep­ing ges­ture that none of them make any sense.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Online Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed “Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms”

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky & Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature & Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

MIT Is Dig­i­tiz­ing a Huge Archive of Noam Chomsky’s Lec­tures, Papers and Oth­er Doc­u­ments & Will Put Them Online

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Criterion Collection Films 50% Off for a Limited Time: Get Great Films at Half Price

FYI. Until noon east­ern time tomor­row (2/14), the Cri­te­ri­on Col­lec­tion is run­ning a flash sale (click here), giv­ing you a chance to pur­chase “all in-stock Blu-rays & DVDs at 50% off.” Just use the pro­mo code GOLD and get clas­sic films by Hitch­cock, Lynch, Welles, Kubrick, the Coen Broth­ers, and many oth­ers.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Designer Creates Origami Cardboard Tents to Shelter the Homeless from the Winter Cold

Dur­ing the day, Xavier Van der Stap­pen runs an elec­tric car com­pa­ny. At night, the Bel­gian entrepreneur/designer helps spear­head the ORIG-AMI project, which cre­ates origa­mi-style card­board tents designed to shield Brus­sels’ home­less from the bit­ter cold of win­ter. Card­board is light and portable. It holds heat fair­ly well. And the card­board tents (as opposed to oth­er struc­tures) are legal on Brus­sels’ streets. The cost for each life-sav­ing struc­ture? Only $36.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How to “Hijack” Ama­zon Prime for Good: Short Video Shows How Prime & Oth­er Instant Deliv­ery Ser­vices Can Eas­i­ly Help the Home­less

MIT Cre­ates Amaz­ing Self-Fold­ing Origa­mi Robots & Leap­ing Chee­tah Robots

How Josephine Bak­er Went From Home­less Street Per­former to Inter­na­tion­al Super­star, French Resis­tance Fight­er & Civ­il Rights Hero

Reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein on Its 200th Anniversary: An Animated Primer to the Great Monster Story & Technology Cautionary Tale

200 years ago, 18-year-old Mary Shel­ley did an extra­or­di­nary thing. After a drea­ry win­ter evening spent indoors telling ghost sto­ries dur­ing the sto­ried “year with­out a sum­mer,” she took her idea and turned it into a nov­el. In Jan­u­ary of 1818, Franken­stein; or, The Mod­ern Prometheus appeared, first pub­lished anony­mous­ly in an edi­tion of 500 copies, with a pref­ace by her hus­band, poet Per­cy Bysshe Shel­ley. Grant­ed, Mary Shel­ley wasn’t an ordi­nary 18-year-old. In addi­tion to her romance with Shel­ley and friend­ship with Lord Byron, she was also the daugh­ter of philoso­phers William God­win and Mary Woll­stonecraft. Which is to say that she was steeped in Roman­tic poet­ry and Vic­to­ri­an thought from a very ear­ly age, and con­ver­sant with the intel­lec­tu­al con­tro­ver­sies of the day.

Nonethe­less, the young novelist’s achievement—her syn­the­sis of so many 19th-cen­tu­ry anx­i­eties into a mon­ster sto­ry rivaled only, per­haps, by Bram Stoker’s Drac­u­la—remains as impres­sive now as it was then. Shel­ley tells the leg­endary tale of the novel’s com­po­si­tion her­self in an intro­duc­tion to the heav­i­ly revised 1831 edi­tion. In the ani­mat­ed video above, schol­ar Iseult Gille­spie sketch­es out the book’s basics (as we know, Franken­stein is the name of the monster’s cre­ator; the mon­ster him­self remains name­less), then briefly explains some of its “mul­ti­ple mean­ings.”

We may be con­di­tioned by the genius of James Whale and Mel Brooks to think of the novel’s cen­ter as the doctor’s elec­tri­fied lab­o­ra­to­ry, but “the plot turns on a chill­ing chase” between mon­ster and doc­tor, and what a chase it is. The book’s grip­ping action scenes get bad­ly under­sold in con­cep­tions of Franken­stein (or the mon­ster, rather) as a sad, stu­pid, lum­ber­ing beast. In fact, Franken­stein, says Gille­spie, “is one of the first cau­tion­ary tales about arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence.” The novel’s Roman­tic inter­est in mythol­o­gy (spelled out more direct­ly by Per­cy two years lat­er in his Prometheus Unbound) and its use of Goth­ic devices to evoke dread mark it as a com­pli­cat­ed work, and its crea­ture as a very com­pli­cat­ed monster—a per­pet­u­al­ly rel­e­vant sym­bol of the hor­rors unchecked sci­en­tif­ic exper­i­men­ta­tion might unleash.

Shel­ley also inscribed her per­son­al trau­ma in the text; though well-known as the daugh­ter of the famed Wollstonecraft—author of the “key fem­i­nist text” A Vin­di­ca­tion of the Rights of WomenShel­ley nev­er actu­al­ly got to know her moth­er. Woll­stonecraft died of com­pli­ca­tions in child­birth, and Shel­ley, haunt­ed by guilt, and her grief over sev­er­al mis­car­riages she suf­fered, the first at age 16, uses what seems like a sto­ry sole­ly about male cre­ative agency to intro­duce themes of child­birth “as both cre­ative and destruc­tive.”

But most­ly Franken­stein comes to us as a nov­el about the “pow­er of rad­i­cal ideas to expose dark­er areas of life.” Though it may do the nov­el a crit­i­cal injus­tice to call it the Black Mir­ror (or Prometheus) of its time, the anx­ious con­tem­po­rary anthol­o­gy show is insep­a­ra­ble from a lin­eage of cre­ative texts in hor­ror and sci­ence fic­tion that owe a tremen­dous debt to the bril­liance of the young Mary Shel­ley. For more info on the ori­gins of this famous book, read Jill Lep­ore’s 200th-anniver­sary essay at The New York­er, and see all of the known man­u­scripts dig­i­tized at the Shel­ley-God­win archive.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mary Shelley’s Hand­writ­ten Man­u­scripts of Franken­stein Now Online for the First Time

The Very First Film Adap­ta­tion of Mary Shelley’s Franken­stein, a Thomas Edi­son Pro­duc­tion (1910)

Franken­wee­nie: Tim Bur­ton Turns Franken­stein Tale into Dis­ney Kids Film (1984)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Watch Edith+Eddie, an Intense, Oscar-Nominated Short Film About America’s Oldest Interracial Newlyweds

It says a great deal about the accep­tance of inter­ra­cial mar­riage in Amer­i­ca that you don’t much hear the phrase “inter­ra­cial mar­riage” itself any­more: in much of the coun­try, such unions have become so com­mon as not to mer­it their own intel­lec­tu­al cat­e­go­ry. But what about elder­ly inter­ra­cial new­ly­weds? That much more demo­graph­i­cal­ly unusu­al phe­nom­e­non — or rather, the actu­al nona­ge­nar­i­an, recent­ly mar­ried inter­ra­cial cou­ple of Edith Hill and Eddie Har­ri­son — pro­vides the sub­ject for Lau­ra Check­oway’s short doc­u­men­tary Edith+Eddie, which you can watch free on Topic.com.

“Hill was 96 and Har­ri­son 95 years old when they were mar­ried, and the film bills the two as ‘Amer­i­ca’s old­est inter­ra­cial new­ly­weds’ at the time of their union in 2014,” writes the Hol­ly­wood Reporter’s Chris Gard­ner in an arti­cle on the film’s hav­ing been pro­duced by Cher.

But “what could’ve been a heart-warm­ing love sto­ry turned into some­thing trag­ic as the two were sep­a­rat­ed by Hill’s fam­i­ly in a bit­ter fam­i­ly feud,” a source of much of the con­sid­er­able dra­ma in the movie’s 30 min­utes. “The cou­ple had been shar­ing Hill’s Vir­ginia home until one of her daugh­ters forcibly moved her to Flori­da, sep­a­rat­ing the cou­ple.”

Alas, Har­ri­son died dur­ing a bout of influen­za just three months lat­er. “He lived for her, and she lived for him. It’s the love sto­ry of the cen­tu­ry,” said Hill’s daugh­ter, quot­ed in a Guardian arti­cle that describes how “their mar­riage was prob­lem­at­ic because Hill has been declared legal­ly inca­pac­i­tat­ed for sev­er­al years.” Anoth­er daugh­ter “con­test­ed the mar­riage, say­ing it would com­pli­cate the even­tu­al dis­tri­b­u­tion of Hill’s estate. But Hill and Har­ri­son said they want­ed to stay togeth­er.” And giv­en all they’d lived through — “the two long­time Vir­gini­ans would not have been allowed to mar­ry if they had met in their 20s, 30s or 40s under state law at the time” — one eas­i­ly under­stands why.

Stream Edith+Eddie for free on Topic.com.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A 103-Year-Old Harlem Renais­sance Dancer Sees Her­self on Film for the First Time & Becomes an Inter­net Star

Charles Dar­win Cre­ates a Hand­writ­ten List of Argu­ments for and Against Mar­riage (1838)

Chris Rock Reads James Baldwin’s Still Time­ly Let­ter on Race in Amer­i­ca: “We Can Make What Amer­i­ca Must Become”

Richard Feynman’s Let­ter to His Depart­ed Wife: “You, Dead, Are So Much Bet­ter Than Any­one Else Alive” (1946)

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

How to Write Like an Architect: Short Primers on Writing with the Neat, Clean Lines of a Designer

We have anoth­er nation­al cri­sis on our hands.

Our chil­dren are not only ill-equipped to read maps and tell time with ana­log clocks, their hand­writ­ing is in seri­ous decline.

For­get cur­sive, which went the way of the dodo ear­li­er in the mil­len­ni­um. Young­sters who are dab hands on the key­board may have lit­tle impulse—or opportunity—to prac­tice their print­ing.

Does it mat­ter?

It sure as shootin’ might be dur­ing a zom­bie inva­sion, giv­en the atten­dant break­down of dig­i­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion and the elec­tric­i­ty that pow­ered it.

But even in less dire times, leg­i­ble pen­man­ship is a good skill to mas­ter.

As Vir­ginia Berninger, pro­fes­sor emer­i­tus and prin­ci­pal inves­ti­ga­tor of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Washington’s Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Learn­ing Dis­abil­i­ties Cen­ter, told The New York Times, “Hand­writ­ing — form­ing let­ters — engages the mind, and that can help chil­dren pay atten­tion to writ­ten lan­guage.”

Hand let­ter­ing is also a com­plex neu­ro­log­i­cal process, a work­out involv­ing var­i­ous cog­ni­tive, motor, and neu­ro­mus­cu­lar func­tions.

There’s also a school of thought that teach­ers who still accept hand­writ­ten assign­ments uncon­scious­ly award the high­est grades to pupils with the neat­est pen­man­ship, which is eas­i­er on tired eyes. Some­thing to keep in mind for those gear­ing up to take the hand­writ­ten essay por­tions of the SAT and ACT.

Let’s remem­ber that let­ters are real­ly just shapes.

The Finns and French have long-estab­lished uni­for­mi­ty with regard to hand­writ­ing. In the absence of class­room instruc­tion, Amer­i­cans have the free­dom to peruse var­i­ous pen­man­ship styles, iden­ti­fy their favorite, and work hard to attain it.

(This writer is proof that pen­man­ship can become part of the DNA through prac­tice, hav­ing set out to dupli­cate my mother’s delight­ful, eccen­tric-to-the-point-of-illeg­i­bile hand at around the age of 8. I added a few per­son­al quirks along the way. The result is I’m fre­quent­ly bam­boo­zled into serv­ing as scribe for what­ev­er group I hap­pen to find myself in, and my chil­dren can claim they could­n’t read the impor­tant hand­writ­ten instruc­tions hur­ried­ly left for them on Post-Its.)

His­tor­i­cal­ly, the most leg­i­ble Amer­i­can pen­man­ship belongs to archi­tects.

Their pre­cise­ly ren­dered all caps sug­gest metic­u­lous­ness, account­abil­i­ty, steadi­ness of char­ac­ter…

And almost any­one can achieve it, regard­less of whether those are qual­i­ties they per­son­al­ly pos­sess.

All it takes is deter­mi­na­tion, time, and—as taught by Doug Patt in his How to Archi­tect series, above—more tools than can be simul­ta­ne­ous­ly oper­at­ed with two hands:

an Ames let­ter­ing guide

a par­al­lel rule or t‑square

a small plas­tic tri­an­gle cus­tomized with bits of tape

a .5mm Pen­tel draft­ing pen­cil

If this sounds need­less­ly labo­ri­ous, keep in mind that such spe­cial­ty equip­ment may appeal to reluc­tant hand writ­ers with an inter­est in engi­neer­ing, robot­ics, or sci­en­tif­ic exper­i­men­ta­tion.

(Be pre­pared for some frus­tra­tion if this is the student’s first time at the rodeo with these instru­ments. As any vet­er­an com­ic book artist can attest, few are born know­ing how to use an Ames let­ter­ing guide.)

It should be not­ed that Patt’s alpha­bet devi­ates a bit from tra­di­tion­al stan­dards in the field.

His pref­er­ence for breath­ing some life into his let­ters by not clos­ing their loops, squash­ing tra­di­tion­al­ly cir­cu­lar forms into ellipses, and using “dynam­ic angles” to ren­der cross­pieces on a slant would like­ly not have passed muster with archi­tec­ture pro­fes­sors of an ear­li­er age, my sec­ond grade teacher, or the font design­ers respon­si­ble for the com­put­er-gen­er­at­ed “hand let­ter­ing” grac­ing the bulk of recent archi­tec­tur­al ren­der­ings.

He’s like­ly the only expert sug­gest­ing you make your Ks and Rs rem­i­nis­cent of actor Ralph Mac­chio in the 1984 film, The Karate Kid.

There’s lit­tle chance you’ll find your­self groov­ing to Patt’s videos for any­thing oth­er than their intend­ed pur­pose. Where­as the late Bob Ross’ Joy of Paint­ing series has legions of fans who tune in sole­ly for the med­i­ta­tive ben­e­fits they derive from his mel­low demeanor, Patt’s rapid fire instruc­tion­al style is that of the busy mas­ter, deft­ly exe­cut­ing moves the fledg­ling stu­dent can only but fum­ble through.

But if the Karate Kid taught us any­thing, it’s that prac­tice and grit lead to excel­lence. If the above demon­stra­tion whips by too quick­ly, Patt expands on the shap­ing of each let­ter in 30-sec­ond video tuto­ri­als avail­able as part of a $19 online course.

Those look­ing for archi­tec­tur­al low­er case, or tech­niques for con­trol­ling the thick­ness of their lines can find them in the episode devot­ed to let­ter­ing with a .7mm Pen­tel mechan­i­cal draft­ing pen­cil.

Explore fur­ther secrets of the archi­tects on Patt’s How to Archi­tect chan­nel or 2012 book, also called How to Archi­tect.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Art of Hand­writ­ing as Prac­ticed by Famous Artists: Geor­gia O’Keeffe, Jack­son Pol­lock, Mar­cel Duchamp, Willem de Koon­ing & More

Dis­cov­er What Shakespeare’s Hand­writ­ing Looked Like, and How It Solved a Mys­tery of Author­ship

Helen Keller Had Impec­ca­ble Hand­writ­ing: See a Col­lec­tion of Her Child­hood Let­ters

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, illus­tra­tor, the­ater mak­er and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine.  Fol­low her @AyunHalliday.

Watch Scenes from the “Pink Floyd Ballet:” When the Experimental Rock Band Collaborated with Ballet Choreographer Roland Petit (1972)

We all know that rock opera isn’t actu­al­ly opera. It bor­rows some of the clas­si­cal form’s affects—theatrical bom­bast and loud cos­tum­ing, which seem a nat­ur­al fit—but it doesn’t attempt the extreme for­mal rig­or. Rock and roll is loose, intu­itive, expres­sion­is­tic, best played by or to libidi­nous kids or kids-at-heart; opera is tight­ly con­trolled and per­formed by trained vocal gym­nasts to audi­ences of sophis­ti­cates. Both of these forms excel at emo­tive sto­ry­telling, but beyond that, with some rare excep­tions, their sim­i­lar­i­ties are most­ly cos­met­ic.

Now imag­ine not rock opera, but a rock bal­let. What could ath­let­ic Euro­pean clas­si­cal dance con­tribute to songs about sex and drugs? What could elec­tric gui­tars, drums, and key­boards do for pirou­ettes, arabesques, or grand jetés? Part of the prob­lem with such a mashup comes—as not­ed above—from the intrin­sic for­mal dif­fer­ences between the two. Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour put it well when he not­ed in 1973 that his band found bal­let “too restrict­ing for us. I mean, I can’t play and count bars at the same time.”

Yes, there was once a Pink Floyd bal­let, or, well, almost. For rea­sons that may or may not be obvi­ous, the attempt was not pop­u­lar, and it has not gone down in either rock or bal­let his­to­ry as a mem­o­rable event. But it was an inter­est­ing exper­i­ment, per­haps both more com­pelling and more inco­her­ent than one might think. An unusu­al col­lab­o­ra­tion between the prog-rock super­stars and French chore­o­g­ra­ph­er Roland Petit, the show first began to take shape in 1970 over a series of lunch­es and din­ner and drinks—as a high-con­cept adap­ta­tion of Proust.

But the com­po­si­tion did not come eas­i­ly. For one thing, the band couldn’t get through the source mate­r­i­al. “David did the worst,” remem­bers Nick Mason, “he only read the first 18 pages.” Roger Waters report­ed that he fin­ished “the sec­ond vol­ume of Swann’s Way and when I got to the end of it I thought, ‘Fuck this, I’m not read­ing any­more. I can’t han­dle it.’ It just went too slow­ly for me.” A com­mon com­plaint from attempt­ed read­ers of Proust. Petit then float­ed the idea of adapt­ing A Thou­sand and One Ara­bi­an Nights, then Franken­stein. At one point, Roman Polan­s­ki and Rudolph Nureyev were attached as direc­tor and star. There was talk of a film.

All of these schemes were aban­doned, includ­ing the plan for orig­i­nal music. “Nureyev, Polan­s­ki, and the 108-piece orches­tra,” writes Nicholas Schaffn­er, “were con­spic­u­ous in their absence.” In Petit’s even­tu­al piece, per­formed in Mar­seilles and Paris in 1972–73, the band “game­ly appeared… to pro­vide live ren­di­tions of ‘Care­ful with That Axe Eugene’ and three new­er works in which the Syd-less Floyd had at last dis­cov­ered its rai­son d’être: ‘Echoes,’ ‘One of These Days,’ and ‘Obscured by Clouds,’” among oth­er exist­ing songs. The whole endeav­or was con­sis­tent with the band’s oth­er extra-cur­ric­u­lar for­ays, into film and musique con­crete for exam­ple, but the rote recy­cling of mate­r­i­al was not.

The bal­let, notes Dan­ger­ous Minds, “wasn’t shot live, but an in stu­dio ver­sion was pro­duced in 1977.” (You can see a clip from that rather slick arti­fact at the top of the post.) The oth­er videos you see here come from rehearsals for the live 1973 shows (the clip sec­ond from top fea­tures inter­views with Petit and a shy, French-speak­ing Gilmour). It’s an odd affair: male dancers who all vague­ly resem­ble Bruce Lee—and pull off some Lee-like punch­es; inex­plic­a­ble syn­chro­nized line dances; dancers form­ing pairs to the har­row­ing screams of “Care­ful with That Axe, Eugene”; and a very con­tem­po­rary 70s feel over­all mark these per­for­mances as the kind of thing like­ly to feel deeply unsat­is­fy­ing to con­nois­seurs of either Pink Floyd or the bal­let.

Who, exact­ly, one won­ders, was the audi­ence for this? Maybe you’ll get some sense of the appeal in the brief inter­views and com­men­tary from the French jour­nal­ists in this rehearsal footage. Or per­haps a pro­gram from one of the Mar­seille per­for­mances sheds more light on the inten­tions behind this pro­duc­tion. Petit did sup­pos­ed­ly say, “It all began in the late ‘60s. One day my daugh­ter… gave me an album by Pink Floyd and said, ‘Dad, you have to make a bal­let with this music.’” After some ini­tial skep­ti­cism, “when I heard the music,” he remem­bers, “I agreed with my daugh­ter.” Per­haps he sim­ply couldn’t refuse her a request.

Those who did attend these shows may have been delight­ed, con­fused, bored, enraged, or some com­bi­na­tion of any of these emo­tions and more besides. As for the band’s strug­gles, Gilmour admits, “we had to have some­one sit­ting on stage with us with a piece of paper telling us what bar we were play­ing.” (Before you make a joke about how rock musi­cians can’t count, bear in mind most clas­si­cal play­ers can’t impro­vise.) At the end, how­ev­er, audi­ences wouldn’t have been left want­i­ng. “The bal­let cli­maxed,” Schaffn­er writes, “with a typ­i­cal­ly Floy­di­an flour­ish: ten cans of oil explod­ing like fire­balls from the front of the stage.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Lost Record­ing of Pink Floyd Play­ing with Jazz Vio­lin­ist Stéphane Grap­pel­li on “Wish You Were Here”

When Pink Floyd Tried to Make an Album with House­hold Objects: Hear Two Sur­viv­ing Tracks Made with Wine Glass­es & Rub­ber Bands

The “Lost” Pink Floyd Sound­track for Michelan­ge­lo Antonioni’s Only Amer­i­can Film, Zabriskie Point (1970)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Artist Re-Envisions National Parks in the Style of Tolkien’s Middle Earth Maps

J.R.R. Tolkien imag­ined Mid­dle-Earth by draw­ing not just from far-flung lands and old myths but the Eng­lish land­scape all around him. Of course, every­one who reads The Lord of the Rings tril­o­gy, let alone the relat­ed books writ­ten by Tolkien as well as his fol­low­ers, has their own way of envi­sion­ing the place, and those who go espe­cial­ly deep may even start see­ing their own, real envi­ron­ments as ver­sions of Mid­dle-Earth. That seems to have hap­pened in the case of Dan Bell, an Eng­lish artist who maps his home­land’s nation­al parks in an artis­tic style sim­i­lar to the one in which Tolkien ren­dered Mid­dle-Earth.

Bell “began read­ing Tolkien’s books when he was 11 or 12 years old, and fell in love with them,” writes The Verge’s Andrew Lip­tak. “In par­tic­u­lar, he was struck by Tolkien’s maps.” To start, he “works from an open source Ord­nance Sur­vey map, and begins draw­ing by hand,” adding in such addi­tion­al details, not always found in most nation­al parks, as “forests, Hob­bit holes, tow­ers, and cas­tles.” Hav­ing so adapt­ed the nation­al parks of the Unit­ed Kind­gom “as well as places like Oxford, Lon­don, Yel­low­stone Nation­al Park, and George R.R. Martin’s Wes­t­eros,” he’s made them avail­able for pur­chase on his site.

Most of us who first encounter The Lord of the Rings at the age Bell did have sure­ly wished, if only for a moment or two, that we could live in Mid­dle-Earth our­selves. Bel­l’s maps remind us that places like Mid­dle-Earth always come in some way from, and res­onate on some lev­el with, the real Earth on which we have no choice but to live. Much like how the set­tings of sci­ence fic­tion sto­ries, no mat­ter how tech­no­log­i­cal­ly ampli­fied or cul­tur­al­ly twist­ed and turned, always reflect the time of the sto­ry’s com­po­si­tion, thor­ough­ly real­ized fan­ta­sy realms, no mat­ter how fan­tas­ti­cal — how many hob­bit-holes, cas­tles, or Eyes of Sauron with which they may be dot­ted — are nev­er 100 per­cent made up. Just ask the tourist indus­try of New Zealand.

Enter Bel­l’s map col­lec­tion here.

via The Verge

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Map of Mid­dle-Earth Anno­tat­ed by Tolkien Found in a Copy of Lord of the Rings

110 Draw­ings and Paint­ings by J.R.R. Tolkien: Of Mid­dle-Earth and Beyond

The Only Draw­ing from Mau­rice Sendak’s Short-Lived Attempt to Illus­trate The Hob­bit

Sovi­et-Era Illus­tra­tions Of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hob­bit (1976)

226 Ansel Adams Pho­tographs of Great Amer­i­can Nation­al Parks Are Now Online

Down­load 100,000 Pho­tos of 20 Great U.S. Nation­al Parks, Cour­tesy of the U.S. Nation­al Park Ser­vice

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.


  • Great Lectures

  • Sign up for Newsletter

  • About Us

    Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.


    Advertise With Us

  • Archives

  • Search

  • Quantcast