Podcasts about freudian

Oh that's right. Lorne Michaels doesn't sound like Austin Powers— He sounds like Dr. Evil. Dead wringer. I don't know how I could mess that up. The Mike Meyers part? Was he both of them! I don't know— was he?? Jesus ChristS This is all your fault, Seth Meyers. Are you— a cinephile? Oh yeah. Of course. I love cinnamon. Idiot. So my insides get soft When I see your shadow Listen Everything glistens when it's golden Perhaps then If it isn't yellow She don't got a soul But she sure do got a body Dor dor nyc TRACY MORGAN OH YEA. I DID SOME WEIRD SHIT THIS MORNING. Tracy! What weird shit! I don't know! I just know it was weird! Wait, Tracy— what happened this morning. Well, the first thing was— I woke up. Yeah, after that. But not in my normal places that I wake up! What do you mean. Well, that was the first thing that was weird! I woke up in BROOKLYN. Why anything I like gets odd at Bedford And why Anything I like Just thinks I'm scum Imm succumbing to the numbness of the public And I love it But I love it cause I'm wholly made of love I don't even live here This place is filled with demons My home is filled with dead things The difference is the spirit We also come light hearted m We also formed from stardust I wonder what's SETH MEYERS finally gets out of the box, The problem is now, that he's marooned on what appears to be a desolate island. It's not entirely desolate, however— this is SUNNI BLU's island, on which there is a huge days long party Props for having a white mom I bed she adores you I can tell by your clothes And what you know That you're not Supposed to My mom Had no rules But was beautiful Suited me, But I'm not beauty queen Really I'd rather have a white mom I'd probably be discovered on Girls gone wild {Enter The Multiverse} If my Shazam can hear it bro it's too loud. Fuck this place. SETH MEYERS You blacked out under the Christmas tree. SUNNI Oh. I'm sorry— SETH MEYERS —but first you put up a Christmas tree. SUNNI Wow! #theblackout SETH MEYERS Yeah, i'm—seriously impressed, but.. SUNNI —-but what? Seth Meyers SETH MEYERS I—just don't understand how you got into my house. SUNNI Through the chimney, obviously. SETH MEYERE That's—I don't even have a chimney. SUNNI Yes you do! (He doesn't) Alternately: Or— (Didn't , previously, however—) SUNNI BLU has a CHIMNEY installed for an elaborate pranking, however, —DIE— ! Ok. —Due to the elaborateness of this prank, belligerent drunkenness then insued, which resulted in— SUNNI —well, were there presents? SETH MEYERS I mean; besides yourself? SUNNI Is what I'm asking! SETH MEYERS Yes! And they were really, very nice, but look— GOTH SETH ROGEN is killin it. Was this not about to be GOTH SETH MEYERS? By some awful Freudian slip, yes, it was— but that can't happen , Why not? Cause that guy's still locked inside a hot metal box. Actually, I'm not, Whaaaaa?? I'm like— on an island. Oh. Yeah. That's right. Marooned. On an island. That sucks. Yeah. So why can you hear us, like? I just figured imm hallucinating. Oh. Right, right. He doesn't know he's on the TV? I don't think so. Oh, I know I'm on TV, it's just— Shh. Let's get out of here before he— Actually, let's just turn this off. *off.* Phew, dodged a bullet there. Close one. Yikes. Thank goodness. This is getting meta. —aaand i'malone again. Christ CHRIST appears beside Seth Meyers on the island. Oh, it's you again. Hey, guy. What did you want? Out of the hot sticky metal box— but as you can see, I did that on my own. Hey, look— I get all my messages at the same time, alright? Do you not have a beeper or something? What year is this? Says the dude in the robe. Watch it. Fuck. Crisis. Speaking of Chrisis—is Jimmy Fallon Still suing me? Probably. I hope so, MEANWHILE Sorry but it had to be done Somehow I'm all for it I got holes in all my socks Like I got golf at 9 o clock I was bionic Now I'm supersonic Toxic for the hustle Russell brand up in this bitch Promote my brand up in this bitch Throw some hands up in this bitch Smoke some ham up on a sandwich Sand up in this castle Throw a flag up in this beach (bitch) Land Hoooooooooooooooooo Land hooooooooooooooo. Land ho Ho Ho Can applause I'm Santa clause I'm man; I'm a Possible Option for Drama Atlanta In a Cadillac In the Back with the Bosses and Models I got Bottle service Hold the phone My servitor say Already won an award And it just got awkward Cause I don't finish the song Tomorrow Flight to Auckland (Oy oy) I am her Boy toy We pick up some Mai tais Then she Ride on My thighs She just right A size nine And I like her eyes, Eyes, She don't want no ICE, Her life on the rocks already deported her twice From where I'm from (Aye aye) Some time this shit don't make no sense So I brought Christmas presents over Wearing cookie monster's— SETH. What. I had Cookie Monster's— uhhh— cookie monster's uh—! Cookie monster's what— Creepy puppet thing The actual puppet? YES! Why—? On my hand! What? IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE!! What! Oh NO, SETH MEYERS. What is happening right now . I don't know. I'm still drunk! But we gotta find Cookie Monster. What! The Cookie Monster fucking—c'mon. Let's check the chimney! I don't have a— CUT TO: …you built me a chimney. Technically, I had a chimney built for you, Seth Meyers, WHY. IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. WHAT WAS THE JOKE! I FOUND YOU DRUNK UNDER MY CHRISTMAS TREE. It was MY Christmas tree! IN MY LIVING ROOM. [beat] This is just bad office politics. I'm your boss. I resent that. I also resent that. So—wait a second— as part of this “elaborate joke” you also stole a Cookie Monster puppet. I didn't steal it. I own everything, basically, pretty much. Okay— so wait, wait— what you're telling me is that when you came through the chimney— Yes— Which you built on my house— somehow within out my notice— —you take long vacations and your security system sucks— —that's— Also I hacked your security system. —for a joke?! …did it land? WHAT. I'm trying new bits. This scene is running long. —I'm gonna make some calls. Enter The Multiverse} [The Festival Project™ ] {Enter The Multiverse} L E G E N D S: ICONS Tales of A Superstar DJ The Secret Life of Sunnï Blū Ascension Deathwish -Ū. Copyright The Festival Project, Inc. ™ & The Complex Collective © 2015-2025 All Rights Reserved Wait something got kerfaufulled… No we're jumping parallel's it's this season's theme. What's the theme? THE REVERSE QUANTUM SIMULATION THEORY [REQŪÏSĪTE: The Experienxe] [postponed until further notice] Lulz

Oh that's right. Lorne Michaels doesn't sound like Austin Powers— He sounds like Dr. Evil. Dead wringer. I don't know how I could mess that up. The Mike Meyers part? Was he both of them! I don't know— was he?? Jesus ChristS This is all your fault, Seth Meyers. Are you— a cinephile? Oh yeah. Of course. I love cinnamon. Idiot. So my insides get soft When I see your shadow Listen Everything glistens when it's golden Perhaps then If it isn't yellow She don't got a soul But she sure do got a body Dor dor nyc TRACY MORGAN OH YEA. I DID SOME WEIRD SHIT THIS MORNING. Tracy! What weird shit! I don't know! I just know it was weird! Wait, Tracy— what happened this morning. Well, the first thing was— I woke up. Yeah, after that. But not in my normal places that I wake up! What do you mean. Well, that was the first thing that was weird! I woke up in BROOKLYN. Why anything I like gets odd at Bedford And why Anything I like Just thinks I'm scum Imm succumbing to the numbness of the public And I love it But I love it cause I'm wholly made of love I don't even live here This place is filled with demons My home is filled with dead things The difference is the spirit We also come light hearted m We also formed from stardust I wonder what's SETH MEYERS finally gets out of the box, The problem is now, that he's marooned on what appears to be a desolate island. It's not entirely desolate, however— this is SUNNI BLU's island, on which there is a huge days long party Props for having a white mom I bed she adores you I can tell by your clothes And what you know That you're not Supposed to My mom Had no rules But was beautiful Suited me, But I'm not beauty queen Really I'd rather have a white mom I'd probably be discovered on Girls gone wild {Enter The Multiverse} If my Shazam can hear it bro it's too loud. Fuck this place. SETH MEYERS You blacked out under the Christmas tree. SUNNI Oh. I'm sorry— SETH MEYERS —but first you put up a Christmas tree. SUNNI Wow! #theblackout SETH MEYERS Yeah, i'm—seriously impressed, but.. SUNNI —-but what? Seth Meyers SETH MEYERS I—just don't understand how you got into my house. SUNNI Through the chimney, obviously. SETH MEYERE That's—I don't even have a chimney. SUNNI Yes you do! (He doesn't) Alternately: Or— (Didn't , previously, however—) SUNNI BLU has a CHIMNEY installed for an elaborate pranking, however, —DIE— ! Ok. —Due to the elaborateness of this prank, belligerent drunkenness then insued, which resulted in— SUNNI —well, were there presents? SETH MEYERS I mean; besides yourself? SUNNI Is what I'm asking! SETH MEYERS Yes! And they were really, very nice, but look— GOTH SETH ROGEN is killin it. Was this not about to be GOTH SETH MEYERS? By some awful Freudian slip, yes, it was— but that can't happen , Why not? Cause that guy's still locked inside a hot metal box. Actually, I'm not, Whaaaaa?? I'm like— on an island. Oh. Yeah. That's right. Marooned. On an island. That sucks. Yeah. So why can you hear us, like? I just figured imm hallucinating. Oh. Right, right. He doesn't know he's on the TV? I don't think so. Oh, I know I'm on TV, it's just— Shh. Let's get out of here before he— Actually, let's just turn this off. *off.* Phew, dodged a bullet there. Close one. Yikes. Thank goodness. This is getting meta. —aaand i'malone again. Christ CHRIST appears beside Seth Meyers on the island. Oh, it's you again. Hey, guy. What did you want? Out of the hot sticky metal box— but as you can see, I did that on my own. Hey, look— I get all my messages at the same time, alright? Do you not have a beeper or something? What year is this? Says the dude in the robe. Watch it. Fuck. Crisis. Speaking of Chrisis—is Jimmy Fallon Still suing me? Probably. I hope so, MEANWHILE Sorry but it had to be done Somehow I'm all for it I got holes in all my socks Like I got golf at 9 o clock I was bionic Now I'm supersonic Toxic for the hustle Russell brand up in this bitch Promote my brand up in this bitch Throw some hands up in this bitch Smoke some ham up on a sandwich Sand up in this castle Throw a flag up in this beach (bitch) Land Hoooooooooooooooooo Land hooooooooooooooo. Land ho Ho Ho Can applause I'm Santa clause I'm man; I'm a Possible Option for Drama Atlanta In a Cadillac In the Back with the Bosses and Models I got Bottle service Hold the phone My servitor say Already won an award And it just got awkward Cause I don't finish the song Tomorrow Flight to Auckland (Oy oy) I am her Boy toy We pick up some Mai tais Then she Ride on My thighs She just right A size nine And I like her eyes, Eyes, She don't want no ICE, Her life on the rocks already deported her twice From where I'm from (Aye aye) Some time this shit don't make no sense So I brought Christmas presents over Wearing cookie monster's— SETH. What. I had Cookie Monster's— uhhh— cookie monster's uh—! Cookie monster's what— Creepy puppet thing The actual puppet? YES! Why—? On my hand! What? IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE!! What! Oh NO, SETH MEYERS. What is happening right now . I don't know. I'm still drunk! But we gotta find Cookie Monster. What! The Cookie Monster fucking—c'mon. Let's check the chimney! I don't have a— CUT TO: …you built me a chimney. Technically, I had a chimney built for you, Seth Meyers, WHY. IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. WHAT WAS THE JOKE! I FOUND YOU DRUNK UNDER MY CHRISTMAS TREE. It was MY Christmas tree! IN MY LIVING ROOM. [beat] This is just bad office politics. I'm your boss. I resent that. I also resent that. So—wait a second— as part of this “elaborate joke” you also stole a Cookie Monster puppet. I didn't steal it. I own everything, basically, pretty much. Okay— so wait, wait— what you're telling me is that when you came through the chimney— Yes— Which you built on my house— somehow within out my notice— —you take long vacations and your security system sucks— —that's— Also I hacked your security system. —for a joke?! …did it land? WHAT. I'm trying new bits. This scene is running long. —I'm gonna make some calls. Enter The Multiverse} [The Festival Project™ ] {Enter The Multiverse} L E G E N D S: ICONS Tales of A Superstar DJ The Secret Life of Sunnï Blū Ascension Deathwish -Ū. Copyright The Festival Project, Inc. ™ & The Complex Collective © 2015-2025 All Rights Reserved Wait something got kerfaufulled… No we're jumping parallel's it's this season's theme. What's the theme? THE REVERSE QUANTUM SIMULATION THEORY [REQŪÏSĪTE: The Experienxe] [postponed until further notice] Lulz

Oh that's right. Lorne Michaels doesn't sound like Austin Powers— He sounds like Dr. Evil. Dead wringer. I don't know how I could mess that up. The Mike Meyers part? Was he both of them! I don't know— was he?? Jesus ChristS This is all your fault, Seth Meyers. Are you— a cinephile? Oh yeah. Of course. I love cinnamon. Idiot. So my insides get soft When I see your shadow Listen Everything glistens when it's golden Perhaps then If it isn't yellow She don't got a soul But she sure do got a body Dor dor nyc TRACY MORGAN OH YEA. I DID SOME WEIRD SHIT THIS MORNING. Tracy! What weird shit! I don't know! I just know it was weird! Wait, Tracy— what happened this morning. Well, the first thing was— I woke up. Yeah, after that. But not in my normal places that I wake up! What do you mean. Well, that was the first thing that was weird! I woke up in BROOKLYN. Why anything I like gets odd at Bedford And why Anything I like Just thinks I'm scum Imm succumbing to the numbness of the public And I love it But I love it cause I'm wholly made of love I don't even live here This place is filled with demons My home is filled with dead things The difference is the spirit We also come light hearted m We also formed from stardust I wonder what's SETH MEYERS finally gets out of the box, The problem is now, that he's marooned on what appears to be a desolate island. It's not entirely desolate, however— this is SUNNI BLU's island, on which there is a huge days long party Props for having a white mom I bed she adores you I can tell by your clothes And what you know That you're not Supposed to My mom Had no rules But was beautiful Suited me, But I'm not beauty queen Really I'd rather have a white mom I'd probably be discovered on Girls gone wild {Enter The Multiverse} If my Shazam can hear it bro it's too loud. Fuck this place. SETH MEYERS You blacked out under the Christmas tree. SUNNI Oh. I'm sorry— SETH MEYERS —but first you put up a Christmas tree. SUNNI Wow! #theblackout SETH MEYERS Yeah, i'm—seriously impressed, but.. SUNNI —-but what? Seth Meyers SETH MEYERS I—just don't understand how you got into my house. SUNNI Through the chimney, obviously. SETH MEYERE That's—I don't even have a chimney. SUNNI Yes you do! (He doesn't) Alternately: Or— (Didn't , previously, however—) SUNNI BLU has a CHIMNEY installed for an elaborate pranking, however, —DIE— ! Ok. —Due to the elaborateness of this prank, belligerent drunkenness then insued, which resulted in— SUNNI —well, were there presents? SETH MEYERS I mean; besides yourself? SUNNI Is what I'm asking! SETH MEYERS Yes! And they were really, very nice, but look— GOTH SETH ROGEN is killin it. Was this not about to be GOTH SETH MEYERS? By some awful Freudian slip, yes, it was— but that can't happen , Why not? Cause that guy's still locked inside a hot metal box. Actually, I'm not, Whaaaaa?? I'm like— on an island. Oh. Yeah. That's right. Marooned. On an island. That sucks. Yeah. So why can you hear us, like? I just figured imm hallucinating. Oh. Right, right. He doesn't know he's on the TV? I don't think so. Oh, I know I'm on TV, it's just— Shh. Let's get out of here before he— Actually, let's just turn this off. *off.* Phew, dodged a bullet there. Close one. Yikes. Thank goodness. This is getting meta. —aaand i'malone again. Christ CHRIST appears beside Seth Meyers on the island. Oh, it's you again. Hey, guy. What did you want? Out of the hot sticky metal box— but as you can see, I did that on my own. Hey, look— I get all my messages at the same time, alright? Do you not have a beeper or something? What year is this? Says the dude in the robe. Watch it. Fuck. Crisis. Speaking of Chrisis—is Jimmy Fallon Still suing me? Probably. I hope so, MEANWHILE Sorry but it had to be done Somehow I'm all for it I got holes in all my socks Like I got golf at 9 o clock I was bionic Now I'm supersonic Toxic for the hustle Russell brand up in this bitch Promote my brand up in this bitch Throw some hands up in this bitch Smoke some ham up on a sandwich Sand up in this castle Throw a flag up in this beach (bitch) Land Hoooooooooooooooooo Land hooooooooooooooo. Land ho Ho Ho Can applause I'm Santa clause I'm man; I'm a Possible Option for Drama Atlanta In a Cadillac In the Back with the Bosses and Models I got Bottle service Hold the phone My servitor say Already won an award And it just got awkward Cause I don't finish the song Tomorrow Flight to Auckland (Oy oy) I am her Boy toy We pick up some Mai tais Then she Ride on My thighs She just right A size nine And I like her eyes, Eyes, She don't want no ICE, Her life on the rocks already deported her twice From where I'm from (Aye aye) Some time this shit don't make no sense So I brought Christmas presents over Wearing cookie monster's— SETH. What. I had Cookie Monster's— uhhh— cookie monster's uh—! Cookie monster's what— Creepy puppet thing The actual puppet? YES! Why—? On my hand! What? IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE!! What! Oh NO, SETH MEYERS. What is happening right now . I don't know. I'm still drunk! But we gotta find Cookie Monster. What! The Cookie Monster fucking—c'mon. Let's check the chimney! I don't have a— CUT TO: …you built me a chimney. Technically, I had a chimney built for you, Seth Meyers, WHY. IT WAS PART OF THE JOKE. WHAT WAS THE JOKE! I FOUND YOU DRUNK UNDER MY CHRISTMAS TREE. It was MY Christmas tree! IN MY LIVING ROOM. [beat] This is just bad office politics. I'm your boss. I resent that. I also resent that. So—wait a second— as part of this “elaborate joke” you also stole a Cookie Monster puppet. I didn't steal it. I own everything, basically, pretty much. Okay— so wait, wait— what you're telling me is that when you came through the chimney— Yes— Which you built on my house— somehow within out my notice— —you take long vacations and your security system sucks— —that's— Also I hacked your security system. —for a joke?! …did it land? WHAT. I'm trying new bits. This scene is running long. —I'm gonna make some calls. Enter The Multiverse} [The Festival Project™ ] {Enter The Multiverse} L E G E N D S: ICONS Tales of A Superstar DJ The Secret Life of Sunnï Blū Ascension Deathwish -Ū. Copyright The Festival Project, Inc. ™ & The Complex Collective © 2015-2025 All Rights Reserved Wait something got kerfaufulled… No we're jumping parallel's it's this season's theme. What's the theme? THE REVERSE QUANTUM SIMULATION THEORY [REQŪÏSĪTE: The Experienxe] [postponed until further notice] Lulz

Frances Wilson has written biographies of Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, D.H. Lawrence, and, most recently, Muriel Spark. I thought Electric Spark was excellent. In my review, I wrote: “Wilson has done far more than string the facts together. She has created a strange and vivid portrait of one of the most curious of twentieth century novelists.” In this interview, we covered questions like why Thomas De Quincey is more widely read, why D.H. Lawrence's best books aren't his novels, Frances's conversion to spookiness, what she thinks about a whole range of modern biographers, literature and parasocial relationships, Elizabeth Bowen, George Meredith, and plenty about Muriel Spark.Here are two brief extracts. There is a full transcript below.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?And.Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking to Frances Wilson. Frances is a biographer. Her latest book, Electric Spark, is a biography of the novelist Muriel Spark, but she has also written about Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, DH Lawrence and others. Frances, welcome.Frances Wilson: Thank you so much for having me on.Henry: Why don't more people read Thomas De Quincey's work?Frances: [laughs] Oh, God. We're going right into the deep end.[laughter]Frances: I think because there's too much of it. When I chose to write about Thomas De Quincey, I just followed one thread in his writing because Thomas De Quincey was an addict. One of the things he was addicted to was writing. He wrote far, far, far too much. He was a professional hack. He was a transcendental hack, if you like, because all of his writing he did while on opium, which made the sentences too long and too high and very, very hard to read.When I wrote about him, I just followed his interest in murder. He was fascinated by murder as a fine art. The title of one of his best essays is On Murder as One of the Fine Arts. I was also interested in his relationship with Wordsworth. I twinned those together, which meant cutting out about 97% of the rest of his work. I think people do read his Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. I think that's a cult text. It was the memoir, if you want to call it a memoir, that kick-started the whole pharmaceutical memoir business on drugs.It was also the first addict's memoir and the first recovery memoir, and I'd say also the first misery memoir. He's very much at the root of English literary culture. We're all De Quincey-an without knowing it, is my argument.Henry: Oh, no, I fully agree. That's what surprises me, that they don't read him more often.Frances: I know it's a shame, isn't it? Of all the Romantic Circle, he's the one who's the most exciting to read. Also, Lamb is wonderfully exciting to read as well, but Lamb's a tiny little bit more grounded than De Quincey, who was literally not grounded. He's floating in an opium haze above you.[laughter]Henry: What I liked about your book was the way you emphasized the book addiction, not just the opium addiction. It is shocking the way he piled up chests full of books and notebooks, and couldn't get into the room because there were too many books in there. He was [crosstalk].Frances: Yes. He had this in common with Muriel Spark. He was a hoarder, but in a much more chaotic way than Spark, because, as you say, he piled up rooms with papers and books until he couldn't get into the room, and so just rented another room. He was someone who had no money at all. The no money he had went on paying rent for rooms, storing what we would be giving to Oxfam, or putting in the recycling bin. Then he'd forget that he was paying rent on all these rooms filled with his mountains of paper. The man was chaos.Henry: What is D.H. Lawrence's best book?Frances: Oh, my argument about Lawrence is that we've gone very badly wrong in our reading of him, in seeing him primarily as a novelist and only secondarily as an essayist and critic and short story writer, and poet. This is because of F.R. Leavis writing that celebration of him called D.H. Lawrence: Novelist, because novels are not the best of Lawrence. I think the best of his novels is absolutely, without doubt, Sons and Lovers. I think we should put the novels in the margins and put in the centre, the poems, travel writing.Absolutely at the centre of the centre should be his studies in classic American literature. His criticism was- We still haven't come to terms with it. It was so good. We haven't heard all of Lawrence's various voices yet. When Lawrence was writing, contemporaries didn't think of Lawrence as a novelist at all. It was anyone's guess what he was going to come out with next. Sometimes it was a novel [laughs] and it was usually a rant about-- sometimes it was a prophecy. Posterity has not treated Lawrence well in any way, but I think where we've been most savage to him is in marginalizing his best writing.Henry: The short fiction is truly extraordinary.Frances: Isn't it?Henry: I always thought Lawrence was someone I didn't want to read, and then I read the short fiction, and I was just obsessed.Frances: It's because in the short fiction, he doesn't have time to go wrong. I think brevity was his perfect length. Give him too much space, and you know he's going to get on his soapbox and start ranting, start mansplaining. He was a terrible mansplainer. Mansplaining his versions of what had gone wrong in the world. It is like a drunk at the end of a too-long dinner party, and you really want to just bundle him out. Give him only a tiny bit of space, and he comes out with the perfection that is his writing.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?Frances: I think that the way I approach biography is that there is a code to crack, but I'm not necessarily concerned with whether I crack it or not. I think it's just recognizing that there's a hell of a lot going on in the writing and that, in certain cases and not in every case at all, the best way of exploring the psyche of the writer and the complexity of the life is through the writing, which is a argument for psycho biography, which isn't something I necessarily would argue for, because it can be very, very crude.I think with the writers I choose, there is no option. Muriel Spark argued for this as well. She said in her own work as a biographer, which was really very, very strong. She was a biographer before she became a novelist. She thought hard about biography and absolutely in advance of anyone else who thought about biography, she said, "Of course, the only way we can approach the minds of writers is through their work, and the writer's life is encoded in the concerns of their work."When I was writing about Muriel Spark, I followed, as much as I could, to the letter, her own theories of biography, believing that that was part of the code that she left. She said very, very strong and very definitive things about what biography was about and how to write a biography. I tried to follow those rules.Henry: Can we play a little game where I say the names of some biographers and you tell me what you think of them?Frances: Oh my goodness. Okay.Henry: We're not trying to get you into trouble. We just want some quick opinions. A.N. Wilson.Frances: I think he's wonderful as a biographer. I think he's unzipped and he's enthusiastic and he's unpredictable and he's often off the rails. I think his Goethe biography-- Have you read the Goethe biography?Henry: Yes, I thought that was great.Frances: It's just great, isn't it? It's so exciting. I like the way that when he writes about someone, it's almost as if he's memorized the whole of their work.Henry: Yes.Frances: You don't imagine him sitting at a desk piled with books and having to score through his marginalia. It sits in his head, and he just pours it down on a page. I'm always excited by an A.N. Wilson biography. He is one of the few biographers who I would read regardless of who the subject was.Henry: Yes.Frances: I just want to read him.Henry: He does have good range.Frances: He absolutely does have good range.Henry: Selina Hastings.Frances: I was thinking about Selina Hastings this morning, funnily enough, because I had been talking to people over the weekend about her Sybil Bedford biography and why that hadn't lifted. She wrote a very excitingly good life of Nancy Mitford and then a very unexcitingly not good life of Sybil Bedford. I was interested in why the Sybil Bedford simply hadn't worked. I met people this weekend who were saying the same thing, that she was a very good biographer who had just failed [laughs] to give us anything about Sybil Bedford.I think what went wrong in that biography was that she just could not give us her opinions. It's as if she just withdrew from her subject as if she was writing a Wikipedia entry. There were no opinions at all. What the friends I was talking to said was that she just fell out with her subject during the book. That's what happened. She stopped being interested in her. She fell out with her and therefore couldn't be bothered. That's what went wrong.Henry: Interesting. I think her Evelyn Waugh biography is superb.Frances: Yes, I absolutely agree. She was on fire until this last one.Henry: That's one of the best books on Waugh, I think.Frances: Yes.Henry: Absolutely magical.Frances: I also remember, it's a very rare thing, of reading a review of it by Hilary Mantel saying that she had not read a biography that had been as good, ever, as Selina Hastings' on Evelyn Waugh. My goodness, that's high praise, isn't it?Henry: Yes, it is. It is. I'm always trying to push that book on people. Richard Holmes.Frances: He's my favourite. He's the reason that I'm a biographer at all. I think his Coleridge, especially the first volume of the two-volume Coleridge, is one of the great books. It left me breathless when I read it. It was devastating. I also think that his Johnson and Savage book is one of the great books. I love Footsteps as well, his account of the books he didn't write in Footsteps. I think he has a strange magic. When Muriel Spark talked about certain writers and critics having a sixth literary sense, which meant that they tuned into language and thought in a way that the rest of us don't, I think that Richard Holmes does have that. I think he absolutely has it in relation to Coleridge. I'm longing for his Tennyson to come out.Henry: Oh, I know. I know.Frances: Oh, I just can't wait. I'm holding off on reading Tennyson until I've got Holmes to help me read him. Yes, he is quite extraordinary.Henry: I would have given my finger to write the Johnson and Savage book.Frances: Yes, I know. I agree. How often do you return to it?Henry: Oh, all the time. All the time.Frances: Me too.Henry: Michael Holroyd.Frances: Oh, that's interesting, Michael Holroyd, because I think he's one of the great unreads. I think he's in this strange position of being known as a greatest living biographer, but nobody's read him on Augustus John. [laughs] I haven't read his biographies cover to cover because they're too long and it's not in my subject area, but I do look in them, and they're novelistic in their wit and complexity. His sentences are very, very, very entertaining, and there's a lot of freight in each paragraph. I hope that he keeps selling.I love his essays as well, and also, I think that he has been a wonderful ambassador for biography. He's very, very supportive of younger biographers, which not every biographer is, but I know he's been very supportive of younger biographers and is incredibly approachable.Henry: Let's do a few Muriel Spark questions. Why was the Book of Job so important to Muriel Spark?Frances: I think she liked it because it was rogue, because it was the only book of the Bible that wasn't based on any evidence, it wasn't based on any truth. It was a fictional book, and she liked fiction sitting in the middle of fact. That was one of her main things, as all Spark lovers know. She liked the fact that there was this work of pure imagination and extraordinarily powerful imagination sitting in the middle of the Old Testament, and also, she thought it was an absolutely magnificent poem.She saw herself primarily as a poet, and she responded to it as a poem, which, of course, it is. Also, she liked God in it. She described Him as the Incredible Hulk [laughs] and she liked His boastfulness. She enjoyed, as I do, difficult personalities, and she liked the fact that God had such an incredibly difficult personality. She liked the fact that God boasted and boasted and boasted, "I made this and I made that," to Job, but also I think she liked the fact that you hear God's voice.She was much more interested in voices than she was in faces. The fact that God's voice comes out of the burning bush, I think it was an image for her of early radio, this voice speaking, and she liked the fact that what the voice said was tricksy and touchy and impossibly arrogant. He gives Moses all these instructions to lead the Israelites, and Moses says, "But who shall I say sent me? Who are you?" He says, "I am who I am." [laughs] She thought that was completely wonderful. She quotes that all the time about herself. She says, "I know it's a bit large quoting God, but I am who I am." [laughs]Henry: That disembodied voice is very important to her fiction.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's the telephone in Memento Mori.Frances: Yes.Henry: Also, to some extent, tell me what you think of this, the narrator often acts like that.Frances: Like this disembodied voice?Henry: Yes, like you're supposed to feel like you're not quite sure who's telling you this or where you're being told it from. That's why it gets, like in The Ballad of Peckham Rye or something, very weird.Frances: Yes. I'm waiting for the PhD on Muriel Sparks' narrators. Maybe it's being done as we speak, but she's very, very interested in narrators and the difference between first-person and third-person. She was very keen on not having warm narrators, to put it mildly. She makes a strong argument throughout her work for the absence of the seductive narrative. Her narratives are, as we know, unbelievably seductive, but not because we are being flattered as readers and not because the narrator makes herself or himself pretty. The narrator says what they feel like saying, withholds most of what you would like them to say, plays with us, like in a Spark expression, describing her ideal narrator like a cat with a bird [laughs].Henry: I like that. Could she have been a novelist if she had not become a Catholic?Frances: No, she couldn't. The two things happened at the same time. I wonder, actually, whether she became a Catholic in order to become a novelist. It wasn't that becoming a novelist was an accidental effect of being a Catholic. The conversion was, I think, from being a biographer to a novelist rather than from being an Anglican to a Catholic. What happened is a tremendous interest. I think it's the most interesting moment in any life that I've ever written about is the moment of Sparks' conversion because it did break her life in two.She converted when she was in her mid-30s, and several things happened at once. She converted to Catholicism, she became a Catholic, she became a novelist, but she also had this breakdown. The breakdown was very much part of that conversion package. The breakdown was brought on, she says, by taking Dexys. There was slimming pills, amphetamines. She wanted to lose weight. She put on weight very easily, and her weight went up and down throughout her life.She wanted to take these diet pills, but I think she was also taking the pills because she needed to do all-nighters, because she never, ever, ever stopped working. She was addicted to writing, but also she was impoverished and she had to sell her work, and she worked all night. She was in a rush to get her writing done because she'd wasted so much of her life in her early 20s, in a bad marriage trapped in Africa. She needed to buy herself time. She was on these pills, which have terrible side effects, one of which is hallucinations.I think there were other reasons for her breakdown as well. She was very, very sensitive and I think psychologically fragile. Her mother lived in a state of mental fragility, too. She had a crash when she finished her book. She became depressed. Of course, a breakdown isn't the same as depression, but what happened to her in her breakdown was a paranoid attack rather than a breakdown. She didn't crack into nothing and then have to rebuild herself. She just became very paranoid. That paranoia was always there.Again, it's what's exciting about her writing. She was drawn to paranoia in other writers. She liked Cardinal Newman's paranoia. She liked Charlotte Brontë's paranoia, and she had paranoia. During her paranoid attack, she felt very, very interestingly, because nothing that happened in her life was not interesting, that T.S. Eliot was sending her coded messages. He was encoding these messages in his play, The Confidential Clerk, in the program notes to the play, but also in the blurbs he wrote for Faber and Faber, where he was an editor. These messages were very malign and they were encoded in anagrams.The word lived, for example, became devil. I wonder whether one of the things that happened during her breakdown wasn't that she discovered God, but that she met the devil. I don't think that that's unusual as a conversion experience. In fact, the only conversion experience she ever describes, you'll remember, is in The Girls of Slender Means, when she's describing Nicholas Farrington's conversion. That's the only conversion experience she ever describes. She says that his conversion is when he sees one of the girls leaving the burning building, holding a Schiaparelli dress. Suddenly, he's converted because he's seen a vision of evil.She says, "Conversion can be as a result of a recognition of evil, rather than a recognition of good." I think that what might have happened in this big cocktail of things that happened to her during her breakdown/conversion, is that a writer whom she had idolized, T.S. Eliot, who taught her everything that she needed to know about the impersonality of art. Her narrative coldness comes from Eliot, who thought that emotions had no place in art because they were messy, and art should be clean.I think a writer whom she had idolized, she suddenly felt was her enemy because she was converting from his church, because he was an Anglo-Catholic. He was a high Anglican, and she was leaving Anglo-Catholicism to go through the Rubicon, to cross the Rubicon into Catholicism. She felt very strongly that that is something he would not have approved of.Henry: She's also leaving poetry to become a prose writer.Frances: She was leaving his world of poetry. That's absolutely right.Henry: This is a very curious parallel because the same thing exactly happens to De Quincey with his worship of Wordsworth.Frances: You're right.Henry: They have the same obsessive mania. Then this, as you say, not quite a breakdown, but a kind of explosive mania in the break. De Quincey goes out and destroys that mossy hut or whatever it is in the orchard, doesn't he?Frances: Yes, that disgusting hut in the orchard. Yes, you're completely right. What fascinated me about De Quincey, and this was at the heart of the De Quincey book, was how he had been guided his whole life by Wordsworth. He discovered Wordsworth as a boy when he read We Are Seven, that very creepy poem about a little girl sitting on her sibling's grave, describing the sibling as still alive. For De Quincey, who had lost his very adored sister, he felt that Wordsworth had seen into his soul and that Wordsworth was his mentor and his lodestar.He worshipped Wordsworth as someone who understood him and stalked Wordsworth, pursued and stalked him. When he met him, what he discovered was a man without any redeeming qualities at all. He thought he was a dry monster, but it didn't stop him loving the work. In fact, he loved the work more and more. What threw De Quincey completely was that there was such a difference between Wordsworth, the man who had no genius, and Wordsworth, the poet who had nothing but.Eliot described it, the difference between the man who suffers and the mind which creates. What De Quincey was trying to deal with was the fact that he adulated the work, but was absolutely appalled by the man. Yes, you're right, this same experience happened to spark when she began to feel that T.S. Eliot, whom she had never met, was a malign person, but the work was still not only of immense importance to her, but the work had formed her.Henry: You see the Wasteland all over her own work and the shared Dante obsession.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's remarkably strong. She got to the point of thinking that T.S. Eliot was breaking into her house.Frances: Yes. As I said, she had this paranoid imagination, but also what fired her imagination and what repeated itself again and again in the imaginative scenarios that recur in her fiction and nonfiction is the idea of the intruder. It was the image of someone rifling around in cupboards, drawers, looking at manuscripts. This image, you first find it in a piece she wrote about finding herself completely coincidentally, staying the night during the war in the poet Louis MacNeice's house. She didn't know it was Louis MacNeice's house, but he was a poet who was very, very important to her.Spark's coming back from visiting her parents in Edinburgh in 1944. She gets talking to an au pair on the train. By the time they pull into Houston, there's an air raid, and the au pair says, "Come and spend the night at mine. My employers are away and they live nearby in St. John's Wood." Spark goes to this house and sees it's packed with books and papers, and she's fascinated by the quality of the material she finds there.She looks in all the books. She goes into the attic, and she looks at all the papers, and she asks the au pair whose house it is, and the au pair said, "Oh, he's a professor called Professor Louis MacNeice." Spark had just been reading Whitney. He's one of her favourite poets. She retells this story four times in four different forms, as non-fiction, as fiction, as a broadcast, as reflections, but the image that keeps coming back, what she can't get rid of, is the idea of herself as snooping around in this poet's study.She describes herself, in one of the versions, as trying to draw from his papers his power as a writer. She says she sniffs his pens, she puts her hands over his papers, telling herself, "I must become a writer. I must become a writer." Then she makes this weird anonymous phone call. She loved the phone because it was the most strange form of electrical device. She makes a weird anonymous phone call to an agent, saying, "I'm ringing from Louis MacNeice's house, would you like to see my manuscript?" She doesn't give her name, and the agent says yes.Now I don't believe this phone call took place. I think it's part of Sparks' imagination. This idea of someone snooping around in someone else's room was very, very powerful to her. Then she transposed it in her paranoid attack about T.S. Eliot. She transposed the image that Eliot was now in her house, but not going through her papers, but going through her food cupboards. [laughs] In her food cupboards, all she actually had was baked beans because she was a terrible cook. Part of her unwellness at that point was malnutrition. No, she thought that T.S. Eliot was spying on her. She was obsessed with spies. Spies, snoopers, blackmailers.Henry: T.S. Eliot is Stealing My Baked Beans would have been a very good title for a memoir.Frances: It actually would, wouldn't it?Henry: Yes, it'd be great.[laughter]Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now. Anything can happen. This is one of the reasons Spark was attracted to Catholicism because anything can happen, because it legitimizes the supernatural. I felt so strongly that the supernatural experiences that Spark had were real, that what Spark was describing as the spookiness of our own life were things that actually happened.One of the things I found very, very unsettling about her was that everything that happened to her, she had written about first. She didn't describe her experiences in retrospect. She described them as in foresight. For example, her first single authored published book, because she wrote for a while in collaboration with her lover, Derek Stanford, but her first single authored book was a biography of Mary Shelley.Henry: Great book.Frances: An absolutely wonderful book, which really should be better than any of the other Mary Shelley biographies. She completely got to Mary Shelley. Everything she described in Mary Shelley's life would then happen to Spark. For example, she described Mary Shelley as having her love letters sold. Her lover sold Mary Shelley's love letters, and Mary Shelley was then blackmailed by the person who bought them. This happened to Spark. She described Mary Shelley's closest friends all becoming incredibly jealous of her literary talent. This happened to Spark. She described trusting people who betrayed her. This happened to Spark.Spark was the first person to write about Frankenstein seriously, to treat Frankenstein as a masterpiece rather than as a one-off weird novel that is actually just the screenplay for a Hammer Horror film. This was 1951, remember. Everything she described in Frankenstein as its power is a hybrid text, described the powerful hybrid text that she would later write about. What fascinated her in Frankenstein was the relationship between the creator and the monster, and which one was the monster. This is exactly the story of her own life. I think where she is. She was really interested in art monsters and in the fact that the only powerful writers out there, the only writers who make a dent, are monsters.If you're not a monster, you're just not competing. I think Spark has always spoken about as having a monster-like quality. She says at the end of one of her short stories, Bang-bang You're Dead, "Am I an intellectual woman, or am I a monster?" It's the question that is frequently asked of Spark. I think she worked so hard to monsterize herself. Again, she learnt this from Elliot. She learnt her coldness from Elliot. She learnt indifference from Elliot. There's a very good letter where she's writing to a friend, Shirley Hazzard, in New York.It's after she discovers that her lover, Derek Stanford, has sold her love letters, 70 love letters, which describe two very, very painfully raw, very tender love letters. She describes to Shirley Hazzard this terrible betrayal. She says, "But, I'm over it. I'm over it now. Now I'm just going to be indifferent." She's telling herself to just be indifferent about this. You watch her tutoring herself into the indifference that she needed in order to become the artist that she knew she was.Henry: Is this why she's attracted to mediocrities, because she can possess them and monsterize them, and they're good feeding for her artistic programme?Frances: Her attraction to mediocrities is completely baffling, and it makes writing her biography, a comedy, because the men she was surrounded by were so speck-like. Saw themselves as so important, but were, in fact, so speck-like that you have to laugh, and it was one after another after another. I'd never come across, in my life, so many men I'd never heard of. This was the literary world that she was surrounded by. It's odd, I don't know whether, at the time, she knew how mediocre these mediocrities were.She certainly recognised it in her novels where they're all put together into one corporate personality called the pisseur de copie in A Far Cry from Kensington, where every single literary mediocrity is in that critic who she describes as pissing and vomiting out copy. With Derek Stanford, who was obviously no one's ever heard of now, because he wrote nothing that was memorable, he was her partner from the end of the 40s until-- They ceased their sexual relationship when she started to be interested in becoming a Catholic in 1953, but she was devoted to him up until 1958. She seemed to be completely incapable of recognising that she had the genius and he had none.Her letters to him deferred to him, all the time, as having literary powers that she hadn't got, as having insights that she hadn't got, he's better read than she was. She was such an amazingly good critic. Why could she not see when she looked at his baggy, bad prose that it wasn't good enough? She rated him so highly. When she was co-authoring books with him, which was how she started her literary career, they would occasionally write alternative sentences. Some of her sentences are always absolutely-- they're sharp, lean, sparkling, and witty, and his are way too long and really baggy and they don't say anything. Obviously, you can see that she's irritated by it.She still doesn't say, "Look, I'm going now." It was only when she became a novelist that she said, "I want my mind to myself." She puts, "I want my mind to myself." She didn't want to be in a double act with him. Doubles were important to her. She didn't want to be in a double act with him anymore. He obviously had bought into her adulation of him and hadn't recognised that she had this terrifying power as a writer. It was now his turn to have the breakdown. Spark had the mental breakdown in 1950, '45. When her first novel came out in 1957, it was Stanford who had the breakdown because he couldn't take on board who she was as a novelist.What he didn't know about her as a novelist was her comic sense, how that would fuel the fiction, but also, he didn't recognize because he reviewed her books badly. He didn't recognise that the woman who had been so tender, vulnerable, and loving with him could be this novelist who had nothing to say about tenderness or love. In his reviews, he says, "Why are her characters so cold?" because he thought that she should be writing from the core of her as a human being rather than the core of her as an intellect.Henry: What are her best novels?Frances: Every one I read, I think this has to be the best.[laughter]This is particularly the case in the early novels, where I'm dazzled by The Comforters and think there cannot have been a better first novel of the 20th century or even the 21st century so far. The Comforters. Then read Robinson, her second novel, and think, "Oh God, no, that is her best novel. Then Memento Mori, I think, "Actually, that must be the best novel of the 20th century." [laughs] Then you move on to The Ballad of Peckham Rye, I think, "No, that's even better."The novels landed. It's one of the strange things about her; it took her so long to become a novelist. When she had become one, the novels just landed. Once in one year, two novels landed. In 1959, she had, it was The Bachelors and The Ballad of Peckham Rye, both just completely extraordinary. The novels had been the storing up, and then they just fell on the page. They're different, but samey. They're samey in as much as they're very, very, very clever. They're clever about Catholicism, and they have the same narrative wit. My God, do the plots work in different ways. She was wonderful at plots. She was a great plotter. She liked plots in both senses of the world.She liked the idea of plotting against someone, also laying a plot. She was, at the same time, absolutely horrified by being caught inside someone's plot. That's what The Comforters is about, a young writer called Caroline Rose, who has a breakdown, it's a dramatisation of Sparks' own breakdown, who has a breakdown, and believes that she is caught inside someone else's story. She is a typewriter repeating all of her thoughts. Typewriter and a chorus repeating all of her thoughts.What people say about The Comforters is that Caroline Rose thought she is a heroine of a novel who finds herself trapped in a novel. Actually, if you read what Caroline Rose says in the novel, she doesn't think she's trapped in a novel; she thinks she's trapped in a biography. "There is a typewriter typing the story of our lives," she says to her boyfriend. "Of our lives." Muriel Sparks' first book was about being trapped in a biography, which is, of course, what she brought on herself when she decided to trap herself in a biography. [laughs]Henry: I think I would vote for Loitering with Intent, The Girls of Slender Means as my favourites. I can see that Memento Mori is a good book, but I don't love it, actually.Frances: Really? Interesting. Okay. I completely agree with you about-- I think Loitering with Intent is my overall favourite. Don't you find every time you read it, it's a different book? There are about 12 books I've discovered so far in that book. She loved books inside books, but every time I read it, I think, "Oh my God, it's changed shape again. It's a shape-shifting novel."Henry: We all now need the Frances Wilson essay about the 12 books inside Loitering with Intent.Frances: I know.[laughter]Henry: A few more general questions to close. Did Thomas De Quincey waste his talents?Frances: I wouldn't have said so. I think that's because every single day of his life, he was on opium.Henry: I think the argument is a combination of too much opium and also too much magazine work and not enough "real serious" philosophy, big poems, whatever.Frances: I think the best of his work went into Blackwood's, so the magazine work. When he was taken on by Blackwood's, the razor-sharp Edinburgh magazine, then the best of his work took place. I think that had he only written the murder essays, that would have been enough for me, On Murder as a Fine Art.That was enough. I don't need any more of De Quincey. I think Confessions of an English Opium-Eater is also enough in as much as it's the great memoir of addiction. We don't need any more memoirs of addiction, just read that. It's not just a memoir of being addicted to opium. It's about being addicted to what's what. It's about being a super fan and addicted to writing. He was addicted to everything. If he was in AA now, they'd say, apparently, there are 12 addictions, he had all of them. [laughs]Henry: Yes. People talk a lot about parasocial relationships online, where you read someone online or you follow them, and you have this strange idea in your head that you know them in some way, even though they're just this disembodied online person. You sometimes see people say, "Oh, we should understand this more." I think, "Well, read the history of literature, parasocial relationships everywhere."Frances: That's completely true. I hadn't heard that term before. The history of literature, a parasocial relationship. That's your next book.Henry: There we go. I think what I want from De Quincey is more about Shakespeare, because I think the Macbeth essay is superb.Frances: Absolutely brilliant. On Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth.Henry: Yes, and then you think, "Wait, where's the rest of this book? There should be an essay about every play."Frances: That's an absolutely brilliant example of microhistory, isn't it? Just taking a moment in a play, just the knocking at the gate, the morning after the murders, and blowing that moment up, so it becomes the whole play. Oh, my God, it's good. You're right.Henry: It's so good. What is, I think, "important about it", is that in the 20th century, critics started saying or scholars started saying a lot, "We can't just look at the words on the page. We've got to think about the dramaturgy. We've got to really, really think about how it plays out." De Quincey was an absolute master of that. It's really brilliant.Frances: Yes.Henry: What's your favourite modern novel or novelist?Frances: Oh, Hilary Mantel, without doubt, I think. I think we were lucky enough to live alongside a great, great, great novelist. I think the Wolf Hall trilogy is absolutely the greatest piece of narrative fiction that's come out of the 21st century. I also love her. I love her work as an essayist. I love her. She's spooky like Spark. She was inspired.Henry: Yes, she is. Yes.Frances: She learnt a lot of her cunning from Spark, I think. She's written a very spooky memoir. In fact, the only women novelists who acknowledge Spark as their influencer are Ali Smith and Hilary Mantel, although you can see Spark in William Boyd all the time. I think we're pretty lucky to live alongside William Boyd as well. Looking for real, real greatness, I think there's no one to compare with Mantel. Do you agree?Henry: I don't like the third volume of the trilogy.Frances: Okay. Right.Henry: Yes, in general, I do agree. Yes. I think some people don't like historical fiction for a variety of reasons. It may take some time for her to get it. I think she's acknowledged as being really good. I don't know that she's yet acknowledged at the level that you're saying.Frances: Yes.Henry: I think that will take a little bit longer. Maybe as and when there's a biography that will help with that, which I'm sure there will be a biography.Frances: I think they need to wait. I do think it's important to wait for a reputation to settle before starting the biography. Her biography will be very interesting because she married the same man twice. Her growth as a novelist was so extraordinary. Spark, she spent time in Africa. She had this terrible, terrible illness. She knew something. I think what I love about Mantel is, as with Spark, she knew something. She knew something, and she didn't quite know what it was that she knew. She had to write because of this knowledge. When you read her, you know that she's on a different level of understanding.Henry: You specialise in slightly neglected figures of English literature. Who else among the canonical writers deserves a bit more attention?Frances: Oh, that's interesting. I love minor characters. I think Spark was very witty about describing herself as a minor novelist or a writer of minor novels when she was evidently major. She always saw the comedy in being a minor. All the minor writers interest me. Elizabeth Bowen, Henry Green. No, they have heard Elizabeth Bowen has been treated well by Hermione Lee and Henry Green has been treated well by Jeremy Treglown.Why are they not up there yet? They're so much better than most of their contemporaries. I am mystified and fascinated by why it is that the most powerful writers tend to be kicked into the long grass. It's dazzling. When you read a Henry Green novel, you think, "But this is what it's all about. He's understood everything about what the novel can do. Why has no one heard of him?"Henry: I think Elizabeth Bowen's problem is that she's so concise, dense, and well-structured, and everything really plays its part in the pattern of the whole that it's not breezy reading.Frances: No, it's absolutely not.Henry: I think that probably holds her back in some way, even though when I have pushed it on people, most of the time they've said, "Gosh, she's a genius."Frances: Yes.Henry: It's not an easy genius. Whereas Dickens, the pages sort of fly along, something like that.Frances: Yes. One of the really interesting things about Spark is that she really, really is easy reading. At the same time, there's so much freight in those books. There's so much intellectual weight and so many games being played. There's so many books inside the books. Yet you can just read them for the pleasure. You can just read them for the plot. You can read one in an afternoon and think that you've been lost inside a book for 10 years. You don't get that from Elizabeth Bowen. That's true. The novels, you feel the weight, don't you?Henry: Yes.Frances: She's Jamesian. She's more Jamesian, I think, than Spark is.Henry: Something like A World of Love, it requires quite a lot of you.Frances: Yes, it does. Yes, it's not bedtime reading.Henry: No, exactly.Frances: Sitting up in a library.Henry: Yes. Now, you mentioned James. You're a Henry James expert.Frances: I did my PhD on Henry James.Henry: Yes. Will you ever write about him?Frances: I have, actually. Just a little plug. I've just done a selection of James's short stories, three volumes, which are coming out, I think, later this year for Riverrun with a separate introduction for each volume. I think that's all the writing I'm going to do on James. When I was an academic, I did some academic essays on him for collections and things. No, I've never felt, ever, ready to write on James because he's too complicated. I can only take tiny, tiny bits of James and home in on them.Henry: He's a great one for trying to crack the code.Frances: He really is. In fact, I was struck all the way through writing Electric Spark by James's understanding of the comedy of biography, which is described in the figure in the carpet. Remember that wonderful story where there's a writer called Verica who explains to a young critic that none of the critics have understood what his work's about. Everything that's written about him, it's fine, but it's absolutely missed his main point, his beautiful point. He said that in order to understand what the work's about, you have to look for The Figure in the Carpet. It's The Figure in the CarpetIt's the string on which my pearls are strung. A couple of critics become completely obsessed with looking for this Figure in the Carpet. Of course, Spark loved James's short stories. You feel James's short stories playing inside her own short stories. I think that one of the games she left for her biographers was the idea of The Figure in the Carpet. Go on, find it then. Find it. [laughs] The string on which my pearls are strung.Henry: Why did you leave academia? We should say that you did this before it became the thing that everyone's doing.Frances: Is everyone leaving now?Henry: A lot of people are leaving now.Frances: Oh, I didn't know. I was ahead of the curve. I left 20 years ago because I wasn't able to write the books I wanted to write. I left when I'd written two books as an academic. My first was Literary Seductions, and my second was a biography of a blackmailing courtesan called Harriet Wilson, and the book was called The Courtesan's Revenge. My department was sniffy about the books because they were published by Faber and not by OUP, and suggested that somehow I was lowering the tone of the department.This is what things were like 20 years ago. Then I got a contract to write The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, my third book, again with Faber. I didn't want to write the book with my head of department in the back of my mind saying, "Make this into an academic tome and put footnotes in." I decided then that I would leave, and I left very suddenly. Now, I said I'm leaving sort of now, and I've got books to write, and felt completely liberated. Then for The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, I decided not to have footnotes. It's the only book I've ever written without footnotes, simply as a celebration of no longer being in academia.Then the things I loved about being in academia, I loved teaching, and I loved being immersed in literature, but I really couldn't be around colleagues and couldn't be around the ridiculous rules of what was seen as okay. In fact, the university I left, then asked me to come back on a 0.5 basis when they realised that it was now fashionable to have someone who was a trade author. They asked me to come back, which I did not want to do. I wanted to spend days where I didn't see people rather than days where I had to talk to colleagues all the time. I think that academia is very unhappy. The department I was in was incredibly unhappy.Since then, I took up a job very briefly in another English department where I taught creative writing part-time. That was also incredibly unhappy. I don't know whether other French departments or engineering departments are happier places than English departments, but English departments are the most unhappy places I think I've ever seen.[laughter]Henry: What do you admire about the work of George Meredith?Frances: Oh, I love George Meredith. [laughs] Yes. I think Modern Love, his first novel, Modern Love, in a strange sonnet form, where it's not 14 lines, but 16 lines. By the time you get to the bottom two lines, the novel, the sonnet has become hysterical. Modern Love hasn't been properly recognised. It's an account of the breakdown of his marriage. His wife, who was the daughter of the romantic, minor novelist, Thomas Love Peacock. His wife had an affair with the artist who painted the famous Death of Chatterton. Meredith was the model for Chatterton, the dead poet in his purple silks, with his hand falling on the ground. There's a lot of mythology around Meredith.I think, as with Elizabeth Bowen and Henry Green, he's difficult. He's difficult. The other week, I tried to reread Diana of the Crossways, which was a really important novel, and I still love it. I really recognise that it's not an easy read. He doesn't try, in any way, to seduce his readers. They absolutely have to crawl inside each book to sit inside his mind and see the world as he's seeing it.Henry: Can you tell us what you will do next?Frances: At the moment, I'm testing some ideas out. I feel, at the end of every biography, you need a writer. You need to cleanse your palate. Otherwise, there's a danger of writing the same book again. I need this time, I think, to write about, to move century and move genders. I want to go back, I think, to the 19th century. I want to write about a male writer for a moment, and possibly not a novelist as well, because after being immersed in Muriel Sparks' novels, no other novel is going to seem good enough. I'm testing 19th-century men who didn't write novels, and it will probably be a minor character.Henry: Whatever it is, I look forward to reading it. Frances Wilson, thank you very much.Frances: Thank you so much, Henry. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

In 1897, Gustav Klimt led a group of radical artists to break free from the cultural establishment of Vienna and found a movement that became known as the Vienna Secession. In the vibrant atmosphere of coffee houses, Freudian psychoanalysis and the music of Wagner and Mahler, the Secession sought to bring together fine art and music with applied arts such as architecture and design. The movement was characterized by Klimt's stylised paintings, richly decorated with gold leaf, and the art nouveau buildings that began to appear in the city, most notably the Secession Building, which housed influential exhibitions of avant-garde art and was a prototype of the modern art gallery. The Secessionists themselves were pioneers in their philosophy and way of life, aiming to immerse audiences in unified artistic experiences that brought together visual arts, design, and architecture. With:Mark Berry, Professor of Music and Intellectual History at Royal Holloway, University of LondonLeslie Topp, Professor Emerita in History of Architecture at Birkbeck, University of LondonAndDiane Silverthorne, art historian and 'Vienna 1900' scholarProducer: Eliane GlaserReading list:Mark Berry, Arnold Schoenberg: Critical Lives (Reaktion Books, 2018)Gemma Blackshaw, Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900 (National Gallery Company, 2013)Elizabeth Clegg, Art, Design and Architecture in Central Europe, 1890-1920 (Yale University Press, 2006)Richard Cockett, Vienna: How the City of Ideas Created the Modern World (Yale University Press, 2023)Stephen Downes, Gustav Mahler (Reaktion Books, 2025)Peter Gay, Freud, Jews, and Other Germans: Masters and Victims in Modernist Culture (Oxford University Press, 1979)Tag Gronberg, Vienna: City of Modernity, 1890-1914 (Peter Lang, 2007)Allan S. Janik and Hans Veigl, Wittgenstein in Vienna: A Biographical Excursion Through the City and its History (Springer/Wien, 1998)Jill Lloyd and Christian Witt-Dörring (eds.), Vienna 1900: Style and Identity (Hirmer Verlag, 2011)William J. McGrath, Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria (Yale University Press, 1974)Tobias Natter and Christoph Grunenberg (eds.), Gustav Klimt: Painting, Design and Modern Life (Tate, 2008)Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (Vintage, 1979)Elana Shapira, Style and Seduction: Jewish Patrons, Architecture and Design in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (Brandeis University Press, 2016)Diane V Silverthorne, Dan Reynolds and Megan Brandow-Faller, Die Fläche: Design and Lettering of the Vienna Secession, 1902-1911 (Letterform Archive, 2023)Edward Timms, Karl Kraus: Apocalyptic Satirist: Culture & Catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna (Yale University Press, 1989)Leslie Topp, Architecture and Truth in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna (Cambridge University Press, 2004)Peter Vergo, Art in Vienna, 1898-1918: Klimt, Kokoschka, Schiele and Their Contemporaries (4th ed., Phaidon, 2015)Hans-Peter Wipplinger (ed.), Vienna 1900: Birth of Modernism (Walther & Franz König, 2019)Hans-Peter Wipplinger (ed.), Masterpieces from the Leopold Museum (Walther & Franz König)Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday: An Autobiography (University of Nebraska Press, 1964)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio ProductionSpanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Melvyn Bragg and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

Read the full transcript here. In light of the replication crisis, should social scientists try to replicate every major finding in the field's history? Why is human memory so faulty? And since human memory is so faulty, why do we take eyewitness testimony in legal contexts so seriously? How different are people's experiences of the world? What are the various failure modes in social science research? How much progress have the social sciences made implementing reforms and applying more rigorous standards? Why does peer review seem so susceptible to importance hacking? When is observation more important than interpretation, and vice versa? Do the top journals contain the least replicable papers? What value do Freud's ideas still provide today? How useful are neo-Freudian therapeutic methods? Should social scientists run studies on LLMs? Which of Paul's books does ChatGPT like the least?Paul Bloom is Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, and Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Yale University. Paul Bloom studies how children and adults make sense of the world, with special focus on pleasure, morality, religion, fiction, and art. He has won numerous awards for his research and teaching. He is past-president of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology, and co-editor of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. He has written for scientific journals such as Nature and Science, and for popular outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic Monthly. He is the author of seven books, including his most recent, Psych: The Story of the Human Mind. Find more about him at paulbloom.net, or follow his Substack. StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsIgor Scaldini — Marketing ConsultantMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

In the aftermath of "Empty Places" we deal with the fallout of that character assassination. Join us as we discuss games of "I spy", queer Freudian slips. and ambiguously canon Buffy comics. It's Buffy S7E20: Touched!   IG & FB: @boozeandbuffy Email: boozeandbuffy@gmail.com Art Credit: Mark David Corley  Music Credit: Grace Robertson

Welcome to hoe! No, the name of the podcast hasn't changed, rather Dane had an unfortunate Freudian slip this episode! Daniel has been getting ghosted in his dating life, so this week the infernal aunties discuss romance manifestations! Plus, terrible gym music and The Nostril Hut! Produced by podcasthouse.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Part 1 Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze Summary"Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" is a foundational text in post-structuralist thought, co-authored by French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, published in 1972. The work critiques traditional Freudian psychoanalysis and incorporates concepts from Marxism, anthropology, and philosophy. Here's a summary of its main ideas:Rejection of Oedipus ComplexDeleuze and Guattari challenge the centrality of the Oedipus complex in understanding human psychology and social dynamics. They argue that this Freudian concept narrows the complexity of desire and reduces it to familial and sexual determinants.Desire as ProductiveThe authors propose that desire should be seen as a productive force rather than simply a lack or deficit. They coined the term "desiring-production" to describe the way desires create social and economic realities. Instead of repressing desires, societies channel and structure them through various institutions (family, state, capital).Capitalism and SchizophreniaThe title itself suggests a link between capitalism and schizophrenia as systems that disrupt conventional forms of organization. They argue that capitalism liberates desire by breaking down traditional social bonds but simultaneously re-imposes new forms of control. This paradox creates a schizophrenic state where individuals oscillate between freedom and constraint.Assemblages and MultiplicityDeleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of "assemblages"—a collection of heterogeneous elements that come together to form a whole. They emphasize a multiplicity of identities and desires that exist outside rigid categorizations, arguing against essentialist views of human nature.Anti-AuthoritarianismThroughout the text, there's an anti-authoritarian sentiment. They encourage a radical rethinking of societal structures and promote the idea of reforming anything that confines desire—ranging from family units to the state and capitalist economies.SchizoanalysisInstead of psychoanalysis, they propose "schizoanalysis" as a method for understanding desire and social relationships. Schizoanalysis aims to liberate desire from societal constraints and explore how it interacts with broader social and economic forces. Conclusion"Anti-Oedipus" serves as a manifesto for rethinking desire, identity, and power in contemporary societies. It challenges readers to consider how psychoanalysis can be expanded beyond family dynamics to encompass a broader understanding of desire's role in shaping both individual subjectivity and societal structure. This work laid the foundation for further exploration of these themes in their subsequent collaboration, "A Thousand Plateaus." Overall, "Anti-Oedipus" invites a radical rethinking of how desire functions within capitalism and opens the door to new ways of conceptualizing human interaction and social organization.Part 2 Anti-Oedipus AuthorGilles Deleuze was a French philosopher born on January 18, 1925, and he passed away on November 4, 1995. He is widely known for his work in philosophy, particularly his contribution to postmodernism and post-structuralism. Deleuze's collaborative work with psychoanalyst Félix Guattari significantly influenced various fields, including philosophy, literature, film, and cultural studies. Anti-OedipusRelease Date: "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia," co-authored with Félix Guattari, was first published in French in 1972.This book is a foundational text of their two-volume series titled "Capitalism and Schizophrenia" and is often regarded as a seminal work in the fields of philosophy, psychoanalysis, and social theory. Other Notable WorksGilles Deleuze wrote several influential books, some of which include:Difference and Repetition (1968) This book offers a...

Freudian slips: when your subconscious really wants the mic.

The "gospel" of perilous times

The "gospel" of perilous times To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/549/29

This podcast contains explicit language, adult themes and discussions that may not be suitable for all listeners. In Here Comes The Guillotine The Mailbag, award winning Scottish comedians Frankie Boyle, Susie McCabe and Christopher Macarthur-Boyd answer your emails...If you have a dilemma, issue or problem you need solved, email hctg@global.com

Secretary of the Army Dan Driscol mentioned in a recent interview that he had spoken to a former soldier currently stationed on the moon! Slip of the tongue or of the Freudian type? Listen in and decide for your self.

In this episode, Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD joins to elucidate the intersection of psychedelics and neuroplasticity. Dr. Carhart-Harris is the Ralph Metzner Distinguished Professor in Neurology and Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. Robin founded the Centre for Psychedelic Research at Imperial College London in April 2019, was ranked among the top 31 medical scientists in 2020, and in 2021, was named in TIME magazine's ‘100 Next' – a list of 100 rising stars shaping the future. Dr. Carhart-Harris begins by discussing the impact of psychedelics on neuroplasticity and mental health. He explains neuroplasticity as the brain's ability to change, emphasizing its role in mood disorders and substance use and describes how stress atrophies the brain, leading to mental illness. Dr. Carhart-Harris differentiates between neuroplasticity and neurogenesis, noting that while neurogenesis is limited in adults, neuroplasticity can be influenced by psychedelics like ketamine, psilocybin, and MDMA. In closing, he also discusses the entropic brain hypothesis, suggesting that increased brain entropy leads to richer subjective experiences.    In this episode, you'll hear: The relationship between neuroplasticity and “canalization”  Why homeostatic neuroplasticity may promote mental wellbeing Differences between ketamine, MDMA, and serotonergic psychedelics in terms of neuroplasticity The details of the entropic brain hypothesis Psychedelics' effect on the default mode network The frontiers of research into psychedelics and neuroplasticity  Quotes: “So changeability is what plasticity is. And neuroplasticity—that's the ability of the brain to change. Okay, and how is neuroplasticity related to mood disorders like depression and anxiety or substance use disorder or something like that? Well, that's a great question cause we don't have it entirely nailed down. But one of the most reliable findings in biological psychiatry is that stress atrophies the brain.” [2:47] “The main thing with ketamine is that the window of increased plasticity is brief… That makes sense because that reflects how ketamine seems to work therapeutically—that it provides relief somewhat short-term, unless it is twinned with, say, psychotherapy or you do repeat administration and get someone out of the rut they were in.” [22:15] “We've seen in people with depression, brain networks can become quite segregated from each other—they are ordinarily, they're quite functionally separate and distinct—but that modularity might be a bit elevated in depression. But what we've seen with psilocybin therapy is that separateness between systems, that segregated quality of organization of brain networks, brain systems actually decreases after psilocybin therapy for depression. I'll put it another way: the brain looks more globally interconnected after psilocybin therapy for depression and the magnitude of that… correlates with improvements.” [39:19]   Links: Carhart-Harris Lab website Dr. Carhart-Harris on X Dr. Carhart-Harris' 2025 article: “Neuroplasticity and psychedelics: A comprehensive examination of classic and non-classic compounds in pre and clinical models” Dr. Carhart-Harris' 2012 article: “Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin” Dr. Carhart-Harris' 2010 article with Karl Friston: “The default-mode, ego-functions and free-energy: a neurobiological account of Freudian ideas” Psychedelic Medicine Association Porangui

Donate to our charity partner Baitulmaal here: http://btml.us/thinkingmuslim - Please do remember that charity never reduces our rizq and gives Barakah to our wealth. Help us expand our Muslim media project here: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/membershipFrancesca Bocca-Aldaqre holds a MSc in Neuro-Cognitive Psychology & a PhD in Systemic Neuroscience (both from Ludwig-Maximilians Universität Munich, Germany) and a Diploma in Islamic Psychology (Cambridge Muslim College). She works as a counsellor in Islamic Psychology worldwide. She authored several books in poetry as well as essays on the relationship between Western thought and IslamHere is her profile if you wish to find out more about her: https://linktr.ee/francescaboccaWestern psychology is limited by its focus on the material aspects of human existence. My guest today is Dr. Franchesca Bocca-Aldaqre, an Islamic psychologist and neuroscientist, who asserts that much of what preoccupies Western psychology—such as the emphasis on the egotistical self, the fixation on Freudian concepts of repressed childhood trauma, and the tendency toward over-medicalization—does not only undermine healing but can also be detrimental to individuals in the long run. Islamic psychology, according to her, is a field that has been overlooked, overshadowed by a modernity that fails to recognize human beings as holistic living souls. Dr. Franchesca offers a thoughtful critique of the maladies of capitalist life and also outlines a path towards a more balanced approach to living.You can find Dr Francesca Bocca-Aldaqre here:X: https://x.com/AzzamTamimiIG: https://www.instagram.com/francescaboccaYou can also support The Thinking Muslim through a one-time donation: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/DonateListen to the audio version of the podcast:Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7vXiAjVFnhNI3T9Gkw636aApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-thinking-muslim/id1471798762Purchase our Thinking Muslim mug: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com/merchFind us on:X: https://x.com/thinking_muslimLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-thinking-muslim/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Thinking-Muslim-Podcast-105790781361490Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thinkingmuslimpodcast/Telegram: https://t.me/thinkingmuslimBlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/thinkingmuslim.bsky.socialThreads: https://www.threads.com/@thinkingmuslimpodcastFind Muhammad Jalal here:X: https://twitter.com/jalalaynInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/jalalayns/Sign up to Muhammad Jalal's newsletter: https://jalalayn.substack.comWebsite Archive: https://www.thinkingmuslim.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From genius discovery to UFO battles: The man who found trauma in the body Wilhelm Reich made one of psychology's greatest discoveries: The body remembers what the mind forgets. Trauma doesn't just live in thoughts and memories - it's held in muscle tension, breathing patterns, and physical armor that protects us from unbearable feelings. Then he went completely insane. This episode follows Reich's journey from Freud's most promising student to a paranoid exile shooting orgone energy at alien spacecraft. But here's the twist: His early insights about somatic trauma were revolutionary. They laid the foundation for every body-based therapy that actually works. https://gettherapybirmingham.com/the-weird-history-of-psychotherapy-part-3-wilhelm-reich/ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/what-are-wilhelm-reichs-character-styles/ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/wilhelm-reichs-analysis-of-fascism-enduring-wisdom-and-controversial-reception/ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/the-curious-case-of-wilhelm-reich/ https://gettherapybirmingham.com/john-c-lilly-when-dolphins-drugs-and-the-deep-end-of-consciousness-collided-in-the-psychedelic-70s/   You'll learn about: Character armor: how the body holds emotional pain The knife incident that got him expelled from psychoanalysis Orgone energy, cloudbusters, and weather control experiments Einstein's basement test that debunked Reich's cosmic theories The FBI raid that destroyed his life's work How his somatic discoveries live on in modern trauma therapy Discover the untold story of how trauma therapy evolved from Freudian analysis to revolutionary body-based healing approaches that preceded "The Body Keeps the Score" by decades. This evidence-based deep dive explores the pioneering work of Wilhelm Reich, Carl Jung, and Fritz Perls who discovered that trauma lives in the body long before modern neuroscience proved them right. Learn why your physical symptoms might be stored emotional memories and how the therapeutic revolution of the 1960s changed psychology forever. What You'll Learn: Why Reich was expelled from psychoanalytic institutes for discovering "character armor" How Jung's archetypal psychology laid groundwork for modern therapy approaches The real story behind Fritz Perls and the birth of Gestalt therapy Why America abandoned somatic approaches for cognitive behavioral therapy How trauma gets trapped in muscles, creating chronic tension and pain The scientific evidence behind body-based trauma treatment Perfect for: Mental health professionals, trauma survivors, psychology students, anyone interested in the history of psychotherapy, and those seeking alternatives to traditional talk therapy. Evidence-Based Content: Drawing from peer-reviewed research, historical documents, and the foundational texts of somatic psychology, this episode traces the scientific evolution from Freudian psychoanalysis through modern neuroscience-backed trauma therapy. Keywords: trauma therapy, somatic therapy, body keeps the score, Wilhelm Reich, Carl Jung, Fritz Perls, PTSD treatment, psychology history, mind-body connection, character armor, nervous system healing, experiential therapy, depth psychology Hosted by experts in trauma-informed care with clinical experience in EMDR, brainspotting, somatic experiencing, and Jungian analysis. Resources: Visit gettherapybirmingham.com for articles on somatic trauma mapping, Jungian therapy, and evidence-based body-centered healing approaches. Discover the untold story of how trauma therapy evolved from Freudian analysis to revolutionary body-based healing approaches that preceded "The Body Keeps the Score" by decades. This evidence-based deep dive explores the pioneering work of Wilhelm Reich, Carl Jung, and Fritz Perls who discovered that trauma lives in the body long before modern neuroscience proved them right. Learn why your physical symptoms might be stored emotional memories and how the therapeutic revolution of the 1960s changed psychology forever. What You'll Learn: Why Reich was expelled from psychoanalytic institutes for discovering "character armor" How Jung's archetypal psychology laid groundwork for modern therapy approaches The real story behind Fritz Perls and the birth of Gestalt therapy Why America abandoned somatic approaches for cognitive behavioral therapy How trauma gets trapped in muscles, creating chronic tension and pain The scientific evidence behind body-based trauma treatment Perfect for: Mental health professionals, trauma survivors, psychology students, anyone interested in the history of psychotherapy, and those seeking alternatives to traditional talk therapy. Evidence-Based Content: Drawing from peer-reviewed research, historical documents, and the foundational texts of somatic psychology, this episode traces the scientific evolution from Freudian psychoanalysis through modern neuroscience-backed trauma therapy. Keywords: trauma therapy, somatic therapy, body keeps the score, Wilhelm Reich, Carl Jung, Fritz Perls, PTSD treatment, psychology history, mind-body connection, character armor, nervous system healing, experiential therapy, depth psychology Hosted by experts in trauma-informed care with clinical experience in EMDR, brainspotting, somatic experiencing, and Jungian analysis. Resources: Visit gettherapybirmingham.com for articles on somatic trauma mapping, Jungian therapy, and evidence-based body-centered healing approaches.  

Welcome to Rendering Unconscious – the Gradiva award-winning podcast about psychoanalysis & culture, with me, Dr Vanessa Sinclair. https://renderingunconscious.substack.com Rendering Unconscious episode 349. RU350: MARY WILD & VANESSA SINCLAIR TALK SHRINKS ON SCREEN (TV): https://renderingunconscious.substack.com/p/ru349-mary-wild-and-vanessa-sinclair I sat down with Freudian cinephile Mary Wild to dish about shrinks on screen. This episode was originally recorded for Mary's Patreon channel. Mary has just launched her own Substack. Be sure to give her a follow and support independent thinkers: https://psycstar.substack.com/about Follow her at: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/marywild/posts Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psycstar/ In this conversation, Mary and I discuss the portrayal of mental health professionals in television shows. The conversation begins with "The Sopranos," focusing on Tony Soprano's therapy sessions with psychiatrist Jennifer Melfi, highlighting the dynamic between a mobster and his therapist. The discussion then moves to "Mr. Robot," examining Elliot Alderson's sessions with his therapist, Krista, and his internal monologue. "In Treatment" is analyzed, exploring the crisis of faith experienced by therapist Paul Weston. The episode concludes with a look at "Hannibal," where Dr. Hannibal Lecter's sessions with his therapist, played by Gillian Anderson, are examined. Mary Wild is the Freudian Cinephile – a pop psychoanalyst exploring film, philosophy, and the strange contours of modern life. She's been hosting the Projections series of events at the Freud Museum London for more than a decade. Join her for whimsical cinematic interpretation and witty cultural critique. No one tops Mary for psychoanalytic interpretations of cinema! Stay tuned for her forthcoming book Psychoanalysing Horror Cinema (Routledge, 2025). https://www.routledge.com/Psychoanalysing-Horror-Cinema/Wild/p/book/9781032545097?srsltid=AfmBOorqpeove7e8PlV8GNwGRfi1mes8MEdFFvN_YsbtdSrZY8qpP7-b News and events: Coming up on Thursday, June 5th Mary is hosting her next online event PROJECTIONS: Lynchian Women. Not to be missed. You know I'll be there! https://www.freud.org.uk/event/projections-lynchian-women/ Projections: Death Scenes in Cinema with Mary Wild, Begins September 21: https://www.morbidanatomy.org/classes/p/projections-death-scenes-in-cinema-with-mary-wild-september Check out our previous discussion: RU349: MARY WILD & VANESSA SINCLAIR TALK PSYCHOANALYSTS & THERAPISTS ON FILM: https://soundcloud.com/highbrowlowlife/ru349-mary-wild-vanessa?si=69420d5f2b0343c5a18cec5f443ee6f0&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing Thank you for listening to the Rendering Unconscious Podcast and for reading the Rendering Unconscious anthologies. And thank you so much for supporting this work by being a paid subscriber at the Substack. It makes my work possible. If you are so far a free subscriber, thanks to you too. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to gain access to all the material on the site, including all future and archival podcast episodes. https://renderingunconscious.substack.com If you would like information about entering into psychoanalytic treatment with me, joining the group I run for those who have relocated to another country, or have other questions, please feel free to contact me via vs [at] drvanessasinclair.net https://www.drvanessasinclair.net/contact/ Thank you.

-- On the Show: — Republican Senator Rand Paul announces he'll vote to block Trump's DOGE bill, calling it a tax hike dressed up as populism — Trump officials admit the promised wave of new trade deals has produced exactly zero agreements so far — Trump's FDA pick spreads vaccine misinformation on live TV, leaving host Margaret Brennan stunned — Donald Trump mocks Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis, floats bizarre conspiracies, and suggests pardoning P. Diddy — Trump tells so many lies during a single appearance that even a friendly crowd seems stunned — Elon Musk's interview goes off the rails as he dodges basic immigration questions and spirals into Trump flattery — Elon Musk was reportedly involved in a physical fight in the Trump White House over failed budget promises — JD Vance blames Biden for economic shrinkage… four months into Trump's second term — Trump brags that Melania asked if he's “as long” as golfer Bryson DeChambeau in another Freudian overshare -- On the Bonus Show: Attacker injures eight at Israeli hostage march, AOC more popular than Trump or Harris, CDC is stripped of power to help stop childhood lead poisoning, much more...

Welcome to Rendering Unconscious – the Gradiva award-winning podcast about psychoanalysis & culture, with me, Dr Vanessa Sinclair. https://renderingunconscious.substack.com Rendering Unconscious episode 349. RU349: MARY WILD & VANESSA SINCLAIR TALK PSYCHOANALYSTS & THERAPISTS ON FILM https://renderingunconscious.substack.com/p/ru349-mary-wild-and-vanessa-sinclair I sat down with Freudian cinephile Mary Wild to dish about shrinks on film. This episode was originally recorded for Mary's Patreon channel. Mary has just launched her own Substack. Be sure to give her a follow and support independent thinkers: https://psycstar.substack.com/about Follow her at: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/marywild/posts Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/psycstar/ In this conversation, Mary and I chat about the portrayal of mental health professionals in film and TV. We discuss the accuracy and impact of these portrayals, including the stigma around mental health and the challenges faced by therapists. We analyze scenes from films like "Spellbound," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and "Girl, Interrupted," highlighting issues such as the misrepresentation of therapists, the impact of funding cuts on mental health services, and the societal pressures on identity and diagnosis. The conversation also touches upon the importance of making psychoanalytic concepts accessible and the role of therapists in empowering their patients. Mary Wild is the Freudian Cinephile – a pop psychoanalyst exploring film, philosophy, and the strange contours of modern life. She's been hosting the Projections series of events at the Freud Museum London for more than a decade. Join her for whimsical cinematic interpretation and witty cultural critique. No one tops Mary for psychoanalytic interpretations of cinema! Stay tuned for her forthcoming book Psychoanalysing Horror Cinema (Routledge, 2025). https://www.routledge.com/Psychoanalysing-Horror-Cinema/Wild/p/book/9781032545097?srsltid=AfmBOorqpeove7e8PlV8GNwGRfi1mes8MEdFFvN_YsbtdSrZY8qpP7-b News and events: Coming up on Thursday, June 5th Mary is hosting her next online event PROJECTIONS: Lynchian Women. Not to be missed. You know I'll be there! https://www.freud.org.uk/event/projections-lynchian-women/ Projections: Death Scenes in Cinema with Mary Wild, Begins September 21: https://www.morbidanatomy.org/classes/p/projections-death-scenes-in-cinema-with-mary-wild-september Check out our previous discussions: RU315: MARY WILD ON FEMININE JOUISSANCE & DEATH SCENES IN CINEMA RU257: MARY WILD & EMMALEA RUSSO ON JIM MORRISON, CINEMA, POETRY, PSYCHOANALYSIS, PHILOSOPHY & CULTURE RU233: MARY WILD ON DAVID BOWIE & PSYCHOANALYSING HORROR CINEMA RU208: THE MAGIC OF CINEMA & THE UNCONSCIOUS WITH MARY WILD RU158: MARY WILD ON PSYCHOANALYSIS & CINEMA, TAXIDERMY IN ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S “PSYCHO” RU68: MARY WILD, PROJECTIONS CINEPHILE ON THE FREUD NETFLIX SERIES RU49: MARY WILD, FREUDIAN CINEPHILE ON PROJECTIONS Thank you for listening to the Rendering Unconscious Podcast and for reading the Rendering Unconscious anthologies. And thank you so much for supporting this work by being a paid subscriber at the Substack. It makes my work possible. If you are so far a free subscriber, thanks to you too. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to gain access to all the material on the site, including all future and archival podcast episodes. https://renderingunconscious.substack.com If you would like information about entering into psychoanalytic treatment with me, joining the group I run for those who have relocated to another country, or have other questions, please feel free to contact me via vs [at] drvanessasinclair.net https://www.drvanessasinclair.net/contact/ Thank you.

Fredag! Det blir allt mellan Vodafone och Hitler. Har du ett skvaller som fler borde få höra? Maila det till kafferepetpod@gmail.comMissa inte vår månatliga systerpodd Cigarrummet. Bli prenumerant på www.underproduktion.se/cigarrummet14:25 - Nyfikna morsan19:08 - Toa-Pulle27:35 - Snygg med otur31:25 - Freudian torsk37:38 - Inskolning44:03 - Det blåser upp till grogg47:35 - Mitt bröllop52:27 - Spela apa1:03:10 - In medias res vid kaffemaskinen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What if… one of your core values that should be empowering turned out to be something that held you back?It's meant to build confidence to try things. But it becomes a sort of low-key vicious cycle that subconsciously holds you back and curbs your ability to change.That silent boomerang would be ironic for a professional change agent, but that same boomerang has been both catalyst and inhibitor of Suzanne Hopson's story.Growing up, Suzanne was taught, to quote her exact words as she said them in the conversation you're about to hear, to “never think that there wasn't something I couldn't do”. I listened to the recording three times to make sure I heard her right. Did she mean it just like that? Was it a Freudian slip? Well, she goes on to say that would have been a limiting belief IF she had it, but that life taught her – sometimes rudely – that she couldn't do what she set out to do. It was a double-edged sword. So was the other core value, that you can't do anything by yourself. While we can achieve more as a collective than the sum of our individual efforts, it can also mean that you can't do anything on your own. I'll let you sit with that one and hear from Suzanne on that.So where did all of this leave Suzanne?After three decades working in the multifamily industry, she came to an inflection point where she began to ask whether she should remain in her executive role or strike out on her own as an entrepreneur. Having to go through the experience of laying off employees, due to no fault of their own or her own, was a catalyst. As you're about to discover when you tune in for my chat with Suzanne, she did quit her executive job and start Here2Elevate™, which works with companies and their leadership to see the world as they want it to be and learn how to make it that way. Two factors played a big role. One is the power of mentorship, both positive and negative. The other is coming to terms with the visceral power of change management – the “grit” of it.Whatever you've come to believe about change management and change in general, you may find yourself seeing a new point of view.Suzanne's hype song is “Fight Song” by Rachel Platten.Resources:Suzanne Hopson's website: https://here2elevate.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzannehopson/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/here2elevate Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/here2elevate/X: https://x.com/suzanne_hopson Take Suzanne Hopson's Business Performance Assessment Quiz to discover how your team measures up in key areas like profitability and strategic thinking. Start now: https://elevated-business-performance.scoreapp.com Invitation from Lori:This episode is sponsored by Zen Rabbit. Smart business leaders know trust is the foundation of every great workplace. And in today's hybrid and fast-moving work culture, trust isn't built in quarterly town halls or the occasional Slack message. It's built through consistent, clear, and HUMAN communication. Companies and leaders TALK about the importance of connection and community. And it's easy to believe your organization is doing a great job of maintaining...

She ‘Saw Him Go In'... But Was Panicking About Hitting Him-Explain That, Karen In this episode, we're pulling apart one of the most confounding contradictions in the Karen Read case — and it all comes down to what she knew, when she knew it, and what she said. Karen Read told investigators she saw John O'Keefe walk into the house that night. But then, hours later, she was sobbing, pulling at Jennifer McCabe, frantically saying: “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” Let that sink in. If she saw him go inside, why was she panicking that she ran him over? Why was she screaming to Google “how long to die in the cold” if she thought he was safe indoors? And how do you reconcile that kind of panic with someone who didn't know their boyfriend was lying dead in a snowbank? Tony Brueski sits down with retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer to analyze this bizarre contradiction. Is it a case of genuine confusion and guilt-fueled anxiety — or a Freudian slip from someone who knew exactly what had happened? We break down the timeline inconsistencies, look at Karen's own statements from that morning, and unpack what her emotional reactions tell us — and what they don't. Because when you claim to have seen someone walk into a house, you don't start crying hours later about hitting them with a car… unless there's more to the story. This episode gets to the heart of the defense's weakest point — and why the prosecution is leaning into Read's own words to prove what she knew all along. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #TrueCrimePodcast #TimelineContradictions #HiddenKillers #FBIAnalysis #GuiltVsInnocence #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneLogic Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

She ‘Saw Him Go In'... But Was Panicking About Hitting Him-Explain That, Karen In this episode, we're pulling apart one of the most confounding contradictions in the Karen Read case — and it all comes down to what she knew, when she knew it, and what she said. Karen Read told investigators she saw John O'Keefe walk into the house that night. But then, hours later, she was sobbing, pulling at Jennifer McCabe, frantically saying: “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him?” Let that sink in. If she saw him go inside, why was she panicking that she ran him over? Why was she screaming to Google “how long to die in the cold” if she thought he was safe indoors? And how do you reconcile that kind of panic with someone who didn't know their boyfriend was lying dead in a snowbank? Tony Brueski sits down with retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer to analyze this bizarre contradiction. Is it a case of genuine confusion and guilt-fueled anxiety — or a Freudian slip from someone who knew exactly what had happened? We break down the timeline inconsistencies, look at Karen's own statements from that morning, and unpack what her emotional reactions tell us — and what they don't. Because when you claim to have seen someone walk into a house, you don't start crying hours later about hitting them with a car… unless there's more to the story. This episode gets to the heart of the defense's weakest point — and why the prosecution is leaning into Read's own words to prove what she knew all along. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #TrueCrimePodcast #TimelineContradictions #HiddenKillers #FBIAnalysis #GuiltVsInnocence #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneLogic Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Every Christian is a counselor—whether we realize it or not. The question is: what worldview do we draw from when we give advice? In this podcast, Scott Brown and Jason Dohm, joined by special guest Jason Winslade, discuss the folly of secular psychology—which assumes that man is basically good—and even some Christian counseling, which baptizes Freudian psychology with a few Bible verses. What's needed, instead, is people who think biblically and reject dangerous worldly philosophies (Col. 2:8-10), drawing from God's all-sufficient Word to restore sinners and support the suffering in their time of need (Gal. 6:1-2). Relying on the sure foundation of Scripture, every Christian can learn, with God's help, to wisely counsel others.

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord In episode 166 of Not on Record, hosts Joseph and Michael delve into a law school-style hypothetical involving a trial with a crucial audio or video recording that's difficult to understand due to accents or unclear articulation. The core issue arises when the judge, after submissions, privately re-examines the recording and arrives at a different conclusion than what was presented, without informing counsel. During trial a trial judge made several errors, including a sweeping generalization about an arranged marriage and misinterpreting "slept" as "slapped," deeming it a Freudian slip. The hosts emphasize that an accused person has the right to know the case they must meet and the evidence being used against them. Website: http://www.NotOnRecordpodcast.com Sign up to our email list - http://eepurl.com/hw3g99 Social Media Links Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/NotonRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/notonrecordpodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@notonrecordpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notonrecord Telegram: https://t.me/NotOnRecord Minds: http://www.minds.com/notonrecord Audio Platforms Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4F2ssnX7ktfGH8OzH4QsuX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/not-on-record-podcast/id1565405753 SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/notonrecord Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-842207 For more information on criminal law issues go to Neuberger & Partners LLP http://www.nrlawyers.com. Produced by Possibly Correct Media www.PossiblyCorrect.com

In Part 2, we wrap up our consideration of Jean-Paul Sartre's midcentury magnum opus by exploring how we move from the inaccessible interiority of consciousness to our concrete relations with others. The latter half of Being & Nothingness takes up the question of what aspects of our being are revealed to us in confrontation with the Other. Sartre famously argues here that it is the Other's look, the omnipresent possibility of being seen, judged, and evaluated by another consciousness that discloses the objectivity of our being through and for the Other. As soon as the Other enters the scene, a fundamental aspect of our being is alienated from us; captured in the Other's appropriating gaze. The various attempts by the for-itself to retrieve this alienated being and penetrate the Other's essential freedom play a determinate role in shaping the contours of our fundamental projects, that is the immanently revisable set of possibilities, meaning, and value we pro-ject into the world.  In the final sections of the book, Sartre sketches an alternative to Freudian psychoanalysis, asks us to reframe our conception of the autonomous will and the role of giving and asking for reasons, and gestures towards an ethics grounded in criterionless choice.Please consider becoming a paying subscriber to our Patreon to get exclusive bonus episodes, early access releases, and bookish merch: https://www.patreon.com/MoralMinorityFollow us on Twitter(X).Devin: @DevinGoureCharles: @satireredactedEmail us at: moralminoritypod@gmail.com

In episode 89 of the Podcast for Social Research, recorded live at BISR Central, BISR faculty Danielle Drori, Jude Webre, and Lauren K. Wolfe sat down following a screening of Stanley Kubrick's controversial final film, Eyes Wide Shut, to discuss its long thirty years in the making, its source material in fin-de-siècle Vienna, and its vision of bourgeois marriage and sexual morality in turn-of-the-millennium New York. Kicking off with behind-the-scenes Hollywood details, Jude adumbrates an argument for the film as an auteur's personal reverie, tracing resonances between it and the enigmatic story of Kubrick's own (second) married life in postwar New York City; Lauren then lets us in on the lurid sexual obsessions of Arthur Schnitzler, on whose 1926 novella Dream Story the film is based, with the interpretive aid of W.G. Sebald; while Danielle guides us through a collective Freudian analysis of the dreams that run through and construct the film's emotional core. With insightful and witty participation from the audience, the talk touches on masculinity within marriage; nudity and nakedness; coitus interruptus; Freud's stages of sexual development; dream as unconscious communication; sex and death; fucking down and marrying up; Nicole Kidman as gay icon; and whether anything of substance appears to have changed in bourgeois sexual morality between circa 1900 and 1999. The Podcast for Social Research is produced by Ryan Lentini. Learn more about upcoming courses on our website. Follow Brooklyn Institute for Social Research on Twitter / Facebook / Instagram / Bluesky  

Michelle Obama has a Freudian slip in a rant about child mutilation, Neil Young claims that Tesla is for fascists, and Tim Walz admits Kamala's big mistake. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri Ep.1726 - - - DailyWire+: Join us at dailywire.com/subscribe and become part of the rebellion against the ridiculous. Normal is back. And this time, we're keeping it. The hit podcast, Morning Wire, is now on Video! Watch Now and subscribe to their YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/3RFOVo6 Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael - - - Today's Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text KNOWLES to 989898 for your free information kit. Jeremy's Razors - Try Jeremy's Razors for 20% off risk-free: https://www.jeremysrazors.com/KNOWLES Lean - Visit https://takelean.com and get 20% off with promo code MICHAEL20 - - - Socials: Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6 Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/tL9-DNEWaLoDay 7 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on April 30, 2025. Jen McCabe is back on the stand with Direct Examination. Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan, asked her to recount when Karen Read said, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." Jen said it was in front of a female EMT and she was shock that Karen would say something like that. Direct Examination end in the morning for Alan Jackson to come in hot for a fiery Cross Examination! Jackson confronted Jen McCabe about not telling the Grand Jury that Karen said that she hit John O'Keefe and in fact she only said "Could I have hit him?" and "Did I hit him?" Jen was very evasive with her answers and even questioned Jackson. Judge Cannone would ask Jackson to move along because he would ask Jen McCabe the same question over and over again. Sometimes it would seem like he was making mountains of mole hills. Other times he would make snarky comments and the Judge would tell him to stop and tell the Jury to dismiss his comments.Jackson pointed out how Jen was corroborating stories with everyone that had been at 34 Fairview Rd the night of the 28th and the morning of the 29th. It began as early as after the Police and First Responders left the scene. Jen even went as far as to ask Julie Nagle for a screenshot of a text message of when her brother, Ryan Nagle, arrived at 34 Fairview Rd to pick her up. Jen did not share that information with Law Enforcement.The biggest discrepancy was that she initially lied to the FBI! The FBI showed up to Jen McCabe's to question her about the case. Jen asked them to wait for 10 mins before speaking with them. The FBI reminded her that it is crime to lie to them and they asked her if she called anyone before they began their conversation. Jen told them that she called her husband, Matt McCabe and her friend, Kerry Roberts. Jen ended the interview early because she felt uncomfortable with the questions they had asked her. Jen later called back the FBI to let them know that she "forgot" that she had also called 3 additional people during those 10 mins: Peggy O'Keefe, The District Attorney Witness Advocate, and Brian Albert Sr. Judge Cannone had another Freudian slip by calling Jen McCabe- Ms. Read. Ouch!There are many highlights of Jen McCabe seemingly being evasive but the biggest thing that didn't add up was her saying that she told Former Trooper Michael Proctor that she told him that she hear Karen Read say, "I hit him." However, that was not in his report. It doesn't make sense that Mr. Proctor didn't include that his report because that would have been perceived as a confession and Karen would have been in hand cuffs much sooner.RESOURCESRetrial Day 6 Case Brief - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV3yO_X6EpsSherri Papini Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVeiHSEo6VMWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 -

Michelle Obama referred to herself as “a Black man” on her podcast yesterday, and the internet is going wild! Was this a clip taken out of context, or did Michelle (Michael) actually commit a Freudian slip? What about the other evidence suggesting Michelle is a man? Next, we share an exclusive audio recording from Tina Peters herself. Tina was recently moved to the La Vista Correctional Facility, where she has been enduring harsh and unfair treatment with no aid from any faculty. She has a message for you, so be sure to tune in. All this and more on today's Untamed.  

In today's discussion with David Masciotra about the first hundred days of Trump 2.0 I made the (Freudian) error of referring to it as a “hundred years”. It certainly feels like a hundred years. So how should the Democrats respond to Trump's avalanche of illiberalism? Masciotra argues they should emulate Ted Kennedy's forceful 1987 rhetoric against Robert Bork, focusing on the existential threats to civil rights and democracy rather than worrying about bread and butter economic issues. Masciotra criticizes the Dems for neglecting their working class base while pursuing moderate suburban voters and running Kamala-style cheerful campaigns. He believes Democrats lack the unified messaging infrastructure that the Republicans have built and suggests they need to balance aggressive opposition with muscular Kennedyesque idealism to effectively counter Trump's assault upon American democracy. Five Key Takeaways* Masciotra believes Democrats should adopt Ted Kennedy's direct, aggressive rhetorical approach from his Robert Bork speech to counter Trump's policies.* He argues Democrats often run positive campaigns while Republicans run fear-based campaigns, which are typically more effective.* The Democratic Party lacks the unified messaging infrastructure the Republican Party has built over decades.* Masciotra suggests Democrats are too focused on chasing moderate voters while neglecting their base, unlike Republicans who effectively rally their core supporters.* He contends that after condemning Trump's actions, Democrats need to offer Kennedy-like idealism that gives people "ripples of hope" and something more positive to work toward.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Pete kicks things off with an identity crisis – he's convinced he's 34, and Luke has the unenviable task of breaking the news that he's... absolutely not. Talk then turns to Pete's upcoming WrestleMe Vegas trip and the truly chaotic prospect of a 120-man Royal Rumble. That's a lot of sweaty bodies!Elsewhere, after a brief detour into 'The Slug', the lads debate where the line is drawn between harmless kink and full-blown creep behaviour. Plus, why do homophobes always say things are being jammed down their throats? Is it just a coincidence… or the Freudian slip of the century?Email us at hello@lukeandpeteshow.com or you can get in touch on X, Threads or Instagram if character-restricted messaging takes your fancy.***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!*** Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Karen Read's Behavior Analyzed FBI Profiler Robin Dreeke Breaks It Down Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872 

Karen Read's Behavior Analyzed FBI Profiler Robin Dreeke Breaks It Down Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke, former head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, joins us for a revealing breakdown of the Karen Read case. As the trial unfolds, Dreeke dives into her shifting narrative, apparent contradictions, and what her behavior may actually reveal about her role in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. We explore how alcohol, emotional reinforcement, and false memory can distort reality—and how Read's behavior fits a pattern seen in cases involving control, self-victimization, and narrative manipulation. From bizarre Freudian slips to unlikely defense theories involving a well-trained dog, nothing is off the table. With new vehicle data and voicemail records about to surface in trial, this episode provides a deeper lens on the probability, psychology, and behaviors that may define the outcome of one of the most confounding true crime stories in recent memory. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #KarenReadTrial #FBIProfiler #RobinDreeke #TrueCrimeAnalysis #DeceptionDetection #BehavioralAnalysis #KarenReadCase #JohnOKeefeDeath Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The episode elucidates the transformative journey of a vocal coach who, through his collaboration with the artist Daniel Caesar, has garnered significant recognition within the music industry. Initially approached to provide vocal coaching, our speaker's involvement swiftly evolved into vocal production for Caesar's acclaimed album, "Freudian," which ultimately led to Grammy nominations. This pivotal experience not only catalyzed his ascent in the industry but also underscored the profound impact of music in transcending borders and fostering emotional connections among audiences globally. Throughout the discussion, we delve into the nuances of audience reactions across different cultures, the importance of community within the Toronto music scene, and the challenges faced by emerging artists in gaining recognition. The conversation culminates in a contemplative exploration of the necessity for a more interconnected musical community that champions collaboration over competition.Takeaways: The evolution of my career has been significantly influenced by my collaboration with Daniel Caesar, whose debut album, 'Freudian', has garnered notable recognition, including Grammy nominations. Experiencing a world tour allowed me to witness diverse audience reactions, highlighting the cultural differences in how people engage with music across various regions. The impact of music transcends geographic boundaries, serving as a universal language that fosters emotional connections and encourages positive change in listeners. In the music industry, there exists a challenging dynamic where emerging artists often struggle to gain visibility and support due to established hierarchies and perceived credentials. The development of a supportive music community in Toronto is crucial, as the current environment often fosters competition rather than collaboration among artists. I believe that fostering connections and collaborations among artists can enhance the creative landscape in Toronto, allowing for mutual growth and success. Companies mentioned in this episode: Daniel Caesar Freudian Kanye West

In The Ego and the Id, Sigmund Freud uses the analogy of a horse and rider to illustrate the relationship between the ego and the id, emphasizing that we may have less control over the unconscious than we'd like to believe. Yet, a decade later in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Freud introduces the psychoanalytic motto: “Where id was, there ego shall be,” hinting at the possibility of greater agency than he originally proposed. This tension—between the limits of our control and the hope for transformation—has always intrigued me. In this episode, I explore that dynamic by sharing a few key quotes from Freud, and one from Mari Ruti that I believe sheds meaningful light on this enduring paradox.

It was wonderful to welcome back poet, teacher, writer, & scholar Elizabeth Cantwell this week to explore haunted houses both in film & real life, plus the existential, psychosexual, guilt-filled, Freudian, & supernatural realms of THE HAUNTING (1963), THE CHANGELING (1980), POLTERGEIST (1982), STIR OF ECHOES (1999), & more. I always learn so much when I talk to Elizabeth & we laughed far more than one would think going in given the topic, so this episode instantly became one of my favorites. Grab a flashlight & meet us at the top of the staircase, gang, we've got this!Originally Posted on Patreon (4/13/25) here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/126578705Shop Watch With Jen logo Merchandise in Logo Designer Kate Gabrielle's Threadless ShopDonate to the Pod via Ko-fiTheme Music: Solo Acoustic Guitar by Jason Shaw, Free Music Archive

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

In this thought-provoking video, Nathan and Cameron delve into the intersection of theology, myth, and current cultural trends, with a special focus on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien's perspectives on myth within Christianity. They explore how myths, often seen as mere stories, can point to deeper truths, especially in the context of the Christian faith. Drawing on Lewis's conversion and Tolkien's insights, they examine the role of myth in understanding reality, contrasting it with modern secular myths like those found in Freudian psychology. This conversation challenges viewers to think critically about how Christianity fits into the broader narrative of human experience and invites Christians to engage with cultural and theological questions in a deeper, more reflective manner. Perfect for those seeking a deeper theological discussion on how ancient truths intersect with modern life.DONATE LINK: https://toltogether.com/donate BOOK A SPEAKER: https://toltogether.com/book-a-speakerJOIN TOL CONNECT: https://toltogether.com/tol-connect TOL Connect is an online forum where TOL listeners can continue the conversation begun on the podcast.

Join Klaudia and Ollie for a stroll through Supernatural S5E17: "99 Problems" and S5E18: "Point of No Return." Points of Interest: The Official Mystery Spotcast Playlist, WHEN Buddie becomes canon, Hibachi Chef Dean Winchester, Conclave brainrot, for those with the yaoi goggles on, copius Ethel Cain references, Sam's out of control sideburns, a W*ncest Freudian slip, a request for feedback from our straight listeners, the Revelations to Omegaverse pipeline, Into the Benedictverse, Castiel's Diva Cup, “Never kill yourself pookie,” Michael or Muppet, textbook omega poses, and an inappropriately timed Doctor Who joke.---Send a song (with reasoning) to our email, Tumblr ask box, or Bluesky for the Mystery Spotcast Official PlaylistCheck out Fight For the Future's frontline organizations list---Resources for Palestine:BDS: Act Now Against These Companies Profiting From the Genocide of the Palestinian PeopleBDS: What you can do about Israel's escalated crimes across the occupied West BankDecolonize Palestine: A collection of resources for organizers and anyone who wants to learn more about Palestine.Follow BDS: Instagram / Bluesky / TikTok---Follow us @MysterySpotcast on Bluesky / TikTok / Instagram / Tumblr---Contact us:- Send us a question to our  Tumblr ask box or email us at themysteryspotcast@gmail.com- Submit your favorite Destiel fic for us to read

Emma calls in concerned for her son, you tell us the ickiest ick you've gotten, and more!

Welcome to PsychEd, the psychiatry podcast for medical learners, by medical learners. This is our inaugural book club episode centered around the novel Mind Fixers by Anne Harrington.Mind Fixers is by the Harvard historian Anne Harrington, and came out from Norton in 2022. It reframes the “biological turn” in later twentieth century psychiatry with a history of the discipline from the later nineteenth century forward. Harrington argues that the biological turn had relatively little to do with new scientific advances, and came instead from a need to separate psychiatry from the increasingly unpopular public image of the discipline's previous, “Freudian” age. To make this argument, she starts with the anatomic research of turn-of-the-century figures like Kraepelin, and how this generally failed to explain important mental illnesses. She traces the emergence of “Freudian” or psychological approaches to mental illness to the high point of their dominance in the mid twentieth century, and then their decline, as their inadequacy with respect to things like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia became increasingly clear, and their emphasis on childhood experience stigmatized families. Biological psychiatry is then a way to restore the fields's respectability as as branch of medicine, but according to Harrington, there is not much transformative innovation to go along with this rebrand; and she emphasizes that the psychopharmacology revolution which gave us the first antipsychotics, MAOIS, tricyclics, and the receptor model of mental illness, actually happened during the heyday of psychoanalysis.The members of our team involved in this discussion are:Sara Abrahamson - MS2 at the University of TorontoDr. Kate Braithwaite - Medical Doctor from South AfricaDr. Wendy MacMillan-Wang - PGY4 psychiatry resident at the University of ManitobaDr. Alastair Morrison - PGY1 psychiatry resident at McMaster UniversityDr. Gaurav Sharma - Staff psychiatrist working in Nunavut, CanadaThis episode was edited by Dr. Angad Singh - PGY1 psychiatry resident at the University of Toronto Our discussion was structured around four themes:(03:15) - Psychiatry and Economic Incentives(19:33) - Psychiatry and Parenting(28:40) - Biological Psychiatry and its Alternatives(52:05) - Psychiatry and Social ControlIf you enjoyed this episode, consider listening to our episodes about:History of Psychiatry with Dr. David CastleCritical Psychiatry with Dr. Elia Abi-Jaoude and Lucy CostaFor more PsychEd, follow us on Instagram (⁠@psyched.podcast⁠), X (⁠@psychedpodcast⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠PsychEd Podcast⁠⁠). You can provide feedback by email at ⁠psychedpodcast@gmail.com⁠. For more information, visit our website at ⁠psychedpodcast.org⁠.

Question: I am a registered psychotherapist and I reject Freudian and Jungian beliefs. However, I did find that when you remove these demonic influences and stick with the "science" behind psychology and filter it through the Bible that it's a powerful tool. Proverbs in particular along with New Testament scriptures encourage us to guard our heart and mind, renew our mind with God's Word, and find peace of mind. The Bible is actually the BASIS of TRUE Psychotherapy if you study the subject biblically. What do you say?Response: It's instructive that just in the last week we have been contacted by Christian psychologists who insist that "psychotherapy" by name has been discarded by Christians who limit themselves to being called Biblical Counselors. Further, secular psychologists have also gone down this path. We appreciate your "rejection" of Freudian and Jungian beliefs. It is clear that your heart is for those you seek to help. With that in mind, the pertinent question to ask, however, is how thorough that process has been? We say that because some of these counselors are still using the teachings of those you correctly label as "demonic influences."Other psychologists have "come out" with the same concern for how they have been trained, and what they have learned in practices that span several decades.More recently, the Transgender movement has shown that "science" has very little to do with an utterly emotional, anti-science practice. So, we have to make sure we've gutted the structure of psychology/psychotherapy.There is, however, the often seen reference to the “Science” of psychology. There's a fascinating article entitled The Puzzle of Paul Meehl: An intellectual history of research criticism in psychology (i.e., checking them out from the perspective of real science [https://bit.ly/4ihy1qX]).Professor Andrew Gelman writes, "There's nothing wrong with Meehl. He's great. The Puzzle of Paul Meehl is that everything we're saying now, all this stuff about the problems with Psychological Science and PPNAS and Ted Talks and all that, Paul Meehl was saying 50 years ago. And it was no secret. So how is it that all this was happening, in plain sight, and now here we are?"Meehl concluded his 1967 article by saying, "Some of the more horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher, undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the ‘exactitude' of modem statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything."We will pray that as you devise your way, the Lord will direct your steps further.

In another special episode dedicated to the how, what and why of memory, Gyles talks to his long-time friend and colleague Professor Brett Kahr. Professor Kahr is a practising psychotherapist and an expert on Sigmund Freud, the father of psychotherapy and the inventor of the "talking cure". In this fascinating conversation, Gyles and Prof. Kahr take a detailed look at the power of childhood memories, particularly traumatic ones, to effect our adult lives, and the benefits to be had from examining them and learning from them. Brett also tells Gyles about Freud himself, how he developed his ideas and how he escaped the Nazis and came to London. Gyles talks to Brett about some of the memories we've heard from our guests on Rosebud, and Brett talks about some of the common themes which come up in psychoanalysis - such as dreams and sex. This is a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation, we hope you enjoy it. Professor Kahr's book: Coffee with Freud, is available from major bookshops online. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Geoff, Gavin and Andrew talk about morning DJ, midnight bathroom nightmare, Mario Party March bribery, Andrew's clip, pickled gopher feet, psych outs, travel bags, Gavin's collection, Gurplid, Gurpler Silencer, ball news, flamingo kick, Disneyland, Geoff's absolutely disgusting stories, the night plunger, Geoff's new tattoo, Freudian snap, Survivor, faked vacations, floor donut fiasco, and phone text problems. Sponsored by Factor. Thanks Factor! Go to FACTORMEALS.com/FACTORPODCAST and use code FACTORPODCAST to get 50% off your first box plus free shipping on your first box. Support us directly at https://www.patreon.com/TheRegulationPod Stay up to date, get exclusive supplemental content, and connect with other Regulation Listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The #1 Super Bowl ad? Snickers in 2010… because Snickers acted like a Freudian therapist.Waffle House is charging a 50-cent-per-egg fee… but we tell ya who to blame for Egg-flation is.New tariffs just hit Shein and Temu… hand it can all be explained with Barbie dolls.Plus, the newest job in America is “TikTok Coach”... because there is an “i” in “viral.”$CALM $MAT $SPYWant more business storytelling from us? Check out the latest episode of our new weekly deepdive show: “The Best Idea Yet” — The untold origin stories of the products you're obsessed with. From the McDonald's Happy Meal to Birkenstock's sandal to Nintendo's Super Mario Brothers to Sriracha. New 45-minute episodes drop weekly.Subscribe to The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinks to listen.—-----------------------------------------------------Subscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts FOR MORE NICK & JACK: Newsletter: https://tboypod.com/newsletter Connect with Nick: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/ Connect with Jack: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/ SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ Subscribe to our new (2nd) show… The Best Idea Yet: Wondery.fm/TheBestIdeaYetLinksEpisodes drop weekly. It's The Best Idea Yet.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jesse Eisenberg (A Real Pain, The Social Network, Now You See Me) is an Oscar-nominated actor, writer, and producer. Jesse joins the Armchair Expert to discuss not being cool enough to smoke, receiving a cease and desist letter as a kid from Woody Allen, and how community theater was his outlet for being an incredibly anxious child. Jesse and Dax discuss their saddest film wardrobe experiences, the Parmesan cheese version of Cyrano, and where movie roles rank on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Jesse explains the very strange economy of promoting a movie, the Freudian breakdown of his characters in A Real Pain, and the solace of writing.Follow Armchair Expert on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new content on YouTube or listen to Armchair Expert early and ad-free by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/armchair-expert-with-dax-shepard/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.