footmeter.jpgToadzilla

Found in Australia recently was this enormous toadNewspapers reporting the story have nicknamed this impressive beastie “Toadzilla”, in a lazy homage to the Toho Studio creation, Godzilla. For the curious, this Cane Toad measures roughly 15 inches long (from snout to vent), while an average such toad lays out at 4-6 inches. For today, though, we’re less interested in the toad and far more interested in the suffix, -zilla.

-Zilla comes from Godzilla (naturally), the 1954 Japanese monster. By one account, the word Godzilla is, itself, a compound word. Toho Studios, looking for a word to describe their monster, combined the Japanese words gorira (for “gorilla”) and kujira (for “whale”), forming Gojira. Another account mentions a big, tough looking guy who worked at the studio possessing the nickname “Gojira”, and the monster was named after him. Either way, Gojira was the Japanese name and was soon transliterated into English as Godzilla. At some point, English users decided to lop off God- and use the remainder as a suffix meaning either “monstrous” or, more often, “monstrously or unprecedentedly large”.

-Zilla holds a unique position in the English language. It is, at least to the best my knowledge, our only augmentative suffix. English has plenty of diminutive suffixes (most notably -y and -ie as in “doggy” and -et and -ette as in “booklet”). It also has a few diminutive and augmentative prefixes (micro- for “microprocessor”, and super- for “supermarket”). Augmentative suffixes are also common in other languages. Offhand, I know that a number of the Romance languages use them. For instance, in Spanish, a perro (”dog”) can become a perrazo (”big dog”), and in Italian, a naso (”nose”) can be a nasone (”big nose”). English has no such suffix, except -zilla, which only functions in the paramount. Sure, your yellow labrador may be a big dog, but Gibson is dogzilla.

Frankenblog

Mary Shelley wrote a book at the encouragement of her husband, poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, called Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. A cautionary tale against the Industrial Revolution and the over-reaching of man, the book is about a madman, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, who creates a new human out of the biggest and best parts he can find from the corpses of old humans. He wakes the creature up, is horrified by the creature, and flees. The creature thereafter disappears. Long story short, there’s a lot of mucking about with the creature killing everyone Victor loves out of revenge, and Victor then chasing the monster nearly to the North Pole. The book came out in 1818. When the movie came out in 1931, the creature became known as “Frankenstein”.

According to William Safire in his language column, “The Way We Live Now” (subscription needed), the first usage of Franken-was in 1992 in a letter to the New York Times, writing about genetically modified food. Throughout the 1990s, the opponents of genetically modified lunches set about calling such things “Frankenfood”, and “Frankenfruit”. The usage then expanded to “Frankenworld”, referencing the society of genetically modified food-eaters.

Continuing to evolve, Franken- no longer necessarily denotes genetic modification. It can be used to describe something that is merely different from what is commonly accepted. In 2004, a snakehead fish was discovered in Philadelphian waters. This fish, which grows 2-3 feet long, has the ability to walk for short distances on land. This unusual characteristic gave it the nickname Frankenfish. An early episode of the Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters (Episode 9, “Chicken Gun”) refers to a souped up washing machine as Frankenwasher.

Franken- clearly has a negative connotation, as that which has been modified is now “dangerous or monstrous”, like the creature from Mary Shelley’s book.

Crazy Old Ladies

March 27, 2007

When you think you’ve heard everything.

Two women, Helen Golay and Olga Rutterschmidt were arrested on Thursday on the charge of insurance fraud. These two seventy-five and seventy-three year old women are being accused of becoming friends with transient homeless men and then brutally killing them. These women would buy the homeless men places to live, food to eat, and-most importantly-life insurance. Then, in hit-and-run car accidents-they would kill the men and collect the insurance money.

Link to a description of their actions and indictment.

This kind of psychopathic behavior is outrageous to the Curious Mechanism. Not only did these women abuse the trust that these two men placed in them (Paul Vados and Kenneth McDavid), but they were cruel and weird and obviously nuts. These women received $2.3 million after the men were hit in seemingly unrelated hit-and-run accidents. At the moment, the two women are only charged with fraud, but the FBI is trying to build cases against them.

Perhaps it is just me, but I believe in the general good of humans. However, these crimes appear to be devoid of human empathy-and at the same time are creepily rational. Perhaps Nietzsche would have a field day with this kind of action (the will to power, master morality, whatever), but it appears simply to be a morally wrong and corrupt action.

If you seem to have a sweet old woman living in the apartment across the hall from you, keep one eye on her. Who knows when she might run you over with her car. Which is the perfect excuse because old female drivers seem to do that to people all the time.

ESPN Make-Over

March 27, 2007

As reported by The Big Lead and elsewhere, ESPN is making some changes. ESPN.com’s editor-in-chief, John Papanek has been removed from his position, and the Worldwide Leader is off searching for new blood to fill the post. Meanwhile, the powers that be for ESPN’s broadcasts of Monday Night Football have, thankfully, dispensed with Joe Theisman and replaced him with the Polish Popgun, Ron Jaworski.

Speculation is certainly rampant about both moves–though in the case of MNF, it seems people are just relieved that Joe is out and Jaws is in, and the question of why ESPN is doing this is secondary. The Curious Mechanism isn’t one for actually reporting news, but there’s a few things to be gleaned from these maneuvers, I think, and conjecturing from other people’s reporting is something more up our alley.

After the break, the Curious Mechanism’s speculation on both moves. (By the way, this is a pretty substantial post. I mean, lengthy. Fair warning.)

Read the rest of this entry »

In Which We Post Often

March 26, 2007

Okay, so, just below here there’s a GoodEnough post about blogs worth reading.  One such blog is Curt Schilling’s, which is fantastic.  Now, Curt has long had a bit of a testy relationship with Boston sportswriter Dan Shaugnessy. 

Shaugnessy recently wrote an article mocking Schilling and those who read his blog

I don’t really care for Shaugnessy’s kind of writing, so I heard about the article through David at Baseball Musings who viciously calls Shaugnessy a “cut rate Murray Chass”.   Now, there’s plenty Schilling can do to respond–and, this being Curt Schilling, the likely guess was that there would be a response. 

What did Schilling say?  At the top of his most recent post, he writes:

The only response I have to Carl Everett’s Curly Haired Boyfriend is this.

“First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win”

Putting his inherent ’toolness’ on display for all the world to see did far more than I could ever hope to do by trying to explain what a dope he is. 

 We’re going to rule this, point Schilling.  But here’s hoping Shaugnessy’s indefatigable asshattery doesn’t wear Schill’s blogging down over the course of the season.

docgooden.jpgAs previously noted, GoodEnough for Me  is a companion piece to The Extrapolater’s Smells Like Pujols series. 

Among The Curious Mechanism’s favorite elements of this brave, new interworld we live in are the choices we can make.  Or rather, the multitude of channels through which we get information.  Certainly, we try to cover a reasonably wide swath of territory here, but we are no sort of way to find everything you want to know, and we don’t want to be, anyway.

And while we’ve got our own little niche on the baseball market, there are a ton of great blogs and other websites out there covering baseball.  We don’t know half as many as we’d like, and we still know more than we can read as often as they update.  It’s exciting and depressing at the same time.  That said, after the break, some baseball sites worth visiting over the course of the season.  I’ll even avoid leading you to all the Phillies blogs I read.

Read the rest of this entry »

Never Before Seen

March 26, 2007

So, as spoken of on Friday, Discovery played its “Planet Earth” special, which, as it turns out, was created over the course of 5 years by BBC. Basically, HD existed, and as soon as it did, BBC and Discovery decided to take a bunch of these shiny, new HD cameras and head out to just about everywhere to film animals and plants.

The result is visually spectacular. The first three (of eleven) hour-long episodes aired last night, “Pole to Pole”, “Mountains”, and “Ocean Deep”, and are incredible enough to make me look into buying an HD TV. The series is capably narrated by Sigourney Weaver, and despite doing an excellent job, I’m somewhat disappointed to not hear the excellent David Attenborough describe to me the hunts of snow leopards and wolves. A remarkable number of the scenes are “never before seen”. We know this because, not only do they look like nothing we, the general viewing audience, has ever seen before, but because the scriptwriter has Sigourney mentioning the rarity of each instance: unusual, rare, very rare, or never before seen. It’s a minor distraction in a superb broadcast.

For anyone looking for real meat on specific subject matter, look elsewhere. The lack of details about the habits of some of the creatures of a given habitat are not a shortcoming. Planet Earth isn’t for the most thorough examination of caribou. It’s an overview of the planet, mostly looking at the fauna. It’s a display of Earth’s diversity.

I have no clue when it’s going to re-air, but every Sunday at 8PM for the next few weeks, Discovery will air the rest of the episodes. Seriously, watch it. And if possible, watch it on HD.

[Planet Earth Official Website]

Okay, I suspect I’ve advertised for Discovery Channel programming in this space in the past (what? I haven’t? Okay, well, watch the Discovery Channel.) I love Discovery. I watch repeats of MythBusters just about whenever they air to the point where I can provide you the following list, off the top of my head:

Professions/Unusual Skills Held By MythBuster Jamie Hyneman (The One With the Sweet ‘Stache)

  1. Special Effects creator
  2. Fluent in Russian
  3. Certified scuba diver
  4. Pet shop owner
  5. Machinist
  6. Chef
  7. Sea Captain

He may also be entirely insane. I’m actually somewhat afraid of him.

Anyway, Discovery has a new 11 part series called (dum dada DUM!) Planet Earth starting this weekend. I’m going watch it. And then I’m probably going to write about it here, because, well, sometimes I can’t help but write about random crap on TV.

So, Sunday night, 8PM, watch it. Discovery Channel.

For All You Goonies Fans

March 23, 2007

This may be one of the best pictures ever made:

Thanks to Preston and Steve for this one.