Social media platform TikTok's misinformation policy is fairly robust, at least on paper. It explicitly bans content that contains "medical misinformation about vaccines or abortion" and "misinformation about voting," as well as a general prohibition on content that "undermines public trust." (You have to go to Twitter/X for that kind of thing.) But TikTok's community guidelines don't ban more esoteric bullshit about "reality shifting," "manifesting," and a whole lot of other esoteric beliefs. As a result, these out-there ideas are finding a new audience among the mostly young people who use TikTok. And TikTok is doing nothing about it. Which is good.

What is reality shifting?

Simplified, reality shifting is the belief that we can shift our consciousness to alternate realities. It's (very loosely) based on the "many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics that posits that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are realized in some universe, and thus there are an infinite number of realities—like in that movie, Everything Everywhere All at Once. The leap that TikTok's reality shifters make is thinking there's a way to visit these alternative realities, either corporally or just mentally. As far as anyone can prove, there is not, but if you'd like to try, you can check out this video for instructions or watch every video on the hashtag in some alternative dimension where you have all day.

What is manifesting?

Reality shifting has the sheen of novelty to it, but it's actually a close cousin to the older idea of "manifesting," another belief with a strong fan base on TikTok. While it's often surrounded by exhortations to meditate or visualize, manifesting, at its most basic level, is the belief that you can have whatever you want if you believe you can have it. It's wishing, with extra steps.

Where does all this come from?

It seems that each new generation finds a way to talk about manifesting, reality shifting, and other fringe spiritual beliefs. Since it was published in 2006, over 35 million copies of the book The Secret have been sold. (Spoiler alert: The secret of the title is "if you wish for something hard enough, you'll get it.") The Secret was a modernization of the new-age beliefs that were popular in the 1990s, which were based on the "human potential movement" of the 1970s, which was based on the esoterica of the hippy generation in the 1960s. If you keep going back in time (literally, if you want to reality shift), you arrive at the "second great awakening" of the early late 1800s-early 1900s, where spiritualism, freemasonry, and transcendentalism were on-trend.

What's the harm in wishing?

While it seems pretty obvious that people can't have whatever they want just because they want it—just look at everything—but is it a bad thing? Yes and no.

On the harm side of the column: Believing that the universe delivers whatever you order only really works if you're privileged. It's way easier to think, "I have all this money because I really wanted it!" when you already have all this money than it is to ask, "Where's that car I ordered?"

It's also a pretty callous belief system. Manifesters like to pose as compassionate, but a belief in a generous universe or the present-giving God of the "prosperity gospel" movement (less popular on TikTok, more popular on Facebook ) means that anyone in an unfortunate situation must want to be in it—that kid who has cancer must want to have cancer, or he didn't pray hard enough.

Also on the negative side of the ledger: the gurus, preachers, and politicians who prey on the gullible. And when believers try to make laws based on their beliefs. And UFO cults with suicide pacts. So there are a lot of negatives.

Why we shouldn't do anything about it (except feel smug)

But on the other hand, there has always been a counter-current of occultism informing American beliefs. You can see it in the longtime popularity of astrology (another TikTok favorite), the ready availability of Ouija boards in toy stores, and the existence of your local palm reader. People are meeting some basic need, whether it's through horoscope and vision boards or Sunday morning church services. I don't understand it personally, but like Sinatra said, "I'm for whatever gets you through the night."

There have been attempts to rein in new religious movements in the past, and they tend to be disasters. After the Jonestown mass suicide for instance, anti-cult sentiment was strong enough that a cottage industry of "de-programmers" sprung up, and there were actual court cases where serious people argued that it was lawful to kidnap your relatives if you really didn't like what they believed and really didn't approve of who they hung out with.

Wringing your hands about the people who believe weird things on TikTok—and the grifters and frauds getting rich off them—isn't the answer. First, it's boring, like the confrontational atheism that was popular online a decade ago. But more importantly, Western culture, when it's working correctly, is built on the idea that people should be able to believe and say whatever they like. even if it's stupid—freedom and all that shit.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

The rap war between Kendrick Lamar and Drake seems like it’s over. The winner by unanimous decision: Kendrick Lamar. But the beef is so culturally all-encompassing that even the secondary drama is going viral this week. Let me break it down for you. I'm also going to talk about the "Block Party" campaign, whether you should put pickles in your Dr. Pepper, and introduce you to my favorite new phrase: "That's poop from a butt."

What is “BBL Drizzy?”

This week’s viral videos are the thousands of version of the song “BBL Drizzy” that are blowing up all over social media. Let me explain: On one of the open salvos of the war between Drake and Kendrick, Drake put out the track “Push Ups,” where he tell Kendrick associate Metro Boomin’ to “shut yo ho-ass up and make some drums." So last week, Metro took him up on the offer and released a track called "BBL Drizzy," a remix of a song by King Willonius. “the “BBL” part of the title refers to Drake having supposedly undergone Brazilian butt-lift surgery. Anyway, Metro removed the copyright from the song, and told the public that he’d give $10,000 to whoever who made the best verse for the track. It all went viral, and literally the entire world started recording songs that attack Drake. Essentially Metro started handing out free bats and saying, “I’ll pay you to beat that dead horse over there.”

Here are only a few of the highlights of the tens of thousands of versions of BBL Drizzy:

• The original version’s laid-back 1970s vibe.

• YouTube rapper Packgod’s take. 

• Jokey YouTube rapper Yukon’s version. 

• Japanese version of BBL Drizzy. 

• A merengue cover. 

• A harp version of BBL Drizzy.

If you had any doubts about who won the Great Rap War of 2024, Drake is out there getting dissed by a harp. 

Kendrick vs. Drake feud encouraging literacy?

All wars have unintended consequence, and this one might be resulting in literacy. Or so says Ms. C., a teacher with a TikTok account. On a recent video she said: “I have students who hate reading that are doing the most meticulous, close reading of these lyrics that I have ever seen. They’re finding subtle quadruple entendres and explaining them eloquently to their peers.” 

Why is “Blockout 2024” trending?

Earlier this week, TikTok user blockout2024 posted this video where they suggest that celebrities will lose money if people block them on social media. In a followup video, they explains "When we hate on them, they make money. When we praise them, they make money. But when we block their social media accounts and completely forget their names, they lose it all.”

The trend, alternately called “Celebrity Block Party” quickly caught on on TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and everywhere else. Although the initial video seemed to have been posted in response to displays of wealth at the Met Gala early this week, a larger concern quickly coalesced: some celebrities, blockers believe, are not using their platforms to sufficiently support Palestine in its conflict with Israel. The main targets: Kim Kardashian and Taylor Swift, both of whom are fairly centrist, bordering on apolitical. 

It's too soon to tell whether it's working or not, but I’d put a lot of money on “It is not working.” Online activism doesn’t have a great track record. People online tend to overestimate their importance, and the Block Party campaign relies on fans of Taylor Swift caring about Palestine more than they care about getting updates from Swift. Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t see that happening in large enough numbers to matter. If even a million followers blocked Taylor Swift because of this campaign, she’d have 282 million left. And that’s just on Instagram. Without commenting on the specifics of Middle East politics, the whole thing has a #Kony2012 vibe.

Bumble unveils the terrifying future of dating

Whitney Wolfe Herd, the CEO of dating site Bumble, unveiled a terrifying potential future for online dating in a recent interview with Bloomberg. Herd foresees a future where each user has an AI wingman/woman to help them connect. You'd tell your robot deeply personal things, and it would scan every other person’s AI wingperson to find a match. “There is a world where your dating concierge could go and date for you with another dating concierge. And then you don’t have to talk to 600 people,” Herd said.

While I’m generally in favor of not talking to people, as many have pointed out online, this is like a Black Mirror episode. Not in a general sense, but a specific episode: season 4, episode 4, “Hang the DJ.”

What’s the deal with Pickle Dr. Pepper?

Weird culinary TikTok trend of the week: pickles and Dr. Pepper. This video from TikTok’s Kayleeh109 has been viewed nearly 3 million times. It advises you to go to Sonic, fill a cup halfway with pickles, add Dr. Pepper, and then, presumably, drink it. My stomach is turning thinking about it, but I haven’t tried it, so how can I say? Judging by the response videos, people seem to like it. People down south, mainly. I'm still not convinced. It could be an elaborate prank designed to get me to drink something gross.

My favorite Gen-Z phrase ever: “That’s shit from a butt.”

There are bazillions of insults hurled online daily, but occasionally, a turn-of-phrase so perfectly captures a sentiment that it takes on a life of its own. Case-in-point: “That’s shit from a butt.” Although it was originally used to describe food (that looks like shit from a butt) the phrase is now used to describe anything that’s bad. A song you don’t like? Shit from a butt. Jerry Seinfeld’s new Netflix movie? Shit from a butt. Putting pickles in Dr. Pepper? Shit from a butt. 

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 7 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Decades after going off the air, classic PBS kids' shows like Reading Rainbow and Mister Rogers' Neighborhood continue to occupy a place in the hearts of many children of the '70s, '80s, and '90s. f you grew up during this era, perhaps you've wished that there was a way you could share these shows with the kids in your life, without paying per episode on a streaming site or watching grainy clips on YouTube.

Well, now you can, courtesy of Roku's new free, ad-supported streaming (FAST) channel PBS Retro. The bad news? Some of your favorite shows may be missing from the lineup—at least for now.

How to watch classic PBS kids' shows on Roku

You can access PBS Retro via The Roku Channel on smart TVs, Roku devices, the company's app, and web browsers. The channel is streaming 24/7. It may be a little jarring at first to see commercials air during shows that originally ran on public television, but that's a small price to pay for have more Lady Elaine Fairchilde and Betty Aberlin back in our lives.

You can also watch some classic PBS shows for adults—although who are we kidding, PBS Retro is 95% for adults—on Roku, airing on the PBS Food, PBS Antiques Roadshow, Julia Child, Antiques Road Trip, and PBS Nature channels.

What shows are on PBS Retro?

As of right now, you can watch Reading Rainbow, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Thomas and Friends, Kratts' Creatures, and Zoboomafoo for free on PBS Retro. Those were the only shows mentioned in the article on The Wrap where the news was first announced; at this point it's unclear whether additional offerings will be added to the channel in the future.

Ultimately it'll come down to ownership and distribution rights, but here's hoping these shows are only the beginning, and other classics—like The Letter People, 3-2-1 Contact, Newton's Apple, and Wishbone—will follow.

I don't like writing about Donald Trump, and I definitely don't want to write about his damn diapers, but one of the most widely spread pieces of (probable) misinformation this week concerns the ex-president's Pampers, so I'm going to dig in. (retch)

According to actual news sources like Sky News and MSN, along with thousands of Twitter/X accounts, Donald Trump's fans have embraced their idol's alleged incontinence and are walking around rallies wearing spite-diapers and merchandise that proclaims "real men wear diapers," "Diaper Don," and "diapers over Democrats." But are they really doing this? For that matter, does Donald Trump wear diapers in the first place? Well, depends. (See what I did there?)

The origin story of Von Sh*tzinPantz

The first widely spread claim that that Donald Trump wears diapers was from stand-up comedian Noel Casler. Back in 2018, Casler, who says he worked on Trump's reality show The Apprentice, claimed that Trump "would often soil himself" on the set. Was Casler telling the truth? It's hard to say. This is not the kind of scoop that top journalists lower themselves to chasing down, so we'll get no help there, but it's worth noting that no one else who worked on The Apprentice, as far as I can tell, came forward to say "yes, this happened," despite Casler's claim that it was common knowledge on the set. On the other hand, Trump is well-known for his employee NDAs and who would want to risk crossing a powerful, litigious lunatic like Trump? On the other-other-hand, Donald Trump looks like he's taking a dump all the time. But ultimately, Diaper Don is unconfirmed.

It is definitely true that a rumor that Trump wears diapers and shits himself is widely believed. It made its way into the official court record of Trump's criminal trial in New York this week in the form of a tweet from Michael Cohen that refers to Trump as "Von ShitzInPantz." So the scent is in the air, so to speak. But whether Trump fans are actually responding to the rumors by wearing diapers and shirts that read "Diaper Don" is questionable. Yeah, there are photos, and yeah, everyone I know believes it, but I'm not convinced—it's just too perfect.

Exhibit one: the photographs

We both know the photos themselves provide no evidence—they could be posed, photoshopped, or created by AI—but their source gives us some clues. All of the photos of people wearing diaper-centric Donald Trump gear so far originated in a single place: Dispatches from Trumpland, a blog that seems to have launched in December, and purports to be a pro-Trump website.

If Dispatches is really a pro-Trump blog, it's a lazy one. It hosts a total of five non-diaper-related posts, mainly even-handed articles covering the GOP primary. They seemed like AI writing to me, so I ran this post by three AI-writing detection services, and they all returned definite "It's AI" results. The posts about diapers, though come back as "human."

Unlike the boring primary articles, the diaper posts are vague on details. The first one offers no location for the photos of Trumpers in diaper gear, but mentions "a merch cart picked up by the news in Michigan," without providing a link. (If that story exists, I can't find it.) The second diaper post says the pictures were taken at "Trump’s latest event in rural Pennsylvania" without mentioning where or when this event happened.

All this combined strongly suggests the site is astroturf, a political smear job that only exists to spread the photos. Everything else on the site seems designed to provide a thin veneer of plausibility (as long as you don't take 10 minutes to look into it.)

Exhibit number two: the psychology of Trump's supporters and detractors

Another data point: If we know anything about Trump supporters, we know they're proud of the things they do (no matter how onerous). So why don't we have any verified Trump supporters posting diaper pictures? If anyone really believed that wearing "real men wear diapers" merch would trigger liberal tears, why isn't your shitty uncle wearing that t-shirt right now? Trump supporters missing a chance to own libs stretches credibility past the breaking point.

It also doesn't seem like them to embrace something seen as weakness and pin it on their pal Donny. They like Trump to be seen as strong, not a doddering old pants-shitter. Reclaiming insults is a liberal thing.

On the other side of the coin, Trumpers trying to do a "Dark Brandon" but only succeeding in making themselves look more ridiculous is exactly the kind of thing you'd send to your friend group and post on Threads with the caption, "get a load of what these assholes are up to now!" It's just too pat. Too perfect. Too clearly playing into the biases of one group.

I respect the hustle, but seeing how the sausage is made makes me a little queasy. Sure, it's effective propaganda, and there's no "unfair" in democracy, so I see the political wisdom of shaming Trump supporters and providing a ton of "they write themselves" jokes for late night comedians, but the idealist in me wants to say, "Shouldn't we be better? Do we really need to invent ridiculous things Trump supporters do?"

We may never know whether this is grassroots or astroturf

You can now buy all manner of "real men wear diapers" t-shirts at online shops like teepublic, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were sold before Dispatches from Trumpland's April 11th, first-diaper-sighting post. No doubt we'll be seeing this merchandise in the wild soon, probably from both Trump fans who believe in it and Trump haters who are doing it mockingly. And Trump-shits-himself will no doubt be a running a theme of this nightmarish election year, repeated as often as "Hillary Clinton is on death's door!" was in 2016. Remember that one?

Seriously, this whole thing is gross

Rolling around in the mud may be necessary to win an election in 2024, but the more I think about this specific smear, the uglier it seems. Not because of Trump (fuck him) or his supporters (fuck them too) but because real men do wear diapers. Real women wear diapers. Not being able to control one's bowels isn't a sign of weakness and it isn't particularly funny. It's an indignity that isn't fair, and happens to the great and to the terrible alike.

I understand that the finer point here is making fun of the slavish and weird devotion Trump's fans have to their idol, but, at the risk of being a party pooper, using adult diapers as a medium of ridicule is really not fair to people who are incontinent. Ageism is as much an -ism as any other, and if you imagine using the same tactic with some other marginalized group, pointing at Trump and saying, "Ha! Von Shitshispants" is a lot less funny.

I believe in cooperation and mutually beneficial solutions, but conflict is a part of life too—so this week, I’m taking a look at conflict in four forms: rapper vs. rapper, man vs. machine, college student vs. college student, and cat vs. cat. So read on if you want to know why Kendrick hates Drake, how to tell a bot from a person, and are curious about the meanest cat on the internet.

The Kendrick Lamar and Drake feud, explained

You’d have to be very out of touch to not have at least heard about the ongoing war between rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar, but if you want to know what it’s actually about, what brought two of the biggest rappers in the game to open lyrical warfare, and why it's important, I’m going to attempt to explain it all, god help me. Settle in; it's a deep dive. 

The Drake vs. Kendrick beef has been bubbling under the surface for more than a decade, so there’s a deep rabbit hole of side feuds, tweets, interview quotes, verses on mixtapes, and tons of gossip and speculation to get lost in. You could write a book about it, and I’m sure people will, but on the broadest level, the beef began as a style war: Drake is a more commercial, pop rapper; Lamar is a headier, more “conscious” rapper. Think of it as Michael Jackson vs. Prince, a comparison Lamar mentions on “Like That” the song that kicked the idling feud into high gear in March. On the track, by Lamar, Future, and Metro Boomin, Lamar raps: “Your best work is a light pack, and Prince outlived Mic Jack," along with a string of other disses.

It may have started as a “who’s the realest?” style dust-up, but the Kendrick vs. Drake beef quickly blew up into a war of words that rivals the viciousness of Biggie vs. Pac or that time nerd core rappers took on Alex Trebek. Both Drake and Lamar cross lines by directing lyrics at their rival’s families, and Kendrick took it even further.

Drake responded to “Like That” “with “Push Ups” few weeks later. After aiming a few lines at Future and dismissing Metro Boomin by only mentioning him to say he should “shut up and make some drums,” Drake turns to the main course, taking shots at Lamar’s collaborations with Taylor Swift and Maroon 5, his height, shoe size, mixed reaction to Lamar’s Mr. Morale & The Big Steppers album, and a litany of other rap beef insults, including saying that Lamar can’t respond because Taylor Swift’s album is coming out. Speaking of Swift, Drake also released “Taylor Made Freestyle” that uses AI-generated verses from Tupac and Snoop Dogg to diss Lamar, but it was quickly taken down after legal threats from Tupac’s estate.

Lamar’s response, “Euphoria” is a definite escalation. It’s a blistering, six-minute rant that mentions Drake being an absent father, and ends with an ominous warning: “If you take it there, I'm takin' it further. Psst, that's somethin' you don't wanna do.” Lamar then dropped “6:16 in L.A,” a more impressionist take on the diss-track genre, that gives an overall vision of Drake as an out-of-touch phantom haunting a glittering empty mansion, unable to sleep, and surrounded by friends on his payroll who aren’t loyal to him. 

Drake shot back with “Family Matters,” where he suggests that one of Lamar’s children was actually fathered by Dave Free, Lamar’s manager, and accuses him of being abusive and unfaithful to his wife.

Lamar’s “meet the grahams” is aimed at Drake’s children. It begins with this line for Drake’s son, “Dear Adonis, I'm sorry that man is your father,” and goes on from there to accuse Drake of having a number of illegitimate children, employing sex offenders, paying for sex, and having a secret daughter. 

In keeping with the two-for-the-price-of-one diss tracks, Lamar also released “Not Like Us,” a track that comes close to straight up accusing Drake of being a child molester. Including this instant classic line: “Why you trollin' like a bitch? Ain't you tired? Tryna strike a chord and it's probably A-Minor.”

The final shot in the war, as of this posting, is Drake’s “The Heart Part 6.” In it, Drake says that the supposed secret daughter he has is fake: ”We plotted for a week and then we fed you the information/ A daughter that’s 11 years old, I bet he takes it/ We thought about giving a fake name or a destination/ But you so thirsty, you not concerned with investigation.” And goes on to say that he has never been with anyone underage, and almost seems to underplay the feud, casting it as something he’s not all that concerned about anyway. 

And that’s where the beef stands as of May 6.

As for who's winning, it's a personal thing, but Kendrick is winning. Drake's been outclassed since the beginning, and his last track is just weird. It comes across like someone losing an argument on the internet. He mostly seems defensive, and then he tries to play it off like he doesn't care, and the idea that he set Lamar up with fake information is an interesting tactic; even if that really happened, I'm not sure "you don't fully fact check" is an effective diss in 2024. Overall it feels like Drake is trying to wave the white flag, but without losing face, so this might be the end of the beef. But I guess we’ll see. 

"Human or Not" taking over internet

From rapper vs. rapper to man vs. machine. A new website called Human or Not is taking the Turing test to the masses. The web-based game/chat program lets you chat with a faceless stranger for a couple of minutes and then guess if they are a human or a bot. The original Turing test called for a five-minute conversation, but if you’re good at spotting AI, you only need two. Here’s the record of my first 10 games (yes, I’m bragging). 

Credit: Stephen Johnson/ai21

And here’s what it looks like when you, a human, tries to sound like a computer while a computer tries to sound like a human.

Credit: Stephen Johnson/ai21

I’m open to the possibility that whatever data you can glean from thousands of people trying to spot bots will eventually be used to make the AI harder to identify, and to the possibility that Human or Not isn’t really telling you whether you’re talking to an AI or not because it’s all AI. Also: I am AI already and so are you.

Viral video of the week: University of Mississippi Protests

The third leg in my depressing tripod of dissent is this week’s viral video, in which a group of pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Mississippi are beset by a group of counterprotestors and things get racist, ugly, and depressing. The video, posted by Twitter/X by Ashton Pittman, shows a group of white frat guys, some wearing American flag overalls, jeering, chanting “lock her up,” and making monkey noises at a black woman. It’s a snapshot of what’s happening on campuses across the country as pro-Palestinian protest become more common. 

While most people responded by condemning the dude making the monkey noises (including his own fraternity, Phi Delta Theta, who kicked him out, and the University itself, which launched an investigation) Congressman Mike Lee of Georgia posted the video on Twitter/X with the caption “Ole Miss taking care of business.” Because that’s where we are now.

Viral video of the week number 2: POV cat chase

This week’s bonus viral video is a cat video, But the cats aren’t being cute, they’re going at it like Drake and Kendrick Lamar. TikTok user max20499 attaches a camera to his cat and posts videos POV of the scraps, streetfights, and chases it gets into around the neighborhood. This particularly exciting chase has been viewed over 78 million times since it was posted April 25. I don’t know enough about cat behavior to say for sure, but Max’s cat seems like a serious menace to the other cats in the neighborhood.

Enlarge / Ncuti Gatwa is the Fifteenth Doctor, and Millie Gibson is his new companion, Ruby Sunday, in new season of Doctor Who. (credit: Disney+)

A new season of Doctor Who is almost upon us, featuring Ncuti Gatwa's first full run as the 15th Doctor, with a shiny new companion. It's also the first time Doctor Who will stream on Disney+, after the platform acquired the international broadcasting rights. That could translate into a whole new generation of fans for this beloved British sci-fi series.

(Spoilers for "The Power of the Doctor," "The Giggle," and "The Church on Ruby Road" below.)

Here's a brief summation for the benefit of those who may not have kept up with the more recent seasons. Russell T. Davies—who revived the series in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor—has returned as showrunner. Davies lost no time introducing a few new twists. When it came time for Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor to regenerate, fans had expected Gatwa to be introduced. Instead, the new Fourteenth Doctor was played by former Tenth Doctor David Tennant, reuniting with former companion Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) for three specials.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Read 2 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / FX/Hulu's Shōgun is a stunning new adaptation of the bestselling 1975 novel by James Clavell. (credit: FX/Hulu)

FX/Hulu's new historical epic series, Shōgun, based on the bestselling 1975 novel by James Clavell, has met with both popular and critical acclaim since its February premiere, drawing over 9 million views across all platforms in the first six days alone. The storytelling, the characters, the stellar performances, the expert pacing all contribute to that success. But it's also a visually stunning achievement that brings 17th-century feudal Japan to vivid life, thanks to masterful visual effects that have been woven in so seamlessly, it can be challenging to distinguish between the CGI and the real footage.

The novel is a fictionalized account of the key players and events in 17th-century feudal Japan that ultimately led to the naming of a new shōgun (central ruler), Tokugawa Ieyasu, and the advent of the Edo period. The climactic event was the October 21, 1600, Battle of Sekigahara, in which Tokugawa defeated a coalition of clans led by Ishida Mitsunari. Clavell's novel also includes a fictionalized version of an English navigator named William Adams, aka Miura Anjiin ("the pilot of Miura"), who was the first of his nation to reach Japan in 1600, eventually becoming a samurai and one of Tokugawa's key advisers.

Clavell's epic saga was a blockbuster success, selling over 6 million copies by 1980. The author changed the names of all the main characters, purportedly to "add narrative deniability," and despite some inevitable inaccuracies and authorial liberties, the novel is breathtaking in scope, chock-full of encyclopedic period details. In fact, Shōgun is often credited with introducing an entire generation of Western readers to Japanese history and culture. "In sheer quantity, Shōgun has probably conveyed more information about Japan to more people than all the combined writings of scholars, journalists, and novelists since the Pacific War," an editor named Henry Smith wrote in 1980.

Read 29 remaining paragraphs | Comments