apparently undergrad philosophy at Stanford didn't include the naturalistic fallacy.

Too slow?
Really? That's a problem for some people?

i'm not saying that every work of art needs to be instantly accessible.

But is a work of art really successful…
…if you have to do that much fucking homework to appreciate it?

If he'd done his Ph.D in philosophy
and not neuroscience, then maybe he wouldn't have made so many rookie fucking mistakes with his argument.

how does it compare to Prospero's Books?
because that was already some pretty trippy shit right there.

But was the original ever the 'definitive' version, even in the golden age of the single and the album (sometime in the 20th century)?

But if they censor this…
how will kids find out what breasts look like?

it's weird, a lot of books i read are written with mere words. it's like a craze or something, i tells ya.

Is there such a thing as a "definitive" version of a piece of music anymore?
Was there ever?

about a young boy transformed into an alien-crushing super-soldier by playing flight simulator games
you forgot to mention 'while naked, with lots of other naked children'.

Much never had a golden age? I have fond memories of Erica Ehm in the early- to mid-90s…

Thanks, maybe he was thinking of Much Music.

It doesn't much help to publish a profile of two lesser-known members of a famous band
and then run a photo of six of its members.

I remember liking the second book because of that creepy-as-fuck city in the first chapter, plus the general alternate dimensions schtick.

Which parts of the third book did I hate?

His Dark Materials trilogy
Loved the first book.

yeah, Twain was right: the difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be credible.

they also make stuff sound real exotic like

"Cockneys, the London race, thrived in their unadulterated form"
as someone who lives in south London, i'm happy to confirm for Mr Ebert's sake that they continue to thrive like locusts.