DreamHack 2019!!!

DreamHack is the world's largest computer and gaming lifestyle festival.  Many game-related companies, professional esports players and fans gather together every year.  There are a few esports world's championships or tournaments going on such as SMITE, Rocket League, Counter-Strike, etc.  People from all over the world attended the event to play, to meet game developers, pro-gamers, streamers, and other content creators.  Our CGDD program always sends faculty and students to run a booth.  We demonstrated student game projects, got feedback from professionals and casual players, participated in live interviews.  We also gave out marketing materials to promote our program as well as the CCSE.  It was an exciting event and everybody was having fun!

Storium Theory: Optional Challenges

Most of the time, when we put down a challenge, it's definite - a note that the story will be focusing on a particular point. But is it possible to use challenges differently? To lay down a challenge for something the players might want to focus on, but are not required to focus on?

I believe it is a tool for the toolbox...but one I would show great caution in using. I've only pulled out an optional challenge once or twice in my own games, and I am wary of using them often, if at all, in my own narration generally. Storium's rules are set up more for completion of challenges and requiring of challenges, and I think there's a good reason for that.

In setup, an optional challenge wouldn't be so different from a regular challenge - you still want to establish the starting situation, the facts of the challenge, and the possible places the challenge can end up once it is complete. There's not much different in the overall technique of setting it up.

But should you decide to use this tool, I think there are some very important things you will need to be sure you address.

First: How will you know if players are or are not going to play on the challenge? You will need a good way of knowing if players have not played on a challenge yet because they haven't gotten to it yet, or because they do not intend to play on it at all. An optional challenge, being optional, could be ignored completely by players for reasons that have nothing to do with slow play or inactivity. It is important to have a way of determining that the players are not going to play on the challenge, and that it is time to move the scene on.

I suggest that you consider one of the following ideas:

• Set a deadline based on the other challenges - if the optional challenge is not completed by the time the scene's other challenges are, you will consider it incomplete and move the scene on.
• Set a deadline based on actual time - if the optional challenge is not completed within X days after the rest of the scene's challenges are (or just within X days if there are no other challenges) you will consider it incomplete and move the scene on.
• Require an affirmative statement from a player that they intend to play on the optional challenge by a specific date. If you have no such statement by that date, you will remove the optional challenge.

These methods are probably not the only ones...or even likely the best...but they all allow you to know when you can regard the challenge as incomplete and move forward. Whatever choice you make, be sure you tell your players so they know what the requirements are.

Second: What happens when the optional challenge is incomplete?

This is a pretty important question, and one that, I think, gets at the reason I don't use optional challenges much. If something's critical enough to the story that you want to set up a challenge for it, it seems like it is something the group should have to interact with - even if their interaction is playing Weakness cards and having their characters utterly ignore it and let it go wrong. In other words, the characters might not care about something, but if it is important enough to the story to rate a challenge, the players should have to do something about it...even if that something is having their characters do nothing. The story of the challenge, once laid out, should probably progress.

If it goes well, then, it ends Strong. If it goes poorly, it ends Weak. If it is less clear, it ends Uncertain. But that's all determined by the cards.

So...what do you do with a challenge that seemed interesting enough to put out there as an option, but that seems like something the character's don't have to address?

My best bet is that you do nothing. An optional challenge is something that is interesting, but not critical. The players don't gain or lose anything by not going after it. It's only if they actually engage it that it matters to the story in any way.

Thus, if the players don't seem interested in it and leave it alone, it just drops off for the moment. Nothing bad happens, nothing good happens. It just fades away into the background again.

That's not to say you can't bring it back again later, or bring it back again later as a normal, required challenge. It's just that for the moment, it wasn't critical enough to be made required, so nothing's reaching any kind of story-altering point with it. It just fades away for now.

If on the other hand players play some of the cards on the challenge, but don't finish it, I'd probably go by my usual rule for ending a challenge early when it becomes absolutely necessary: Most likely, end it by whatever the current result would be (i.e. if it is going Strong, it ends Strong, if it is going Weak, it ends Weak, if it is going Uncertain, it ends Uncertain) - this method makes the players' card plays so far clearly matter, so that's my preference. If you use a different rule for those cases in your own games, be consistent.

But that brings me to another consideration...

Third: How many points do you put on the thing, anyway?

I'm going to just say outright that I think the answer is one, possibly two at maximum. An optional challenge is not the focus of the scene - it is by definition something that can be entirely ignored. Thus, it isn't anywhere near as important as other challenges, and shouldn't get a lot of focus in the scene at hand.

Furthermore, if you put more points on an optional challenge, it makes it harder to judge when players no longer care about it - once it has become active, how do you judge that it isn't going to be active any further? You can always rule that an optional challenge becomes required if at least one player plays a card on it, of course, but that could get messy in terms of game morale and community if players disagree about whether they want to play on it.

So...I suggest making your life as easy as possible by using only one or two points, tops, and making clear to your players that whatever "deadline" you set for the optional challenge is a completion deadline, not a play deadline - the challenge needs to be complete by then or you will move things on. That will prevent an optional challenge from causing delays.

Finally, though: Consider whether the challenge should even be optional in the first place.

Most of the things I've considered as, well, optionally "optional" challenges were ideas that I ended up deciding would either fit perfectly well as required challenges right then, or would fit perfectly well as required challenges later. I've rarely come across something that I considered important to note in challenge form, but not critical enough to be something the players had to address.

If you're considering an optional challenge, think about it a bit more for a while...is it really something that should be optional, or is it just something that hasn't come to a head yet? Maybe it's something you can get some actual drama out of later, and make it a normal challenge in a later scene. Or maybe it's something you can hint at with a minor required challenge now - perhaps to see if someone notices something - and bring in more fully down the line.

Or perhaps it is something that actually is pretty vitally important right now, in which case it should be a required challenge...right now.

So, when can an optional challenge be helpful?

I could see them being useful if you want to allow the group to choose a direction, but neither direction is necessarily better or worse for the story (if one direction is better and the other is worse, you'd instead do a regular challenge and set the first up as the Strong outcome and the second as the Weak). Then, you could set up two different one-point challenges, and tell the players they can only do one of them - that sets them off on that path and determines how it starts out for them.

It isn't my chosen way to find where the players want to go in the story, but I could see it working.

Another method might be something that is solidly an opportunity for the players - again, if they don't do anything, it doesn't go wrong or anything like that, but perhaps it is something they can use to "shortcut" the plot in some way. You'd have to be careful with this one - it's easy to run into the "why don't you just do this as a regular challenge" internal question - but there are ways I could see it working. If you do this, then, the Strong result is very good for the characters, and the Weak result is perhaps less so, but still generally quite good.

The problem I run into myself with that is that if you use that method, it becomes hard to argue that things aren't worse if the player decide not to play the challenge...in which case, again, I feel like it probably shouldn't be optional because it impacts the story in a notable way. And that's exactly where I've ended up when I've reflected on the few times I've used optional challenges...I end up feeling like what I did was render a part of the story optional when it was actually going to have a definite impact. 

And that's the point I keep coming back to myself in considering this - I just generally can't justify putting a challenge down and treating it as "optional." When I put a challenge down, it means that a notable event has started in the story, and the players, through their card plays, need to see where it goes. It needs to get to some conclusion or another, so that we know where the story goes after it. When I find myself thinking of perhaps telling my players a challenge is optional, I start instead thinking of whether it should be there yet at all.

But: I know that this is a technique some other narrators have used in the past, and I'd very much be interested to hear others' thoughts on it. Have you used optional challenges? What did they represent in your game? And how did you ensure that you knew it was fine to move the game forward? Write in, and let me know!

ORDER THESE ANIMATIONSM AND CARTOONS JUST FOR 10$

ORDER THESE ANIMATIONS AND CARTOONS JUST FOR 10$

ORDER NOW

The Lone Wolf

What can I say about Wolf that you haven't heard somewhere before? My relationship with Wolf has almost always been complicated. We grew up together and were friends when we were young. We spent most weekends and holidays together back then and we were practically inseparable. We spent so much time playing and talking about what kind of Pokémon we'd train when we grew up, it's crazy to think how far we'd ultimately drift apart. We were like brothers in those early days. The rift began to grow between us when we entered our teens.
It's safe to say I still don't completely understand what happened to this day. We just began to see things differently and move in different social circles. The kids around us were getting their first Pokémon and heading off on their Pokémon journeys, but not us. I didn't have the means to head out with a Pokémon when I was that young. Wolf, however, did have the means to leave on a Pokémon adventure. Wolf had the means to do whatever he wanted, but by that time he wasn't all that interested  in Pokémon anymore. He was interested in money. We didn't see eye to eye, and as a result we really didn't see each other much at all for quite a few years. But over those years a bitterness grew between us.
As I followed those excited youngsters through the streets of Viridian City, there's no way I could have known I was about to see Wolf again. I would never have even imagined that he was in Kanto. The last I had heard about Wolf was that he was running a small but successful business back home. I believe it was a Pokémon Rental service for people wanting to experience Pokémon battles and training, but without the fuss of leaving home or frankly doing any of the work that comes along with it. When I found out, I was hurt that I hadn't been invited to help start it up. We grew up dreaming about working with Pokémon, and then he went and started without me. I felt so left behind by my childhood friend that I completely distanced myself from him. Speaking honestly, I may have always been a bit jealous that success came so easily to him and that he took his family's generous start up money for granted.

I found the mysterious newcomer to town quite near the open field where I caught Nibbles. From a distance I could see him gazing up at Indigo Plateau. I rushed across the field to challenge him. The two city kids were just behind me eager to see a Pokémon battle with their own eyes. When my footfalls came into earshot, the trainer turned around and when I saw the face of my former friend I was completely stunned. My feet faltered to a complete stop. The children behind me almost slammed into my backpack because I stopped so abruptly. The expression on Wolf's face was also one of surprise, but it quickly melted into a sneer.
"What are you doing here, Fox?" I remember him asking.
"I heard there was a trainer out here. I didn't know it was you." I felt my words coming out as a stutter. "I came out here to challenge you."
"Oh. No." His tone was sympathetic. "I mean, what are you doing in Kanto?" I felt stupid that I misunderstood him.
"I'm here to start the Sanctuary. You remember my idea, right? I want to start a Pokémon preservation park. I'm still working out the details, but Professor Oak agreed to help me get started."
"Right. Yeah. I remember." He laughed a little. "It's a cute idea, but I thought you'd have given up on that by now." I remember his tone felt so condescending at the time. I felt flush with anger. He either didn't notice or didn't care. Wolf turned to look back up into the mountains. "I'm here to challenge the champion of Indigo Plateau," he announced smugly.
"I thought you were running some company back home," I asked through clenched teeth. I didn't really want to talk about it, but I also didn't want Wolf to be here right now.
"Yeah. I am." He spoke without looking at me. "I hired some managers, which gives me a bit more free time. It practically runs itself. So instead I'm here to challenge the Kanto Pokémon League." He turned back to look me in the eye. I felt he was mocking me when he asked, "Did you say you wanted to challenge me?" He looked as though the thought was delightfully amusing. He looked as though fighting me was beneath him.
I had a newfound conviction in my voice when I answered. "Yeah. I do. Are you ready or do you need a minute to collect yourself?" I took Kiwi's ball from its holster on my backpack strap.
Wolf looked me straight in the eyes and laughed. "You're so serious, man. I'm ready. I'll fight you with the junkémon I just got." We both tossed out our Pokéballs and both our Pidgeys faced off against one another.

The fight was absolutely nerve wracking. Not only was this my first competitive battle ever, but it was against someone I couldn't bear to lose against. It was an understatement to say I was determined to win. Not to mention, I simply couldn't afford to fail. I needed that money I'd get from a victory over Wolf to support myself in the future. Meanwhile, the look on Wolf's face appeared as if he couldn't care less.
Kiwi and his Pidgey circled each other overhead sizing each other up. Kiwi dove down into the grass and buffeted some dirt and soil up into his opponents face. I stifled a small smile that some of the dirt and grass found its way into Wolf's face as well. The attack was a complete success, for both of Wolf's Pidgey's next couple attacks missed Kiwi outright. Although Kiwi had the advantage, Kiwi only managed to lightly wound his opponent before it landed a very lucky strike on Kiwi knocking him from the sky and into the grass.
I remember my heart leapt into my throat seeing Kiwi hit so hard. I immediately withdrew him and tossed out Rascal. Wolf's Pidgey was significantly weakened now and still couldn't see clearly. Rascal had done most of his training against other Pidgey, so I was confident he would win. He did not disappoint me. Landing a decisive quick attack on Wolf's Pidgey put the bird completely out of commission. I watched as it fell defeated into the grass and I was flooded with a mixture of emotions. I was elated that I was now winning against my former friend, but I was sad that his Pokémon had gotten so badly hurt in the process. This battle marked the beginning of many conflicting feelings about caring for Pokémon and also battling with them.
Wolf withdrew his fainted Pidgey and tossed out the only other Pokémon he had with him. I was surprised to see him with such a rare Pokémon as Squirtle - one that Professor Oak had promised he would track down for me if I could help him test the Pokédex. Then I remembered Wolf came from a wealthy family. It probably was not that big of a deal to him to have this fairly uncommon Pokémon rounding out his team. Wolf made me so angry, so frustrated. He made it all look so easy. I think Rascal could feel how heated I was, because he was also worked up into a frenzy. After distracting the Squirtle with a series of mesmerizing tail whips, he devastated it with a well placed tackle to its exposed head. Wolf was utterly defeated, but I was still angry.
Wolf laughed as he withdrew his Pokémon. He laughed!
"You're really worked up over this, huh?" he asked me.
I denied it even though he could see right through me.
"Well, good match. I'll transfer you the winning credits." He shrugged. "It was good to see you, Fox. Keep training. Maybe we can have a rematch some time."
"Don't you even care?" I demanded as he turned to walk away from me. "You lost! Your Pokémon are completely knocked out." I honestly have no idea what I wanted from him. I don't know what he could have said to make me feel better. Even in defeat his arrogance and his self-entitlement defeated my spirit. My grand victory over my rival felt like a complete failure, in part because he didn't even care.
"Fainting is part of the training process, Fox." He said nonchalantly. "I can afford to help them heal and get back into the fight. It's no big deal. Next time I see you, we'll do it all again." With that our first encounter in Kanto was over as he casually strolled back into Viridian City. The children rushed up to me to congratulate me. Their happy, smiling faces beaming with pride at their new friend's victory made me feel just a bit better. But my eyes kept drifting to Wolf's back as it slowly disappeared into the city.

Current Team:
No Change from Episode 2

Bill Cosby, Extraodrinary Evidence, And The Art Versus The Artist

Nearly every weeknight of elementary school for me ended with Different Strokes, The Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air, and The Cosby Show. Unlike my own Father, who knew Bill Cosby primarily through his stand-up, I came to know "America's Dad" through that show, and boy, what a show it was. I found it funnier than Different Strokes, but not quite as funny as Fresh Prince. Sure, The Cosby Show was clean, like Full House, but far more humorous and believable. Cosby as Dr. Cliff Huxtable brought such a warm, charismatic presence, who could tell a rousing story or be outright loony with his facial expressions. Of course, there were other strong performances, like that of Phylicia Rashad, Malcolm Jamal-Warner, or the young Raven-Symone. Much like Fresh Prince or Different Strokes, The Cosby Show dealt with growing up, education, childhood, and even celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ray Charles. It also didn't hurt to see a black family portrayed with dignity and humanity. Indeed, The Cosby Show reruns will remain a treasured part of a childhood memories, but they may be a part that I will now always fear to revisit.


Old rape allegations against Bill Cosby have resurfaced this year, thanks to Hannibal Buress and the power of viral media. Women are telling their stories, and America is listening. I have listened and reflected. It seems so clear, regrettably clear to me, that Bill Cosby, a man I once admired, is with little doubt in my mind, a serial rapist.


Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence

The old maxim of rationality I've heard used by Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you want to claim something, like aliens control the White House, then you need to show equally extraordinary evidence. However, to claim that one has been raped, unfortunately, isn't an extraordinary, but dreadfully, quite common. So it shouldn't take much to convince us of such a claim. There are those who say that we should "err in favor of the victim", and while this is a justified belief, statistically anyways, I'd rather treat rape like any other crime, in the sense that we should maintain a neutral position until persuaded otherwise, or "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". After all, weeding out liars from truthers isn't always as clear cut as it may seem, even when said liars are in low supply. In cases like these where there will usually be no trial, I would often argue for the slightly lower standard of a "clear and convincing evidence", in which, according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute, "a party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that it is true," ("Clear and Convincing Evidence"). This seems a far more reasonable assertion to make than the "preponderance of evidence" standard, in which one only prove that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This seems to me a petty standard with which to damnably brand someone a criminal, let alone a rapist. We can do better than that. No doubt, it is useful in probing crimes, but not quite in condemning. That standard seems to me not much better than a guess or a coin toss, and leaves far too much ambiguity, as far as damning anyone is concerned, anyways. However, the Cosby situation is an incredible outlier, in which we can safely discard the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, or even the exceedingly low "preponderance of evidence" standard and argue that it is "unreasonable" to doubt that Cosby is a rapist. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. We should not discard this maxim, even in cases of rape. Yet, rape, notwithstanding, can be reasonably proved within these standards if all the right questions are asked. Here, I make that argument. Just keep in mind that I'm no lawyer, so none of these are bona fide legal arguments. I am simply making educated guesses based on these incredible situations, while also trying to bring them to their most reasonable conclusions.

I first came across the allegations long before Hannibal Buress spoke up. I read them in Katie McDonough's article for Salon, "A nation ruled by creeps: Woody, Cosby, and James Taranto's demented "balance."" From there, I read Tom Scocca's article in Gawker "Who Wants to Remember Bill Cosby's Multiple Sex-Assault Accusations?", and Amanda Hess's similarly titled "Why Doesn't Anyone Care About the Sexual Assault Allegations Against Bill Cosby?" for Slate. I'll admit, when I first read these words, it reminded me of the time that I uncovered one of my Christmas presents early, and figured out that Santa Claus didn't exist (I still played along for awhile, though). I had looked into the Ark of the Covenant and seen something I clearly wished I hadn't. Ignorance is bliss. That an entire generation was raised on Bill Cosby without knowing a smidgen about these damning allegations is frightening. Heck, Cosby's biographer Mark Whittaker, tried to erase them from history in his book. A move he later apologized for doing. I wasn't completely sure at the time if they were true, but the accusations seemed credible, almost damning. At the time, it seemed more likely than not that Cosby did something wrong. What I hoped for was an investigation from the media for better clarification, but I wouldn't get one until Hannibal Buress went viral.

You should all know the basic story at this point. Comedian Hannibal Buress slammed Cosby briefly in a comedy routine that caught the eye of the Internet, a transcript of the bit is here,

"Thirteen? And it's even worse because Bill Cosby has the fucking smuggest old black man public persona that I hate. Pull your pants up, black people. I was on TV in the '80s. I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom. Yeah, but you raped women, Bill Cosby. So, brings you down a couple notches. I don't curse on stage. Well, yeah, you're a rapist, so, I'll take you sayin' lots of motherfuckers on Bill Cosby: Himself if you weren't a rapist. …I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. …I've done this bit on stage, and people don't believe. People think I'm making it up. …That shit is upsetting. If you didn't know about it, trust me. You leave here and Google 'Bill Cosby rape.' It's not funny. That shit has more results than Hannibal Buress." (YouTube.)

Since then, there has been great discussion on social media and in the news about the allegations. When I first heard of the bit, I knew exactly what Buress was talking about. Then, the women started coming forward about Bill Cosby.

So many women, in fact, have come out to accuse Cosby, that it's hard to keep track of them all. Thankfully, Filipa Ioannou, Elliott Hannon, and Ben-Mathis Liley have a complete list of all women who have publicly accused the comedian of sexual misconduct on Slate:

1. Lachele Covington---An actress who alleged that Cosby put her hand near his penis on January 25, 2000 and filed a police report. The authorities decided that no crime was committed.

2. Andrea Constand---A woman who worked at Temple University, Cosby's alma mater, claimed in 2005 that when she went to Cosby's home seeking advice, he gave her herbal pills for "anxiety" and Cosby then proceeded to sexually assault her. While a Pennsylvania prosecutor could not find enough evidence to charge, he found Constand "credible" and Cosby "evasive." Constand opted to sue Cosby in a civil suit for $150 million, which cited, the now famous, 13 Jane Does who had personal testimonies with Cosby. The Jane Does never got a chance to testify, because Constand settled for an undisclosed amount.

3. Shawn Brown---The National Enquirer reported in 2005 that Brown, who was in a consensual relationship with Cosby, was drugged and raped by him in 1973.

4. Tamara Green---A retired trial attorney and one of the Jane Does cited earlier, Green took to the Today Show in 2005 to claim that Cosby drugged and assaulted her in the 1970's.

5. Beth Ferrier---A model who had previously been in a consensual relationship with Cosby, told the Philadelphia Daily News in 2005, that Cosby drugged her coffee and sexually assaulted her. She was also a Jane Doe set to testify.

6. Barbara Bowman---An aspiring actress and model, Bowman told Philadelphia Magazine that she was one of the Jane Does set to testify in the Constand case. In 2014, after Buress went viral, she told her story to the Daily Mail and The Washington Post alleging that Cosby drugged and raped her multiple times.

7. Joan Tarshis---Also in 2014, after Bowman retold her story, Tarshis, a music industry publicist and journalist told Hollywood Elsewhere that Cosby drugged and raped her twice in 1969.

8. Linda Joy Traitz---A former waitress at Cosby owned restaurant, Traitz alleged this year that Cosby tried to force her to take pills which would help her relax and when she refused, unsuccessfully tried to rape her.

9. Janice Dickinson---Probably the most famous of the accused, TV personality and model, Dickinson told Entertainment Tonight this year that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. (Notice a pattern here?)

10. Therese Serignese---A Florida nurse who told The Huffington Post this year that in 1976, Cosby drugged and raped her when she was only 19.

11. Carla Ferrigno---Actress and wife of The Incredible Hulk's Lou Ferrigno, told Rumorflix this year that in 1967, Cosby forced a kiss on her while his wife, Camille, was in another room.

12. Louisa Moritz---A lawyer and actress from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Moritz told TMZ this year that Cosby forced oral sex on her in 1971 during The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

13. Renita Chaney Hill---A woman from Pittsburgh who alleged on CBS that Cosby drugged and raped her after their relationship started when she was 15.

14. Michelle Hurd---An actress from Law and Order: SVU and Gossip Girl, wrote on her Facebook page that Cosby touched her inappropriately, and implied that Cosby drugged and raped another actress she knew.

15. Angela Leslie---Another actress-model who told the New York Daily News that Cosby forced her to masturbate his hand at Las Vegas in 1992.

16. Kristina Ruehli---Another Jane Doe in the Constand case who previously worked as a secretary for Cosby's talent agency told Philadelphia Magazine that in 1965, Cosby drugged her and when she woke up, he was forcing her to do an oral sex act on him.

17. Victoria Valentino---A former Playboy Playmate told the Washington Post that in 1970, Cosby gave them her and another actress, Meg Foster, red pills. She recalled trying to pull Cosby off of Foster as he attempted to rape her, and Cosby later coerced her into an oral sex act.

18. Joyce Emmons---A former comedy club manager who told TMZ that in the 1970s, Cosby gave her a drug for a migraine and she later woke up nude next to a friend of Cosby's she had rejected earlier. When she confronted Cosby, he laughed it off, saying it was "just a Quaalude."

19. Jewel Allison---A former model who told the New York Daily News that in the late 1980's Cosby drugged her wine and raped her.

20. Donna Motsinger---A Jane Doe who told The New York Post that Cosby drugged and raped her while she was a waitress at a California jazz club in 1971. ("A Complete List of the Women Who Have Accused Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault.")

Reuters reports that Cosby was additionally accused by two new women, along with Ferrier in a news conference with lawyer Gloria Allred. One woman, Chelan, said that Cosby assaulted her when she was 17 in 1986. Another, Helen Hayes, said that Cosby groped her breast in 1973. Allred, seeking an end to the situation, asks that Cosby either end the statute of limitations, which would open him up for a lawsuit, or create a $100 million fund for his victims. Along with that, Judy Huth is suing Cosby of sexually assaulting her in 1973 when she was 15 years old (Sinha-Roy; Kesley). So 23 women have all accused Cosby of some sexual wrongdoing. Of these, only five were among the 13 Jane Does, which leaves 8 other unknowns to accuse Cosby, totaling at 32 women to accuse Cosby of sexual misconduct, and Lord knows how many more. It's his word against all of theirs. I hope that these women get their day in court and I hope that Bill Cosby rots in a prison cell.

Of course, there are still those who insist that these women could be lying or exaggerating, or that they need more evidence. Indeed, false allegations of rape do happen, as we saw with Tawana Bawley, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, and more recently, Caleb Warner, but it is a pernicious myth to say that they are a common occurrence, especially on this scale. I know it sounds trivial to explain false rape allegations at this point, but please bear with me.

For evidence, I point to the 2010 study, "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases" from the journal Violence Against Women, which concluded that, "Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%" (Lisak, et.al). Yes, I realize that this study is a small one, but considering that real rapes are highly under-reported, I see this statistic as our best rule of thumb. Even Emily Bazelon and Rachael Larimore of Slate, wrote that while the preponderance of false rape allegations are hard to calculate, they nevertheless stated that upon reading Phillip Rumney's reviews of false rape statistics that, 

"Rumney's smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they're better than the rest of the lot." ("How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?")

Regardless if these statistics are exact or not, just keep in mind, if you can, that the preponderance of false rape allegations is very low. So the chances that these women, who have nothing in common, and apparently nothing to gain, are all lying about being raped by Bill Cosby, of all people, seems rather odd to me.

Indeed, in her video "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence--Except In Rape Claims?", feminist blogger and skeptic Rebecca Watson has said, (emphasis mine),

"For instance, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a phrase that skeptics love to throw around. What this means is that if something has a very small likelihood of happening, you need a proportionally large amount of evidence to convince you that it may be so. The odds that John Edward is actually talking to the dead are incredibly low, so in order to believe it we ask that he provide a proportionally impressive demonstration to convince us.

But because we're talking about rape and not psychics, suddenly many skeptics abandon their belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and instead demand that no claims be considered extraordinary based upon their odds of happening." (Skepchick.org)

This sentiment is also echoed by another feminist blogger within the skeptic community, Greta Christina. On the Freethought Blogs, when she indicates that being able to point out a serial rapist or sexual harasser shouldn't be too difficult, because there are clear warning signs that tell us so. These include, "Multiple similar claims made against the same person from different people. Especially when these claims show a similar pattern of behavior," and "Other people corroborating behavior that falls short of harassment/assault, but is consistent with it." ("Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism.") Well, at least 30 women have accused Cosby of sexual harassment, and not all of them say they were raped, but abused in some manner consistent with the various other testimonies.

I ask of you, what seems more extraordinary, Cosby's innocence or his accusers allegations?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I believe that I have sufficiently done so, thus far. However, I would argue that the onus switches from the claimant, once they have sufficiently made an argument worth refuting. The testimonies of these women are so consistent, credible, and in such sheer number, that they overwhelmingly warrant a response from Cosby. If one weighs the arguments for and against Cosby, it is clear that one just makes more sense than the other. In the words of Charles Ramsay, its a "dead giveaway." Ta-Nehisi Coates bears this out clearly in his article for The Atlantic,

"A defense of Cosby requires that one believe that several women have decided to publicly accuse one of the most powerful men in recent Hollywood history of a crime they have no hope of seeing prosecuted, and for which they are seeking no damages. The alternative is to see one of the most celebrated public fathers of our time, and one of the great public scourges of black morality, revealed as a serial rapist" ("The Cosby Show").

If the words of these women aren't enough, then the smoking gun is in two interviews Cosby did for the most prestigious non-partisan news organizations in the country: National Public Radio and the Associated Press.

For a "Weekend Edition" interview on NPR with Scott Simon, Bill Cosby was asked about his loaning of 62 pieces of art to the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art in Washington D.C. The display of this art was called "Conversations: African and African-American Artworks In Dialogue." One such painting was "The Thankful Poor" painted by Henry Ossawa Tanner in 1894. It features an old man and a little boy in prayer at a dinner table. Their meal is modest. Not long after talking about this collection, Simon brings up the allegations.

"This question gives me no pleasure, Mr. Cosby, but there have been serious allegations raised about you in recent days. You're shaking your head no. I'm in the news business. I have to ask the question - do you have any response to those charges? Shaking your head no - there are people who love you who might like to hear from you about this. I want to give you the chance. All right..." ("Cosbys Start A 'Conversation' With African-American Art.")

Usually, if one is innocent of an accusation, especially one as repulsive as rape, they would deny it loudly like there's no tomorrow, or at least, I would. So Cosby's silence, in my mind, betrays in him. By saying nothing, he gave more validation to the allegations than if he responded, even briefly. His silence implies that, perhaps, there's something to these claims.

I've also thought about "The Thankful Poor" by Henry Ossawa Tanner, as well as Cosby's tendency to berate the black middle-class in America. Since this essay is primarily about rape, I won't spend too much time on Cosby and race, but seeing that it's relevant, I'll address it briefly.

Cosby's racial views are best expressed through his famous "pound cake" speech, for the NAACP that commemorated the 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education at Washington D.C. in May of 2004. Cosby took the event to criticize the black-middle class for their own failures. The "pound cake" part is here,

"Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged, "The cops shouldn't have shot him" What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? (laughter and clapping). I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother. Not you're going to get your butt kicked. No. You're going to embarrass your mother. You're going to embarrass your family." (Rutgers.edu)

Here's another segment referring to his now infamous "pull your pants up" rhetoric,

"Are you not paying attention, people with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn't that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up (laughter and clapping ). Isn't it a sign of something when she's got her dress all the way up to the crack…and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? (laughter). We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans, they don't know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail. (When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What's the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up)." (Rutgers University)

An interesting segment where he mocks black slang,

"Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We've got to take the neighborhood back (clapping). We've got to go in there. Just forget telling your child to go to the Peace Corps. It's right around the corner. (laughter) It's standing on the corner. It can't speak English. It doesn't want to speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk. "Why you ain't where you is go, ra," I don't know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk (laughter). Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't land a plane with "why you ain't…" You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they're moving ahead on this. Well, they know they're not, they're just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you're just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out." (Rutgers University).

Now, are there problems in the black community? Yes, of course. Every community, black, white, yellow, etc, probably has its own issues they need to confront, but one glaring omission Cosby makes is that he refuses to acknowledge the socioeconomic impact that institutional racism has had and still does have on black communities. He ignores that the justice system is disproportionate in its targeting of blacks, which may explain why you have so many in prison, and with often longer sentences. Simply because America has made progress (and it has) doesn't mean that we're living in a "Rainbow Nation" of Mandelian heights. Cosby also makes some rather rude assumptions about these blacks simply because of the way they look and talk. Yeah, Tupac Shakur may have looked like a "thug", but he was one of the most well-read and most poetic musicians of the 90s. Every subculture, from hippies to goths, have been judged by their clothes more than by their ideas. If Cosby can't see the poetry or the rhythm in slang, then he is intellectually poorer for it. Cosby would benefit from a discussion on language with John McWhorter. Where would we be without "Huckleberry Finn", "Catcher In The Rye", and "On The Road" which used slang to drive a more relatable narrative, or the transcendent lyricism of Nujabes and Lauryn Hill, which embodied the urban, black experience? By the way, most of the people who work to fix issues in the black community are, in fact, black. Had Cosby not heard the song "Self-Destruction", or of the good work done against urban crime by "Cure Violence"?

Jabari Asim makes a good response to Cosby's remarks in The Washington Post,

"That same element can be found in Cosby's remarks. It is true that some blacks continue to engage in conduct that contradicts and undermines the aims of the civil rights movement. He has every right to take them to task. It is far less amusing that Cosby, a multimillionaire, chose to criticize "the lower economic people" when evidence of the habits he condemned -- misplaced priorities, negligent child-rearing, deteriorating morality -- can be found at every level of American society. Why single out poor people, who are least able to defend themselves?" ("Did Cosby Cross The Line?")

Now, onto "The Thankful Poor", it is painting that I think is quite poignant now. I say this for two reasons. One, it depicts, what I interpret to be, a father and son. Two, they are poor. For many people, including myself, Cosby was a father figure, but in the end, that's all he was, a figure. To me, the old man in the painting represents how we saw Cosby, and what we expected of him. In mythological terms, he was our Merlin, our Gandalf, our Obi-Wan Kenobi. Yet that old man is stuck in the painting, an ideal. Moving on to the poverty aspect of "The Thankful Poor", Cosby, apparently, has little empathy for the poor black middle class (and women while we're at it). That he can enshrine a painting examining poverty in America, and yet fail to properly engage in it in real life, shows his empathy deficit. Yes, Cosby has done philanthropy, but philanthropy is easy, and by itself won't save the poor. Cosby can appreciate this painting. He just can't understand it. Does he not know that the poor, the black poor today, still try to be grateful and still suffer?

In his Associated Press interview, Cosby verbally bullies the AP like a Mafia gangster who "has friends in high places." Here, we saw him naked, the real "Bill Cosby", a far more disgusting and vile creature than we were led to believe, a drooling Jabba The Hut, thriving in rot. Shortly after being asked about the allegations, to which his response was, well, no response, Cosby, thinking that he was off camera, began to coerce.

Cosby: "Now can I get something from you?"

AP Reporter: "What's that?"

Cosby: "That none of that will be shown?"

AP Reporter: "I can't promise that, myself, but you didn't say anything..."

Cosby: "I know I didn't say anything, but I'm asking your integrity that since I didn't want to say anything, but I did answer you in terms of 'I don't want to say anything, of what value will it have?'"

AP Reporter: "I don't think it will have..."

Cosby: (Speaking to off-camera publicist) "Mam? What'd you say?"

AP Reporter: "Sorry?"

Cosby: "What did you say?"

Off-camera publicist: "I don't think it has any value either."

Cosby: "And I would appreciate it if it was scuttled."

AP Reporter: "I hear you. I will tell that to my editors and I think that they will understand..."

Cosby: "I think if you want to consider yourself to be serious that it will not appear anywhere."

AP Reporter: "OK. I appreciate what you've asked."

Cosby: "Thank you. And we thought, by the way, because it was AP, that it wouldn't be necessary to go over that question with you."

AP Reporter: "I know. And we haven't written about this at all in the past two months, but they want, my bosses wanted me to ask..."

Cosby: "If you will just tell your boss the reason why we didn't say that upfront was because we thought that AP had the integrity to not ask."

Off camera publicist: "One other point on that: One of the three major TV writers for the AP in Los Angeles called me up and asked me - Lynn Elber - and I said we're not addressing it. So she said fine and she just closed it off."

AP Reporter: "OK."

Cosby: (to publicist) "And I think you need to get on the phone with his person immediately."

Off camera publicist: "I will, OK."

Cosby: "OK, thank you." (My FOX Austin)

This is the moment, for me, when the loving "Cliff Huxtable" truly died, and the decaying, greedy, self-centered low-life known as "Bill Cosby", reared his ugly head. Not only did Cosby again refuse to respond to serious allegations, but he also wanted to cover up this dialogue from the world. Get your heads out of the sand, Gamergate, this is what real corruption in journalism looks like!

Look closely during the interview, far behind Cosby, and you can see "The Thankful Poor." What a contradictory scene!

For Inside Edition, body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass studied Cosby's body language in the video and observed that, (emphasis mine),

"This shows a man who is used to having a lot of power, and who is used to using his power to get whatever he wants. You see him very protective in a V position over his private parts, and this is what is being discussed in essence, his cheating behavior, or the allegations. So, when you look at what's going on with their hands you can tell a great deal about his vulnerability." ("Explosive Video: Bill Cosby Pressures AP Reporter to 'Scuttle' Interview")

And they say that rape is about power, don't they?

Given all of these factors, it would seem very implausible to deny Cosby's crimes, but still, there are those that do. Aside from the longtime fans, too starstruck for the truth, you have those who are simply hesitant to point the finger at Cosby, despite how glaringly obvious it all is. They act as if the truth is unknowable, as if all rape cases should be weighed in the exact same way. This is ridiculous. The Cosby situation is vastly different from the sexual assault allegations against Woody Allen, Julian Assange, or even the late Michael Jackson. I won't go into the details of these difficult, but serious cases, however, it seems fairly reasonable to me, that cohesive arguments could be made by either side of those issues. Believe what you will, but I think that in those cases, agnosticism isn't an unreasonable position. However, the degrees of which you hold that agnosticism can differ. It may seem more probable to some that Woody Allen is guilty of wrongdoing that Julian Assange, and vice-versa, but there still remains uncertainty significant enough to refrain from labeling the accused as "rapists."At the same time, the media should be more responsible in investigating these various claims. I would like to see a re-examination of the Michael Jackson case, myself, given the new accusations against him by Wade Robeson and James Safechuck, and while I don't think that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, that issue could certainly benefit from a another look.

If all this still sounds shocking, even if it makes sense to you, that's fine, it's supposed to be. That Bill Cosby and Cliff Huxtable are two different people is a scam that fooled all of America. Jim Goad of Taki's Magazine, I feel, conveys our shock well,

"It wasn't surprising, nor especially depressing, to hear that Mike Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992. After all, Tyson was known for little more than being a mentally challenged Brooklyn street thug who nearly murdered people with his fists in the ring. We expect these things from people such as Mike Tyson. But not of America's Dad." ("America's Rapist Dad")

So if you are to accept my argument that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist, then what can be done about The Cosby Show? Is it ethical to watch, or to even laugh at?



 
The Art Versus The Artist

I enjoy the art of many artists whose moral values I find, well, lacking, to say the least. Ender's Game is one of the finest science-fiction books I've ever read, but its author, Orson Scott Card, is a raging homophobe. Rosemary's Baby and The Pianist are excellent films, but their director, Roman Polanski, is, like Cosby, a rapist. Ezra Pound was a magnificent poet, but also a fascist supporter of Mussolini. All three of these talented people produced controversies that forced this conflict of art versus artist on the public.

When filmed adaptation of Ender's Game up for release in 2013, clearly among the first to capitalize on the young adult dystopian craze started by the Hunger Games, many saw reason to boycott it. I even know friends of mine who did. Regardless of how good the film was, they didn't want to contribute a cent to Orson Scott Card. Let's recall that once wrote an article in Deseret News lambasting the legality of same-sex marriage and even its acceptance as normal, he has these lovely gems to his name, (emphasis mine),

"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

"Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

"No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." ("State job is not to redefine marriage.")

Pretty stupid stuff, right? A shame that Card didn't actually attempt to destroy the government. That would've been pretty funny. Gay marriage ain't so bad, eh, Card? Well, as soon as Lionsgate adapted the film for release, LGBT activists saw boycotting the Ender's Game film as a way to damage Card. The movie opened to mixed reviews and a mediocre box office return. This may, in fact, have to do with the negative reception around Card, but there were those who suggested that boycotting was the wrong move. One such person was Mack Rawden of CinemaBlend. He seemed to say that it was unfair to condemn the entire cast and crew of Ender's Game, since not a cent of the money earned would return to Card. He also argued in favor of separating art from artist,

"Movies have to be judged by their content, not by who created them. Your average film is organized and executed by hundreds of people of different races and genders who boast different sexual orientations, different religions and different political leanings. The only thing they have in common is their shared desire to make the final product as brilliant and moving as possible, and if you separate the group and start looking at each one of these creators individually and their perceived motivations, you're almost always going to find some horrific and unseemly things beneath the surface. Why? Because a high percentage of us suck." ("Why Boycotting Ender's Game Doesn't Make Sense.")

I agree with much of what Rawden says here. It's only inevitable that our cherished works of art will have contributions from idiots, but art should stand on its own, regardless of its creators. Yet, it's very easy to say that when the creator isn't an intimate player in their work. After all, Card was very detached from Ender's Game, in the story he doesn't appear. For those who subscribe to "Death of the Author" Card doesn't even exist. Yet bigotry is not as awful as rape. Enter Roman Polanski.

Polanski, as we all know, raped Samantha Geimer by use of drugs when she was 13 years old in 1977. For that crime, he has not been able to return to the United States, should he be jailed. In 2009, when going to Switzerland for the Zurich Film Festival, he was jailed over his arrest warrant at the pressure of American officials. Whoopi Goldberg defended Polanski's actions as not "rape-rape", and Hollywood followed suit. They signed a petition calling for Polanski's release, and according to TV Guide, the signatories included Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese along with 100 other filmmakers and actors. (Bryant). Here, art was not separated from artist. Is not possible to celebrate The Pianist, Chinatown, and Rosemary's Baby, while holding Polanski accountable for his crimes against women? I would think so. Like Card, Polanski doesn't exist within the universes of these films. He is detached. While both Chinatown and The Pianist came from intimate places in Polanski's lifetime, the death of Sharon Tate and escaping the Holocaust, none of them advocate rape. Besides, films are collaborative efforts. Why should Polanski get all the honor for them? Hollywood made the mistake of assuming a director is as good as his films. They left the rape victims behind.

By the way, this dilemma is not a new phenomenon. A Little Treasury In Modern Poetry records a moment when Ezra Pound won the Bollingen Prize of $1000 for his Pisan Cantos in 1949. The poetry was controversial because it reflected Pound's admiration for Mussolini's Italy, as well as his own antisemitism. The jury that awarded him was not unanimous and included W.H. Auden, T.S. Eliot, Karl Shapiro, Robert Lowell, Conrad Aiken, and Robert Penn Warren, among others. In response to the controversy, the jury released this statement:

"The fellows are aware that objections may be made to awarding a prize to a man situated as is Mr. Pound. In their view, however, the possibility of such objection did not alter the responsibility assumed by the Jury of Selection. This was to make a choice for the award among eligible books, provided anyone merited such recognition, according to the stated terms of the Bollingen Prize. To permit other considerations than that of poetic achievement to sway the decision would destroy the significance of the award and would in principle deny the validity of that objective perception of value on which civilized society must rest," (879-880)

The responses among poets, and indeed, those of that jury, were decidedly mixed. One of voted for Pound, Robert Lowell, said in his defense that,

"I thought it was the very simple problem of voting for the best book of the year; and it seemed to me that Pound's was. I thought the Pisan Cantos was the best writing Pound had ever done, though it included some of his worst. It is a very mixed book: that was the question. But the consequences of not giving the best book of the year a prize for extraneous reasons, even terrible ones in a sense---I think that's the death of art," (880).

Conversely, Karl Shapiro, who voted against Pound, did so for more personal reasons,

"I voted against Pound in the balloting for the Bollingen Prize. My first and more crucial reason was that I am a Jew and cannot honor antisemites. My second reason, I stated in a report which was circulated among the Fellows: "I voted against Pound in the belief that the poet's political and moral philosophy ultimately vitiates his poetry and lowers its standards as literary work," (880). 

At moments, I feel just stuck in the middle of these two sides in the whole "art versus artist" debate. One the one hand, I don't believe that whether or not the creator of an art was morally righteous should sink or swim its value. Yet on the other hand, it can be damaging. Joseph Conrad's apparent racism in Heart of Darkness was unhelpful to its portrayal of the Congolese. Yes, Heart of Darkness is a great novel, but racism damaged its effectiveness as art, at least, as far as Chinua Achebe was concerned.

You could argue that since the Bill Cosby persona is different than Cosby himself, that it's okay to laugh at his jokes, but is it really? Woody Allen has also insisted that his persona on film is different than who he is in real life (take that for what you will). Unlike Polanski or Card, Allen, like Cosby, does exist within his works. I suppose I feel more comfortable watching Woody Allen films, because the case against him is decidedly less definitive than against Cosby. So it's admittedly easier for me to disassociate his character from the allegations. Yet any time I want to watch The Cosby Show, I feel as if I'd be laughing at a serial rapist, giving him credit. It's a shame too, because so many other talented people contributed to that show, and now, their legacies have been sullied, obstructed even.

As much as I would like to, I can't erase Cosby's impact from history. Heck, one of his stand-up albums was preserved by the National Recording Registry. Not to mention that The Cosby Show itself was an important show for the visibility of blacks in America. Yes, the show may not have dealt with race as often as Fresh Prince, but I for one, thought it was nice to see blacks portrayed as living regular lives like whites, instead of often being shown in race polemics. Not that that's a bad thing, or anything, on the contrary, it's desperately needed, but I believe that there should also be a spectrum of black portrayals. That much being said, I think that those unfamiliar with Cosby, especially younger ones, should understand what he meant to us, and to America. They deserve to know that much, but if it's too painful for them, I get it.

By the end of the day, I don't know what the right answer is. You'll have to decide this for yourself. I really don't think I'll be able to watch or hear anything of Cosby's for a very long time. Rape is just so ugly. I guess I can live without Cosby, though. There are other comedians, like Carlin, Hicks, and Chappelle. There are also other good memories to revisit, The Goonies, Harry Potter, and Looney Tunes. Still, I'll miss Cliff Huxtable. I hardly knew ya.

Let me end by saying that the Cosby case is both extraordinary and ordinary. I say this because it is absolutely extraordinary to have such a grand number of women all accuse a rapist of the same or similar crimes, even Jian Ghomeshi had fewer. It also ordinary, however, in the sense that most rapists are serial rapists, and as such, they have a long list of victims that they've hurt. This is why we have such a great number of women who have been raped, and yet a low number of men who are rapists. Feminist blogger Jessica Valenti said provocatively in The Nation that "Rape is as American as apple pie---until we own that, nothing will change." ("America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One"). At the time, I felt that the statement was a little obtuse, but now, I admit, I was wrong. Rape has infected our schools, our military, our clergy, our prisons, our sports teams, and now, our televisions. When even "America's Dad", of all people, is a rapist, that tells us that rape is undoubtedly a part of the American experience. To deny this is to deny reality.


Bibliography

Asim, Jabari. "Did Cosby Cross The Line?" The Washington Post. May 24, 2004. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51273-2004May24.html

Bazelon, Emily; Larimore, Rachael. "How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?" Slate. October 1, 2009. Web. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html

Bryant, Adam. "Fellow Filmmakers Call for Roman Polanski's Release." TV Guide. September 30, 2009. Web. http://www.tvguide.com/News/Scorsese-Defends-Polanski-1010320.aspx?rss=breakingnews&partnerid=imdb&profileid=01

Buress, Hannibal. "Hannibal Buress Called Bill Cosby a Rapist During a Stand Up." YouTube. October 29, 2014. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzB8dTVALQI

Card, Orson Scott. "State job is not to redefine marriage." Deseret News. July 24, 2008. Web. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html

"Clear and Convincing Evidence." Legal Information Institute. Web. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_convincing_evidence

Christina, Greta. "Harassment, Rape, and the Difference Between Skepticism and Denialism." Freethought Blogs. August 12, 2013. Web. http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/08/12/harassment-rape-skepticism-denialism/

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "The Cosby Show." The Atlantic. November 19, 2014. Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/11/the-cosby-show/382891/

Cosby, Bill. "Dr Bill Cosby Speaks." Rutgers University. May 2004. Web. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~schochet/101/Cosby_Speech.htm

"Explosive Video: Bill Cosby Pressures AP Reporter To 'Scuttle' Interview." Inside Edition. November 20, 2014. Web. http://www.insideedition.com/entertainment/9302-explosive-video-bill-cosby-pressures-ap-reporter-to-scuttle-interview

Goad, Jim. "America's Rapist Dad." Taki's Magazine. November 17, 2014. Web. http://takimag.com/article/americas_rapist_dad_jim_goad/page_2#axzz3K3DfoERX

Hannon, Elliot; Ioannou, Filipa; Mathis-Liley, Ben. "A Complete List of the Women Who Have Accused Bill Cosby of Sexual Assault." Slate. November 21, 2014. Web. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/21/bill_cosby_accusers_list_sexual_assault_rape_drugs_feature_in_women_s_stories.html

Lisak, David; Gardinier, Lori; Nicksa, Sarah C.; Cote, Ashley M. "False Allegations Of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases." Violence Against Women. 2010. 16. Web. http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/12/1318.full.pdf+html

Rawden, Mark. "Why Boycotting Ender's Game Doesn't Make Sense." CinemaBlend. October 31, 2013. Web. http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Boycotting-Ender-Game-Doesn-t-Make-Sense-40101.html

Simon, Scott. "Cosbys Start A 'Conversation' With African-American Art." NPR. November 15, 2014. Web. http://www.npr.org/2014/11/15/364289549/cosbys-start-a-conversation-with-african-american-art

Sinha-Roy, Piya; Kelsey, Eric. "More women detail sex abuse claims against Cosby." Reuters. December 3, 2014. Web. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/04/us-people-cosby-idUSKCN0JH2KV20141204

Valenti, Jessica. "America's Rape Problem: We Refuse to Admit That There Is One." The Nation. January 4, 2013. Web. http://www.thenation.com/blog/172024/americas-rape-problem-we-refuse-admit-there-one#

"Video and transcript of Bill Cosby AP Interview." My FOX Austin. November 20, 2014. Web. http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/27442190/video-and-transcript-of-bill-cosby-ap-interview

Watson, Rebecca. "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence--Except In Rape Claims?" Skepchick.org. August 23, 2014. Web. http://skepchick.org/2014/08/extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence-except-in-rape-claims/

Williams, Oscar, ed. A Little Treasury of Modern Poetry. 3rd ed. 879-880. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. Print.

"Alien" Ninja Turtles Had Some Potential

DISCLAIMER:

Copyrighted material that may appear on this blog is for the usage of further commentary, criticism, or teaching within the standards of "fair use" in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All video, music, text, or images shown, all belong to their respective creators or companies. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the property of Nickelodeon.

WARNING:
Possible spoilers!

Image by Museum Of Hartlepool. Source: https://www.flickr.com/

Michael Bay is getting a bit too much credit for this Ninja Turtles project.

Sure, he's producing it, and as a producer, he can affect the shape of these films, but that can only go so far. Especially when you consider that he's surrounded by a variety of other producers. This includes Bradley Fuller, who's elegant repertoire has given us the The Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday The 13th remakes (reboots?) (IMDb). The silver lining, though, is Ian Bryce, who produced Return of the Jedi and Field Of Dreams, but also Transformers 2 and Howard The Duck (IMDb). Yikes.

Bay isn't directing the film, either. That distinction goes to Jonathan Liebesman. His great directing credits scored terribly on Rotten Tomatoes, like Battle: Los Angeles (35%), Wrath Of The Titans (25%), and the unforgettable Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (12%). Damn. At least Michael Bay had The Rock (66%).

And Bay certainly isn't writing the screenplay. For this film, three musketeers were selected to delicately craft the script. The first is Josh Appelbaum, who wrote for the acclaimed show Alias, and the also acclaimed Mission Impossible 4 (IMDb). Nice. The second is Andre Nemec, who also wrote for Alias and Mission Impossible 4 (IMDb). Uh, double nice. Okay, so here is where the other shoe drops. The third is Evan Daugherty, who wrote for Snow White and the Huntsman and that Hunger Games look-a-like Divergent (IMDb). Both are adaptations like this film. Maybe he'll do a good job.

All of these factors will certainly make the film an interesting one to watch, but if it goes wrong, all of the blame should not fall on Bay. It would be like blaming Spielberg for the failures of Transformers 3 and The Legend Of Zorro (IMDb). Yes, he did actually invest time into producing those films. 

But when hearsay of the very idea that these turtles might be aliens, the fans went into an uproar, and they blamed Bay. Crystal Bell of The Huffington Post writes,

 "Needless to say, the fans are not too pleased with Bay for changing the origins of the beloved "Ninja Turtles."

"So will they be changing the title?," asked one Reddit user. "I mean, 'TMNT' doesn't really apply anymore ... Maybe they could be Teenage Alien Interstellar Ninja Turtles?" 

However, another Reddit user pointed out that if the Turtles were in fact aliens -- and not nuchuck-wielding ninjas -- perhaps they would have developed more sophisticated weaponry:

"If they're aliens then why would they be ninjas!?!? They would have laser guns and lightsabers and junk! They wouldn't need to be ninjas! Michael Bay is the destroyer of worlds!" 

Even Michaelangelo voice actor Robbie Rist had some, uh, constructive words for Bay on his open letter on Facebook,

"Dear Michael Bay.

You probably don't know me but I did some voice work on the first set of movies that you are starting to talk about sodomizing.

Look man, I think you have some pretty nifty action ideas (of course on the other side, the minute ANYONE in your movies starts using actual dialog I seem to catch myself nodding off), but seriously, Teenage ALIEN Ninja Turtles?

I know believing in mutated talking turtles is kinda silly to begin with but am I supposed to be led to believe there are ninjas from another planet?

You know that ninjas are a certain kind of cultural charact....

Oh what the hell am I talking to you for?

The rape of our childhood memories continues....."

His words seem a bit harsh to me (I liked what he had to say about Bay's dialog, though), but I can't help but think that his anger describes a lot of the sentiment that fans initially had at this film. To Robbie's credit, however, he later told TMZ that, "Everything I have said here could be off base and wrong ... He has made WAY more money at this than I have."

First of all, we now know that the whole "aliens" idea was a bunch of bunk, as Micheal Bay later confirmed to Moviefone, "There was that quote saying that we were making (the Ninja Turtles as) aliens. We're not! It's the ooze!" Second, even if they were aliens, we don't know if Bay had even developed the idea. It could have been from the writers, the director, or any of the other producers. He certainly approved it, which makes him culpable, but that doesn't make him the source. Third, I would hardly call Michael Bay the "destroyer of worlds" for doing such a move (he's destroyed a lot of buildings, though). Or even a raper of childhoods (if such a thing is even possible). Bay simply wanted to take the series in a different paradigm, and frankly, it could have done some neat things. Before all of that, though, let's get one thing out of the way. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are really kind of silly.

Really, though. Think about the whole premise of this franchise. 

Ordinary turtles become mutated into anthropomorphic creatures by a radioactive ooze and are taught to become ninjas by anthropomorphic rat called Splinter in the sewers of New York City. The turtles, now teenagers, are named after Renaissance painters, eat pizza, fight a samurai named Shredder, and rescue reporters in yellow jumpsuits.

Original, yes, but very laughable. In fact, TMNT creators Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird joked about conceiving the idea in The Week, "We were just pissing our pants that night, to be honest. 'This is the dumbest thing ever.'" (Farago).

I haven't read the comics, so I can't speak for them, but they sounded pretty gritty. Nor have I seen the 1980's cartoon that helped propel the turtles into the mainstream. I tried watching two episodes a while ago, and I was a bit bored by it. The turtles also looked a bit too cutesy for me. Sorry Gen X. I've seen the1990 film, which, as a straight up Ninja Turtles movie, was actually very entertaining. You really can't fault the movie for giving audiences at the time exactly what they wanted: the four pizza loving turtles fighting crime. That said, the Jim Henson Creature Shop did a good job of designing the costumes, the action scenes are well paced and impressive considering the heavy suits, and the editing and cinematography have a stylized MTV look. This shouldn't be too surprising, since the film was directed by Steve Barron, who also directed the music video for Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean" and A-ha's "Take On Me" (IMDb). The second and third films, I hear, weren't much better, although the second film had Vanilla Ice, and who wouldn't love that?

The turtles I grew up on were from the late 90's series The Next Mutation. It was a live action show that featured the turtles in uglier costumes than were used in the movies, along with a female turtle named Venus and a crossover episode with Power Rangers In Space. That 80's cartoon looked a lot better by comparison. The turtles did, in my opinion, hit a high note with the 2003 cartoon which had some stylish animation and enjoyable writing. This led to the 2007 film which was kind of dull and confusing, but had a cool fight between Raphael and Leonardo. There's a new TMNT show on Nickelodeon, but I'd rather watch Legend of Korra instead.

The reason why I've reiterated so much turtles history is to show that this series have been reworked again, again, and again. Now in spite of whichever TMNT incarnation you happen to prefer, it is clear that all of these stories always return to square one. Four feature films, three cartoons, a crossover with the Power Rangers and the tale still starts in the sewers of New York City. It's almost like an infinite time loop. Aren't fans tired of this set-up? Would it be so radical to demand a slightly different background? Are we so hopelessly blinded by our nostalgia that the most infinitesimally small divergence from the established canon is an act of heresy?

Come on, guys.Would a little openness with the franchise be so hard? When it came to rebooting this franchise, the production team could have gone one of two ways. They could reboot it as an animated film aimed at a younger demographic, or go for the gritty Nolanesque reboot that would appeal to older teenagers. Making an animated film would be redundant, since we just had an animated film and we already have a new cartoon on TV. So, gritty reboot it is.

When one does a gritty reboot, a certain sense of realism is to be expected. As with the Nolan-Batman films. This doesn't work when you have too much absurdity to overplay the grittiness. Take the implausible tornado sequence from Man of Steel or the horrific "Deep Wang" moments from Transformers 3. Both films featured extraordinary scenarios with aliens. In one, aliens can disguise themselves as cars, and in the other, they can fly and shoot lasers out of their eyes. Both films asked us to take them seriously, Man of Steel much more so, but Transformers 3 also had the destruction of a city, which, I would hope, demands a degree of realism. (By the way, the Autobots were far more negligent about civilian casualties than Superman supposedly was). So while the new TMNT may not be as violent as Man of Steel or as idiotic as Transformers 3, it will have to balance its extraordinary premise with the realism of a live action movie.

Here's where the aliens come in.

Now if the turtles were simply aliens, it would do away with a lot of wasteful exposition dealing with the turtle's origins. Considering that we have yet to see any real aliens, though they may certainly exist, the concept of anthropomorphic turtles does not seem quite as absurd by comparison. We know, scientifically, that even the most extreme of mutations would not produce a love of pizza and surfer lingo in turtles, but we don't know anything about aliens. So anything's up for grabs. Again, an alien origin would better fit the demands of realism that many viewers are used to in a live action film. So why does this idea have potential? I'll tell you why, because it won't be set in NYC. No, it would be set on the turtle's alien planet.

You see, a terrible thing in writing a plot is limitations. This is why prequels are so hard to do without a retcon, the blatant rewriting of previously established canon. If you don't know what I'm talking about, think Zeist from Highlander 2. A prequel can only get so far before running into an established plot point. So freeing up the premise as much as possible to allow for more movement with characters and such is a must. This is the trouble that comes with adaptations. The filmmakers have to balance between honoring the source material and creating their own movie. The problem with the the latter Harry Potter films is that they became too much of a supplement to the books as opposed to being independent works. You see this problem even reverberate in reboots, where the new films didn't differ enough from the originals. Compare, for example, 2012's Spider-Man with 2002's.

Setting TMNT on an alien planet would offer so many possibilities. Bebop, Rocksteady, Krang, and Usagi Yojimbo could all pop in at any time without any real need for prior explanation. We would simply assume aliens on an alien planet. Anything goes. The planet doesn't have to be futuristic either. Why should it be? The turtles are ninjas aren't they? So why not create a world where those ninja skills and weaponry would hold the advantage? How about a planet based off of feudal Japan, or even a Pandora-like environment? It could bring the turtles to a level they've simply never been at before. Does this mean that Shredder, Karai, April, and Casey can still be humans in an alien planet? Of course. Its an alien planet remember? Anything goes.

Just think of all the conventions this film could avoid simply by being set on its own planet. No need to hide their identities in public, no need to appeal to the police or military of not being a danger, no need to worry about how humans should react upon seeing them, and if you do go futuristic, no need to explain how you acquired said technology in the modern age. Best of all, not having to set another summer blockbuster in New York City.

That's some potential with the turtles as aliens, but I doubt if it would ever have been exploited. In fact, I doubt the turtles were ever in any real danger of being radically changed. If there's one thing Hollywood loves, it's formulas. One such formula is to be familiar. People tend to lean towards what they already know. Alien Turtles would be far too alienating (no pun intended) for today's profitable demographics and no doubt divide, if not scare off the entire fanbase. The turtles have spent too much time in our cultural consciousness to be so utterly transformed. Yeah, they're bigger and a bit more slimy, but honestly, how much have they really changed. As far as I can infer from the trailers, they still live in the sewers of New York, but we'll have to wait for the film's release to really find out.

Well, however bad this new TMNT may be, at least the Turtles won't be interviewed by Oprah again.


Bibliography

"Andre Nemec." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0625858/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Bay, Michael. "Michael Bay, 'Pain & Gain' Director, on 'Transformers 4' and the New 'Ninja Turtles' Movie." Interview by Billy Donnely. Moviefone. April 26, 2013. Web. http://news.moviefone.com/2013/04/26/michael-bay-pain-and-gain-interview/

Bell, Crystal. "Michael Bay: Ninja Turtles Movie Will Make 'TMNT' Aliens, Fans Cry Foul." The Huffington Post. March 19, 2012. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/michael-bay-ninja-turtles-movie-aliens_n_1364828.html 

"Bradley Fuller." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0298181/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

"Evan Daugherty." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2489193/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Farago, Andrew. "The fascinating origin story of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." The Week. June 10, 2014. Web. http://theweek.com/article/index/262738/the-fascinating-origin-story-of-the-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles

"Ian Bryce." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0117290/

"Jonathan Liebesman." Rotten Tomatoes. Web. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/162674974/?search=jonathan%20li

"Josh Appelbaum." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0032227/?ref_=nv_sr_1

"Michael Bay." Rotten Tomatoes. Web. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/162652380/?search=michae;%20bay

Rist, Robbie. Facebook. March 19, 2012. Web. https://www.facebook.com/robbie.rist/posts/10150753394410645

"Steve Barron." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006625/

"Steven Spielberg." IMDb. Web. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/?ref_=nv_sr_3

TMZ Staff. "Ex-Ninja Turtles Actor--Michael Bay is 'Sodomizing' the TMNT Legacy." TMZ. March 20, 2012. Web. http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/20/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-michael-bay-michaelangelo-sodomizing/#ixzz38cJnSWlu