I went to a liberal arts college in the Midwest, and the nice virginal girls by that point were attending TNP: "Tuesday Night Porn," a popular institution for the kids in band. (Stop right there.) Sample quote: "It's really…very…educational?"

There's a strange impression that viewers have had for years now, though: the expectation that the visual clarity of a movie will be greater at home, on re-watchings, than the movie was initially, in the theatre. I find that the experience of going to the theatre is different both qualitatively and on a bit-level. On…

She does seem like a smart gal. I wonder how much that matters, however, in being a good moviestar. You don't have to read a thing to look like smart, do you? (The obverse is also probably true—my dead eyes don't necessarily imply a dead head.) I enjoyed reading her reading list, but I wonder if there might be more…

No, now it's time for maximum enrtopnwaoihlr.kjdsnmcx lskp,ooiuhp' okjaw34223] asder )2k3j4h a;lkse4n 23erwhyju5trdg frewzcx z/.sadwK32olj

Vaginas, testicles, man-nipples, I'll give you. (Even though you didn't ask for vaginas, I'm throwing those in for free—I know my like of them is purely animal and has little to do with aesthetics.)

Tsk, tsk. The units on "boobies" and "yes" don't match.

Cool! Although, I was thinking of the Mormon version, in which the Sasquatch was actually Cain, doomed to wander the Earth:

Yeah, I like this guy. This tunelet seems to have an appropriate title.

Too hard, @avclub-93e06678bf43969ed7f3b3377605aa8c:disqus , way too hard. Although "Seagull"…I'll admit, that was pretty funny.

Judy Garland as Dorothy? Judy Garland IS Dorothy!

Jesus, yes. I watched it at the 2nd-run theatre this weekend, and I could not believe that a move this dumb could be getting such lavish praise. Sure: it's beautifully shot, and the action scenes are beautifully executed. Yes. But also, the dialogue was stilted beyond belief (or "stripped down, as in myth," for…

Right, that's what I'm trying to say is the point of the book. That's why intention is the basis of moral culpability, at least so far as the book would have us think: had Ender known what he was doing, then he'd be guilty…but he didn't. That makes him feel bad, but it doesn't make him be bad.

@avclub-eb51727cd6e697842c08dd7b4112c71e:disqus is operating under the expansion pack rules, man.

I had some Mormon missionaries over to my house a few weeks ago, and I remarked afterward (I got them quite a way off script) that the world-building tendencies would practically incubate a burgeoning sci-fi writer.

I wasn't trying to give a theory of what the book's about. All I'm offering is one possibility for why it has such a cult following—sort of the way that Ayn Rand's cultists may or may not understand the actual content of her books.

The actions weigh on Ender, but if he were actually responsible for the genocide, he would be considered as a Bad Person—sort of the way that Aldolf Eichmann is considered to be morally culpable for his part in the Final Solution even though he maintained throughout his career that he was a Zionist and just wanted to…

It's surprising to me that after you get $20 million+ for a year's work, you'd still want to do mini-van commercials.

They are, at that age…

The book seems uniquely designed to appeal to young nerds who feel like they're both brilliant and under-appreciated. So if you're a high school student caught in a mass of people you feel to be morons who aren't interested in anything that you're interested in (I knew a lot of these guys in high school—and was sort…

There's a review of Ender's Game that argues, I think convincingly, that the novel is an extended argument that the basis of moral culpability in intention. There's another article that's argued that Orson Scott Card wrote an extended "apologia for the Third Reich" in his books. So it's not unheard of to be moved to…