Now as you may know, Katniss, the main character in the book and film, was described as having “straight black hair” and “olive skin.” It’s a post-apocalyptic world, so she could be a mix of things, but some pictured a Native American. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jennifer Lawrence won the part and dyed her hair dark.

But when it came to the casting of Rue, Thresh, and Cinna, many audience members did not understand why there were black actors playing those parts. Cinna’s skin is not discussed in the book, so truthfully, though Lenny Kravitz was cast, a white, Asian or Latino actor could have played the part.

But. On page 45 of Suzanne Collins’s book, Katniss sees Rue for the first time:

…And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that’s she’s very like Prim in size and demeanor…

Later, she sees Thresh:

The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there. He’s one of the giants, probably six and half feet tall and built like an ox.

Dark skin. That is what the novelist, the creator of the series, specified. But there were plenty of audience members who were “shocked,” or confused, or just plain angry.

The tumblr Hunger Games Tweets has collected a smattering of Twitter postings, with the goal of exposing “Hunger Games fans on Twitter who dare to call themselves fans yet don’t know a damn thing about the books.” What people are saying is disappointing, sad, stomach-churning, and just plain racist.

Full size
This young woman considered the movie “ruined.”

Full size
This girl wants to know why they “made all the good characters black.” Good people cannot possibly be black. Black people are villainous. Duh.

Full size
“Stick to the book dude.” Read the book again, carefully this time, dude.

Full size
At least this person had the good sense to hate himself.

The actress Amandla Stenberg literally looks like a tiny angel, but this movie-goer equates blonde with innocence. A little black girl is not automatically innocent, no. Only a little white girl. Actually, only a blonde.

The experience of all ages and nations, I believe, demonstrates that the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any…. Whatever work he does beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own. In ancient Italy, how much the cultivation of corn degenerated, how unprofitable it became to the master, when it fell under the management of slaves, is remarked both by Pliny and Columella….

The pride of man makes him love to domineer, and nothing mortifies him so much as to be obliged to condescend to persuade his inferiors. Wherever the law allows it, and the nature of the work can afford it, therefore, he will generally prefer the service of slaves to that of freemen. The planting of sugar and tobacco can afford the expense of slave cultivation. The raising of corn, it seems, in the present times, cannot. In the English colonies, of which the principal produce is corn, the far greater part of the work is done by freemen…. The profits of a sugar plantation in any of our West Indian colonies, are generally much greater than those of any other cultivation that is known either in Europe or America; and the profits of a tobacco plantation, though inferior to those of sugar, are superior to those of corn, as has already been observed. Both can afford the expense of slave cultivation…

The argument is that men will pursue owning slaves even when it was uneconomic. I can think of other examples: the Germans wanted to enslave and kill Jews, even though it was a terrible setback economically for Germany, with brilliant scientists like Albert Einstein fleeing Germany and moving to the USA. Adam Smith talks about the craving of men to feel superior to other men, though he doesn’t touch upon sexual assaults aimed at women, which is also a part of slavery. Historians have worked too hard to come up with economic explanations for slavery, when explanations based on pure emotion and lust work much better, and explain much more.

Is Homo Sapiens a neotenic great ape? Did our ancestors (and still we) select for infantile traits in their choice of a mating partner? David Brin, in his essay Neoteny and Two-Way Sexual Selection in Human Evolution tries to explain this:

Our starting point is a perceived dichotomy between adult men and women — and thus potentially hazardous ground. Although evolutionary biology has lately been defended from a feminist perspective by Patricia Adair Gowaty (1992) and others, caution remains essential when stepping into this arena, hence I will at times seem to belabor the obvious. Let me also emphasize that Homo sapiens appears less riven by sexual dimorphism than most species, and exceptions exist to nearly every generalization. Nevertheless, it seems clear that past and present human dimorphisms are legitimate topics for careful discussion. While certain neotenous traits seem to be shared equally among the sexes (e.g., curiosity and plasticity of behavior), human females certainly do appear more paedomorphic in outward physical appearance than males. Although they mature at an earlier age, women do not go on to acquire the toughened skin, coarse body hair, thyroid cartilage, bony eye ridges, or deepened voices which are the common inheritance of most adult hominoids and other primates. Jones and Hill (1993) have shown that this generalization remains valid across racial, ethnic and cultural boundaries. Difference in degree of paedomorphism is one of the few truly decisive human sexual-dichotomies, used by most of us in visually distinguishing women from men.

we move on to kissing techniques, which seem to be the least of these guys’ worries. Mystery’s friend, Tara, is set to help the guys out with this one.

Mystery’s method helps people make a connection that is beyond sex.

She says this, of course, right before she instructs the nerds how to kiss by having them make out with fruit.

This girl then goes on to blindfold herself, kiss all the remaining contestants and name a winner (although in these poor guys’ eyes they probably all feel like winners for getting to kiss something other than a peach). The winner of the challenge (Kosmo with a K) gets the honor/horror of having an earpiece on their next hunt which Mystery will use to guide him like a horny robot.

With his over-excited, adolescent personality and constant referrals to everything being “money,” Kosmo can clearly use every ounce of help he can get. But it brings up an interesting conundrum: if you need someone in your ear telling you how to pick up women, are you really accomplishing anything useful?

We then move on to touching or “kiss tactics.” Here, Mystery offers an obvious mindfuck: the “kino.” Claiming that it refers to “kinesthetics” or the ability to feel movement, he first says that you should touch everyone you’re talking to after 15 seconds…and I literally can’t wait to see these schlubs counting in their heads as they make awkward conversation. Then he makes the awesome claim that if you can’t get a woman to hold your hand, she probably won’t kiss you. Really, Sherlock? How many rejections did it take to figure out that gem? Let me give you a freebie: if she’s pulling away from you and screaming for help, you might want to let her go. And run.

Finally, it’s time to go out “in the field” again. We watch a few guys try to engage women who obviously have no real interest in them. There’s a lot of rejection, a lot of borderline-misogynistic coaching (one guy missed out on a “perfectly good-looking girl”) and a lot of uncomfortable actions.

This lead me into several hours of reading Pick Up Artist websites. One thing I noticed is the one’s with the most active communities (where each posts gets a lot of comments) tend to be the one’s where the writer is NOT trying to make money off the advice they give. An example:

I found it on this excellent site which showcases very old photographs. The description of the photo reads: “Unemployed lumber worker goes with his wife to the bean harvest. Note Social Security number tattooed on his arm.”

Despite this man’s pauper clothes (there was little peacocking during the Great Depression), his jobless status, his search for employment or food at a bean harvest, and his home made out of canvas, he wears the confident smirk and mischievous gaze of an alpha male. What does he have to be happy about? Oh, his attractive wife. And by 1939 standards she is a real hottie.

Shouldn’t he feel ashamed to be dragging her to a bean harvest? Most modern men couldn’t imagine taking their wives or girlfriends on a bean harvest date. It would be a massive DLV. Not only that, but he’s obviously proud of the Social Security number tattooed on his arm. This is one step above waving your food stamps in the air like a certificate of accomplishment. What could be more beta than tattooing the government’s ownage of you on your arm?

Self-satisfaction will see a man through all sorts of tribulations. Radiating confidence, deserved or irrational, is what is most attractive to women. This man looks confident, and his wife stands by him. She has the mousy, hunched over posture of a woman in love. All else that’s objectively negative about him fades to insignificance in the matter of what stirs her heart. In glaring contrast, today we have the spectacle of wives divorcing their dutiful husbands (70% divorces initiated by women) for the sin of catering to her every whim by being “economic partners, lovers, …co-parents and best friends. [A]lso each other’s co-workers, editors and primary readers.”

I have a new system for learning inner game — I call it bean harvest game. This is where you take a woman on a really shitty date, let’s say to a soup kitchen to pick up your rations for the week, and refuse to act apologetic or ashamed of your anti-signaling station in life. Instead, you carry your unemployment and poor taste with the confidence of a master of the universe. Handicapping yourself this way means you have no crutch to close the deal. Everything desirable about you must flow from your internal state. If this doesn’t sharpen your inner game and hone your ability to reframe, nothing will. Expect to be amazed how many women will still sleep with you after running tight bean harvest game on them.

I suspect that the better sites are going to be the ones where the writer is not trying to make money, especially on a subject like this, because as soon as the writer tries to make money, they have to lie and pretend they have secret techniques that no one else has. Not trying to make money allows them the chance to be more honest, which brings in a more active readership. If the writer does eventually publish a book, or somehow monetize this work, I give them credit for building up an audience in careful, patient way.

I live at the corner of Waverly Ave and Flushing Ave, and for a long time there were no good wifi cafes near here. But all that has changed since Ted And Honey just opened up 4 blocks from my house, at the corner of Carrollton.

This has potential since the place has wifi, and is fairly empty. Most of the wifi spots I go to are over crowded and suffer from 2 huge problems:

1.) it is too crowded so there are no seats

2.) it is too crowded so the wifi sucks because too many people are using it

As a point of comparison, there is Think Coffee, on Mercer Street in Manhattan, and also Atlas Cafe in Williamsburg. At Think Coffee, it is almost impossible to find a place to sit down, and at Atlas Cafe, the wifi is frequently terrible.

So, one of the nice things about being on vacation is that I have time to stop and explore things. I was walking down Flushing Ave and saw a sign outside Building 92 that there was a cafe inside. I went inside and, to my surprise, it turned out that the cafe was up on the 4th floor. The location is weird for several reasons. First of all, this is inside the grounds of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which normally feels sort of walled off and forbidding. Second of all, there is no obvious sign, from the outside, that there is a cafe inside, other than the small hand drawn sign that I saw (which looks temporary). Third of all, its on the 4th floor!

I got some food and and some fruit juice and considered the place. Here are the pros and cons:

1.) it is on the 4th floor so it offers views. These are not your typical aesthetic skyline New York views, these are views of Brooklyn’s industrial port landscape. Personally, I like this, though I can imagine not everyone might.

2.) it is mostly empty, so it is a great place to work

3.) for me, it is 4 blocks away, so if I need to get out of the house so I can concentrate (I often do) this place would be perfect.

Up till now, when I want to go a wifi cafe, I felt like had to go far way: Williamsburg or Park Slope or Manhattan. But this place is practically next door.

It is true that there were a few other places near here trying to offer wifi. There was Connecticut Muffin on Myrtle Ave, however, I only went there twice and both times the wifi was not working. I recall that I asked the staff to reboot the router, as that normally straightens things out, but they were terrified to do so. So I hate that place and don’t want to go back.

Ted and Honey had 2 potential weaknesses:

One was the music. There was a high percentage of classic 60s rock in the music they play. I personally like classic 60s rock, so that isn’t a deal breaker for me, but I know a lot of my friends hate that kind of music. A cafe communicates a lot about who belongs there by the music they play. At Atlas Cafe, the music is wildly diverse, going from Johnny Cash to Mozart to hard-core industrial noise in the space of 20 minutes. The music at Atlas says “You need to be open minded to be here.” Nowadays, classic 60s rock is a conservative choice, so it communicates “We are playing it safe and not taking risks and let’s just all chill with some pleasant, non-controversial music.”

The other potential weakness is that since it is empty there is no social scene. But I feel like there are an abundance of cafes you can go to if you want to be surrounded by other interesting people. There is a shortage of cafes that let you just get work done.

I am curious if this place can survive in its odd location. Apparently the Brooklyn Naval Yard is now offering tours, and I assume this cafe is meant to cater to those tours. I am puzzled if that is actually enough to keep the place going. There is also the possibility that everyone (like me) who lives in this area and is desperate for a good local wifi cafe will discover the place.

I really hope this place survives. It’s got outdoor terraces with tables which would be a dreamy place to sit and work once it gets warmer.

Views of the industrial landscape:

Something has been introduced to me that I never could have anticipated: wedding invitation illustration and design. Consider this the confession of someone whose knee-jerk skepticism has been overturned in favor of love and one very happy day. Really.

The first commission came from a couple with very specific needs—like all pre-wedding couples, I imagine: specific content, tone, color palette. You know what? It’s kind of freeing. As I’ve reiterated (to myself and others) over the past couple of years, true collaboration is so appreciated in a client-based environment. Especially in a case like this, where the clients are so emotionally tied to the outcome. Together we put together a package that represented the personality and vision behind the occasion.

We started with (1) Save the Date cards, followed that up with (2) formal invitations and (3) enclosed RSVP cards inside (4) personalized envelopes, then created (5) two sets of driving directions to be included in hotel gift baskets, (6) programs for the actual ceremony and (7) food labels for the reception. I won’t bore you with a lot of process stuff, but below is a look at how it turned out.

Go check out the artwork she has posted: full of warmth and love and tenderness, which is exactly fitting for the event that the work is announcing.

The blue mug is from my girlfriend, who works at the Polish and Slavic Federal Credit Union.

Over the last several months, I’ve been able to make the acquaintance of the gentlemen behind serial pop-up/vintage shop, BKLYN Dry Goods. Right off the bat, it’s obvious these men practice what they preach as they’re a walking example of the products they sell. Founders Jahn Hall and Kurt Uhlendorf have over 30 years of experience between the two of them in the fashion world. They’ve traveled the world working for some of the industry’s top brands. Over time they noticed that vintage clothing and accessories where either exorbitantly priced or poorly merchandised. They set out to change the way consumers consume vintage by fundamentally changing the usual approach to retail.
So, how’d they do it? The two founders decided to forgo the traditional brick and mortar shop and take advantage of the rapidly growing online style/fashion community. Every month, BKLYN DRY GOODS host a pop-up event in New York City. Each one is driven by a theme, the products filling out the story they’re trying to tell. Oh, and there’s booze. Alcohol and sweet vintage finds? Sounds like a great night to me. And it’s through these pop-up events that the shop can bring to the vintage market a thoughtful, tightly curated collection of items – from menswear pieces to random accessories – at very affordable/fair prices. They focus on American-made products and top heritage brands, in order to bring to light the craftmanship and quality of the brands our fathers and grandfathers grew up with.

If you’re in the NYC area this week, come check out their latest event taking place in Williamsburg, Brooklyn (Thursday, 10/6, from 7pm – 10pm @ In God We Trust on Bedford Avenue). Buffalo Trace is hosting the bar (props to bourbon!) and as always there will be an impressive collection of items, handpicked by the founders. Remember those first few weeks of school in September, when you end up daydreaming about tales of summers past? That’s the motivation behind this week’s event. Cross country trips and quintessential American summer bad-assery. I think the image below sums up their inspiration quite nicely.

What is clear is that marriage has been important to all human societies for as long as we have written or verbal information to track, and yet marriage everywhere, at all times, has been shadowed by infidelity, which is just as pervasive as the craving for loyalty.

I am intrigued by this:

Mistresses, it seems, are everywhere. One U.K. reviewer was startled to find the painful story of the end of her own first marriage on page four of my book. Bel Mooney’s husband, British radio present Jonathan Dimbleby, suddenly plunged into a dramatic and obsessive affair with the magnificent soprano, Susan Chilcott, who was terminally ill with cancer. Against her anguished pleas that her very new lover consider his own well-being and not ruin his life for her, Dimbleby vowed to care for her until she died, and moved in with her and her little son. “I still do not adequately understand the intensity of passion and pity that animated my decision,” he said later. “It felt like an unstoppable force.” Yet he also “felt absolutely torn” about being away from Bel and their decades-long, happy marriage.

Less than three months after her last public performance, playing Desdemona and singing sorrowfully, her voice rising to a crescendo, “Ch’io viva ancor, ch’io viva ancor!” (Let me live longer, let me live longer!) Susan died. But a grieving Jonathan did not return to Bel and their tattered marriage unravelled into divorce.

My retelling of their story, Bel wrote, “was a reminder that there are no easy generalisations about this subject.” But she did offer this perspective: “I admit to a suspicion that most men are susceptible to temptation. Show me a loyal husband and I’ll show you one who’s never had a real opportunity to stray.”

Well, not all loyal husbands lack opportunity, but as Bel Mooney’s personal experience suggests, opportunity is all too often irresistible. Remember when President Clinton was under attack for his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky? We discovered later that as Reverend Jesse Jackson piously counseled and prayed for Clinton, he was also cheating on his wife with a mistress who was carrying his child. And Clinton’s self-righteous prosecutor, Newt Gingrich, was secretly pursuing a passionate relationship with Callista Bisek, whom he married after divorcing his wife, Marianne.

Both Jackson and Gingrich mistook the waning years of the 20th century for an earlier era, when mistressdom was the familiar handmaiden of marriage. That was clear when Jackson’s mistress, lawyer Karin Stanford, successfully sued him for child support. After millennia of protecting marriage by bastardizing the offspring of mistresses, indeed even making it difficult for men to recognize and provide for their “outside” children, our new laws essentially “outlaw” the concept of illegitimacy; they also demand parental accountability. Gingrich made another kind of mistake: he gambled on keeping his affair a secret but six years into it, he got caught. The values of the media world were also changing, and the man who had been angling to run for president on a platform of “family values” had to settle for divorcing his wife so he could marry his mistress.

The values of the media world were also changing, and the man who had been angling to run for president on a platform of “family values” had to settle instead for divorcing his wife so he could become his mistress’s new husband.