Podcasts about as reynolds

Host Jo Reed and AudioFile's Emily Connelly discuss this newest audiobook from the always-inspiring Jason Reynolds. He deftly narrates “Take One” of this collaboration between himself and mixed-media collage artist Jason Griffin, bringing slam poetry sensibilities to a brief yet evocative glimpse into the life of an unnamed young Black narrator full of anxieties for his family. As Reynolds's singular voice fades out, “Take Two” hands the same spare, moving words to a full cast of brilliant narrators. An amazing adaptation of a beautifully illustrated novel. Read the full review of the audiobook on AudioFile's website. Published by Simon & Schuster Audio. Find more audiobook recommendations at audiofilemagazine.com Today's episode of Behind the Mic is brought to you by Oasis Audio, publisher of The Phantom Stallion series by Terri Farley, and more. Visit oasisaudio.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The crew of Serenity helps a Companion-trained friend of Inara when a local leader announces his plan to take the baby from a woman he impregnated. We talk about toxic masculinity, relationship complications, and strong women in this episode of In the 'Verse: Song Crafting for the Firefly Universe. SHOW TIMES 2:36 - Upcoming Shows 3:54 - Our Browncoat News 6:21 - Review Songs from the Last Episode 14:29 - Five-Minute Show Summary 20:15 - Firefly Discussion 43:39 - This Week’s Songs SHOW NOTES MARC: My name is Marc Gunn, the creator of the Firefly Drinking Songs show. MIKEY: And I’m Mikey Mason, creator of the Beer Powered Time Machine Podcast and currently the MIKEYtalks podcast. MARC: This is part THIRTEEN of our 14 part series. We are rewatching episodes of Firefly. Our goal is to find themes and stories that we can write songs about. Mikey: The first six episodes were funded by Marc’s fans in his Gunn Runners Club. He hit a milestone which made this show happen. MARC: There are still more episodes of Firefly, and these last eight episodes were funded by Mikey’s fans helping him hit a Patreon milestone as well. But you can still help us in this creative endeavor by supporting him at  http://patreon.com/mikeymason/ MIKEY: And by supporting Marc at http://patreon.com/celtfather UPCOMING SHOWS FOR MARC GUNN MAY 7: Internet Concert on YouTube @ 8:30 PM WEDS: Coffee with The Celtfather at 10:30 am EST on Facebook UPCOMING SHOWS FOR MIKEY MASON Uh… about that... BAND NEWS Pub Songs Podcast. “Cat Music… and Kilts” Mikey: My Patreon patrons are still getting a new song EVERY Monday - that’s 52 songs a year for as little as $1/month (though you’re perfectly welcome to pledge more, if you can afford it and want to!) And there about 3 albums worth of material I’m working on being able to release soon... REVIEW SONGS FROM THE LAST EPISODE Marc: Bright Side of Everything Mikey: Damaged Goods FIVE MINUTE SHOW SUMMARY Episode 13: Heart of Gold - Written by Brett Matthews (first and only entry in the Verse) It is the third of three episodes (Trash, The Message and Heart of Gold) that were not broadcast in the original 2002 Fox run. PLOT SYNOPSIS (slightly edited version of wikipedia entry on it) MIKEY: At a brothel in the middle of a barren land, a powerful man named Rance Burgess , accompanied by thugs, approaches the madam, Nandi , demanding to see a woman named Petaline. When Nandi denies the presence of Petaline, Burgess' thugs drag out Petaline, who is visibly several months pregnant, before Burgess, who extracts a DNA sample. He tells her he will return for his child if his test on the DNA proves the child to be his, threatening to cut it out of her if need be. MARC: Aboard the Serenity, Inara receives a distress call from Nandi, who it is revealed is a good friend of hers. After Nandi requests Inara's help, Inara goes to Mal. She explains that Nandi and the prostitutes who work in Nandi's brothel are not Companions, and are not protected by the Guild. After she relates their plight, Reynolds agrees to assist Nandi, but declines Inara's offer of payment for the deed. After Serenity lands near Nandi's ranch, Jayne takes advantage of the hospitality of the women there, while Shepherd Book joins some of the women in prayer, and Simon goes to examine Petaline, who will give birth soon. Reynolds gets to know Nandi, who explains the poverty that Burgess enforces on the locals. MIKEY: Seeking to size up his opponent, Reynolds, along with Inara, attends a public event attended by Burgess, not informing him of his alliance with Nandi. Reynolds speaks with Burgess, and even examines the high-tech laser gun that Burgess carries with him. Reynolds ultimately confirms Nandi's assessment of Burgess. After Reynolds and Inara depart, Burgess receives confirmation that he is the father of Petaline's baby. Returning to Nandi's ranch, Reynolds offers to evacuate the area with Nandi and her people, rather than face "a monster who thinks he's right with God" and who won't back down after only a single thrashing from some temporary help, but Nandi refuses to leave her hard-earned property and way of life. Reynolds, who admires her stubborn streak, reluctantly decides to stay and accept the challenge of defending the ranch. MARC: As the Serenity prepare for an attack by Burgess and his forces, Zoe has a tense conversation with Wash, in which she insists that they will have a child in the near future. Petaline goes into labour, with Inara, Simon and River at Petaline's bedside. Nandi and Reynolds also spend time together, during which Nandi inquires about Reynolds' relationship with Inara, and relates her own past, which includes the Companion training she shared with Inara on the latter's home world, Sihnon. She says that Inara was in the running to become house priestess of House Madrassa when she suddenly left, without explanation, to travel among the Alliance worlds. Nandi had left before then, however, straining at the restrictions of Companion life. MIKEY: She moved to this border world and assumed control of the whorehouse from its previous owner, who kept the employees there addicted to drugs, and in so doing, she improved life for the girls. Mal and Nandi gradually move toward sex, pausing only when Nandi says "I ain't her", which Mal deflects without directly acknowledging her implication of his feelings for Inara. MARC: Back in town, one of Nandi's girls, Chari, reports to Burgess on Mal's preparations, after which Burgess rallies his men, proclaiming women's ordained place as submissive servants to men, which he demonstrates by ordering Chari to kneel in front of him to do "a few more chores" in front of the crowd. MIKEY: The next morning, Reynolds tries to explain his night with Nandi to Inara, but Inara calmly tells him that there is no reason to be embarrassed about his sex life, and also thanks him for comforting her friend. Nonetheless, Inara subsequently sobs deeply in private, and Nandi realizes that there was more to Inara's feelings than she let on. MARC: Burgess's men attack the ranch, and a battle ensues, with the Serenity crew joining forces with the ranch's residents to fend off Burgess's forces. On board the Serenity, Wash and Kaylee  trap some of Burgess' men, who invaded the ship, though Wash realizes that in so doing, he himself has been cut off from the bridge, preventing him from responding to Reynolds' call to join the battle. As Petaline gives birth, Chari lets Burgess inside. He quickly storms into Petaline's room, taking her newborn son. When Nandi tries to foil the kidnapping, Burgess fatally shoots her in the abdomen. He is pursued, however, by Reynolds, who captures him and drags him back to the ranch, where Petaline, holding her son, whom she has named Jonah, executes him. MIKEY: Petaline tells the remaining thugs to leave, and orders the traitorous Chari to go with them, as she no longer has a place there. Following a funeral for Nandi, Serenity departs. Back on the ship, Inara reiterates her gratitude that Reynolds was able to comfort Nandi on what turned out to be her last night, but Reynolds can only regret his failure to save her. As Reynolds tries to broach the subject of his and Inara's unacknowledged feelings toward each other, Inara muses about how Nandi created a family, and how that kind of shared strength and love makes people never want to break away. She then informs him that she will be leaving Serenity. NEW SONGS "By Amazing Grace" by Marc Gunn Marc: I am ever so grateful for the kindness and generosity of Gunn Runners over on Patreon. Thanks to all of these patreons: Angela Hughes, Carol Baril, Eric Ray, Sarah Crockett, William McKissack, Alexis , Brian M, James O, Jan C, Josh B, Kate D, Kurt G, LauraMay S, Lisa D, Miranda Nelson, Tim O "Ties That Bind" by Mikey Mason Mikey: Thank you , as always, to my amazing Patreon patrons for helping keep the music being made, especially Robin Abess, Brian Jackey, John Haight, John Lach, John R Woolard, Les Howard, Jeremy Jackson and Jennifer Lewis, Scott Mealy, Scott & Melanie Weinhusen. CLOSING NOTES Marc: Thanks so much for listening. You can download these demo songs when you sign up on our Patreon pages. Find out more about Marc Gunn and Mikey Mason and how to support our music on Patreon. Mikey: We would love your comments, songs and lyrics or links to videos to share in the next show. Use the hashtag #InTheVerse. You can post them on the Blue Sun Tour Facebook page or email intheverse@fireflydrinkingsongs.com Marc: In the ‘Verse was produced by Marc Gunn and Mikey Mason. Sign up on our website and find out more about the Blue Sun Tour at http://fireflydrinkingsongs.com/intheverse/  

Most of us live in a world of nations. If you were born and live in the Republic of X, then you probably speak X-ian, are a citizen of X, and would gladly fight and die for your X-ian brothers and sisters. If, however, you were born and live in the Republic of X and you are not–by self-proclaimed identity–X-ian, then you are, well, a problem. But it wasn't always so. Prior to the nineteenth century, people generally did not live in a world of nations. They lived in a world of empires. Now in hindsight, we say that these empires were “multinational,” that is, they were made up of nations. But the elites who ran the empires didn't think so. They saw them as made up of territories where the sovereign's writ ran, not “nations” that the sovereign ruled (though there was some of that as well). As Michael A. Reynolds points out in his fine book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge UP, 2011), European imperial elites of the nineteenth century faced a crisis when nations–and the political doctrine that said they should be self-governing, “nationalism”–began to grow in strength. The idea of nations and the program of nationalism were born in Western and Central Europe, where they caused some but not too much difficulty, at least at first (a story we will have to leave aside). When, however, the nation-states of Western and Central Europe began to threaten, territorially speaking, the empires of Eastern Europe, and to export the doctrine of nationalism to those regions, the real trouble began. For Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman elites understood that war and nationalism in the imperial context would likely mean the end of empire. One could not fight external and internal enemies at the same time. They were not wrong in this. As Reynolds shows, they did the best they could, creating alliances with Western and Central European powers to buy time, fostering subversive nationalisms within the borders of their opponents, and, eventually, embracing nationalism and embarking on massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and killing (most infamously in the case of the Armenians). In one case, they succeeded after a fashion in holding the empire together, at least for a time (Russia); in two others they failed (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). But they were all victims of war and nationalism, forces they helped create and could not control.

Most of us live in a world of nations. If you were born and live in the Republic of X, then you probably speak X-ian, are a citizen of X, and would gladly fight and die for your X-ian brothers and sisters. If, however, you were born and live in the Republic of X and you are not–by self-proclaimed identity–X-ian, then you are, well, a problem. But it wasn’t always so. Prior to the nineteenth century, people generally did not live in a world of nations. They lived in a world of empires. Now in hindsight, we say that these empires were “multinational,” that is, they were made up of nations. But the elites who ran the empires didn’t think so. They saw them as made up of territories where the sovereign’s writ ran, not “nations” that the sovereign ruled (though there was some of that as well). As Michael A. Reynolds points out in his fine book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge UP, 2011), European imperial elites of the nineteenth century faced a crisis when nations–and the political doctrine that said they should be self-governing, “nationalism”–began to grow in strength. The idea of nations and the program of nationalism were born in Western and Central Europe, where they caused some but not too much difficulty, at least at first (a story we will have to leave aside). When, however, the nation-states of Western and Central Europe began to threaten, territorially speaking, the empires of Eastern Europe, and to export the doctrine of nationalism to those regions, the real trouble began. For Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman elites understood that war and nationalism in the imperial context would likely mean the end of empire. One could not fight external and internal enemies at the same time. They were not wrong in this. As Reynolds shows, they did the best they could, creating alliances with Western and Central European powers to buy time, fostering subversive nationalisms within the borders of their opponents, and, eventually, embracing nationalism and embarking on massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and killing (most infamously in the case of the Armenians). In one case, they succeeded after a fashion in holding the empire together, at least for a time (Russia); in two others they failed (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). But they were all victims of war and nationalism, forces they helped create and could not control. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most of us live in a world of nations. If you were born and live in the Republic of X, then you probably speak X-ian, are a citizen of X, and would gladly fight and die for your X-ian brothers and sisters. If, however, you were born and live in the Republic of X and you are not–by self-proclaimed identity–X-ian, then you are, well, a problem. But it wasn’t always so. Prior to the nineteenth century, people generally did not live in a world of nations. They lived in a world of empires. Now in hindsight, we say that these empires were “multinational,” that is, they were made up of nations. But the elites who ran the empires didn’t think so. They saw them as made up of territories where the sovereign’s writ ran, not “nations” that the sovereign ruled (though there was some of that as well). As Michael A. Reynolds points out in his fine book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge UP, 2011), European imperial elites of the nineteenth century faced a crisis when nations–and the political doctrine that said they should be self-governing, “nationalism”–began to grow in strength. The idea of nations and the program of nationalism were born in Western and Central Europe, where they caused some but not too much difficulty, at least at first (a story we will have to leave aside). When, however, the nation-states of Western and Central Europe began to threaten, territorially speaking, the empires of Eastern Europe, and to export the doctrine of nationalism to those regions, the real trouble began. For Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman elites understood that war and nationalism in the imperial context would likely mean the end of empire. One could not fight external and internal enemies at the same time. They were not wrong in this. As Reynolds shows, they did the best they could, creating alliances with Western and Central European powers to buy time, fostering subversive nationalisms within the borders of their opponents, and, eventually, embracing nationalism and embarking on massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and killing (most infamously in the case of the Armenians). In one case, they succeeded after a fashion in holding the empire together, at least for a time (Russia); in two others they failed (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). But they were all victims of war and nationalism, forces they helped create and could not control. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most of us live in a world of nations. If you were born and live in the Republic of X, then you probably speak X-ian, are a citizen of X, and would gladly fight and die for your X-ian brothers and sisters. If, however, you were born and live in the Republic of X and you are not–by self-proclaimed identity–X-ian, then you are, well, a problem. But it wasn’t always so. Prior to the nineteenth century, people generally did not live in a world of nations. They lived in a world of empires. Now in hindsight, we say that these empires were “multinational,” that is, they were made up of nations. But the elites who ran the empires didn’t think so. They saw them as made up of territories where the sovereign’s writ ran, not “nations” that the sovereign ruled (though there was some of that as well). As Michael A. Reynolds points out in his fine book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge UP, 2011), European imperial elites of the nineteenth century faced a crisis when nations–and the political doctrine that said they should be self-governing, “nationalism”–began to grow in strength. The idea of nations and the program of nationalism were born in Western and Central Europe, where they caused some but not too much difficulty, at least at first (a story we will have to leave aside). When, however, the nation-states of Western and Central Europe began to threaten, territorially speaking, the empires of Eastern Europe, and to export the doctrine of nationalism to those regions, the real trouble began. For Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman elites understood that war and nationalism in the imperial context would likely mean the end of empire. One could not fight external and internal enemies at the same time. They were not wrong in this. As Reynolds shows, they did the best they could, creating alliances with Western and Central European powers to buy time, fostering subversive nationalisms within the borders of their opponents, and, eventually, embracing nationalism and embarking on massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and killing (most infamously in the case of the Armenians). In one case, they succeeded after a fashion in holding the empire together, at least for a time (Russia); in two others they failed (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). But they were all victims of war and nationalism, forces they helped create and could not control. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most of us live in a world of nations. If you were born and live in the Republic of X, then you probably speak X-ian, are a citizen of X, and would gladly fight and die for your X-ian brothers and sisters. If, however, you were born and live in the Republic of X and you are not–by self-proclaimed identity–X-ian, then you are, well, a problem. But it wasn’t always so. Prior to the nineteenth century, people generally did not live in a world of nations. They lived in a world of empires. Now in hindsight, we say that these empires were “multinational,” that is, they were made up of nations. But the elites who ran the empires didn’t think so. They saw them as made up of territories where the sovereign’s writ ran, not “nations” that the sovereign ruled (though there was some of that as well). As Michael A. Reynolds points out in his fine book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918 (Cambridge UP, 2011), European imperial elites of the nineteenth century faced a crisis when nations–and the political doctrine that said they should be self-governing, “nationalism”–began to grow in strength. The idea of nations and the program of nationalism were born in Western and Central Europe, where they caused some but not too much difficulty, at least at first (a story we will have to leave aside). When, however, the nation-states of Western and Central Europe began to threaten, territorially speaking, the empires of Eastern Europe, and to export the doctrine of nationalism to those regions, the real trouble began. For Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman elites understood that war and nationalism in the imperial context would likely mean the end of empire. One could not fight external and internal enemies at the same time. They were not wrong in this. As Reynolds shows, they did the best they could, creating alliances with Western and Central European powers to buy time, fostering subversive nationalisms within the borders of their opponents, and, eventually, embracing nationalism and embarking on massive campaigns of ethnic cleansing and killing (most infamously in the case of the Armenians). In one case, they succeeded after a fashion in holding the empire together, at least for a time (Russia); in two others they failed (Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). But they were all victims of war and nationalism, forces they helped create and could not control. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Constable painted this work for his friend and patron, Dr John Fisher, Bishop of Salisbury. The Bishop is shown in the left foreground pointing out the sunlit Cathedral to his wife, as one of their daughters, Dorothea, advances along the path towards her parents. And as C.R. Leslie noted, Constable included the Suffolk, hornless variety of cow in the grounds (Leslie (1843/45) 1951, p. 96). Constable painted a magical work, a sylvan vista of the Cathedral, viewed from the south-west, with an arch of trees framing the spire. It ranks as one of his major paintings. He captured the light on the foliage, and conveyed the air and atmosphere of a summer morning. He wrote: ‘Does not the Cathedral look beautiful amongst the Golden foliage? its silvery grey must sparkle in it’ (Beckett VI, p. 78). During a visit to Salisbury in 1811 Constable made three drawings of the Cathedral: from the south-east, from the south-west and from the east end. He used the view from the south-west as the compositional basis for his later paintings in oil. He made further drawings, and an open-air oil sketch of the Cathedral and its surroundings (National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa), while in Salisbury during July and August 1820 when he stayed with the Bishop’s nephew, his friend Archdeacon John Fisher. In 1823 Constable painted this enlarged version of the scene. It was his most important exhibit at the 1823 Royal Academy exhibition. One critic suggested that ‘the landscape and cows are extremely well managed; and speak of that rich fat country ever to be found about the church’; he remarked that ‘there is great merit in the picture’ and compared it to the work of Hobbema (The London Magazine, June 1823, cit. Ivy 1991, p. 100). Another critic, Robert Hunt, suggested that Constable’s ‘Salisbury Cathedral is so pre-eminent in that “prime cheerer, light”’ (The Examiner, 23 June 1823, cit. Ivy 1991, p. 101). Constable wrote to Fisher after the Academy’s opening on 9 May commenting: My Cathedral looks very well. Indeed I got through that job uncommonly well considering how much I dreaded it. It is much approved by the Academy and moreover in Seymour St. [the Bishop’s London residence] though I was at one time fearfull that it would not be a favourite there owing to a dark cloud – but we got over the difficulty … It was the most difficult subject in landscape I ever had on my easil. I have not flinched at the work, of the windows, buttresses, &c, &c, but I have as usual made my escape in the evanescence of the chiaroscuro (Beckett VI, p. 115). But the passing storm clouds over the Cathedral spire that gave movement and contrast to the scene were never appreciated by the Bishop. In a letter to Constable of 16 October 1823, Fisher recorded the thoughts of his uncle: ‘[If] Constable would but leave out his black clouds! Clouds are only black when it is going to rain. In fine weather the sky is blue’ (Beckett VI, p. 138). The Bishop may have thought that in presenting the Cathedral under a cloud, Constable had created an actual and a metaphorical image of the Church that reflected the changing times and the onslaught of radical ideas. As Michael Rosenthal has suggested, ‘a painting of Salisbury Cathedral is more than just a portrayal of architecture’ (Rosenthal 1983, p. 146). Constable was prepared to invent or change his skies. Later in 1823 he painted a smaller, sunnier version of the subject for the Bishop as a wedding present for his daughter, Elizabeth (Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, San Marino), with ‘a more serene sky’ (Beckett VI, p. 125). In July 1824 the Bishop asked Constable to repaint the sky in this work, but rather than do so he decided to paint a second version for the Bishop, a full-scale replica with a sunnier sky, and with the trees thinned out and no longer meeting in an arch above the Cathedral spire (now in The Frick Collection, New York). Constable had not finished this new version by the time of the Bishop’s death on 8 May 1825, after which he sent it to the Bishop’s widow; and he sent this original 1823 version to the Bishop’s nephew, his friend John Fisher. As Reynolds has observed, the latter was presumably a sale as Constable repurchased the picture in 1829 when Fisher was so hard pressed for money that he had to relinquish the work he greatly admired. He had written to Constable on 1 July 1826 that: The Cathedral looks splendidly over the chimney piece. The picture requires a room full of light. Its internal splendour comes out in all its power, the spire sails away with the thunder-clouds (ibid., p. 222).