Oxford University Press's Blog, page 934
June 16, 2013
A love of superheroes
The night I saw The Avengers for the first time, I took the train back to my apartment and immediately dashed off the following email to a friend of mine:
“The Avengers was amazing, I can’t even describe it. Feeling strangely fearless about life, and my head is filled with too many intellectual thoughts about superheroes.”
A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, driven by excessive euphoria and a distinct lack of sleep, but all’s fair in the world of comics and “POW BAM KABLAM.” In some ways, that email is the most succinct explanation of my relationship with superheroes that I’ve ever offered to anyone.
Perhaps because I became a fan of comic-book superheroes relatively late in the game (I didn’t so much as pick up a graphic novel until my freshman year of college), my fascination with superheroes has always been a healthy mix of unadulterated love and academic curiosity. Anyone who’s spent more than five minutes with me knows I can rave for hours about the beauty of Matt Fraction’s new Hawkeye series. Anyone who spends more than ten minutes with me knows that I’ve also presented at an academic conference about Hawkeye and depictions of disability in comics—and about the importance of looking at popular culture through a critical as well as enthusiastic lens.
When I started as an editorial assistant at Oxford University Press ten months ago, two of the first titles I began work on were Our Superheroes, Ourselves, edited by Robin Rosenberg, and What is a Superhero?, edited by Robin Rosenberg and Peter Coogan. They’ve been a learning experience in more ways than one. It’s been a fantastic opportunity to work on a project whose topic was so close to my heart. The books operate at a unique and brilliant intersection between enthusiastic love and academic inquiry—celebrating superheroes even as they ask why they remain such compelling and permanent fixtures in our cultural landscape. In preparing the manuscripts for production, corresponding with the volume editors, and reaching out to academics and comic-book writers alike for endorsements, I’ve had ample opportunity to reflect on the nature of superheroes and their meaning to fans and creators.
From my own personal perspective, there has always been something particularly joyous about not only being a fan of superheroes but also participating in the communities that have sprung up around them, especially when one considers the multitude of angles that people approach comics fandom. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more passionate group of people than superhero and science fiction fans—people who love these stories so much that they will devote hours of their creative energy into writing, drawing, and putting together costumes of their favorite superheroes. People love superheroes because they mean the world to them, for one reason or another, and to take part in such a collective passion will always be a ridiculously fun experience.
At the same time, I have always been an eager student of American history, and superheroes offer an important reflection not only on our current society but also on our own cultural history. As several contributors to What is a Superhero? point out, it’s no coincidence that the rise of the modern-day superhero occurred in 1930s America, in the depths of the Great Depression and on the eve of the second World War. Our same heroes have proven to be remarkably pliant and adaptable over the years (much like the ever-elastic Mr. Fantastic), molding to fit the country’s political and social climate. It’s quite telling, for example, that it took until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s for Marvel to create its first African-American superhero, the Black Panther, and that one of Ms. Magazine’s first covers was an image of Wonder Woman in 1972, heralding the second-wave feminist movement. More recently, I re-watched the 2008 Iron Man film and was struck by how dated it already is even five years later. It’s extremely attuned to the politics of the late Bush years, and strives to offer commentary on the United States’ wars abroad even as it delivers high-flying adventures with Tony Stark.
No matter what the time period, superheroes will always mean something different to each individual fan, and everyone seems to have a different idea of what makes a superhero—not only that, everyone seems to have a different favorite, and a huge variety of reasons why. Some fans prefer their superheroes to be high above mere mortals, a flawless ideal to aspire to. Some prefer their superheroes to have their own weaknesses and flaws in personality, making for a more human, relatable hero. Luckily the genre has something for everyone—Superman fans will be getting their fill this summer with Man of Steel, while fans of the more flawed superhero cheered on genius billionaire playboy Tony Stark in Iron Man 3.
Personally, the superhero that has made the biggest difference in my life is Bruce Banner, aka The Incredible Hulk, particularly Mark Ruffalo’s rendition of the character in The Avengers last year. Banner’s quiet struggle with his inner demon that becomes the Hulk has resonated with me more than any superhero narrative I’d ever encountered. To see Banner quietly and eloquently work to overcome his demons, to master this worst part of himself and channel it into something heroic—something that could help save the world—meant more to me than I’ll ever be able to express.
Bruce Banner’s journey with the Incredible Hulk was the primary reason I wrote that email a year ago, why I said to my friend I was feeling strangely fearless about life. Superheroes can offer us limitless inspiration, whether it’s in the blatant smashing of the Hulk or in the joyous pursuit of flight seen in Kelly Sue DeConnick’s new Captain Marvel series.Our Superheroes, Ourselves, and What is a Superhero? have provided me with more than a few hours of deep thoughts, and I couldn’t be more excited to help bring them to the world.
Suzanne Walker works as an editorial assistant at OUP. She recently gave a presentation called “Deafening Outcry: Hawkeye, Transformative Works, and the Recreation of Disability,” at Syracuse University’s Disability Studies conference. When not at work she reads and blogs about comics. She tries to channel Bruce Banner more often than she tries to channel the Hulk.
Image credit: Photo by Suzanne Walker. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
The post A love of superheroes appeared first on OUPblog.
Ethical and Legal Considerations Quiz
Do you know how an author meets the criteria for authorship? Or what should happen to the author’s name if they die before their manuscript is published? This quiz, taken from the AMA Manual of Style, helps you to navigate the ethical and legal considerations and dilemmas most commonly encountered in scholarly scientific publication. More quizzes are available on the AMA Manual of Style website.
Get Started!
Your Score:
Your Ranking:
The AMA Manual of Style is a must-have guide for anyone involved in medical and scientific publishing. Users can access the full-text of the print book, plus online only content including monthly quizzes, blog posts and updates. This is the go-to resource for producing articles and research papers that are well organized and authoritative.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only health and medicine articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post Ethical and Legal Considerations Quiz appeared first on OUPblog.
June 15, 2013
Government data surveillance through a European PRISM
The recent revelations concerning widespread US government access to electronic communications data (including the PRISM system apparently run by the National Security Agency) leave many questions unanswered, and new facts are constantly emerging. Thoughtful commentators should be hesitant to make detailed pronouncements before it is clear what is actually going on.
Nevertheless, given the potential of these developments to fundamentally reshape the data protection and privacy landscape, I cannot resist drawing a few high-level, preliminary conclusions, from a European perspective:
Legal protection without political commitment is insufficient to protect privacy. In the regulation of data flows across national borders, trying to resolve conflicts between privacy regulation and government access requirements solely through legal means puts more pressure on the law than it can bear. In addition to strong legal measures, we need greater commitment to privacy protection at the political level, which unfortunately is lacking in many countries.
Government access to personal data is a global issue. International Data Privacy Law recently published a detailed legal analysis last year of systematic government access to private-sector data in nine countries (Australia, Canada, China, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the UK, and the US), and concluded that a lack of adequate transparency and clear legal standards in this area is a global problem. Revelations about the US programs should not distract attention from issues regarding government access to data in other countries.
There should be more transparency around government data access. Governments have yet to learn one of the main lessons from data breach cases, namely that they need to be dealt with openly and transparently. It would have been preferable if there had been a reasoned public discussion about these law enforcement programs over the last few years, rather than having them explode in the press like a bombshell.
Penalizing discussion of the possibility of government data access is counterproductive. Laws that prohibit discussing the existence of government data access programs should be changed. How can we judge whether access is necessary and legally justified if we can’t even mention the fact that it is occurring? And I can’t believe that many terrorists nowadays are ignorant of the fact that their electronic communications may be subject to government surveillance.
The debate about the legality of these programs so far has been simplistic. Since news of these surveillance programs broke, some commentators have argued that all law enforcement surveillance is illegitimate, while others maintain that it is presumptively permissible as long as it is useful. Such a black-or-white approach is incorrect and unsatisfying. There is a need for a more sophisticated analysis, which could be based on well-established European legal concepts such as whether a particular surveillance program is proportionate, and whether it is necessary in a democratic society.
These revelations will cause embarrassment to European governments as well to the United States. The legal and political fallout will not be limited to the US. It is well-known that the US shares a good deal of intelligence with European countries, and awkward questions are already being raised about the extent to which European intelligence services may have accessed data collected by the US under PRISM and similar programs.
Distinguishing between privacy protection for nationals and foreigners is indefensible. On 7 June, President Obama attempted to reassure the American public by saying that access to Internet and e-mail data “does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States”. Such statements will only cause concern among the billions of Internet users outside the US. Having stressed the need for a global system of privacy protection in its February 2012 report on “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World”, it is inconsistent for the White House imply that US citizens should be given a higher level of privacy protection than non-citizens.
These developments will have major consequences for data protection and privacy law. The long-term effect of these developments on data protection and privacy law cannot yet be foreseen, but some consequences are already apparent. For instance, the EU General Data Protection Regulation proposed in 2012 by the European Commission, final approval of which has been hampered by political disagreement, may receive new impetus from the recent revelations, while the proposed EU-US Free Trade Agreement may suffer.
The effectiveness of data protection and privacy regulation is ultimately dependent on individuals having confidence in how their data are processed. This confidence has been severely shaken in recent days; it is important for both governments and the private sector to take steps to strengthen it, before it is too late.
Dr. Christopher Kuner is editor-in-chief of the journal International Data Privacy Law. He is author of European Data Protection Law: Corporate Compliance and Regulation, and the new book Transborder Data Flow Regulation and Data Privacy Law in which he elaborates some of the topics discussed here. Dr. Kuner is Senior Of Counsel at , and an Honorary Fellow of the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law and politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post Government data surveillance through a European PRISM appeared first on OUPblog.
Criticize the Constitution? Blasphemy!
Late last year, The Chronicle Review published a cover story on Louis Michael Sediman and the Constitution. In his interview with The Chronicle’s Alexander Kafka, Seidman explains that he began questioning the role of Constitution in the early 1970’s while clerking for Thurgood Marshall, and then working for the D.C. public defender, experiences which offered him the opportunity to see Constitutionalism in practice. Seidman asserted that invoking the Constitution in any political argument is “profoundly beside the point” distracting us from what policies would be best in regards to our most contentious issues: health care, gun control, antiterrorism, and so on.
This generated the first of a series of vituperative responses surrounding the publication of On Constitutional Disobedience. Published in February by Oxford as part of the Inalienable Rights series, the book became a lightning rod for many who were offended by Seidman questioning whether the Constitution should still be the centerpiece of our government and legal system. He began receiving the angry emails after the New York Times published an op-ed adapted from the book. “I’ve received over a thousand abusive emails…the vast majority I can only describe as abusive and offensive. Hundreds are anti-Semitic; a few threaten physical violence,” he explained.
Click here to view the embedded video.
The volume grew after an appearance on CBS Sunday Morning and the EconTalk podcast with Russ Roberts. Seidman and his correspondents have generously allowed us to reproduce their exchanges below.
From: Nick Karr
To:Louis Seidman
Mr. Seidman-
I’m writing to say thank you for your recent interview with Russ Roberts on EconTalk. I found it incredibly thought provoking, and has given me a new perspective on the role that The Constitution plays in our society.
To be completely forthcoming, when I first read your piece in the Times, my initial response was one of anger and disdain for your position. I consider myself to be quite conservative, and also a “strict constructionist.” As such, the Constitution is sacrosanct. Yet at the same time, I also would like to think of myself as being an open minded and critically thinking person. I am realizing, however, that much of what I believe might be more dogma than based on rationally formulated arguments.
I am a huge fan of Mr. Roberts program, in large part based on what I perceive to be his openness to allowing those that he might not entirely agree with to express their opinions. Your interview was much less “threatening” to me, as I already had a certain level of trust with his show. The interview allowed greater opportunity, as I see it, for you to develop your argument in a way that was not possible in the op-ed of a newspaper.
While I still might not agree with your position, primarily in what I can summarize as the “devil you know, devil you don’t know” concern about rewriting or abandoning the constitution, I still can appreciate the idea of at least questioning how much we really currently adhere to the Constitution.
As an orthodox Jew, I accept the Torah as being true. I am a religious person, and this is a tenet of my belief system. But the Constitution is not a religious document, although I’m sure that there are those who would disagree with me on this. That being the case, blind obedience to a document written by man deserves to be critically analyzed.
Thank you again for your work,
Nick.
From: Louis Seidman
To: Nick Karr
Dear Nick,
Your email is tremendously gratifying to me. Thank you so much for sending it. You have made my day! It’s something of a mystery to me why people with religious sensibilities are not more sympathetic to my position. Just as you say, the Constitution was written by men who were in some ways quite extraordinary, but who were, after all, men and therefore flawed (sometimes in quite extraordinary ways as well). Worship of the Constitution is a kind of idolatry, and it seems obvious that when the Constitution comes into conflict with our more fundamental commitments, it ought to give way.
Anyway, one of the great things about writing the book that I’ve just published is that it provides an opportunity to exchange ideas with interesting and thoughtful people like you. Thank you!
Best,
Mike
* * * * * * *
From: Matthew Barton
To: Louis Seidman
I listened with interest to your conversation on Econ Talk…
I think the most significant point which you failed to address is precisely why the constitutional limits on the coercive power of government are important… In this regard, your argument is entirely positivist…
Whether they are precisely correct or not, these constraints permit a spontaneous social order (ie., kosmos) to emerge that, as Hayek so thoughfully articulated in “The Use of Knowledge in Society” incorporates more knowledge than can be known to a single mind…
Yes, structure of government is deliberately organized - that is, it is a taxis – but the power that organizes this structure should be limited to the adminstration of government and not toward directing the affairs of individuals in the service of particular aims… And as was mentioned, there are mechanisms by which the limits to government’s monopoly on power can be altered – and the difficulty with which they are employed ensures that only those changes with which most agree will be enacted…
Respectfully,
Matt Barton
From: Louis Seidman
To: Matthew Barton
Dear Mr. Barton,
Thanks for your thoughtful email. The email raises issues that are too complicated to explore fully in a short response. I’ll limit myself to the following observation: Whether and how a constitution constrains government power depends on what the constitution says. For example, one might imagine a totalitarian constitution that required the government to regulate every aspect of our lives. Obedience to this constitution hardly serves the end of creating a spontaneous social order.
Whether our constitution restrains government power and restrains it in the right way depends on one’s conception of freedom, and that conception is contested in our society. If a given constitution – perhaps our constitution, depending on one’s point of view – embodies the wrong conception of freedom, then obeying it retards rather than advances human liberation. On the other hand, if it embodies the right conception of freedom, then people will follow its terms not because of a duty to obey, but because they think that it is the right conception of freedom. So, either way, constitutional obedience plays no role in protecting human freedom.
If you are interested in more than a barebones version of this argument, you might look at Chapter 4 of my new book. In any event, one of the great things about writing a book like this is that it gives me the opportunity to exchange views with interesting and thoughtful people like you. Thank you for writing.
Best,
Mike Seidman
This correspondence exemplifies the best that can come out of good university press publishing: encouraging smart dialogue that challenges readers, students, and also the author. As Seidman writes to Nick Karr: “one of the great things about writing the book that I’ve just published is that it provides an opportunity to exchange ideas with interesting and thoughtful people like you.”
Jeremy Wang-Iverson is a senior publicist at Oxford University Press.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law and politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post Criticize the Constitution? Blasphemy! appeared first on OUPblog.
20 of the most iconic songs in industrial music
Curated from the pages of Assimilate: A Critical History of Industrial Music, this playlist spans over 30 years, offering a chronological tour of industrial music. From its politically charged beginnings in noisy performance art and process-based tape meddling, it moved into 1980s flirtations with rock to its more recent aggressive, synth-driven goth-tinged dance stylings. Highlights include not only the classic work of Ministry, Front 242, and Skinny Puppy, but also nearly forgotten early work of Die Krupps and the moody latter-day masterpieces by Covenant and Wumpscut.
S. Alexander Reed is Assistant Professor of Music Theory at the University of Florida. He has published and presented research on vocal timbre, embodiment, postpunk music, and the recordings of Nine Inch Nails, Laurie Anderson, Rammstein, and Tori Amos. Reed has released five albums with his own gothic-industrial band, ThouShaltNot. For more Assimilate-inspired playlists like this one, check out author S. Alexander Reed’s website.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only music articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
The post 20 of the most iconic songs in industrial music appeared first on OUPblog.
June 14, 2013
Superhero essay competition: tell us your favorite superpower
Sharpen your claws… er, pencils…
It’s the summer of the superhero here at Oxford University Press. We’re publishing two essay collections on the real powers superheroes hold — on our imagination and our understanding of the world. Our Superheroes, Ourselves, edited by Robin S. Rosenberg, PhD, and What is a Superhero?, edited by Robin S. Rosenberg, PhD and Peter Coogan, PhD, look at some of our greatest superheroes (and supervillains) and explore what exactly makes them “super”. We immediately think of the superhuman powers that our heroes use to save the day. But then again, superpowers can be used for good or evil…
What do you want for your superpower and why? Just as the powers and abilities of Batman and Superman reveal their personal history, your choice reveals a great deal about yourself. So in the spirit of revealing the truth about our superheroes — and ourselves — we are holding an essay contest to find out exactly what you’re made of. Simply follow the guidelines below on submitting your essay and you could be wearing Oxford lycra before you know it (wearing Oxford lyrca = holding an Oxford book). Entries will be judged by Oxford University Press superhero staff experts (costumes optional; secret identities to be protected and all).
Submission guidelines:
One entry per person. If multiple entries are submitted, only the first will be considered and you will incur the wrath of your greatest nemesis.
Entries must be no longer than 500 words. Longer entries will be zapped or kapowed.
Email your submission to blog[at]oup[dot]com by midnight US Eastern time on 14 July 2013. Entries received after that time will not be considered and swallowed by a time vortex.
Subject must read “OUP Superhero essay contest-(title)” (e.g., OUP Superhero essay contest-Power of Flight)
Body of the email must include the title of the essay and your full name and contact information (street address, email, phone)
The essay must be included in an attached document that does not include your name to facilitate blind judging. Title of the attachment must be the title of your essay.
Be clear about whether the superpower is for good or evil, or the interpretation will be at the mercy of the judges.
By entering the competition, you agree to these Terms and Conditions.
What the judges are looking for?
Proper grammar, spelling, and style. Never forget the Oxford comma!
The craftsmanship of a hero who has come on a long journey to fully realize their powers.
Imaginative detail and creativity in your writing utility belt.
What the entry reveals about the everyday hero behind the mask.
What will you win?
A free copy of Our Superheroes, Ourselves , What is a Superhero? , and Classics and Comics (one of each).
Two tickets to 92nd Street Y Tribeca event “What is a Superhero?” on 24 July 2013 (normally $15/ticket).
The winning essay(s) will be published on the OUPblog on 19 July 2013.
We reserve the right not to award a prize if we feel the submissions do not meet our criteria.
Go now, Braniacs, Black Widows, and Batmen, and use your creative powers to submit a piece! The fate of the world depends on it.
Robin S. Rosenberg is a clinical psychologist. In addition to running a private practice, she writes about superheroes and the psychological phenomena their stories reveal. She is editor of Psychology of Superheroes, Our Superheroes, Ourselves, and What is a Superhero?.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only arts and leisure articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Hugh Jackman X-Men Origins Wolverine gif, creative commons license via Perez Hilton.
The post Superhero essay competition: tell us your favorite superpower appeared first on OUPblog.
An Oxford Companion to Superman
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it another Superman-related blogpost to tie in with today’s release of Man of Steel? Hold on to the bulging blue bicep of Oxford University Press and prepare to gaze below in wonder as we take you on a ride over the past 80 years of Superman.
Superorigins
To understand Superman’s beginnings we must, with the help of the American National Biography, fly all the way back to 1930. This was when cartoonist Joe Shuster first met writer Jerry Siegel, while they were both working on the Glenville High School newspaper. Their first collaboration was a parody of superhuman fictional heroes called “Goober the Mighty”, and their first formulation of a character called Superman was for a mimeographed fan magazine they produced starting in 1932 called Science Fiction. At this point Superman was an evil figure bent on world domination.
The pair re-envisioned the character as an alien from another planet who was devoted to truth and justice on earth, who disguised himself as the shy, bespectacled reporter for the Daily Planet, Clark Kent, but who, when trouble threatened, was able to transform himself into Superman: “Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap buildings in a single bound!” After several efforts Shuster was able to realise Siegel’s concept, and Superman gained the physical form that we recognise today: handsome chiselled features, blue skin tight outfit, big red pants, swishy cape, and the large “S” shield across the chest.
Superinfluences
While the concept was original, behind it was a wealth of cultural influences: the mythic figures Samson, Hercules, and Beowulf; romantic fictional characters such as the Three Musketeers and the costumed Scarlet Pimpernel; science fiction texts by Jules Verne, H. G. Wells — and especially Philip Wylie’s novel Gladiator, which featured a superhuman protagonist; adventure characters from the comic strips, such as Tarzan, Buck Rogers, and the sailor with superstrength, Popeye; and the swashbuckling costume films of Douglas Fairbanks.
Supersuccess and superstruggles
After moving to New York and meeting hard times, Shuster and Siegel sold the character in March 1938 to the firm that would become DC Comics for $130. In June, the first Superman comic book appeared, and it was immediately obvious that the young men had made a disastrous mistake. A Superman comic strip began newspaper syndication in January 1939; a separate Superman comic book appeared that summer; a radio show debuted in February 1940; a series of animated films from Fleischer Studios began release in 1941 (see the first episode below); and in the decades to follow he would rarely be off television and cinema screens. Legal battles have ensued ever since over the copyright, but Shuster and Siegel were never able to gain a share of Superman’s earnings in their lifetimes. Siegel worked most of his life as a clerk-typist, Shuster as a messenger.
Click here to view the embedded video.
Superfacts
The phrase “Is it a bird? Is it a plane?” was never actually used in Superman. The Oxford Dictionary of American Quotations reveals that the passage which became famous (before it was misremembered) as the lead-in to the Superman radio show is:
“Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Superman!”
Superman’s costume would not have been made from lycra, which wasn’t invented until the 1950s. The word kryptonite does not currently appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, though it does appear in Oxford Dictionaries Online. Without Superman the word brainiac would not exist as we know it. It was first used in a Superman comic strip from Action Comics in July 1958:
“Did the earthlings dare to send a ship to stop me, Brainiac, Master of Super-Scientific Forces? We’ll show them, Koko!”
It was the name of a super-intelligent alien character, apparently coming from a blend of brain and maniac. The OED records that Action Comics discovered that a real Brainiac existed “in the form of an ingenious ‘Brainiac Computer Kit’ invented in 1955 by Edmund C. Berkeley [to build small electronic computing devices]. In deference to his ‘Brainiac’ which pre-dates ours … we are changing the characterization of our ‘Brainiac’ so that the master-villain will henceforth possess a ‘computer personality’.”
Superstage and superscreen
There has been a version of Superman on stage or screen in every decade since his first appearance in print.
1940s: Kirk Alyn was the first man to portray Superman on screen, in two widely distributed Superman serials, the first appearing in 1945.
1950s: A popular television series, The Adventures of Superman, with George Reeves ran for 104 episodes between 1952 and 1958.
1960s: A musical called It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Superman was produced on Broadway in 1966 with Bob Holiday as Superman, but closed in the same year.
1970s and 1980s: Superman returned to the big screen in 1978, starring Christopher Reeve in Richard Donner’s Superman, which was followed by sequels in 1980, 1983, and 1987.
1990s: Another television series, Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, began in 1993, which this time placed the main focus on the relationship between Teri Hatcher’s Lois Lane, and Dean Cain’s Clark Kent.
2000s: Smallville, which began in 2001, featured a teenage Clark Kent (Tom Welling) before he donned the blue tights. Then in 2006 came Bryan Singer’s attempted cinema reboot, Superman Returns, starring Brandon Routh. It received generally positive reviews, but the planned sequel was cancelled.
2010s: Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and starring Henry Cavill, is released on June 14th 2013.
So, as we have returned to the present it seems the time has come to set you back down on your balcony and let you brush your hair, you’re looking a bit windswept. OUP of course haven’t got a hair out of place — we applied brylcreem before the flight. You should now be prepared for a trip to see Man of Steel this weekend. Do be gentle with him, he’s been through a lot.
Deborah Sims works in publicity at OUP. She is faster than a stationary bullet, and hopes she is more powerful than a model locomotive, but she has her doubts. You can find more about the Oxford resources mentioned in this article in Oxford Reference, Oxford Index, American National Biography, and Oxford Dictionaries.
Oxford University Press will be holding an essay contest to celebrate our super summer with two upcoming books on superheroes: Our Superheroes, Ourselves edited by Robin S. Rosenberg and What is a Superhero? edited by Robin S. Rosenberg and Peter Coogan. Stay tuned for information on the competition later today!
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only television and film articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
NOTE: Superman is a registered trademark of DC Comics.
Image credit: Man of Steel Movie poster via manofsteel.warnerbros.com used for the purposes of illustration. TM & © 2013 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. TM & © DC COMICS (From DC Entertainment)
The post An Oxford Companion to Superman appeared first on OUPblog.
The European Union: debate or referendum?
By Simon Usherwood
To the casual observer of British politics, we would appear to be heading towards a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU). The Prime Minister has spoken for it, the clamour in the press and in the lobbies of Westminster continues to grow stronger and there is no good reason to speak against it, or so it would seem.
As with much casual observation, this is not really the case when we look more closely. David Cameron’s speech in January offered only a very minor advance, either of his previous position or even of government policy. Since the passing of the European Union Act in 2011, there has been a requirement for a referendum for any new transfer of power to the Union. The noises off by backbenchers and media commentators are as much driven by frustration as by success. With neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats willing to match Cameron’s offer to press for a renegotiation and then a referendum, we remain where we have been for some considerable period of time.
Moreover, the entire referendum argument risks obscuring something much more consequential, namely the paucity of public debate about European integration.
To be clear, there is much more of a debate in the UK about ‘Europe’ than in most other member states. The connection elsewhere to a bigger project of political or economic modernisation, or a ‘return to Europe’, tends to take the edge off questions of the value of participating in integration, which is essentially seen as self-evident. The historical British experience of the EU — as something to be caught up with, for lack of a credible alternative — has been rather different, and so has opened a space for questioning that has long raised eyebrows in other capitals.
However, even in this relatively well-developed public debate (consider the number of times one sees an EU-related headline in the news), there is very little substance. For many in the UK, ‘Europe’ means bendy bananas, votes for prisoners (which isn’t even the EU), and not much else. By giving a byword for technocrats in Brussels making thoughtless decisions which they impose on us, we actually lose sight of what really happens. What debate there is all too often rests on little more than some half-formed ideas of what is happening, with some teasing of foreigners thrown in for good measure.
For something that both pro- and anti- sides of the debate would claim is an important part of our lives, this seems rather incredible. Instead of getting a real sense of the context and process by which decisions are made, or an understanding of the issues at hand, there is general hand-waving and appeals to higher values. Thus, any referendum is not about the Union and Britain’s part in it, but about giving the people a voice. It seems odd then that those same advocates do not press for referenda about the reform of the NHS or changes to schooling.
In the (still unlikely) event that there is a referendum, I would doubt that there will be much informed discussion. Instead we will have some headline facts and figures, together with some celebrity endorsements and a couple of half-hearted TV debates, watched by few and cared about by fewer still. Whatever the result, it would not solve any of the long-term questions about Britain’s relationship with the rest of the Continent, nor offer a constructive agenda for the future.
As both a political scientist and as a citizen, that pains me. If democracy is about anything, then it is about participation by the people. Part of that is voting, but that voting should be only one element in a bigger process of engagement, reflection, and discussion. For the EU, just as for any political issue that faces us, we should be at the front of debate, challenging those who offer to lead us to show the true value of their judgments and their abilities. If we do not, then we risk continuing the drift in policy that we served so inadequately of late, and that’s true whatever you think of the European Union.
Simon Usherwood is Senior Lecturer in the School of Politics at the University of Surrey. He is the co-author of The European Union: A Very Short Introduction. He blogs here and tweets from @Usherwood
The Very Short Introductions (VSI) series combines a small format with authoritative analysis and big ideas for hundreds of topic areas. Written by our expert authors, these books can change the way you think about the things that interest you and are the perfect introduction to subjects you previously knew nothing about. Grow your knowledge with OUPblog and the VSI series every Friday and like Very Short Introductions on Facebook.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only VSI articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only politics articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credits: David Cameron, photo by by Remy Steinegger [Creative Commons licence] via Wikimedia Commons; European Union flag, © Johan Ramberg via istockphoto.
The post The European Union: debate or referendum? appeared first on OUPblog.
June 13, 2013
Meditation in action
Suddenly, it seems, meditation is all the rage. Prestigious medical schools (Harvard, Duke, etc.) have whole departments devoted to “Integrative Medicine” in which meditation plays an essential part. Troubled teens are given a healthy dose of mindfulness and their behavior improves. Long-term prisoners in maximum security prisons have gone on ten day meditation retreats, sitting for 12 hours a day in a makeshift gymnasium ashram. There is meditation for alcoholics and heroin addicts and overworked corporate attorneys, for those facing death from untreatable illness and for those nearing the day when, with the grace of God or Nature or Luck, they will give birth. Studies have shown that meditation helps in medical conditions from depression to diabetes, psoriasis to high blood pressure to the side effects of cancer treatments.
How come?
Spiritually, meditation’s efficacy stems from the power of the mind to shape reality. From yoga’s two-thousand-year-old goal of “stilling the movements of the mind” to most any eclectic spiritual teacher of today, we are told that how we think is an essential constituent of the world we inhabit. Familiar examples of this truth are not hard to find. Think that a room full of strangers won’t like you, and you’ll most likely be withdrawn, suspicious, or a tad hostile, provoking a comparable response. Treat co-workers as if they deserve respect and kindness, and there’s a good chance you’ll get that back from them. Live in constant state of stress and you will burn out your immune system.
Even more, our values and beliefs color the entire fabric of existence. After all, if a pickpocket sees a saint all he sees are pockets. People for whom only success or wealth are important become blind to simple beauty, moments of tenderness, the ability to enjoy what they have instead of always wanting more. A glass is half empty or half-full not because of how much liquid is in it, but because of what we believe.
This all relates to meditation because meditation is a kind of yoga of the mind, doing for our consciousness what yoga postures do for our muscles and bones. With meditation we discover not only how much the mind shapes what we see in the world, but how much we ourselves can determine the mind’s contents. We realize that it is both crucially important and malleable. We can detach from it, examine it, decide what part makes sense and what doesn’t and act—or better think—accordingly.
The two main dimensions of meditation are awareness and focus. In the first, which is the core of the widely taught vipassanā or insight meditation that is a major component of integrative medicine, you simply sit comfortably and attend to your breath, allowing thoughts to come and go, learning to witness thought forms, bodily sensations, and emotional patterns. Extended practice of vipassanā can help us answer basic questions: What thoughts keep appearing, no matter what else is going on? How do we define the world for ourselves? How many of our thoughts really make sense and how many are simply unthinking, irrational, even destructive habits?
In my first extended experience of meditation I found myself in near agony sitting in a cross-legged position with strained my hips and aching knees. Being the Type AA personality I am, I kept myself in the position until the session ended. Then, with a blinding flash of insight (which any acquaintance could surely have told me!) I realized how much of my life was defined by setting goals, doing anything to meet them, and ignoring the unpleasant consequences to myself or (as the inevitable fatigue, irritation, or depression resulted) to others.
Perhaps the ultimate gift of simply watching one’s mind is the ability not—or not necessarily—to be moved by what one is thinking. Chronic anxiety, lasting grief, burning rage, even a maddening itch between the shoulder blades—all these can be witnessed, experienced, and understood without driving us to act. The constituent parts of emotions and sensation—where they arise, how long they last, whether they burn or throb, vacillate or stay the same—start to lose their power over us. Instead of doing something because we want a drink, are angry at our mothers, or are nervous about an upcoming test, we simply note the discomfort, study it, and let it pass. The result can be a precious inner calm, one that not only makes our experience a lot more pleasant but has manifold healing effects on our nervous system, glands, and soft tissues.
For most spiritual teachers it is a profound truth that, as Buddha taught: “Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.” Thus the second form of meditation — common in both religious tradition and contemporary, non-traditional spirituality — is focus: concentrating the mind on a thought or image, a desired virtue (kindness or humility) or a sacred figure (God or some inspiring teacher). Here “What kind of person do I want to be?” becomes for a time the question “What do I want to think about?” And so a Christian might meditate on an image of Jesus—a face of love and perfect forgiveness; or as He was blessing a repentant sinner. A Jew might take one line, or even one word, from a familiar prayer. Someone who finds the divine in nature might concentrate on the grace of a bird in flight, the healing powers of a forest, or the generosity of the web of life. A purely secular person could reflect on someone she particularly respects.
Through mental reflection we seek to absorb the qualities we want to manifest. Equanimity, gratitude, compassion, love—such things are not simply a matter of will, but of practice. And as we practice thinking about them, thinking of them, this practice can help us face disappointment, conflict, and danger in ways that promote a calm, energetic, and connected life.
For ultimately what we do on the meditation mat or the prayer room is of little consequence until it can be made real in work, family, and community. Can I recognize my agitation and respond skillfully when my kids act self-destructively? Can I face the mammogram results with acceptance and gratitude for what I have; or if the news is truly bad, can I accept my fear without trying to escape it? If I am a Christian, can I treat hostile people as Jesus taught me to? If Muslim, can I remember that only Allah is God, not money, fame, or the seductive delights of telling everyone how holy I am? If I am “spiritual but not religious,” can I face a decidedly non-spiritual world with the virtues that attracted me to spiritual life to begin with?
Attending to the mind, focusing on our highest values—we are more likely to answer such questions in the affirmative.
Can there be a single greater gift to our lives?
Professor of Philosophy (WPI) Roger S. Gottlieb’s most recent book is the Nautilus Book Award-winning Spirituality: What it Is and Why it Matters. You can read the Introduction on his website or his previous post on the OUPblog.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only religion articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Photo by Robert Bejil. Creative Commons License via Wikimedia Commons.
The post Meditation in action appeared first on OUPblog.
An outdoor overture
On 12 June, summer officially begins in Chicago when the Grant Park Music Festival, “the nation’s only free, outdoor classical music series of its kind,” opens its 79th season at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park. I’m a huge fan of summer music festivals in general — what’s not to like about spending a beautiful night in a beautiful place listening to music I love performed by some of the best musicians in the world? — but of Grant Park in particular. Not only did it grant me access to free live music when I was an impoverished graduate student, but it played a key role in American orchestral history, my favorite musicological subject.
The Grant Park Music Festival was the brainchild of James C. Petrillo, the formidable head of the Chicago musician’s union (he would later become head of the nationwide American Federation of Musicians), who wanted to bring free music to the citizens of Depression-era Chicago. The festival was inspired by a series of free brass and wind band concerts Petrillo had organized in the park in 1931 and by a very successful series of performances at the Century of Progress Exposition in 1933-34. But neither of these had the scope and endurance that Petrillo sought.
In 1934, Petrillo was named commissioner of the Chicago Parks District and was finally able to put his full plans into action. In June of 1935, the parks district announced “Free symphony and band concerts every night in Grant park from July 1 through Sept. 2.” The festival was funded by the American Federation of Musicians as a way of giving paychecks to several hundred of their out of work members. Eight Chicago bands and three orchestras — The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Civic Opera Orchestra (a forerunner of today’s Lyric Opera), and the Woman’s Symphony Orchestra of Chicago — performed regularly throughout the summer.
The Woman’s Symphony Orchestra (WSOC) is the only one of these orchestras not well known today. Founded in 1925 by a group of female students at Chicago’s Bush Conservatory seeking professional performance opportunities that were denied them in established orchestras, the WSOC was the best known of dozens of such orchestras performing in cities across the country between the 1870s and the mid-1940s. The orchestra had made a splash at the Century of Progress where one of their performances attracted 12,000 listeners — a record that one reviewer called “the largest audience ever assembled in the name of symphonic art.” (Glenn Dillard Gunn, “Chicago Woman’s Symphony Delights Hearers in Illinois Day concert at A Century of Progress,” Herald and Examiner (Chicago), August 12, 1933)
The WSOC would set new records in the opening season of the Grant Park concerts. Petrillo wanted to close the season with a bang. On 15 and 18 September 1935, 220 musicians from the Chicago Symphony, Civic Opera, and Woman’s Symphony orchestras amassed on the stage of the outdoor bandshell for two finale performances under the leadership of Chicago Symphony conductor Frederick Stock. These performances were notable for several reasons. First, they shattered all previous audience attendance records: 100,000 people attended the performances. Second, it marked the first time a “Big Five” Orchestra had performed with a pervasively gender-integrated ensemble. Third, it introduced members of the women’s orchestra to Frederick Stock, which would prove fruitful not only for the members of the WSOC, but for female orchestral musicians in general.
Three years later, after several more seasons of joint concerts in Grant Park, Stock hired Helen Kotas, the WSOC’s first-chair French horn player, as a substitute for the Chicago Symphony. In 1940, Kotas made national news when she joined the CSO full time as the principal horn. She was the first female member of the CSO and the first woman to hold a principal position in any major orchestra in the country.
In 1944, the festival’s structure was changed. Instead of using local ensembles, it founded its own orchestra, the Grant Park Symphony, the ensemble that still plays in the park today. This orchestra included women among its membership from the very beginning. Many of them had played first with the WSOC.
So to those lucky enough to be attending this week’s performances in Grant Park, remember that the Grant Park Music Festival is not just a beloved civic institution, nor a lovely place to spend a summer evening, although it is both of those things. It is an innovative institution that brought music and musical opportunities to thousands and paved the way for professional orchestral careers for women.
Anna-Lise Santella is the Editor of Grove Music/Oxford Music Online. Her article, “Modeling Music: Early Organizational Structures of American Women’s Orchestras” was recently published in American Orchestras in the Nineteenth Century, edited by John Spitzer (U. Chicago, 2012) and you can also read her recent article on the American women’s orchestra movement on University Press Scholarship Online. When she’s not reading Grove articles or writing about women’s orchestras, you can find her on twitter as @annalisep.
Oxford Music Online is the gateway offering users the ability to access and cross-search multiple music reference resources in one location. With Grove Music Online as its cornerstone, Oxford Music Online also contains The Oxford Companion to Music, The Oxford Dictionary of Music, and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music.
Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only music articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Chicago Tribune, June 3, 1935, page 15.
The post An outdoor overture appeared first on OUPblog.
Oxford University Press's Blog
- Oxford University Press's profile
- 238 followers
