ohlovelyrita

So who are the unnamed sources? I only saw where it was ******. That could be Fortus, Ferrer, Hudson or any other person with 6 letters in their name. Lebeis? but not Beta or Fernando right?

"The "unique" Mediterranean-style house owned by orotund-voiced metalhead Maynard James Keenan (frontman of Tool and A Perfect Circle, soundtracks to your post-grunge, late-nineties angst) was sent to us a by a tipster who informs us that, while the 2001 house is staged in these listing photos, "everything nailed down" is Keenan's, the bounty of globetrotting travels to Bali and similarly exotic locales. Keenan, who studied interior design, brought back some pretty standard finds from abroad: a hulking piece of no-doubt-rare wood that appears to be an enormous sedan chair; an apothecary-style kitchen island with a million cupboards that will never be anything but a frustration when you are looking for nutmeg; chandeliers acquired from the estate of Zorro. The eclectic fun extends to the patio, where you can soak in the jacuzzi while the weird, faux-patinaed goblinbabies embellishing the posts look on in demonic glee. The asking price is $2.795 million."

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/03/tool_frontman_selling_hideous_beachwood_house_for_2795mm.php

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/02/axl-rose-guitar-hero/

Thanks. Haven't read that in a while but still unclear. The merits of the case is Activism had a breach on contract.

Why did they agree in the first place? The system is corrupt if a contract can't be reinforced.

I am also remembering that the image being used was an issue because there was a Velvet Revolver

song or a Slash song used in the game. I'm guessing Axl's lawyers didn't want Guns N' Roses name

to promote Slash's band since most fans (believe it or not) don't know about the riff. On the other hand,

why didn't Axl's side include a CD song? Maybe a further addition was to include CD song but then the

contractwas breached.

Would anyone here who owned the GnR name want an estranged ex-member to be seen as the face

of the band? I do realize that it was good opportunity for Slash to get a younger fan base. I'm not taking

anything away from anyone but it shouldn't have been the edition with "WTTJ" based on why the song

was licensed. It's just business.

Some questions,

If Axl prevented Slash from releasing GnR songs on a live DVD............why wouldn't he expect Slash to return the favor? If that really happened, why would fans on here bash Slash for doing the same thing that Axl did?

My exact thoughts/questions as soon as I heard that Slash was holding up the release.

Exactly my point all along. Honestly not trying to take sides even though it's coming off like I am, but Axl swung first and now has to lie in the bed he made.

Slash just has to be honky dory about accommodating Axl? Why?

Because Axl fans are always really nice with Slash. Never badmouth him or say twisted things about him. Slash owes this to Axl fans after all their support.

Then we also had Axl try and block any use of Slash on guitar hero and the wanting to rerecord old songs for movie soundtracks

Bingo. I assume people forgot about that?

"Take that one to the heart, Axl!" - Slash

I thought the Guitar Hero situation was about Axl wanting equal promotion. It sounded reasonable and it was agreed to in

a contract. Please explain it if I'm wrong.

Good on Slash. After the shit Axl has pulled over the years and the embarrassment he has made of GNR I'd be going out of my way to shit on him from a height. I hope Slash keeps this up and prevents Axl from releasing anything from this new band under the GNR name.

You reap what you sow. And Axl has sowed a lot of shit.

Exactly.

I guess I don't get why Slash (if he is the one) who never cared would care now.

Seems like both of them remember being around the other as negative.

Why would anyone suggest they should have reunited knowing that?

I read this Chaunce Hayden '01 interview in a magazine:

CH: Do you miss Guns N' Roses?

Slash: No. We had a fucking great time. The Guns N' Roses days were a blast! But you can't recreate it after a certain point. The lineup in the band had depleted so much. I just realized I couldn't keep doing it anymore. So I just split while it was still cool. (Laughs) You know?

CH: What's your opinion of Axl Rose?

Slash: I haven't talked to him since I quit. That puts that concept to rest.

CH:There has to be more to the story than that.

Slash: No, its pretty simple. He was heading in one direction and I was heading in another.It was actually a slow progression from the days when we first made a record all the way up to the final record. When our last tour ended, he made it clear which way he wanted to go musically. I tried to hang on and stay with the band as long as I could, but there was definatly limitations. It just got to the point where we couldnt work together anymore.

CH:How do you feel about Axl continuing to tour as Guns N' Roses?

Slash: Axl is making the call for whatever his 3 percent of the band is worth. He's making the call these days. My life was just miserable then. I couldn't deal with it. So I just left. So when he wanted to use the name Guns N' Roses I said sure, I didn't want anything to do with it.

I think we will not get a new Guns N' Roses release while Axl is still alive. After he passes away, it's gonna be one release after another, though.

How can we be so sure that Team Brazil or whoever is Axl's heir, will just release stuff willy-nilly?

Axl's wishes will have to be respected. Some of you are pretty morbid, don't go there lest you want that in your life.

One of the Eleon custom made design tees Axl will be wearing for 2014 tour!

That's gonna be a shirt? Not my kind of art.

I think we will not get a new Guns N' Roses release while Axl is still alive. After he passes away, it's gonna be one release after another, though.

I don't think that is the way it works. An artist (estate) has control up to 50 years after they pass.

If he lives to be 100, that could mean that only in 2112 others can share what they have copies of.

Anyone know where that interview is where Fortus said the release will be as soon as this year.

Why would he say that if it wasn't possible?

Loved it when I first read it at 10 or 11. Reread it a few times during my teen years. Didn't read it for years, and the thought of reading the account of a solipsistic self-absorbed teenager didn't appeal to me in my twenties. But, on a whim, I decided to reread it a couple of years ago... and I fell in love with it all over again, but there was one line towards the end that really made me see the book in a different light an give it a new appreciation.

It's where the professor he stays with him at the end tells Holden he can't spend the rest of his life being mad at people for petty things like being on a sports team or whatever. Basically, calling Holden out on his bullshit and jealousy. Went completely over my head as a teenager, and I think it partly goes over the protagonist's head, too, as well as many people who read the book and claim they are Holden Caulfield or whatever nonsense.

Good share! Yes, sometimes you got to admit you're wrong and you can be wrong. That's maturity! Maybe Holden thought

because he was sincere he can never be wrong. Had to tell someone today that if my information was wrong I would apologize

and they liked that. Now they are helpful. Solution pending and my apology to them forthcoming. win=win

I think it's good bad bad

Best workout album of all time.

I'll give these gals a lot of credit for dancing to metal. It's a hard fit what

they have attempted but it working for them with millions of clicks.

The Japanese counter culture is always refreshing. I like the Japanese band

Boris who do a terrific Melvins impersonation. And Shonen Knife wasn't metal influenced.

Besides they were upbeat.

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

Chapman was most likely a programmed assassin and a possible victim himself. The book could have just been a trigger.

Lennon had a 10k gov file on him. Promoting peace is war to policymakers.

Conspiracy theorists, nuts that proclaimed he was a programmed killer. If there were such a thing, I doubt the govt would have let those ppl get caught, don't you? More likely a bullet between the eyes. The fall of Saigon happened in the mid 70's. Viet Nam was still fresh on everyone's mind. Prominent people that were 'for' peace, yes, govt probably did have a file on them. No, they were not murdered by our govt. Chapman was a crazy killer that wanted to be infamous, just like that guy that murdered Versace.

Of to work I go! Finally!

Look up MK Ultra. No doubt an unstable person would be used in those experiments.

@Netcat- I wonder how old she was at the time and what his side was.

His life story is fascinating. His new doc was so exciting and revealing. They had

some incredible footage. I think most will find he wasn't a recluse just wanted his privacy.

I listen to a jazz show where the announcer will periodically talk about the life of Salinger.

Many generations to come will be intrigued by him.

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Yes - it was one of the reasons Caulfield was disgusted with the school and became even more unfocused, but I don't know the symbolism of it, whether it was a hint at Castle being a "flit", or he was his only friend - even though they didn't seem like buddies. I do think it ties into Salinger's military life and was based on someone he knew.

Allie was also a presence.

I was just wondering if anyone on this thread that is so enamored with the book actually read it. You did! The discussion about James was a big part of the book in that he brought it up when Phoebe pressed him to name someone or something he liked. He really couldn't think of anything. I'm not sure he liked James. But that incident, of James jumping out the window came to mind. I think this is yet another reason Holden was traumatized. James had on his sweater. He describes seeing him lying there in his sweater with his blood and teeth all over the ground. His brother Allie having died young from leukemia, yet another reason Holden was traumatized. Was Holden the awful person he was before these tragic incidents or did they cause him to become what he was? Salinger struggled with that after the war. This is what our high school teachers made us absolutely sick to death with.

I find it interesting he calls D.B. a prostitute when D.B. is a writer in Hollywood. Does this mean Salinger thought of himself as a sell-out? Possibly.

What I really don't get - Chapman. Why he killed Lennon because of the book. And I sat in front of my TV in 1980 crying my eyes out watching all those ppl gather around the Dakota. I don't get how Chapman got from the book that he should kill Lennon. Holden was the biggest phony in the entire book. He called everyone else a phony and he could turn on a dime. When he talked to the nuns about Romeo and Juliet he was only upset about Mercutio's death. He asked why would anyone kill someone popular and musically inclined? Now how did Chapman miss over that part? Chapman completely misunderstood the book. The book, to me, was about a 16 y/o kid that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth in a white privileged household. Bad things happened in that his brother died, someone in his school died. He wasn't given the attention he should have had. He didn't have coping mechanism's.

The book wasn't a bad book, but how did it get to be the 'end all' 'begin all' classic it is? Can someone tell me how they see it and how I am missing something? I just don't get it.

Chapman was most likely a programmed assassin and a possible victim himself. The book could have just been a trigger.

Lennon had a 10k gov file on him. Promoting peace is war to policymakers.

People who didn’t read it but have a strong opinion on it just remind me of an old anecdote about Boris Pasternak. His novel Doctor Zhivago was first published abroad and his communist “friends” didn’t like it, so they started the anti-Pasternk campaign in press. They put “a letter from indignant Soviet workers” on the front page of the major paper, and it started with the words “we didn’t read it, but we condemn it”. From that time on it turned into an idiom, meaning that people have no idea what they are talking about

When I was a kid, I was obsessed with CITR. Then I tried to re-read it several years ago, and I couldn’t get through the first 20 pages, it struck me just how poorly it was written…Then I came across this book by his daughter, Dream Catcher, not so long ago. And it seems like she hated him… And maybe she had reasons. She said that once when she was very sick, she asked him for help and he sent her a three-year subscription to some Christian magazine and said she must realize that her sickness was just an illusion… then I thought: well, he's no Holden Caulfield

Interesting. Salinger was said to be big on herbs and natural medicine in his later life. He might have been trying to empower his daughter.

I highly recommend the documentary.

@Arnold Layne- "The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger, is home to the protagonist Holden Caulfield. There is no coincidence that he holds a striking resemblance to the author of the novel himself. Both Salinger and Holden have many aspects of their life in common.

Holden's story in The Catcher in the Rye begins with Holden at his school, Pencey Preparatory, which is a boarding school. He was sent there by his parents, who seemed to be withdrawn from his life. Similarly, Salinger's parents sent him to Valley Forge Military School, where he had a neighbor who always seemed to be barging in, resembling Holden's relationship with Ackley. The reader also learns that Holden is the son of wealthy parents from New York. It turns out that J.D. Salinger was also born in New York to upper-class parents. It seems as though Holden Caulfield's childhood is very comparable to that of J.D. Salinger's.

Sugaraylen - I'm not responding as a quote to you because then Rita would see what you wrote and she has had you blocked for a long time per one of her posts. This is out of respect to Rita. I understand you were attacked first because you stated you haven't read the book and your opinion on why you haven't read the book - because of your strong, and understandable reasons of why the book holds painful memories of Lennon being murdered. That does indeed fall under this very topic of Opinions on Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye' and imo you have every right to post your opinions here and why you haven't read it, do not want to read it and will not read it.

No one is wrong in their opinion here but WTF with all the insults and they are just about to get on my last nerve. Can't we all just get along and get back on topic now??

Thank you for not capturing his words, I do check his comments sometimes when he comes on my topics so I can report the trolling. Two get deleted last week and they were off-topic attacks talking about how miserable my life was. I wish the mods would forbid us to interact on every level.

I agree that even that opinion (altho bizarre) is valid as an opinion. It's equal to someone saying that they won't read CITR or watch Taxi Driver because of the assassination

attempt on Reagan.

But Rita, his opinions of the book are on topic in this forum.

Agreed, I said,"I agree that even that opinion (altho bizarre) is valid as an opinion."

Sugaraylen - I'm not responding as a quote to you because then Rita would see what you wrote and she has had you blocked for a long time per one of her posts. This is out of respect to Rita. I understand you were attacked first because you stated you haven't read the book and your opinion on why you haven't read the book - because of your strong, and understandable reasons of why the book holds painful memories of Lennon being murdered. That does indeed fall under this very topic of Opinions on Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye' and imo you have every right to post your opinions here and why you haven't read it, do not want to read it and will not read it.

No one is wrong in their opinion here but WTF with all the insults and they are just about to get on my last nerve. Can't we all just get along and get back on topic now??

Thank you for not capturing his words, I do check his comments sometimes when he comes on my topics so I can report the trolling. Two get deleted last week and they were off-topic attacks talking about how miserable my life was. I wish the mods would forbid us to interact on every level.

I agree that even that opinion (altho bizarre) is valid as an opinion. It's equal to someone saying that they won't read CITR or watch Taxi Driver because of the assassination

attempt on Reagan.

Question: Did any of you know about the suicide with the guy that had his sweater?

Didn't know. Please share!

Sugaraylen is here to fight with people 25% of the time.

I got 2 of his comments (one calling me a cunt) removed

the other day. Misogynists are so proud nowadays, they

are too cowardly to try that in real life!

He also says scathing things about Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses

yet easily spends 3 hours here a day. He actually admitted

here not to care what Axl is up to.

He even admitted to discovering Led Zeppelin late in life

yet proceeded to trash Robert Plant in a long tirade for no reason.

The more people that ignore the "bubbling over self-hate" here

the more pleasant this forum will be.

And he wasn't sure "Howl" was Ginsberg. That would be fine

if he didn't pretend to be an intellectual. I know i'm not

and happy to talk about what I like and like reading

balanced opinions. Not a fan of rudeness.

I dunno, i just think some things are best not fiddled with. Whats Howl, the Ginsberg poem?

Salinger IS Holden

That is a huge statement that shouldn't be taken lightly, and it is almost an accusation. Do you have any reasons to say this at all?

I enjoyed your earlier commentary. I had meant to say so earlier.

In the beginning of this thread I talked about how Salinger dated Eugene O'Neil's daughter to be dumped

for Charlie Chaplin (Oona later had 8 of his kids). Imagine how he felt that she picked a man 36 years her senior

because he rich and famous. That's a mind-fuuck.

The biggest sign that Salinger is Holden is when he refuses a rewrite even if it jeopardizes his publishing contract.

You might feel differently but I think most who saw Solano's doc last year came away with that revelation.

Surely some authors don't put themselves in their character or base on real people but Holden and

Salinger both seem to not want to liked for the wrong reasons. Salinger did not want to a be a celebrity

as you know. However he did want to be a famous author. "The best laid plans......".

it's a great book, infinitely better than anything written by lennon

Apples and oranges. One, a fictional character, written by a person with PTSD from the war, that had a friend commit suicide in his sweater (tragic! PTSD also?) yet was a walking contradiction; one was a musician that believed in peace and was against war. And the one that believed in peace was murdered by a crazed sociopath that was obsessed with the book and likened himself to the 'Peter Pan' Holden Caufield that hated the 'have's' of this world and believed himself to be a 'have not' when he had the world at his feet having been privileged to be in a prep school. He had everything, and he blew it.

I would like to be more clear on his PTSD. I had thought his heartbreak might have given him the majority of that voice. I never heard about that suicide.

Tragic. Many think Chapman was a programmed assassin (MK Ultra) and he was carrying the book at the time and not far into it. Wasn't he

reading it after the crime against a wall to look inconspicuous? I forget. He could have been rereading it. There were 2 more famous crime committed by

Holden fanatics. I got the impression that Salinger wishes he never created Holden for how people obsessed and wrote him letters as if they were writing

to Holden. He felt trapped in a hell. No respect for an artist. No wonder he didn't release anything for some 40 years!

Last year's documentary is excellent. I look forward to the five unreleased books. When I read his writing

I am in awe and feel like I could never be an adequate writer if I tried. His imagination, humor, vivid characterizations, and quirky details have

you laughing out loud and then it gets real dark--what a writing style!!!

I have Sugaraylen blocked since 2013. I see that he responds to me when people captures his post.

Can't believe he still cupcakes me.

Remember Chapman met Lennon earlier that day and came back to greet him again.

Should I be worried? Has anyone done a background check on some of these posters?

My thread on Salinger: http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/202099-jd-salinger-gets-dissed-on-twitter-by-famed-author-joyce-carol-oates/

Well for one, you have really dumb reasons for refusing to read books so I imagine you don't read a lot. And you just don't strike me as the book reading type.

I notice this a lot about the new generation. They are intimidated by books therefore dismissive. A friend recently told

me that he has not read a whole book he thinks. I brought up CITR and he said that was the book he may have read the most in,

not close to finishing it. This person is a bout 25 and doesn't work. Similar is a lot of young people I know who can't name a

Beatles song, one was proud of it thought it made him more interesting!

CITR was written over 60 years, maybe we should be talking about how surprisingly relative is instead of being hypercritical!

It has sold over an estimated 65 million copies. Do you think if we put it to a REAL vote to the fans they be even 1/8 as vociferous

as bored, anti-social internet posters?!! Ironic that Salinger pretty much said he regrets writing the book. Like anytime else that

valuable artists share it gets the grimy fingerprints on it by society's lowest contributors who want equal time. Salinger IS Holden and people

put undue expectations on artists and go for the jugular when the artist sticks to their vision.Take Guns N' Roses, you buy their albums

for under $15 and you can play them an unlimited time. Has any fan said,"I want to pay again, I got TOO MUCH?"

The band made/makes a lot of people happy at home alone who feel connected to something. But.....come to a forum or web article

and people are furious that each album isn't equal or to their liking. You can buy a $4 hamburger and complain that your next hamburger

doesn't taste the same but it is ludicrous to take your entertainment so seriously. Some people really need to learn to "silence themselves".

"I always found Holden Caulfield to be a whiny self-absorbed brat. And I think Salinger felt the same way. The most misread book of all time." - Bret Easton Ellis

Does that mean i understood the book without reading it?

yep

But that doesn't make it a bad book. If you want to take it on face value it's a well written portrait of a whiny bitch. Although in most of Salinger's other work he's kind of poking fun at the middle to upper class life. He kind of just lets the characters live but then subtly teases out different meanings. Maybe like Holden's Catcher speech or him ending up in mental institute. He's not going tell you. It's like American Psycho really. Why should I give a shit about serial killer? Both are a amusing on one level, then at some point there's some philosophical prose. Then at the end a kind look again, think about it ending.

Not a bad book at all, but overrated in my opinion. I don't understand why it's required reading in many schools though. Good analogy with American Psycho. He isn't likable either yet interesting in a case study sort of way same as Holden. Good point.

To me whether you like the character isn't really a good way to judge whether it's a good book. In someways it's some level of praise, in that there is a character there at all. That's not to say it deserves all the attention. But that isn't something to put on the writer either. Moreover, the reason one book resonates with a culture has so many elements that it's almost out of the writers hands. You can see in the Oscars or Booker prize that they pick certain books about certain things, almost like based on the issue of the time. Catcher may have had that, it was a little in the hot stuff.

I don't think Salinger attended for Holden to become an icon of cool or rebellion. How the book was taken by counter culture. It's like because these things weren't talked about much, or at least laid down in a book, then it had this impact. Like Cubists don't get much play in 2012, it was done before.

I think that's why Salinger retreated, something personal to him, got taken and blown up, taken out of his hands. The culture, publishers suddenly decided we'll let this come out, this is something interesting but then it just got taken on in so many ways.

Ellis like Salinger was just writing about what he knew, both could have passed unnoticed but they hit on something the resonated with the culture. Neither are really master story tellers, they have a character and they have some sort of commentary. It's kind of weird they kind of exaggerate or take certain themes to conclusions which instead making a clearer point sort of attract the wrong attention. Like the expose a truth but everyone is like I love this. Like Gordon Gecko in Wall Street. There's a point where unless you just want it spelled out for you, the audience has to be take a certain responsibility. But the culture gravitate towards the extreme.

Interesting post. I was thinking similar thoughts. People calling Holden a "whiny bitch" as a reason for not liking the book

is tantamount to people refusing to like Oliver Stone's Tony Montana character for their hate of "psychopaths"

And Ellis's quote is wayyyy off. Salinger could not have felt that way. He refused rewrites

because he was Holden.

Apparently, SXSW isn't just music as I thought.

http://sxsw.com/

This is funny:

"Created by three college students at Albright College in Philadelphia, the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon concept has survived and thrived over the span of two decades to include a best-selling book, board game, app (The Oracle of Kevin Bacon), a charity (SixDegrees.org) and was most recently added to the Google search tool (the Bacon Number). Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon concept co-creator Brian Turtle moderates a panel featuring Kevin Bacon (currently starring in FOX’s hit drama “The Following”) and multiple SURPRISE guests with varying degrees of separation to the Golden Globe Award-winning actor."

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/edward-snowden-julian-assange-top-bill-at-sxsw-2014/456593-11.html

Austin: Surveillance. Online privacy. Robots. Food processing. Wearable computers. To get a sense of what's on the minds of the tech industry's thinkers, leaders and tinkerers, it's a good idea to head to Austin, Texas, rather than Silicon Valley this time of the year.

More than 30,000 people descend on this eccentric city for the South By Southwest Interactive Festival (SXSW) each March. This year, NSA leaker Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder and secret spiller Julian Assange are topping the bill, alongside Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and Anne Wojcicki, CEO of genetics testing company 23andMe.

Snowden and Assange won't be making the trip to Texas, however. They'll appear on live video, since both are living as fugitives, in Moscow and the Ecuadorian embassy in London, respectively. Their inclusion illustrates how the festival is trying to balance holding on to its independent roots even as it's flooded by a barrage of corporate sponsors and threatens to grow too big for its hometown.

Snowden and Assange won't be making the trip to Texas, however. They'll appear on live video, since both are living as fugitives.

"We have always said that South By Southwest is a very big tent and we have all different types of people," said Hugh Forrest, director of the interactive festival. "This is a feature and not a flaw."

Still, it's clear that online privacy and government surveillance is on top of the technology set's mind this year. Snowden, the former NSA contractor who appears Monday, faces felony charges in the US after revealing the agency's mass surveillance program by leaking thousands of classified documents to media outlets. He is living under temporary asylum in Russia, which has no extradition treaty with the US.

Snowden is unlikely to talk about the case against him during the session and will focus instead on "how technology enables surveillance and how technology can protect us from surveillance," said Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union. Soghoian will be speaking to Snowden along with Snowden's legal adviser, the ACLU's Ben Wizner. Snowden is being represented by the ACLU in the US government's case against him.

Speaking at South By Southwest - rather than in front of Congress or at a conference of lawyers - gives Snowden a chance to talk to the technology community, "his peers," Soghoian said.

"The reason the NSAs collected as much information as it did is because of technology," he said. "Technology got us into this mess and technology will get us out of it."

Assange, meanwhile, will speak on Saturday with Benjamin Palmer, the co-founder of The Barbarian Group, a marketing agency whose clients range from Pepsi to Samsung to New York City. As to why a marketing executive is interviewing a figure as controversial as Assange? A hint: Visitors to the group's website are greeted with the message "We create ideas that provoke a reaction."

Part of the larger South By Southwest festival that also includes music, film and recently education segments, SXSWi, as it's dubbed, became a separate event in 1994, when it was still called "SXSW Multimedia." Past speakers have ranged from the computer scientist and virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier in 1997 to investor Mark Cuban in 1999 and Friendster founder Jonathan Abrams in 2004.

This is where Twitter soared from obscurity to the world stage in 2007, where Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg appeared on stage in 2008 when his site was still the No. 2 online social network behind MySpace and where the location-sharing app Foursquare emerged a year later.

Attendees looking for the next Twitter, Facebook or even Foursquare here, though, might have to dig a bit deeper these days. As the festival evolves and grows bigger each year, it's becoming more difficult - not to mention more expensive - to stand out as the coolest startup or the most useful app.

For Caroline Tien-Spalding, marketing director at imaging firm ArcSoft, the interactive festival is where new ideas percolate.

"You have a lot of things at the very, very beginning. You don't know what's going to make it and what won't," said Tien-Spalding, who is giving a presentation about the future of facial recognition technology, titled "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly," on Tuesday.

Other sessions at the five-day festival include discussions such as "The Next Steve Jobs May Be from Africa," "The Internet of Cars" and "Welcoming the Robot Workforce." On Sunday, Rodrigo Martinez, life sciences chief strategist at the design firm IDEO, will be part of a panel about the future of wearable technology called "The Connected Body - Can We Get Value from Wearables."

The problem, he says, is that the conversations about wearables are being driven by hardware and software rather than the motivations, needs and inspirations of the humans who use them.

"Forget about technology," he said. "What are the things that matter to an individual - and then you design around that."

By Kory Grow

"Contrary to rumors, Tool have not completed a new album. The band has issued a statement exclusively to Rolling Stone explaining how a misunderstanding between the band's guitarist and a fan led to speculation that the group had completed the album and intended to release it this year.

"Last night, Adam Jones, in a private conversation with fans attending the Portland Tool concert, joked that the band's new album was not only finished but coming out the next day," says the statement. "Unfortunately, his off-the-cuff joke was taken out of context. Work on the forthcoming album is ongoing and as soon as it is done, trust me, we will be the first to let everyone know."

Jones also posted a message on Twitter that said, "FYI, 'The record's done and it's coming out tomorrow' is what I said yesterday, followed by 'just kidding. . . '"

Late last year, Tool frontman Maynard James Keenan told Rolling Stone that the creation of the new album is "a very tedious process." "I don't write the music; they write the music," he said of his bandmates. "I wait for them to bring music to me. They tend to go back over and over stuff. It's a long process." But that's not to say any one person is to blame. "We're all in this together," he said. "I'm not pointing any fingers. I will take full responsibility if I have to."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tool-refute-false-reports-of-album-completion-exclusive-20140307

Honestly it's because I connected with Holden in so many ways.

He's just extremely depressed and sees the world a different way than most.

Do you regard yourself as a Holden of sorts? Because something I would say is that Holden wasn't able to step outside his own body and contrast his views against the rest of society. Whereas based on the second point I've quoted, you can. That's good - you haven't become entirely invested in the merit of your own views.

While I don't see Catcher as the pinnacle of contemporary American literature - which from my experience, is certainly the way the UK education system portrays it - I don't agree with the analysis that Holden is just a "whiney little shit". What I see is somebody that desperately wants some sort of cause to believe in. Hollywood, the college "fucking game" - it's just not something that Holden can contrive an enthusiasm for. He is deeply frustrated by the empty, thoughtless way in which young people operate. Somebody like Lenny, who absolutely embodies the notion of happy-go-lucky, cannot relate to the programming of a character like Caulfield. Which is why to Lenny he comes across as total pretentiousness. But there are actually many young people programmed like Caulfield (they just have to suppress it). They aren't governed by testosterone. They aren't impressed by glamour. They aren't driven by a letter that will certify their intelligence. But as Holden's relationship with his sister shows, they are fundamentally good people. They have an eternal struggle of trying to see the good in humanity. They want something to believe in.

Good analysis. I was reading some comments on a thread by some early-20's kids who where put on meds when they didn't need them, denied meds when they needed 'em, switched meds for no reason, basically not being seen or heard just people unfairly told their problems lie with their thinking. One was told to snap out of it, another lied in bed for weeks after feeling like a lost cause.

Re: Houlden

Feeling things is not fitting in especially if you voice your discontent then people will try to make you "normal". They put

young people on meds that create longer dependencies/addiction than just letting those "coming of age' feelings pass. The young people

of today overall lack empathy more than any other generation. The are highly critical of others and bash others without a filter. For some, their mental chatter is negative and self-loathing usually bubbles over. Why do people feel the need to tell people they don't like them? "Just because you can doesn't mean that you should". The person being negative feels bad more than they feel good so they are unaware they are creating their own reality. A viscious cycle.

And only .00005% of Americans know who this is: