October 3rd, 2018
And so is that.
Congrats to Lori from CO who wins this month’s raffle – a signed, dedicated copy of the latest J&M book.
This comic enters its 14th year next month, no why not help it through its difficult adolescent years by becoming a Patron?
I just love the wavey tech thing. It’s so easy and cool and SF.
Strangely, I vastly prefer tills with girls to those horrible automatic robot self-serve monstrosities.
Like Jay and Emm, I contain multitudes of contradictions.
They make life interesting.
Jay doesn’t have much faith in Reiki or some other “therapies” but he accepts that dead humans can be elevated to undergod status where they can intercede on behalf of living humans to foil the plans of his daddy.
Emm doesn’t believe in the supreme dietyness of his Hebrew friend but he thinks flying horses are perfectly reasonable.
I wonder what they think of spilled salt, broken mirrors, thirteen and walking under ladders?
Yes, Good Author, those are free ideas for future issues should you wish them. Thank you for all the smiles.
Hey, it’s feeling sort of lonely here. Is anyone else around?
Laugh Out Loud Excellent
How broad-minded of J to be willing to try no-touch Reiki! As I recall, he is supposed to have healed by the laying on of hands. Some of his followers claim to do the same today, but I think that a few purport to heal via broadcast if the patients place their hands on their television sets 😉 .
Non sequitur: One of my dad’s favorite sayings was, “Untouched by human hands! We use monkeys.”
What is “contactless”? Is that a Euro slang term for some kind of payment?
SmallVoice: I’m still here, so are many others. Most of us probably have other things in our lives as well as the excellent J&M strip.
But you won’t hear anything if one or more of us is cut down.
a “tenner” … I got a 10 pound note from a friend in the UK because it has Darwin on it…. if we were to seek to put Darwin on a bill here heads would explode… I hear the “Darwin tenner” is no longer printed in the UK… is it true? if so, why?
Dry cleaning bill follows.
To two cents’ worth:
Jairus’s daughter and the centurion’s “servant” were distance healings.
jveeds it’s a card usually debit or credit, but also prepaid travel cards, key fobs etc that has RFID so you can just wave it over the store’s machine to pay.
1HappyHeathen the Treasury introduced a new plastic tenner with Jane Austin on instead of Darwin. They do change the notes from time to time to introduce new stuff to make them hard to forge. The plastic notes are bloody annoying, they don’t stay folded so they’ll pop out of a pocket if just stuffed in carelessly. Lots lost at first, many people who never used wallets before now resorting to wallets or note clips so they don’t lose more.
thank you jazzlet… I will keep my eye open for more Darwin “tenners” I framed the one I have and hung it next to my American folding currency that is pre 1956 and doesn’t have “in god we trust” printed on it…. so many are clueless to the fact that igwt was not always on our money and that it wasn’t our nations first motto…. “E Pluribus Unum” was and imho should still be…. thanks again mate.
beautiful just beautiful….can’t touch this
Author, wouldn’t have minded if the final panel were left blank. Some scratching of head then enlightenment!
mohatmacoat: Some of us are not as sharp-witted as you are, so Author has kindly given us an appropriate punchline.
By the way, there seem to be an awful lot of new names here in the old C&B pub. NBH is gone, haven’t heard from Darwin H for a while, or some other regulars.
Has Author carried out some sort of a purge plus recruitment drive?
from the ‘magic money tree’ perhaps
SoG – there has been no purge, and it’s nice to see new faces around here. Darwin hasn’t posted for a couple of weeks, and Nassar since July. I’ve emailed Nassar, and will check on Darwin if he doesn’t appear again soon.
1HappyHeathen. Darwin was replaced on the tenner by another great 19th centruy British figure: Jane Austen. There was a bit of a fuss from the usual suspects, but the folk who lobbied to get him on the tenner in the first place (Friends of Darwin) seemed pretty happy with the 18-year run
The US has many television evangelists, some of whom engage in faith healing. Apparently god can “heal” cancer immediately, but a broken leg takes him 4 to 6 months.
By the way, I know an excellent way to “rebalance my energy”. It’s amber, and comes from Scotland in bottles. Whether studying with your Teacher’s or Walking the Path with Johnnie, you can regain your balance while losing your balance.
And while you’re at it, Author, could you check on Mary 2 and Fenchurch, please.
Replacing the Genius of Darwin with an Author who wrote complete garbage (And yes I was forced to read several of her books at secondary school) is a backwards move. Darwin’s dangerous idea is not open to subjective analysis unlike trashy novels….
Don’t get me wrong, Author – I agree it IS good to see new people, but not if it means losing old people. (Although that is how life works in the long term!)
If you email Darwin H in Vancouver, give him my regards.
Oh, dear, M27Holts.
Darwin was, without doubt, a genius. But Austen didn’t write garbage – she was one of the greatest women writers who has ever lived.
To my mind, to describe her writings as “trashy novels” is to show the same sort of blinkered thinking as those religious bigots we rightly condemn here.
Martin, I agree that Austen’s work is serious, not trash. It isn’t my taste, but it’s not trash.
Just as some artists are able to elevate popular music forms to great art, Austen elevated a literary style that I dislike to art. Not trash: art.
Martin. By what criteria do you judge Austen to be one of the greatest authors ever? Purely subjective ones I would Imagine. Everybody on planet earth would have a different list of who they considered the top ten writers? However the theory of evolution using the mechanism of Natural selection is a proven fact and is not subjective at all. I am not religious in any way so how dare you liken me to people who kill for their beliefs!
I usually like to observe how the discussion below each comic strip opens and meanders. Sometimes, though, as above, it is just a proof that intelligence is a trait completely detached from ones beliefs or the lack of them.
Congratulations for the Author for another great strip.
Not for me to judge Austen. I’m merely a fan. But those who are experts in the field of literature are pretty unanimous in judging her as one of the greatest female novelists who has ever lived, and a massive influence on those who followed her. You can’t get to that position by writing garbage, or trashy novels. That, I would argue, is an objective criterion, if we really must have objective criteria for art.
I’m sorry that you were “forced to read Austen” at school. No doubt you were forced to read Shakespeare, too, which is probably harder going. You’re surely not going to suggest that he wrote trashy plays?
You seem to be suggesting that if the quality of something is judged subjectively, it is somehow worse that that if it’s judged objectively. I don’t see that at all. Of course, Darwin’s idea was absolute genius. But it wasn’t just the idea that made it genius – it was how well it was expounded, so that it was relatively easy to grasp. The quality of the writing in The Origin of Species is quite exceptional. Without that, the book might have never been published. So, the (allegedly) subjective criterion of the quality of the writing is, in many ways, as important as the idea.
A couple of final points.
I am also not religious in any way, so let’s get that clear.
And because I compare your dismissive and blinkered attitude to Austen to the blinkered and dismissive attitude of a lot of religious people to atheism and/or Darwinism, does not mean I’m likening you to people who kill for their beliefs.
As a “fanboy” of Austen…I would expect you to get upset that I dismissed your Herioine without a nod to her perceived genius. Unfortunately, I did science to A Level and degree and I see no merit in privileging some people’s opinion over other people’s in what is a purely subjective argument. Prove that Austen is better than Pratchett with a mathematical proof and I will concede the argument.
And on the subject of Shakespeare, his plays were more entertaining than the romantic nothings from the pen of Austen. However, they are an historical artefact. And those wishing to interpret his writings to the human condition in the 21st century are similar to those people who insist nostradamus foretold the future…you can read anything into anything post-hoc…
I also did science to A-level and degree (Mathematical Physics at Sussex, 73-76).
Would you insist that I proved that Heisenberg was better than Curie via a mathematical proof? It’s nonsense.
I think I’ll drop out of this. If you continue to insist that Austen wrote romantic nothings, if you compare the interpretation of Shakespeare to predictions of Nostradamus, and if you want me to prove that Austen is better than Pratchett via a mathematical proof, I don’t think you have anything meaningful to say.
I’m sure that M27 is just being provocative…As a big Darwin fan he’s doubtless aware that lots of people are using Darwinian ideas to analyse Jane Austen (whose work epitomise the subjective experience of being critters attempting to maximise their reproductive fitness in a landscape of threats, opponents, collaborators and opportunities)
As Carroll puts it:
A darwinian analysis of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, [Carroll] says, goes beyond the simple idea that women look for fortune in men, to show how such animal concerns are filtered through the vast flexibility of human behaviour, cultural conditions and individual variation.
“I don’t look at Pride and Prejudice and try to sort out what is biological and what is cultural,” says Carroll. “I look at it and examine the way underlying biological dispositions are organized in a specific cultural ecology. Nobody in the novel escapes the problems of mate selection, status and forming alliances. But the characters also integrate these concerns with human qualities, such as intelligence, character, morals and cultivation.” The noble, romantic characters, such as Elizabeth Bennett and Darcy, integrate successfully, hiding their reproductive issues beneath their social graces. The more comic characters, such as Elizabeth Bennett’s mother, do not (although in marrying off her daughters, she is quite the evolutionary success).”
Cytryna: Well said – the chat has come a long way from Reiki!
BTW: You’re another new name to me at the old C&B pub, and welcome. With so many newcomers, I’m starting to feel like an old-timer. Have a virtual dram on me.
Getting back to the current off-the-wall topic, hands up all those who have read both Darwin’s Origin of Species (in his own words) and some of Jane Austen’s novels. I suspect more Austens than Darwins, but so what?
Personally, I have read far more Terry Pratchett, Stephen King and Neil Gaiman, than either Darwin or Austen. Again, so what?
I like playing devils advocate. I myself have read all of Pratchett’s work. My favourite author I suppose. Also Douglas Adams, Asimov, Greg Bear and Tolkien. I have also read O.O.S. and a lot of science books. I am in the middle of a science book binge and am reading physics books after a lot of current biology and bio-chemistry books. The works of Austin that I have had the misfortune to read are only surpassed in their turgidity by the Books of Thomas Hardy and Especially Tess O’th D’urbovilles which is without doubt the biggest waste of trees in the history of modern civilisation. People are either for that motion or against…
S.O.G. I presume you are familiar with the punk band Anti-Nowhere League…They did a very controversial song called “so what” some of the most offensive lyrics ever, Metallica cover the song….I like it…
@ Son of Glenner, oh thanks, not a new one here though, observing continuosly since strip number 5 or so, contributing to or stirring in occasionally . Might have been under slightly different name – Cytrynian. Drams up, for Darwin and Austen equally.
Oh and Helena handbasket….if Austen had put in some salacious and gratuitous sex into her books, I reckon my schoolboy rating would have been a lot higher! I’m very shallow me, Sex, food, beer, more beer, more sex, physics, science, prog rock and metal oh and more sex with food and beer…
I’ve always thought that Jane Austen is an excellent proof of natural selection, some adaptations/mutations are not successful. In a survival or high stress situation who is more likely to survive, Austen devotees or well read fans of science and even SciFi.
Certainly Douglas Adams has an excellent survival statement on the cover of his most famous work and many uses for the ubiquitous towel. The main survival tip regarding Jane Austen is “ makes a moderately good toilet paper “.
M27Holts: I had not heard of the band you cite, so looked them up on Youtube – and wished I had not. (I should have heeded your warning of “punk”!) “So what” was a common stock phrase long before that band existed, and certainly was not invented by them. I was not offended by their “bad language” BTW, just by their dire “music”.
My interest in popular music fizzled out around the 1970s, although I had been heavily into it until then. This coincided with my discovery of the joys of classical music, especially in live performance, although I don’t claim a causal relationship – I still love the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, as well as Haydn and Beethoven. I note that Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are still going strong, despite being very old – almost as old as me, in fact!
We are in subjective opinion again. Perhaps my taste in music is a bit more eclectic. I can listen to a Rachmaninov piano concerto followed by death metal and appreciate both in their different magisterias of the musical sphere. However the Metallica cover of so what is superior to the original, the lyrics are meant to shock…not everybody can appreciate the raw power that metal and punk generate…
M27Holts: I’ve checked, and I agree that the Metallica cover is superior to the original by the Anti-Nowhere League. Still not quite my taste though.
Now Rachmaninov – that’s a different story; we can both agree on his music.
Are you familiar with the present-day American composer John Cage? I like some of his stuff.
I’d love to hear the Anti-Nowhere League perform their version of Cage’s most famous work – 4:33.
Four minutes and 33 seconds of silence in three movements….I was aware of it’s controversy. I’m sure punk was the antidote to the supposed excesses of virtuoso musicians and artsy composers. When in fact it was just another money making idea by the marketing men….but good fun in the late 70s for us of that age….
M27Holts, all opinions are subjective, including opinions about the validity of a mathematical proof. To think otherwise, that there’s something transcendent about mathematics … is … faith.
The entire subject depends on experts being in agreement, as does every subject. Established knowledge is that on which almost all experts agree. Neither you nor I are experts on Austen or on novels so our opinions are irrelevant.
Just as my opinion on archeology is irrelevant.
Knowledge is a social construct. Utility is how to judge it if you aren’t an expert.
If mathematical proofs are subjective then so is the definition of who is and who isn’t in the set of people who could be deemed Austen Experts. Boolean algebra is creating this message for me. I could whisper Austen quotes to my phone but that would not create this post would it?
M27Holts, I had that covered. Utility is how you judge. Experts will agree that 1) physics and mathematics are useful and 2) you’re opinions on Austen are useless.
Nevertheless, we share something: I dislike Austen too.The difference is that I respect the experts that say her work has merit; and therefore respect the work.
Haha. I would concede that I was and if fact I am no expert on the complete works of Jane Austen. But if you have conceded that the utility of physics has led to powered flight and compact disc players…what utilitarian advantage has the configuration of words that Austen uses against the configuration of any other writers works?
Standard mathematics has recently been rendered obsolete by the discovery that for years we have been writing the numeral five backward. This has led to reevaluation of counting as a method of getting from one to ten. Students are taught advanced concepts of Boolean algebra, and formerly unsolvable equations are dealt with by threats of reprisals. – Woody Allen
^ Good quote that… haha
M27Holts, since I’m not an expert on Austen I’m not certain. But I imagine that within her genre (sentimental novel? comedy of manners?) her style of writing was much better than competing examples. So the utility would be the engendering appreciation in experts on literature.
My schooling is in mathematics, and my career path has been mathematical modeling and software engineering, I’m no expert on literature. But I do love excellent poetry.
Poetry eh? My fave poet is Paula Nancy Millstone-Jennings….
wow, who knew this thread would explode like it has over a yanks simple question about a “tenner” ….. I proudly display that Darwin note on my wall, as for hanging any of Austen’s works on my wall… I ponder that a bit more…. cheers mates.. & keep up the good work Author.
Suppose it makes a difference from “All religious people are fuckwits”…Because that is as a solid hypothesis as “do bears shit in the woods”….
M27 Holts. Instead of going into detail you could have just written “I don’t like reading anything by or about women”. And we’d have an accurate predictor of your reading tastes.
And, as for the I like ” Sex, food, beer, more beer, more sex, physics, science, prog rock and metal oh and more sex with food and beer…” quote: Steady on, old chap! It’s not like you are trying out for the American Supreme Court or anything. We have certain standards on this side of the pond you know…
M27Holts: “Poetry eh? My fave poet is Paula Nancy Millstone-Jennings….”
Right up there with John Lillison, England’s greatest one-armed poet. http://www.zachd.com/writing/johnl.html