Classifieds

Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com

ACROSS
1 Wander (about)
4 Fragrant bloom
9 Utter disorder
14 Second person in
Eden
15 Kitchen sponge
brand
16 Full of moxie
17 Like many a gray
day
18 Peanuts
20 Sales meeting
aid
22 Feel crummy
23 Coal __
24 Most populous
continent
25 Date night
destination
28 One of a gallon’s
16
30 Like a successful
business,
presumably
32 Stand against
34 Northern
California city
37 Birch family tree
38 Peanuts
41 Hardly fresh
42 Bit of
photography
equipment
43 Southern
California team
45 Inside
information
49 Copper source
50 Hits the road
53 Albany-to-Buffalo
canal
54 Former Air
France jet
56 Geologist’s
division
57 Tops by a slight
margin
58 Peanuts
62 Picnic invader
63 Ready to hit the
hay
64 Invalidate
65 Maiden name
preceder
66 Used up
67 Pond critters
68 Mexican Mrs.

DOWN
1 Gaudy trinket

2 Opposed
3 Enlargement
advantage
4 Scot’s swimming
spot
5 German “I”
6 Welcoming
wreath
7 Highway through
the Yukon
8 Newswoman
Roberts
9 “Erin Burnett
OutFront”
channel
10 Pick up with effort
11 Geographically
based trio
12 Makes trite, in a
way
13 Hoff who wrote
the “Henrietta”
children’s books
19 Red “Sesame
Street” puppet
21 Light beer?
25 Biceps exercise
26 Not at all handy
27 “Trainwreck”
director Judd
29 Pay-__-view
31 Kings, e.g.
33 Lumbered

35 “MASH” setting:
Abbr.
36 Lopsided
38 Sci-fi fleet vessel
39 Leave no doubt
40 GI addresses
41 __-mo
44 What a
freelancer may
work on
46 Hearts, but not
minds
47 Ballpark snack

48 Lipton rival
51 Lindsay of “Mean
Girls”
52 Foolish
55 Anti-
counterfeiting
agts.
57 Slim swimmers
58 Euro divs.
59 West Coast hrs.
60 Houston-to-
Dallas dir.
61 Belly

By Patti Varol
©2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/26/16

10/26/16

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

WWW.CARLSONPROPERTIES.- 

COM
734‑332‑6000

(MARRIED 
COUPLE) 
SEEKING 

EGG DONOR‑U of M, Korean descent 

Female Student (Blood type A or O);
Full and V
ery Competitive Compensation.
Contact Hwan at : hwlee01@hotmail.com

 ARBOR PROPERTIES 

Award‑Winning Rentals in Kerrytown,

Central Campus, Old West Side, 
Burns Park. Now Renting for 2017. 
734‑649‑8637. www.arborprops.com 

MAY 2017 – 4 BDRM HOUSE
505 Sauer Ct ‑ $2900 
Tenants pay all utilities.
Showings Scheduled M‑F 10‑3
24 hour noticed required
DEINCO PROPERTIES
734‑996‑1991

FALL 2017 HOUSES
# Beds Location Rent
 7 1129 White St $4900
 6 335 Packard $4200
 6 412 N. Thayer $4200
 6 415 N. Thayer $4200
 6 418 N. State $4440
 6 511 Linden $4350
 6 605 Catherine $4400
 6 829 Packard $4500 
 6 1132 White $4200
 6 1119 S. Forest $4050
 5 515 S. Fourth $3600
 5 910 Greenwood $3900
 5 1016 S. Forest $5250
 5 1024 Packard $3625
 4 507 Sauer Ct $2900
 4 509 Sauer Ct $2900
 4 812 E. Kingsley $3000
 4 827 Brookwood $2900
 4 927 S. Division $3000
 2 935 S. Division $2100
 Tenants pay all utilities.
 Leasing starts Nov. 10th
 Reservations Accepted till 11/7.
 CAPPO/DEINCO
 734‑996‑1991
 

! 2 RENTALS LEFT ‑ BEST DEAL !

! NORTH CAMPUS 1‑2 Bdrm. !
! Riverfront/Heat/Water/Parking. !
! www.HRPAA.com !

FOR RENT

HELP WANTED

S

everal months ago, I 
wrote a piece for The 
Michigan 
Daily 
about 

“the Damn Daniel dilemma,” a 
phenomenon in which ordinary 
social media users 
become 
overnight 

Internet 
sensations, 

like the two high-
school 
aged 
guys 

behind 
the 
Damn 

Daniel clips. After 
their 
video 
went 

viral on Twitter, they 
received 
a 
special 

mainstream 
media 

treatment: 
a 
guest 

spot on Ellen DeGe-
neres’s talk show, an 
appearance at a movie premiere 
and a lifetime supply of white Vans.

Their spontaneous fame made 

me ponder: How is it that the 
online community becomes so 
obsessed with ordinary people 
doing strange, funny things? But 
digging even deeper, I ask myself: 
why do some people go viral and 
become famous right away and 
others don’t?

Of course, this idea of “short-

term” versus “long-term” fame 
isn’t a new concept. It traces back 
way before social media became 
the catalyst for celebrity. When 
YouTube was created in 2005, 
it was just a rudimentary video-
sharing site, gradually churning 
out clips of Rick Astley singing and 
shrill-voiced oranges that garnered 
thousands of views. But with the 
rise of social media and expansion 
of the Internet’s accessibility, You-
Tube started to function as a well-
oiled business for inspired content 
creators waiting to be discovered. 
It’s where people like Bo Burnham, 
Rachel Bloom and Issa Rae all got 
their start.

Still, it’s hard not to see how 

absurd it is that some people, such 
as the Damn Daniel duo, get acci-
dentally recognized by all of social 
media. Is there some sort of natu-
ral selection algorithm for their 
rapid success? Is it because they’re 
attractive? Young? Wealthy? Clev-
er? Talented?

It’s possible that people who 

receive short-term fame embody 
all of those qualities. But some-

times, it all depends on luck, tim-
ing and relevance. Having a social 
media account would also be great-
ly beneficial. You could make the 
world’s funniest video, but no one 

would see it unless 
you uploaded it to 
YouTube, Vine or 
Snapchat and shared 
it incessantly over 
Facebook, 
Twitter 

and any other inter-
active 
social 
net-

working site. 

Take, for example, 

“Gangnam 
Style,” 

the unexpected 2012 
viral hit from K-pop 
star PSY. It began 

to spread virally through the vir-
tual stratosphere when rapper 
T-Pain linked the video to a Twit-
ter status in July 2012. Slowly but 
surely, “Gangnam Style” gained 
traction and soon, more celebrities 
like Katy Perry, Tom Cruise and 
Britney Spears saw the video and 
encouraged others to do the same. 
As it garnered an impressive two 
billion views, the video sped up to 
the most liked video on YouTube, 
which also earned PSY a spot in the 
Guinness Book of World Records.

An online celebrity was born 

and, as with every Internet sensa-
tion, PSY was immediately thrust 
into America’s version of fame. His 
song topped the Billboard charts. 
It spawned imitators, spinoffs and 
mashups. PSY even got a Pistachio 
commercial out of it, for Pete’s 
sake. And all of this fame, fortune 
and notoriety was because another 
famous person tweeted about his 
song.

PSY attempted to make another 

hit with his 2013 single, “Gentle-
man.” Though the music video 
racked up to almost 1 billion views, 
it failed to reach the monumental 
viral heights of “Gangnam Style.” 
Thus, the name PSY became a dis-
tant memory and now it seems as 
though the South Korean pop star 
has found himself in the virtual 
void of other forgotten viral clips. 
Trends come and go. America 
laughed, danced, sang along and 
now, we’ve moved on. 

But the question still lingers: 

What is it about Damn Daniel, 

“Gangnam Style” and other popu-
lar videos that make them go viral? 
Bo Burnham, Issa Rae and Rachel 
Bloom all are immensely talented 
people, but somehow it took longer 
for them to achieve the same level 
of success. They were definitely 
well-known among the YouTube 
community, garnered a healthy 
amount of views and developed 
loyal fan bases, but they never got 
the same treatment the Damn 
Daniel guys received.

That may have been for the bet-

ter, though, considering that each 
of their individual journeys to 
stardom were ultimately worth-
while in the long run. Bloom won a 
Golden Globe for the CW’s “Crazy 
Ex-Girlfriend”; Burnham created 
three acclaimed live stand-up spe-
cials; Rae just got her big break as 
star, creator and writer of the HBO 
comedy “Insecure.” 

Then again, there could be mul-

tiple reasons behind what dictates 
the duration and lasting effect of an 
online person’s fame. Perhaps it’s 
sensationalism created by main-
stream media or our generation’s 
constant yearning for the spotlight. 
It may be as simple as how silly 
and strange the video is and how 
willing we are to share with our 
friends.

Who’s to say who gets to be 

famous on the Internet and who 
doesn’t? Are there Virtual Pow-
ers That Be that exist? Is this the 
work of the Illuminati? Sometimes, 
short-term fame can sustain for a 
bit, especially given that the Damn 
Daniel dudes are still somewhat 
active — they recently partnered 
with LG USA to star in a cutesy, 
R&B-tinged commercial that nods 
to their infamous catchphrase. 
But for the most part, online fame 
is fleeting. Yet, it still happens all 
the time.

The Internet is a strange and 

infectious place, a virtual expanse 
that has redefined what it means 
to be relevant, to exist beyond and 
transcend the barriers of celebrity. 
It’s within our nature to discover 
and obsess over something fun 
and interesting, but we also pos-
sess the power to either keep it fun 
and interesting or let it falter into 
the cracks of utter nothingness.

Perils of YouTube fame

SOCIAL MEDIA COLUMN

The mysteries of who gets famous and why on the Internet

SAM 

ROSENBERG

6A — Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

THE CW

It’s not a CW show until someone’s husband gets shot.

Nearly 
every 
time 
I 
tell 

someone my favorite show is 
“Jane the Virgin,” I get some 
sort of laugh, like 
I’m telling a joke. 
Still, 
after 
two 

excellent seasons, 
I have to explain 
why a show that 
starts 
with 
a 

virgin 
getting 

accidentally 
artificially 
inseminated 
is 

one of the best on 
television 
right 

now. 
Everything 

this show does is a high-flung 
tightrope act. It could easily go off 
the rails in a second, but nothing 
in the brilliant season three 
premiere suggests that’s going to 
happen any time soon. Through 
its resolution of the cliffhangers 
from last season as well as the 
perfect way it hits its emotional 
beats, the episode reminds me 
exactly why I love this show.

“Jane” ’s season premiere 

picks up exactly where season 
two left off, with Jane (Gina 
Rodriguez, 
“Deepwater 

Horizon”) 
finding 
her 
new 

husband Michael Cordero (Brett 
Dier, “Ravenswood”) shot in the 
hallway outside their hotel room. 
As doctors at the nearby hospital 
try to save Michael, the series 
flashes back to the beginning of 
Jane and Michael’s relationship. 
Last season also left us with Petra 
(Yael Grobglas, “Reign”) being 
“Petra-fied” by her sister Anezka 
(also played by Grobglas), who 
takes over Petra’s life in an effort 
to exert revenge against her for 

sending their mother to prison. 

Where this premiere succeeds 

is in its emotional evocation. The 
episode spends most of its time 
with Jane and her family in the 
hospital, waiting for news about 
Michael. Watching Rodriguez’s 

heart break breaks 
my heart, as Jane 
deals 
with 
the 

possibility 
that 

Michael 
might 

die. 
The 
show 

occasionally 
touches on grief, 
and 
every 
time 

they do it’s filled 
with raw emotions, 
as everyone deals 
with it in their own 
way. 
The 
series 

illustrates this strength with 
Michael’s mother (Molly Hagan, 
“iZombie”). She tries to take over 
the decisions involving Michael’s 
health, much to Jane’s chagrin. 
Though the resolution is slightly 
forced, the story makes its point 
in a creative way.

“Jane” usually uses flashbacks 

as a framing device, and this 
episode is no exception, as the 
show frames the question of 
whether 
Michael 
lives 
with 

the story of Jane and Michael’s 
past. We’ve already seen the 
initial meeting where Michael, a 
cop, gets called to at Jane’s 21st 
birthday party, where the two 
share a kiss. But, after that night, 
Jane goes on a date with her long-
time crush at the time. Although, 
as the episode told us, we knew 
how the story would end, it was 
still compelling to see a piece 
of their relationship we haven’t 
seen.

At its heart, “Jane” is an 

expertly 
crafted 
parody 
of 

the telenovela while being a 

perfectly executed telenovela in 
and of itself, and the premiere 
continues that trend. Petra’s 
story involves an evil twin and a 
failed attempt at romancing the 
good twin’s love interest, Rafael 
(Justin Baldoni, “Everwood”). 
These developments are two very 
common telenovela tropes, but 
they’re so wonderfully executed. 
Though Petra may be in a hospital 
bed with no ability to move, I’m 
excited to see where they take 
this story in future episodes. 
There’s also the love story 
between Rose (Bridget Regan, 
“White Collar”) and Louisa (Yara 
Martinez, “Alpha House”), which 
took another twist in last year’s 
finale with Rose emerging from 
the dead and taking Louisa away 
with her. The big final twist of the 
premiere is Louisa waking up to 
find out she’s underwater. It’s the 
kind of “WTF” twist the show 
has pulled off so many times 
before, and I’m looking forward 
to seeing how they justify it.

All this is colored with elements 

of “Jane” which are familiar, but 
so strong. Anthony Mendez’s 
(“The Unexplained Files”) work 
as the “Latin Lover Narrator” 
remains stellar, as he guides us 
through the journey into Jane’s 
past and Petra’s tough situation. 
There’s also the clever onscreen 
text that helps insightfully push 
the story forward. 

The season three premiere of 

“Jane the Virgin” wasn’t radically 
different from any episodes that 
came before it, but that doesn’t 
matter. It had the pure love and 
emotion that has defined it for 
its entire run, as well as the 
telenovela-esque twists and turns 
that I’ve come to expect from it. 
I love this show, and this episode 
was another reminder of why.

ALEX INTNER
Daily Arts Writer

‘Jane the Virgin’ ’s third season 
maintains true emotion of the series 

Though it takes fewer risks, season three premiere stays heartfelt 

A

“Jane the Virgin”

Season Three 

Premiere

Mondays at 9 p.m.

The CW

“Yet despite all these things we 

know to be true — despite the pre-
ponderance of evidence showing 
the mental and emotional distress 
people demonstrate 
in violent and harass-
ing 
environments 

— we still have no 
name for what hap-
pens to women living 
in a culture that hates 
them.”

This is the driving 

issue of Jessica Val-
enti’s first memoir: 
“Sex Object; a Memoir.” One of the 
newest books to join the feminist 
shelf, this memoir sets itself apart 
from books like Rebecca Solnit’s 
“Men Explain Things to Me” or 
Andi Zeisler’s “We Were Femi-
nists Once: From Riot Grrl to Cov-
erGirl®, the Buying and Selling of 
a Political Movement” in that Val-
enti doesn’t bother with statistical 
evidence beyond the absolutely 
rudimentary. She is not interested 
in proving that feminism is still 
needed or that we live in a society 
that hates women. She has lived 
in it enough to know that both of 
those are unequivocally true.

“Sex Object” is divided into 

three parts, as Valenti writes about 
childhood and adolescence, young 
adulthood and finally marriage 
and pregnancy. She details what 

it was like to go from feeling ugly 
as a young girl to being sexualized 
as she developed breasts early. 
She devotes a large portion of her 
writing to detailing how sexual 
objectification and harassment 

on 
the 
streets 

takes a toll. Over 
time, she writes, 
women develop 
a strategic abil-
ity to gauge what 
kind 
of 
reac-

tion they can get 
away with — if 
a middle finger, 
disgusted eye roll 

or a “fuck off!” will be enough to 
send the guy who yelled disgust-
ing comments at her after them.

Valenti, who founded the award 

winning 
website 
Feministing.

com in 2004, does a phenomenal 
job of describing the pressure to 
be a “cool” feminist, who uses 
barbed and witty banter to hold a 
mirror up to society, rather than 
the “angry feminist” stereotype 
— because she notes, anger gives 
enemies ammunition to dismiss 
her as hysterical or emotional. 
She argues these successful main-
stream 
feminist 
literature 
or 

comedy routines, often utilize a 
silver lining to garner support or 
approval, because no one wants to 
hear about a problem that isn’t get-
ting better as quickly as some peo-
ple say it is. As well, she describes 

the toll that being the cool girl has 
taken on her over the course of her 
life, and how she can’t do it any-
more. It’s too exhausting to try and 
make frustration and anger palat-
able to the masses. Those emotions 
are palpable in her acerbic writing; 
she doesn’t coat her words.

“Sex Object” isn’t written for 

people who still demand proof of 
the wage gap or argue that women 
don’t go into STEM fields because 
they simply don’t want to. If that’s 
something you or a friend may 
need, I’d suggest reading her other 
book first: “Full Frontal Femi-
nism; A Young Woman’s Guide to 
Why Feminism Matters.”

This memoir isn’t ground-

breaking or shocking, though 
the stories of her encounters on 
the New York City subway might 
be to some. But if you think her 
work is in any way unnecessary, 
flip to the back of “Sex Object,” in 
which she has pages of comments 
on her blogs or emails sent to her 
about her books that she has been 
receiving every day for a decade. 
They are full of rants that range 
from condescending, to disparag-
ing, to cruel, to threatening. Many 
of them tear down her physical 
appearance or her intellect, and 
a few of them are misguided and 
misspelled rages against feminism 
in general. There’s nothing Valenti 
could have used to prove her point 
more effectively.

SOPHIA KAUFMAN

Daily Arts Writer

Valenti adds to the feminist canon

In ‘Sex Object,’ the author navigates contemporary womanhood

“Sex Object: A 

Memoir”

Jessica Valenti

William Morrow 

Publishers

BOOK REVIEW

