text:
Trapped in the Closet

Trapped in the Closet is a musical soap opera series by American R&B singer, songwriter and producer R. Kelly, with 33 "chapters" released sporadically from 2005 to 2012. Written, produced, and directed by Kelly, the series tells a story of a one-night stand which sets off a chain of events, gradually revealing a greater web of lies, sex and deceit—a multitude of intertwined love triangles, extramarital affairs, and infidelities begin to unfold. The music follows a distinct E major pattern, and most chapters feature the same melodic theme.

Background
The first five chapters of Trapped in the Closet originally appeared as the final tracks on Kelly's album TP.3 Reloaded. R. Kelly wrote and produced all five chapters, and they were recorded by Andy Gallas. The first chapter was released as the lead single from the album in 2005 by Jive Records. Kelly and Jive Records promoted the songs by releasing each of the first five chapters to radio stations one at a time.

Following the success and popularity of the Trapped in the Closet song series, R. Kelly lip synched a "new chapter" at an appearance at the 2005 MTV Video Music Awards. In November 2005, Jive Records released a DVD titled Trapped in the Closet, which included seven new chapters in addition to the first five from TP.3 Reloaded, bringing the total number of chapters to twelve. The material previewed by Kelly at the MTV Video Music Awards revealed an early version of some parts of the twelfth chapter in the series.

Nearly two years later, in August 2007, Kelly and Jive released ten more chapters on another Trapped in the Closet DVD.

In December 2007, the first 22 chapters were released in a DVD entitled The Big Package, which included a "commentary remix" with a preview of chapter 23. On December 21, 2011, Kelly told TMZ that he had written thirty-two more chapters, and was seeking investors in order to continue the saga. IFC announced in October 2012 that it would show new chapters of Trapped in the Closet on November 23, 2012.

When asked about the writing of the song, Kelly said: "I don't know how to explain how I wrote it. It just keeps rhyming and rhyming." He stated that Trapped in the Closet had taken on "a life, mind and body of its own", and called the series an "alien", crediting “the aliens” with its creation. Kelly claimed that the song's dark and moody instrumental was influenced by his frustrations and depression following his removal from the ill-fated Best of Both Worlds tour with Jay-Z in October 2004.

Plot
Each chapter follows a storyline that continues throughout the series. Kelly voices the role of the song's protagonist, Sylvester (Kelly's middle name), who wakes up after a one-night stand with a woman. As he prepares to leave, however, the woman's husband returns and Sylvester is forced to hide in a closet. This sets off an escalating series of events.

Video synopsis: Chapters 1–12
Sylvester wakes up in bed with a woman who is not his wife. As he prepares to leave, the woman tells him her husband is coming up the stairs and tells Sylvester to hide in the closet. The couple begins making love when Sylvester's cell phone rings, prompting the husband to investigate. After searching elsewhere, he slowly approaches the closet. Sylvester, prepared for a confrontation, takes out his Beretta pistol.
 * Chapter 1

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Now he's opening the closet...."

Having discovered Sylvester in his wife's closet, the husband nearly attacks him but stops because Sylvester is armed. He tells Sylvester that he is a pastor and not prone to violence. When Sylvester tries to leave, the husband tells him to stay because he wants to reveal a "secret". He then calls someone he calls "baby" and says to "turn the car around". Sylvester is anxious about what the husband is about to reveal and becomes threatening, but then someone knocks on the door. The husband opens the door and the person turns out to be another man—revealing the husband (Rufus) to be bisexual.
 * Chapter 2

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "I can't believe it's a man....."

A shocked and confused Sylvester prepares to leave but the wife asks him to stay. She then argues with her husband, Rufus, over his own infidelity. When Sylvester demands more explanation, the other man, Chuck, begins explaining how their affair came about. Rufus calls his wife Cathy, which shocks Sylvester, who thought her name was Mary. Rufus, Cathy, and Chuck all begin yelling at each other, prompting Sylvester to shoot his gun in the air to quiet them. Sylvester then calls home but is stunned when another man answers the phone. He quickly bolts out of the apartment.
 * Chapter 3

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Call up my home and a man picks up the phone...."

Sylvester is seen rushing home, angered and belligerent, but is pulled over by a police officer, who gives him a ticket for speeding. He breaks in his own back door and surprises his wife in the shower only to find her alone. She reminds Sylvester that her brother Twan was coming home that day, and he answered the phone. Sylvester apologizes, and they begin making love. In the middle of it, however, Sylvester's wife, Gwendolyn, discreetly covers something on the bed and then jumps on top of Sylvester and begins to go wild. When Gwendolyn finally climaxes and rolls off him, Sylvester flips the bed cover to find the used condom that she had tried to hide.
 * Chapter 4

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Oh, my God, a rubber!"

The video for chapter four has since been revised to better match chapter six. The original actor for the officer AKA James, Rondolo Bryce, was changed to current actor, Michael Kenneth Williams. And the line "I said 'This is some bullshit!', as he gave me the ticket" was changed to "He flicks his cigarette and then gives me the ticket." And "He said no except you were doing 85 in 60 miles zone" Change to "60 in the 40 miles zone" and "I turned my radio on and did 70 all the way home" changed to "and did 55 all the way home" Chapter five starts with Sylvester demanding answers about the condom. They argue, and Gwendolyn retorts with her own knowledge of Sylvester's infidelity, saying she saw Sylvester in the club the night before. He ignores that and demands she name names. She begins talking about friends of hers named Tina and Roxanne and also mentions Chuck and Rufus, which confuses Sylvester. She then explains that she and Cathy were friends in high school, and it was Cathy who introduced Gwendolyn to the police officer that stopped Sylvester, confirming that the police officer was her secret lover.
 * Chapter 5

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "She introduced me to the policeman that stopped you."

Sylvester and Gwendolyn begin laughing at the entire situation. She admits that the cop she slept with is really the one who answered the phone. And he explains the events of earlier in the morning. Meanwhile, the cop-lover turns his car back around, concerned for Gwendolyn's safety. He sees the back door broken in and mistakes the laughter for abuse and bursts into the bedroom, gun drawn. Sylvester pulls his gun on the cop, whose name is revealed to be James. Gwendolyn pleads with Sylvester, and he puts his gun down. But then James winks and smiles, and Sylvester rushes him. They wrestle over the gun, which inadvertently discharges.
 * Chapter 6

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Goin' all around the room, both hands on the gun, then all of a sudden, pow."

This chapter reveals it was Twan, Gwendolyn's brother who was just released from prison, who was the one who was shot. After realizing who it was, Sylvester and James argue at who was at fault with the shooting, with Sylvester blaming the entire incident on the cop. Twan is presumed to be dead, but in the middle of Sylvester, James and Gwendolyn arguing, Twan coughs, assuring them he is okay and that he was only non-fatally shot in the shoulder. As Twan recovers in the bathroom, Sylvester begins telling him what caused the incident when someone knocks on the door. After being hesitant with answering the door, Sylvester grabs his gun and aims it at the door, Twan joins him, snatching James' gun. At the count of three, Twan opens the door and it is revealed to be the next door neighbor, Rosie, who is shown with a spatula in her hand. A relieved Sylvester and Gwendolyn invite Rosie in while James snatches his gun back from a bewildered Twan's hands and leaves.
 * Chapter 7

 * Ending cliffhanger-outro line: "...With a spatula in her hand...like that's gon' do something against them guns, it's Rosie, the nosy neighbor."

In this chapter, a tired and frustrated James drives back to his house and calls up his wife Bridget (Kelly sings all of Bridget's lines with a Southern accent). James tells a concerned Bridget that he was heading home, to which Bridget happily tells him she had baked him a cherry pie. Meanwhile, at Sylvester's house, Rosie, the next door neighbor, tells Sylvester, Twan and Gwendolyn that she could not stand the cop that just left their house causing Gwendolyn, Sylvester and Twan to laugh. Back at James' house, he pulls up to the garage. A panicked Bridget rushes to the door and kisses James. When James asks her why she looked jittery, Bridget excuses it as "may be that time of the month". The "may be" makes James suspicious. Bridget laughs it off, saying "you know what I mean". Bridget tries getting him upstairs, or enticing him with fresh pears, but James insists on heating some leftover chicken. Bridget's nervous breakdown finally leads to James demanding a straight answer from Bridget. James then starts to wonder if Bridget had also cheated on him. Unbeknownst to him and from the looks of a nervous Bridget, it becomes clear another man is still in the house.
 * Chapter 8

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "But little does he know that somebody is still right there in his home!"

James starts investigating his house for any possible intruders. When he hears a noise, he begins to search all over the kitchen while a panicked Bridget stands over by the dishes. After James checks the oven and looks behind the fridge, he notices the cherry pie with a slice cut out. When he realizes that Bridget is allergic to cherries, he turns to her and moves slowly to a scared Bridget. After demanding Bridget to move from her spot, which she eventually does, he sees the cabinet and slowly approaches it. Just as he opens it, the video suddenly stops and the narrator exits out of the kitchen pantry and, breaking the fourth wall, tells the audience that the man, hiding in the cabinet, is a midget.
 * Chapter 9

 * Ending un-cliffhanger line: "Now, pause the movie, 'cause what I'm about to say to y'all is so damn twisted—not only is there a man in his cabinet, but the man is a midget! Midget! Midget! Midget!"

In this chapter, the midget jumps out of the cabinet and fights with James. After James' constant roughing up on the midget, Bridget runs upstairs where she pulls out a number from her purse. Meanwhile, back downstairs, James puts the midget on the table and demands to know why he was at his house. The midget continues telling him that he was paid not to tell, which only angers James, who pulls his gun on him. When he does, the midget defecates. Back at Sylvester's house, he, Twan and Gwendolyn are playing cards when the phone rings. When Gwendolyn answers it, she hears a panicked Bridget, who tells her she found her number in James' pocket. After a minute, Gwendolyn hangs up and gives Sylvester and Twan the address to the house, presumably to stop the fight. Back at James' house, James and the midget continue fighting until Bridget comes back to the kitchen with a double-barreled shotgun. When James points his gun at Bridget, the midget takes his inhaler out. A few seconds later, Sylvester and Twan burst through the door and Sylvester points his gun at James. Sylvester and Twan notice a peculiar odor in the house. Due to Sylvester and Twan's entrance, the midget faints on the table.
 * Chapter 10

 * Ending cliffhanger-outro line: "Ohhh, while Twan and Sylvester are sniffin' around, tryin' to figure out what's that smell—as they turn and look at each other like, 'What the hell?"

In this chapter, the midget wakes up peculiar to seeing three guns and tries to get out of the situation. Sylvester then begs Bridget and James to put their guns down, to which they adamantly refuse. Bridget then tells Sylvester she will drop the gun if James does not hurt the midget, whose name is revealed as "Big Man", a stripper at a club called Dixie's. When Sylvester asks why he was named that, the midget points down to his pants and tell him he is "blessed." After seeing Sylvester and Big Man communicating, James shuts them up calling them "Chuck and Rufus", which confuses Sylvester, who demands to know how James knew of them, though James acts bewildered to Sylvester's question. Just as James looks as if he was going to answer, Bridget starts getting sick. It is then revealed that Bridget is three months pregnant, presumably with James' baby. After James' constant prompts to Sylvester, Twan and Big Man with his gun to leave, Bridget stops him and admits paying Big Man and even admitted that she knew that James had been cheating on her with Gwendolyn, saying that she had followed him around. When James demands to know what Bridget is really telling him, Bridget says that Big Man is her baby's father, which negates her previous excuse from chapter 8 as being "that time of the month". Big Man again faints at the news.
 * Chapter 11

Kelly switches from first person (as Sylvester) to third person narrative in the middle of this chapter as the focus fades away from his character.

 * Ending cliffhanger-outro line: "The midget faints again, while Twan and Sylvester is trippin. The midget's the baby's daddy. Woo!"

Back at Cathy's house, she, Rufus and Chuck get up from the floor. After Cathy closes the door, she and Rufus argue about the reasons why Sylvester almost shot at them in Chapter 3, with Cathy angered about Rufus "creeping" around with Chuck, who is the deacon of Rufus' church, telling him "ain't no telling what I've got", referring to sexually transmitted diseases. Chuck gets angry at this and threatens Cathy with a knife, which prompts Cathy to force him to do it. Rufus then calms them down and tries to resolve the matter but neither Cathy or Chuck listen, as they continue arguing, even as the phone rings. When it rings a second time, Cathy answers it and it is Gwendolyn and she begins telling Cathy about the drama that had gone on. When Gwendolyn mentions that she saw Sylvester in Paje's club with "some crusty wig-wearing ass ho", Cathy realizes the man she had slept with that night was Sylvester. When Cathy tries telling her who the "ho" was, Gwendolyn stops her and tells her more about James and his situation. When an angry Rufus demands Cathy to finish their conversation, Cathy shuts Gwendolyn up and tells her she was the "ho" that had been with Sylvester.
 * Chapter 12

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "I'm sorry, girl, but that ho was me...."

In the original version of Chapter 12 (which was originally going to be Chapter 6), Rufus said he was going to take back Cathy. This idea was later incorporated into the later chapters. Also, Gwen never called Cathy so Gwen would've never known Cathy was the one that slept with Sylvester.

Video synopsis: Chapters 13–22
The chapter initially starts with Sylvester and Twan in Sylvester's car though it is not clear at first where they are going. When Sylvester tells Twan to be on his best behavior and reminds Twan about how he got sent to jail, Twan says it "was because of Roxanne and that bitch Tina", which makes Sylvester remember his wife mentioning their names in chapter five. The scene soon cuts to Rosie the nosy neighbor and her husband Randolph (played by R. Kelly), who argue over Rosie spying on other neighbors. The argument ends when the scene cuts back to Sylvester explaining to Twan that he has to collect money from someone. He tells Twan to leave the car in drive and be on the lookout and enters a restaurant. An hour goes by with no sign of Sylvester.
 * Chapter 13

 * Ending line: "(Time goes by) it's now one hour later...."

In chapter fourteen, it is revealed that apparently Sylvester and Cathy, who shows up in a blond wig and black dress, made a deal for Sylvester to get caught by her pastor husband Rufus but the deal had apparently backfired, not only by Cathy's realization that Sylvester and her best friend Gwendolyn were married but also due to Cathy not wanting to end her marriage to Rufus, with Cathy later admitting she had changed her mind on the deal. When Sylvester threatens to leave, Cathy tries to explain the reasons why. A waitress comes by and offers them drinks. Sylvester looks at the waitress thinking to himself that she looks familiar. Meanwhile, outside at Sylvester's car, Twan gets a call from a friend (only shown by a close-up of his mouth) about Tina, telling him Tina had stopped being a prostitute and was working at a "legit" place. He later tells Twan that Tina was working at the same restaurant where Sylvester is meeting Cathy. Back at the restaurant, Sylvester notices the waitress but can't think from where he knows her, until he sees her name tag which says "Tina." Sylvester then says he wants to talk to her but she gets scared and calls for her friend/co-worker Roxanne, who runs out with a frying pan. After Tina breaks a beer bottle and makes karate-styled moves saying to Sylvester that she and Roxanne take Tae Bo classes, Cathy and the rest of the patrons leave quickly, leaving Sylvester alone with Tina and Roxanne. Just as Tina and Roxanne are about to attack, Twan comes busting through the door threatening them.
 * Chapter 14

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "I will kill both of y'all knucklehead asses...!"

 * Chapter 15

With Twan, Sylvester, Tina and Roxanne in the now-empty restaurant, Twan seeks revenge on Tina and Roxanne on his arrest three years ago. Sylvester tries calming Twan down reminding him he's on house arrest and that a violent outburst would lead to a more serious time in prison. After convincing Twan to let him talk to them, Sylvester approaches the two ladies and ask them what had happened on the day of his arrest. Tina and Roxanne explain that they were on a "simple operation" describing a "trip" to Atlanta. Roxanne tells Sylvester that a high Twan was swerving on the road and cutting up on the both of them, even turning his music loud playing "Mary Jane" and screaming "I'm Rick James, bitch!" Tina explains that as soon as that happened, they heard not only police squad cars but also a helicopter. Twan's car breaks down and all three are eventually arrested. In the interrogation room, the police tell the women that Twan blamed the drug deal on them in order to save his own skin. Roxanne tells Twan that that is when she turned him in. Roxanne says Tina protected him because Tina was pregnant with Twan's baby at the time.

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Because at the time I was pregnant by you, T."

Indie folk musician Will Oldham makes a cameo in this chapter as one of the police officers in the interrogation.

Sylvester, stunned at first at the news of Tina having Twan's child, congratulates Twan on the news but Twan is not convinced, accusing Tina of lying to him. This makes Tina's eye twitch, which had started when Sylvester had first approached her near the end of chapter 14. When Sylvester asks Roxanne about it, Roxanne explains a pimp had hit Tina in the eye a year ago and that she's had bad nerves ever since. Twan then pulls Sylvester to the side and begins wondering if he is really the father of Tina's child. Sylvester convinces him that a child would calm him down. When Twan tells Tina that he wants to make this work, Roxanne kisses Tina and reveals they are lovers.
 * Chapter 16

 * Ending cliffhanger line: "I'm fucking her now...."

In the commentary remix on the Trapped in the Closet DVD, Kelly tells the audience that in the upcoming chapters he will probably give Tina about three chapters to explain her nervous eye twitch.

Stunned at the news of Roxanne and Tina being lovers, a frustrated Sylvester points his gun at the both of them, but soon stops because of his tolerance to lesbians, while Twan kept egging him to shoot them. Sylvester tries to get Twan to leave the restaurant. It's only after Twan threatens Tina and Roxanne that he will buy a gun and come back for them later that Sylvester finally convinces Twan to leave.
 * Chapter 17

 * Ending line: "Give me my motherfuckin' coat!"

Back at the car as they drive away, Twan is still angry over seeing Roxanne and Tina together, despite Sylvester's efforts to calm him down. Around this time, Sylvester gets a phone call from Gwendolyn, who tells him that his father Dale had been drinking and cursing people out, and his mother Myrna had Dale put in jail. The scene then shifts to Rufus' church where he is leading the worship song, "Jesus Will Work It Out", with Reverend Mosley James Evans and the Peace Within Choir. When the song reaches a climax, Rufus gets a phone call and excuses himself to his office. It's Chuck, who's crying and upset over not seeing Rufus since the incident in the earlier chapters. Rufus and Chuck argue when Cathy walks in Rufus' office. When Cathy asks Rufus who was on the phone, Chuck, who can be heard accidentally on speaker phone, cries out for Rufus, which angers Cathy and the two argue before Rufus sends Cathy out to deal with the situation. Rufus then tries to let Chuck come see him so they can talk but Chuck refuses. Rufus then tells Chuck that he wants to stay married because he loves his wife and is a Pastor as the reason he doesn't want to see Chuck anymore. This angers Chuck, who threatens to reveal their relationship. When Rufus again tries to get Chuck to come see him, Chuck reveals he is in a hospital.
 * Chapter 18

 * Ending "cliffhanger" line: Chuck coughs and says "Because I'm in the hospital...."

Reverend Mosley James Evans and the Peace Within Choir attempt to persuade Pimp Lucius, a pimp with a severe stuttering problem, to stop pimping and to turn his life around. As the choir sings "you can do it Pimp Lucius", Lucius pretends to accept the offer and leaves the church. However, he then tells his pimpin' partner, Bishop Craig, that he is never going to "stop p-p-p-p-p-pimpin'", because "p-p-p-pimpin's the life". Then he tells Bishop Craig "now let's get this mmm-mmmm-money."
 * Chapter 19

 * Ending scene: Pimp Lucius points to the choir and says, "CHURCH! Church!" He becomes embarrassed and overwhelmed by being on the altar, looks around, and accidentally blurts out "SHIT!" He then says "oops", and leaves the church with Bishop Craig and his "escorts".

This chapter shows Rosie the Nosy Neighbor's house where Rosie is seen in her chair reading the Bible when her husband Randolph comes in shouting, "he's got the package!" to Rosie. Unwilling to listen to reason, when Randolph tells her he has news on the pastor (Rufus), she demands to know what was going on with him. After some bickering, Randolph tells Rosie the story: while working as a janitor for the church, Randolph hears Rufus coming into the office. Randolph hid in the closet and unintentionally overheard the conversation seen in chapter eighteen among Chuck, Rufus and Cathy. After relaying the story, Rosie asks Randolph why he had said the pastor had "the package", Randolph says that Chuck told him he was at the hospital. Rosie immediately decides to inform the masses, despite Randolph's protests. The chapter ends with Randolph sitting on the couch, falling asleep.
 * Chapter 20

 * Ending line: "Now don't go tellin' ev'rybody ’round town, Rosie, with your big-mouthed ass!"

 * "The Package" is implied to be HIV/AIDS because of the slang term the whole package, defined as prison slang for the disease. Given the large-scale interconnecting relationships in the series, this is a serious issue affecting most if not all of the characters.

Sylvester and Twan go to visit an apparent mobster named Joey. Sylvester informs Joey of some job that could get them a lot of money. While there, Joey accuses Twan of being a cop, as well as calling him "LL Fool J", deeply offending Twan. Sylvester, trying to defuse the situation, asks Twan to wait outside the office while he and Joey discuss business. As Twan leaves the room, he remarks, "I'll be listening from the outside." Joey replies, "Yeah, yeah, whatever. Mama said knock you out, fuck outta here." While waiting outside, Twan has a nightmare of Sylvester and him in the same situation, being pointed at with guns. In the end, Sylvester wakes Twan up, then Joey and Sylvester say their goodbyes, and Joey asks Sylvester to tell Gwendolyn he says hello, as their deal is sealed.
 * Chapter 21

 *  Ending line: "This guy!"

The scene opens to 'ol' Dale and Myrna's' voicemail and eventually fades into the middle of the voicemail box where the narrator (Kelly) says, "and now the rumor". Throughout a series of phone conversations among all of the original characters from Chapters 1–12 and those introduced in Chapter 13–22, rumors of "The Package" circulate. Because Chuck has it, it has possibly been passed to Rufus, to his wife Cathy, to Sylvester, and to Gwendolyn. In addition, Bridget realizes that James knows both Chuck and Rufus, though he tried to hide it from her earlier, suggesting he may be on the "down-low" with Chuck as well. Gwendolyn also cheated on Sylvester with James. However, she used a condom as revealed in Chapter 4. This would still put Bridget, Big Man, and James at serious risk. Lastly, Pimp Lucius gets a similar concerned call from an unidentified woman.
 * Chapter 22
 * Closing scene: The screen fades to black with the words "To be continued".

Video synopsis: Chapters 23–33
This chapter starts off with Sylvester and Gwendolyn watching TV and getting a mysterious phone call. Then it goes over to Cathy and Rufus, who decided to go shopping downtown. Cathy's phone rings and she exclaims its 'those people' again. Rufus tells her to hang up. Bridget gets an offer that might make her famous, Twan is proffered money in exchange for an unknown service, and most of the rest of the cast also get a mysterious phone call.
 * Chapter 23
 * Ending line: "But there was no luck when it came to getting in touch with Chuck. Where are you, Chuck?"

The chapter starts off with Twan winning a bet during a sports game at the local barber shop. Meanwhile, outside, Pimp Lucius is yelling at his prostitutes over a lack of money that's been coming in. He then states if he doesn't get his money soon he'll start hitting the girls, and it is revealed that he is responsible for Tina's nervous twitch. Sylvester and Twan come outside where after a comical encounter with Lucius, they attempt to walk away ending the chapter.
 * Chapter 24
 * Ending line: "...Sylvester you real funny."

The chapter begins directly after the previous as Pimp Lucius calls Sylvester over to ask him for a couple of "racks". He then says that he'll pay Sylvester back on the first chance he gets. Sylvester tells Lucius he needs to go and see his parents, and then Sylvester and Twan depart from the scene, frustrating Lucius more.
 * Chapter 25
 * Ending line: "...Now just stop it! Go get the car! Go!"

This chapter contains Cathy's confessional for Out of the Closet with Larry and her ultimatum for her husband, Rufus. The chapter switches to a pan on the door of Doctor William T. Perry, a marriage counselor. The doctor is getting off the phone as Rufus and an impatient Cathy walk into the room. Rufus is at first reluctant and asks the doctor not to record their session. Cathy then breaks down and begins to cry over the fact that Rufus loves a man over her. Rufus then pronounces that he is confused and still loves Chuck.
 * Chapter 26
 * Ending cliffhanger line: "...What have I done?"

This chapter begins with Rufus getting on his knees and praying to God to change his ways. Meanwhile, Doctor Perry tries to convince Cathy to go back inside the room and console Rufus as well as make amends. He details a past couple that had a relationship that he was upset never got fixed, and pleads for Cathy to not do that to her own relationship. Back in the office, Rufus calls out to God asking how God was going to help him. Just as he does this, Cathy comes back in the room and forgives Rufus—saying she's willing to work it out. The chapter then switches over to Rufus' confessional. Rufus was tricked into coming on the show by the staff; he believed he was there to talk about the church and the community but he is bombarded by questions about his personal life. After an insinuation by an off-screen director, he leaves the set.
 * Chapter 27
 * Ending line: "...Does Chuck have AIDS? Is that what the Package is?! Sir? Sir are you gonna answer the question?"

Rosie and Randolph are the central characters in this chapter. Randolph can't sleep and wakes Rosie up, and asks if she meant it when she called him Mr. Can't-Get-It-Up in Chapter 13. She tries to leave the conversation but Randolph begins dancing around, taunting her and saying he's going to take off his pajamas and flash her. The doorbell rings, interrupting their shenanigans, and Randolph goes to answer the door. The scene switches to Rosie in her confessional, she calls Randolph 89 and insinuates that he has a tiny penis. Then it goes to Randolph's confessional. He attempts to defend himself from Rosie's insinuations; she comes on the set and two begin to fight comically. The off-screen director is yelling for them to stop, but they only continue.
 * Chapter 28
 * Ending line: "...Oh, you want some of this don't ya?"

The chapter starts off with Reverend Mosley James Evans in an advertisement about his new book, Trapped in the Closet. He dances around and compares his book to the Bible. The scene changes to Roxanne talking about the Preacher to Tina and saying that the man is a con artist. Tina tells Roxanne not to say those things about the Reverend. A fight ensues and Tina ends up dumping Roxanne and saying she's going to go find Twan. The chapter then goes to Tina's confessional where she says she appreciated Roxanne for taking her in but she says it's time for her to find her own identity. She also states she will be coming onto the Out of the Closet show. The scene then switches to Roxanne's confessional, where she talks about how ungrateful Tina is being and that the argument isn't over.
 * Chapter 29
 * Ending line: "...Twan? She crazy if she thinking she's leaving me for his gorilla-body having ass."

This chapter starts off with Sylvester and Twan in a private garage going over their plans for a future meeting with an unknown gangster. Twan lifts his shirt up and shows Sylvester that he bought a gun, Sylvester takes it from him until after the deal. Sylvester warns him one more time about the delirious mobster they're about to meet. The two of them then get into the car. The chapter then switches to the simultaneous confessionals of Sylvester and Twan. Twan starts off by saying that Sylvester never lets him have fun. Sylvester then informs the viewers that Twan likes to talk a lot but can't really back it up. He then informs him that true thugs move in silence. After a comical dialogue, the chapter ends with them laughing.
 * Chapter 30
 * Ending line: "...Man, you gotta love this man."

The chapter involves Pimp Lucius going home to see his parents, who turn out to be Randolph and Rosie. Randolph is at first angry and doesn't want to let Lucius in but Rosie insists he come in. Rosie gets mad at Randolph and calls him by his middle name, Douglas. The chapter continues with Lucius explaining the mysterious phone calls he's getting and his need for money and a place to sleep. It ends with Randolph answering the door again to find Lucius' prostitutes whom he compares to En Vogue.
 * Chapter 31
 * Ending line: "...It's En Vogue, with a new lead singer."

Pimp Lucius chews out his prostitutes in this chapter trying to find out why they didn't stay in the car while he talked to his parents. The girls say the blind prostitute got worried and asked them to go up to the door to find out if Lucius was okay. Pimp Lucius doesn't believe them and sends them back to the car. Lucius then reflects as the girls walk away. The chapter then goes over to the dramatic confessional of Pimp Lucius alongside his four prostitutes. He talks about his father denying him money and a place to sleep. He wonders why his father could have done something like this to him, considering the fact that he is family.
 * Chapter 32
 * Ending line: "...Call me a pimp, a thug, I'm still his blood. How could he do this to me? Church!"

The last chapter involves Sylvester and Twan meeting up with the mobster, Beeno. The conclusion of Part 3 begins with the character Bankhead opening the door, at first reluctant to let the men in. He warns and threatens them and then guides the men to Beeno. Beeno is eating sunflower seeds aggressively and listens to Sylvester as he makes his proposal. Something seems to be bothering Beeno's throat and he reveals that Joey shot him in the neck during a past deal. Beeno doesn't much care for Sylvester's humor and tells his men to kill them after revealing that he is aware of Sylvester making deals with the Italians. Twan saves the day and takes Bankhead's gun and the two flee, but not before Beeno has promised Sylvester and Twan that their families and friends "won't live to see the weekend". Then the melody changes to an upbeat one, as Bankhead and his crew chase Sylvester and Twan. The two men run and end up hiding behind a garbage bin. After assuring that they weren't followed, Sylvester reveals to Twan that they're standing outside of the back entrance to the show that the cast has been doing confessionals for, Out of the Closet with Larry. The two men walk inside and the chapter ends as the show is about to begin.
 * Chapter 33
 * Ending cliffhanger line: "Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Out of the Closet show. Now give it up for your host, Larry!"

Introduced in Part 1

 * R. Kelly as Sylvester and the narrator
 * LeShay Tomlinson as Cathy Longs
 * Rolando A. Boyce as Rufus Longs
 * Malik S. Middleton as Chuck
 * Michael Kenneth Williams as Sgt. James
 * Cat Wilson as Gwendolyn
 * Eric Lane as Twan
 * La Donna Tittle as Rosie, The Nosy Neighbor
 * Rebecca Field as Bridget
 * Drevon Cooks as "Big Man"

Introduced in Part 2

 * R. Kelly as Randolph, Rev. Mos and Pimp Lucius
 * Tracey Bonner as Tina
 * Erika Ringor as Roxanne
 * Will Oldham as Sgt. Platoon
 * Greg Hollimon as Det. Tom
 * Brian "Wildcat" Smith as Bishop Craig
 * Pierre Maurey as Church Man
 * Brendan Averett as Henchman #1
 * Gino Crededio as Henchman #2
 * Dominic Capone III as Joey
 * Katherine Mitchell as Myrna
 * Alan Donovan as Desk Sergeant
 * Heather Zagone as Dixie attendant

Introduced in Part 3

 * R. Kelly as Dr. William T. Perry, Beeno
 * Javon "Faz" Johnson as Bankhead
 * Larry

Legacy
The first chapter of Trapped in the Closet was ranked by VH1 as the #41 best song of the 2000s.

Parodies and derivatives
Trapped in the Closet has inspired numerous parodies and derivatives.

 * In July 2005, a parody titled Harry Potter: Trapped in the Closet Under the Stairs was aired in five parts (each part for the first 5 Harry Potter books) on Q100 radio based in Atlanta, Georgia.
 * On July 15, 2005, Jimmy Kimmel made a parody of the song cycle, called "The Pizza", on his show Jimmy Kimmel Live! on ABC. This parody was aired in six installments, in July, November and December 2005. The series documents Jimmy Kimmel and his quest to have a slice of pizza. A seventh episode was broadcast in October 2007, following the release of chapters 13 through 22 of Trapped in the Closet.
 * In August 2005, website Something Awful released a CliffsNotes style analysis of the first five chapters.
 * In August 2005, website No Film School released Out of the Closet, a guerrilla remix of the first five chapters. "Out of the Closet" tells a completely different story than Trapped in the Closet — all using R. Kelly's own words and original vocals, as well as parts of a Dave Chappelle parody.
 * In September 2005, Tichina Arnold, Tisha Campbell and Duane Martin performed a live parody at the BET Comedy Awards.
 * On October 2, 2005, MADtv aired a parody called "Trapped in the Cupboard", featuring R. Kelly (spoofed by Jordan Peele) and his wife battling over breakfast cereal.
 * Computer Games Magazine reports of a group who has recreated the first five chapters using The Sims 2 animation engine.
 * On November 9, 2005, website Something Awful released a CliffsNotes-style analysis of the next seven chapters.
 * On November 11, 2005, Eric Appel hosted a panel discussion about the song and video at the New York City chapter of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. The panel featured Aziz Ansari, Anthony King, Brian Berrebbi, Eugene Mirman, Rob Huebel, and Brett Gelman.
 * On November 16, 2005, a South Park episode named "Trapped in the Closet" aired. The plot proceeds around Stan being thought of as the second coming of L. Ron Hubbard by Scientologists and Tom Cruise locking himself in Stan's closet. As the incident receives news coverage, Kelly appears and sings about the situation, and is eventually used to coax Cruise out of the closet before going inside it himself.
 * On November 19, 2005, a Saturday Night Live episode parodied the song, featuring Kelly fighting with his wife who turns out to be seeing an alien who also turns out to be Kelly's father.
 * In January 2006, Aziz Ansari and Paul Scheer took Eric Appel's panel show to the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in Los Angeles. Special guest panelists have included Patton Oswalt, David Cross, Paul F. Tompkins, Drevon Cooks ("Big Man") and others. Since then, it has been performed regularly at the UCB Theatre on both coasts.
 * On the May 11, 2006, episode of Eve, which was the episode's last before UPN ceased operations in the cliffhanger episode, Nick (Brian Hooks) and J.T. (Jason George) hide in a closet, which Jamal (Darius McCrary) opens. Eve was also cancelled due to merger of UPN and The WB.
 * In September 2006, "Weird Al" Yankovic released "Trapped in the Drive-Thru" for his album Straight Outta Lynwood.
 * In a 2013 episode of the sketch comedy Loiter Squad, a sketch featured a parody of Trapped in the Closet titled "Trapped with Tyler", in which cast members Tyler the Creator and Jasper Dolphin, dressed as Sylvester and Bishop Craig, respectively, walk through a busy street and sing an auto-tuned parody of the song. Its lyrical content consists of mockery of other peoples' fashion sense, as well as rude insinuations about other peoples' personal lives.
 * A 2016 episode of Crazy Ex Girlfriend features a parody titled "Stuck in the Bathroom".
 * In a sixth-season episode of the animated series Celebrity Deathmatch, R. Kelly teams up with Kelly Clarkson to defeat Ludacris and Criss Angel in a fight. At random intervals, Kelly pauses to narrate his actions during the fight in a similar manner to Trapped in the Closet, including mention of Bridget's affair with Big Man. Clarkson eventually does similar, causing Kelly to express annoyance.
 * On May 23, 2016, American Dad! aired an episode titled "Criss-Cross Applesauce: The Ballad of Billy Jesusworth" featuring the character Steve Smith doing a parody of Trapped in the Closet called "Trapped in the Locker".
 * Caught, the web series released by DeStorm Power beginning in 2017, is a series of musical episodes. Power says that Trapped in the Closet and the way the series held peoples' attention inspired the series.

Reception
Roger Cormier wrote that "when journalists write about...Trapped in the Closet, they tend to throw out a high-brow literary reference", but then described it as "a subtlety free, it's-so-dumb-it's-brilliant work of art" comparable to "Laurence Sterne's 18th-century novel The Life and Opinions of Tristam Shandy, Gentleman [sic]".

Writing for Flagpole, Hillary Brown linked Trapped in the Closet to the Renaissance concept of sprezzatura and compared it to the work of Stendhal and John Ashbery.

John Lichman warned "once you start watching Trapped in the Closet, whether out of curiosity or because you think it's a joke, you will find yourself sucked down a hole into something more obsession-friendly than Arrested Development when it comes to jokes, plot twists and fan-service."

Chuck Klosterman writing for The Guardian called it a cult classic and wrote: "Describing Trapped in the Closet to anyone who hasn't seen it themselves is virtually impossible, simply because there's no other art to compare it with (it falls somewhere between a parody of musical theatre, a soap opera from the late 1970s, and a BET version of the Red Shoe Diaries)."

Writing for Pitchfork, Jen Pelly stated "If you haven't seen Trapped in the Closet before... stop what you're doing and watch all of it right now. It is truly mind-blowing."

VEVO release
Prior to Kelly's conviction of sexual abuse in 2021, the first 22 chapters of the Trapped in the Closet series were released via VEVO, where they appeared for free ad-supported viewing. By May 2012, the series had averaged 7,000,000 views for the first 22 chapters on the website itself, and a further average of 7,000,000 views on Kelly's VEVO YouTube page. However, chapters 3, 5, 6, and 13 were cut short. Eight days after Kelly was found guilty on multiple counts of sex trafficking, racketeering and violating the Mann Act on September 27, 2021, his YouTube channel was terminated; all visuals for this series are no longer available to watch on the platform.

Other planned projects
R. Kelly stated in an interview with Rap-Up TV that he was, at the time, working on a movie version of Trapped in the Closet that would have been released to theaters. The movie was rumored to be called Trapped in the Closet: The Movie. The movie has most likely been cancelled, due to the allegations against Kelly.

Trapped in the Closet: The Book was a planned book by Kelly. The book was set to be released sometime in 2018 alongside the Broadway debut of Trapped in the Closet, however neither of these projects were released to the public once the singer's allegations of child sexual abuse came to the public. The book was to be about what happened before the characters actually would have met in the musical. The book has been shown in the latest chapters of the show in 2012, Chapters 23–33. R. Kelly dubbed it "the prequel meeting the sequel".

title: Trapped in the Closet


text: File:Clutch - RobotHiveExodus.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:Clutch - RobotHiveExodus.jpg


text:
Talk:Human/Archive 13

Paragraph in question
The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

Problems by 4.250

 * Curiosity and introspection exist in many creatures in addition to humans.
 * Other aspects of humans other than curiosity and introspection lead to explanations of existance and conciousness.
 * Metaphysics is an important issue; but entirely inappropriate for the INTRODUCTION to "HUMANS". Do not nonhumans have beliefs based on emotions? Oh, so THEY are MORE logical than we? Really????
 * "These include ..." Please. Belongs in the body. What possible justification is there for this in the intro?
 * "Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records" I'm now an atheist, but when I was a Christian, we believed it was a REVEALED RELIGION meaning that our theology was NOT based on "self-reflection" but on the word of GOD revealed by HIMSELF. Not our puny attempts to understand. (After all, the revealed word says he makes fools out of doubters and DECIEVES those he chooses to.) (Now, as an atheist, I point out this means God has planted lies in the DNA of EVERY CELL OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH. 4.250.168.252 02:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

introspective issue

 * Not sure if any non-human animals have been identified as meaningfully introspective. --Rikurzhen 04:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Start by constructing a double blind objective nonhuman-biased MEASURMENT for introspection. 4.250.198.202 14:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't be pedantic on the talk page. Save it for the article. I hope you realize that "no original research" is a Wikipedia policy. My point is that I think your claim about introspection is not supported by the evidence. I think that introspection is an important human quality to mention, if not in the intro then in the body, even if it is not unique to humans. --Rikurzhen 16:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear. The issue is as you say "evidence". The kind of evidence not needed is assertion, hand waving claims by people who have not done actual experiments, experiments designed to produce a predetermined conclusion and the like. The difference between science and nonscience is often the use of measurement. What are the units? Similar structures produce similar results. Mammal brains are remarkably similar. Claims that the human brain is qualitatively different need proof. Care to cite a relevant experiment? What were the units of introspection? 4.250.198.202 17:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see the issue here. The article doesn't say non-human animals aren't introspective. 4.250, I don't know whether you've followed the debate on these talk pages, but we've had enough speculation and debate to last most of us a lifetime, which is why we're into evidence, clear statements, and concrete proposals for actual content. We're suffering from a little battle fatigue, though if you've just arrived here, you couldn't know this, of course. ;-) If you have a better idea for the introduction, by all means propose it here, and we'll be glad to look at it. SlimVirgin (talk)  18:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

rewrite issue

 * Do you have any ideas how to re-write it, Oh, wise one? ≈ jossi ≈ 02:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I find the paragraph completely without worth HERE IN THE INTRO. I choose not to think about whether it has worth elsewhere. (By the way, refering to Sam as  SS   is witty and funny. Live by the veiled reference, die by the veiled reference, eh Sam?) 4.250.168.252 02:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel's comments

 * 1) The summary needn't be limited to unique aspects of humans; the summary of Tiger, for example, tells us that tigers "live in forests and grasslands (for which their camouflage is ideally suited)", that they "may often be found bathing in ponds, lakes, and rivers", and that they "hunt alone, and their diet consists primarily of medium-sized herbivores such as deer, wild pigs, and buffalo, but they will also take larger or smaller prey if the circumstances demand it", in none of which are tigers unique. If the summary said that humans are distinguished by being the only animals who have these properties, then fine — but it doesn't.
 * 2) Which aspects of human beings do you think lead to our theories about ourselves? I think that other aspects make such theorising possible, but I think that curiosity and introspection are the causes.
 * 3) The god squad insist on mention of what they vaguely call "spirituality". It seems inappropriate to many of us, as the history of this Talk page will indicate, but when we accept its presence here and attempt to make it NPoV, they kick up an awful stink about including the relevant detail and making the relevant distinctions.  They don't want accuracy and balance, they want their views made prominent.
 * 4) As an encyclopædia, we can't assert that religion is revealed by god, we can only say that some people think that it is (and that would be even more inappropriate in this article).
 * 5) Thanks — I though that  "SS"   was appropriate (though not, of course,   SS   himself). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

4.250 response to Mel

 * 1) True. But we both know this is simply a stalking horse for talk about our special place in the universe, our soul, etc. Spirit (emotion, motivation, etc --(An aside: spirit=breath, God's sprit moved across the surface of the Earth = wind, the spirit left him = he stopped breathing) ) is adequately introduced by the preceding paragraph and dealt with in depth in the body.
 * 2) Most people most places most of the time believe what they heard and understood as a child. Adults will talk of things in an anthropomorphic way (The cold wind is mean out there, I hope the sun chooses to be nice and warm things up) and it is natural for children to take things literally. We humans are wired to see the forces around us as personalities making choices. Children without friends have imaginary friends. Adults often believe in an imaginary daddy in the sky. We believe more according to our pre wiring and early socialisation than later introspection. Few humans change their religion based on introspection. Muslim nations stay so generation to generation. So too with other spiritual beliefs. Introspection obviously does not result in nation wide change in spiritual beliefs.
 * 3) Controversy is best handled in the body as much as possible.
 * 4) Yes.
 * 5) You're welcome. 4.250.198.202 14:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion
Is this a sincere attempt to simplify things and help come to agreements about this intro?. I understand that WP is not a place for advocacy, being it religious or secular. Your attitude does not help, IMO. Can we keep things simple? Make proposals, not a discourse about what you think "most people most place most time heard and understood". Did we forget the fact that we can not engage in original research? May I also ask you to avoid using terms such as "god squad"? It is unecessary, inflamatory, escalatory, and not conducive to a civil conversation. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we are all sincere here. All trying to make this article better. Don't presume to read my attitude, please. (Thanks in advance.) Deleting the whole god-awful paragraph IS simple. And that IS my "proposal". Deleting a paragraph is not "original research". Mel used "god squad", not I. However, I think you greatly overreact to the term. I'm quite sure Mel meant no offense. You are in charge of your own emotions; don't blame others for your overreactions. Accusing one another over unintended slights has no place here. Walking on eggshells to avoid offending anyone with casual or witty or funny or flip (saying "god squad" is being flip) remarks only emboldens trolls and children who want to run off to mommy saying so and so isn't being nice enough to me. Mel spoke like he was speaking to other adults. Do us a favor and act like one and don't whine over every perceived slight. 4.250.198.202 18:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, 4.250, it would probably be helpful not to accuse editors of whining. Regarding deleting the paragraph, this (or a not-too-distant version of it) was agreed as a compromise after several months of dispute, so it can't be removed without the dispute starting up again, but if you feel you can improve it, please write out your proposals here and we'll take a look. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was just asking what I thought to be pertinent questions, In any case, I choose not to respond to your accusations as a way to cool off the conversation. My understanding is that we are trying to improve a paragraph that was agreed as a compromise after a long debate. Can you help making it better? I do not think that deletion is on the table at this point.≈ jossi ≈ 18:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The introduction and the 4th introduction secion
The introduction is presently organised into 4 sections: My view is that the introduction should deal with a few aspects of what defines "homo sapiens" and what sets us apart from all the other creaturs on this planet. The first 3 sections seem fine, no need to elaborate in the introduction. In the 2nd section perhaps we could mention that our use of "tools" is highly unique - there are almost no other animals who use tools, and those that do, use them to a very, very limited extent. It is also the ability which prevented us from being wiped out. The 4th section is difficult. Should it be there at all? It is almost covered by the first 3 sections. It is important I think to point out that our "curiosity" etc. does set us apart, and has played a major role in our lives since we evolved as "humans". When I studied ancient middle eastern history at uni, the first lecture dealt with "beliefs" such as the sun dying at the end of every day, and the people praying for it to be reborn each night. It seems that something which does separate "us" from "animals" is our imaginations, and our quest for meanings. Before there was science, there was imagination. After science, our imaginations still lead us to belive the most unbelievable things. I think this is a quality that is so significant, and which all humans share, that it has a place in the intro. I'm not saying GOD, I'm not even saying religion, I'm just saying that our tendancy to create stories, a dreamtime, etc. to explain the unexplainable, and to live our lives by those beliefs, is something that is quintessentially human. So therefore something about this does have a place in the introduction in my opinion. How it will be written...I'll wait to see what people have to say to this first. -- Silversmith Hewwo 19:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is my view. I haven't read the entire discussion (that would take hours) so I may be repeating points already made.  But it is useful for any new commers to not have to read through the entire discussion and to be able to read these points.  I am only here to discuss the introduction, and provide my views as to how it should be structured.  If any of you have already discussed such points, perhaps difs could be provided so you don't have to repeat yourselves.
 * What the defenition of Homo sapiens is, our species.
 * Our physical form including brain.
 * Our behaviour, use of language, culture etc.
 * Our nature, curiosity etc.

 * Thanks for this, Silversmith; what you say is very interesting. We did have something like this in a compromise suggestion at one point: I don't remember it, but it talked about the importance of narrative, and went on to talk about religious belief in those terms, which some editors objected to, so it got dropped. Personally, I like the idea of referring to imagination and story-telling, because I think they do define us to some extent, and the introduction should include defining features. But there's the question of space too. We probably shouldn't go beyond four paragraphs. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response SlimVirgin. I was thinking more of the imagination stuff going in that 4th paragraph, as the 4th deals with that sort of aspect.  If we were working as a team in a business, we would do some brainstorming, and write down a list of ideas for the paragraph/intro etc then refine those ideas until we know exactly what should and shouldn't be included. So how about it? I'll start with one:

 * That humans try to find explanations for everything, for what we don't understand. -- Silversmith Hewwo 22:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a good idea, but another editor started one a couple of months ago, and it practically ended in a fistfight, LOL! We started the disputed paragraph with the reference to curiosity and introspection as causes of the search for explanation, so that takes us nicely into narrative, ideology, and imagination. The problem is that some editors don't want religous beliefs to be described in terms of narrative: they feel that's POV, because narrative suggests either that it's not true, or that it's just one possible truth among many, whereas for many, that humans have souls and are made in the image of God is the most defining characteristic of the species. So to introduce imagination, we'd have to do it quite separately from any religious context, so that we didn't appear to be implying that God was a product of imagination. It's quite tricky to do that without getting too wordy. However, don't let me discourage you from trying with your list. It might work second time round. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would endorse an approach based on a narrative about imagination, reflection, curiosity, and introspection. All these aspects combined (and maybe more) is what makes the essence of us humans in regard to our beliefs. I would argue that without these aspects (and regardless of the discourse about the existence of a supreme power, that clearly is at the core of the previous discussions), we would not be able to excercise belief in such power. I look forward to see if Silvermith can come up with something better/different than we have managed so far. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I would appreciate some point-form ideas, then if anyone objects to some of the points, they can either be removed or altered suitably. I'm getting an idea now of what the big problem was before.  I hope that can be remedied. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 08:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, since no-one wishes to suggest some points, I'll try to come up with something for the 4th section then:

It is the nature of homo sapiens to evolve knowledge through exploration. From the earliest records humans have used imagination and observation to expain the world and formulate answers. This has given rise to metaphysical beliefs, which have become the basis of theology and philosophy. Humans also examine themselves, seeking to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. It is both the introspective and extrospective nature of human beings which has shaped their history, and the evolution of an unique and dominant species.

Please write any suggestions below. -- Silversmith Hewwo 18:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What would a solution look like?
It is difficult to arrive at a solution unless you know what the question is and what the conditions of success would be. What is the problem we are debating? How will we know when we've arrived at the correct solution? --Rikurzhen 02:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

goethean
My concern with this article has been that it is parochial — that the vast majority of people in the world would read it and say "No, that's not right at all." A truly neutral encyclopedia should attempt to say not only how scientists or humanists or atheists define human beings, but also decribe, or at least refer to, how other human beings have done so. This has been the guiding principle of my proposals (1, 2), which have generally been ignored. The real problem, it seems to me, is that some of the editors would consider any solution that most people could agree with to be inherently flawed. That is, it is only true if it contradicts and implies to be invalid what the vast majority of inhabitants of the world believe. They see those people as objectively incorrect, and see the role of wikipedia to disabuse these benighted souls of their unscientific and incorrect ideas. These users have successfully blocked any neutral introduction to this article since its inception. --goethean ॐ 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Human/Human Nature
My concern with the article is that it should not try to subsume content that is better placed in the human nature article. Finding a way to split material between these two article may be difficult. However, my experience has been that this kind of split is possible and preferable for maintaining readable articles. An example of this split that I have worked with are the articles on IQ and intelligence. To build the analogy, I believe human should be like IQ and human nature should be like intelligence. --Rikurzhen 17:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * I like this approach in general. Another difficulty with it, though, is that subsequent editors may well be unaware of the separate articles and their purposes, resulting in material being added to human that belonged in human nature and vice versa. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it would probably require the sort of close monitoring by interested editors that we'd all like to avoid! It's no fun being a watchdog reverter! ;) --Bob Schaefer 18:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If this distinction were agreed upon, we could leave a header on the talk pages and a disambiguation message at the head of this article to point out the distinction. That might go a long way. --Rikurzhen 20:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the distinction and the header and disambiguation proposals, and I'd also like to suggest using code headers

Consensus
So ... do we have a concensus to remove the fourth paragraph because
 * 1) there is already an article on Human nature
 * 2) this is an introduction to THIS article and this paragraph does not even reflect the content that exists in the subsection on human nature
 * 3) the paragraph contents are contentious and debateable and controversial and thus are better dealt with either in the main article Human nature or below in the subsection named human nature
 * 4) this is on the table, that's what the "Page protection dispute" is all about: My deleting this paragraph, it being put back and a freeze imposed saying to resolve that dispute.
 * 5) concerns such as User:Goethean/Human and Silversmith's are better dealt with at Human nature
 * 6) What's not on the table is a complete rewrite of the article or any such thing; just the status of paragraph four of the intro.
 * 7) "Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy," is demonstatably false.
 * 8) "many attempts", "a number of", "include", "also the views", "there may be", "or other", "perhaps" all cry out that the issues in this paragraph can only be properly handled in the body of an article specific to the purpose.
 * 9) the history of the debates around this introduction indicates the material is better off elsewhere.

Consensus for fourth paragraph to not appear in intro (and possibly to go somewhere else) ? 4.250.33.185 20:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. I think it would be better to maintain the human/human nature split when possible. See the section above for my comments. --Rikurzhen 20:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I did come up with a rewrite of the 4th up above but no-one's commented on it. But it might be more of a human nature style paragraph? It might not be a bad thing if it's just deleted and we stick with 3. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 20:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC) merge the paragraph with the Human Nature article. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems fine to me. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No ... Unless we add at least a short sentence that explains the controversy and points to the Human nature article in the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * jossi, what about the suggestions I made in the section above? that would put the distinction above the intro at the top of the page. alternatively, do both; we also need to mention consciousness in the intro, so that might go in a pargraph with human nature. --Rikurzhen 04:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * No. POV fork. The idea here is to define human beings as solely biological entities, and to marginalize other definitions. That's fine for a biological textbook, not for a putatively neutral encyclopedia. There is serious debate regarding whether human beings consist of more than a physical body. In cases where debate exists, the policy of Wikipedia is to describe the debate accurately, rather than taking a side on it. Defining human beings as biological entities while shunting other ideas elsewhere clearly takes a side in that debate. --goethean ॐ 16:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you point out what makes you think this article takes a non-neutral POV on human nature? An article as broad as "human" cannot hope to cover all possible details. We currently have a sub-article section on human nature. Why do we need a large segment of the intro dedicated to talking about human nature? Based on the table of context, this article is also about Evolution, Biology, Habitat, Population, Language, Culture, Race and ethnicity, and Consciousness. Can we not write an article that is indifferent to questions of (fundamental) human nature and leave those questions for the other article to cover in detail? --Rikurzhen 16:55, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * If this article was Homo Sapiens or Human (biology), it would be different. But this is the article not only on Human and Homo Sapiens, but also on Human being, Humanity, Humankind, etc. We have heroically taken on the task of defining human beings in the summary introduction. You want to leave the biological definition here, and move all other text elsewhere. That will result in Wikipedia endorsing the biological definition of "Human". That's not neutral. --goethean ॐ 18:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But the "biological definition" of human is completely orthogonal and neutral to questions of fundamental human nature. Sometimes, articles have to be split and the two articles already seem to position a logical split between human (not fundamental) and human nature (fundamental). I think you are assuming that a biological definition of human beings precludes other definitions or endorses a certain fundamental definition. I think this is a mistake. The biological definition asks: what kind of organism is a human being? The scope of the answer relates humans to other organisms; and is neutral to more fundamental questions. --Rikurzhen 18:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are assuming that a biological definition of human beings precludes other definitions or endorses a certain fundamental definition.
 * I don't, but many, many people do. They object to the strictly biological definition of "human". And they don't just assume it — they have, based on observation or tradition, rejected the biological definition of "human". When you erase all reference to their beliefs in this article, you are taking a stand on a controversy. Wikipedia's mandate is to describe controversies, not to resolve them.
 * Sometimes, articles have to be split and the two articles already seem to position a logical split between human (not fundamental) and human nature (fundamental).
 * Practical considerations should not compromise neutrality. Your proposal does. --goethean ॐ 20:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that some people believe that humans aren't animals? Or something like that? --Rikurzhen 21:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh.... By biological definition, I don't mean the definition that humans are only biological, but rather what kind of biologcial organisms are humans -- animal, mammal, primate, etc. I don't know of any philosophies that reject a discussion of the apparent biological properties of humans, even if they believe those properties aren't fundament, or that they're illusions, etc. So why do you need to discuss what kind of fundamdental nature humans have in the same article that we talk about the completely separate issue of what kind of animal they happen to be? --Rikurzhen 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Fourth para
The paragraph needing work is the following:

 * The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

The problem I see with it is that the curiosity and introspection lead to science as well as to metaphysics. Sliding off into a mostly irrelevant discussion of divergent theories of the relation between mind and body is not something we want in the intro.

What is the point of this paragraph? What is it that the editors are wanting to say? My guess is that you want to add culture to biology, society and behaviour - this seems a sensible thing to do - but that is not what this paragraph does. Drop it and start again. Banno 22:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

How about something like:

''Humans are incline to attempts to learn about both their existence and that of the world in which they find themselves. This has led to various cultural phenomena, including religion, philosophy and science.''

Banno 22:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * With regard to the intro, that's sort of what I had in mind. (But that would be under the scheme that most details about human nature would be restricted to that article, with only a summary in this article.) --Rikurzhen 23:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps - but the present summary (Beliefs about human nature) gives the impression that the only significant aspect of human nature is religion. Banno 23:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * I've already written this on the talk page, but it's been completely ignored. I would at least like an opinion or suggestion or something.  It is my attempt to completely rewrite the 4th paragraph, in a way the is neutral, and covers what the point of the 4th paragraph is.

 * It is the nature of homo sapiens to evolve knowledge through exploration. From the earliest records humans have used imagination and observation to expain the world and formulate answers. This has given rise to metaphysical beliefs, which have become the basis of theology and philosophy. Humans also examine themselves, seeking to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology.  It is both the introspective and extrospective nature of human beings which has shaped their history, and the evolution of an unique and dominant species.

Is it too long? Is it crossing over too much into human nature? Please discuss this with me. -- Silversmith Hewwo 23:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it differers sufficiently from the present version. It is also likely to piss off the religious, since it uses the "E" word. Banno 23:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Evolve" is the wrong word anyway; "gain" (or possibly "develop") would be better. I'm not sure that the human mind has developed in a "creative way", nor that art, music, literature, and technology are aptly described as inventions. All species are unique, and "dominant" is a bit vague" (and, I'd say, PoV). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I tried to avoid POV by sticking to more scientific facts. This article is about the biology of Homo Sapiens, not POVs. I find it strange that you don't find that we are the only species who deliberately create works of art, music etc. relevant/accurate. If it wasn't for our abilities to create, we wouldn't be having this conversation on an internet that was created by creative humans. -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mention God, gods, or soul, for another thing. I still like:

 * The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views of monism, dualism, and pluralism. Many approach these matters from either a philosophicaly naturalist or spiritual viewpoint. The latter often includes a belief in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and the concept of soul, qi or atman as the true essence of man. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

best. (I edited it slightly to address a complaint by SV, btw)

Sam Spade 23:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello, Sam. Are you referring to my version or Silversmith's? That mine doesn't make use of that horrid construct, "God, god or gods", strikes me as a great advantage. Your version does not mention science as an outcome of curiosity and introspection. Again, I think that the best solution is to start again. Take another look at my suggestion, and edit it to bring out more about "God, god or gods", if you wish. Banno 23:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about silvers, I hadn't read thru yours thoroughly, and would like to see it w wikilinks. For me, the key to this article is in the links, since there is obviously no way were ever going to do the subject justice w one article alone. The best soloution would probably be some sort of condensed merger of all the proposed versions. I agree w you about science needing more mention (and being the result of curiosity), btw. Sam Spade 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you really think that an introductory paragraph needs links to curiosity, Introspection, monism, dualism, pluralism, Philosophical naturalism, spiritual, belief, God, gods, supernatural, soul, qi atman, theology and philosophy? Pick two or three you think are essential, and we'll work them into another intro. Banno 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Silversmith, thanks for writing that up. The only reason I didn't respond is that I prefer to leave that paragraph as it is, only because it's the consensus version. Banno, your version won't fly because it calls religion a cultural phenomenon. Several editors objected to a previous version that they felt implied that. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * But there is no consensus, as the objections above show... Banno

 * Curious - perhaps you could direct me to their objections? Banno 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe it begins in archive 6, point 12, intro, and continues until now. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You will have to forgive me if I don't delve that far back, at least for now... Banno 06:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite. Now you'll understand why I'm loathe to disturb the consensus. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * But there is no consensus. Banno 07:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look back through the archives, most of the editors who took part in the discussion decided they could live with the fourth paragraph as it was. No one was particularly happy with it, but it was agreed as a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but the problem I have with the "consensus" version, is it seems to be very focused on religion, which I don't think should be the purpose of the 4th. It should be about our unique minds, how we use them to create etc. Sure, religion is an aspect of that, but only one.  It's a fine paragraph if you are religious, but it leaves the scientists and atheists rather high and dry. IMO -- Silversmith  Hewwo 09:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all the current version is not the concensus version which lasted for a month or so, this one doesn't even have a link to God. Second, re:Banno, yes I do think most of those links are neccessary, and perhaps a few others. I envision this article as a hub wherefrom one can link outwards from, rather than a summary of humanity ;) As far as what Silversmith is saying, I'd say she is correct about science deserving more emphasis (like say a link or 2), but dead wrong about atheism, which gets far too much coverage already, esp. considering how incredibly rare a phenomena it is worldwide, much less thruout history. Sam Spade 10:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This version was fairly steady, not that its perfect or anything. Sam Spade 10:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have no need to apologize, Silversmith, and I don't disagree with you, but the editors who wanted more religious content argued their case here for several months, so a number of compromise intros were written. Here's one of the compromises I first wrote, but there were objections that it tried to reduce religious belief to a story:

"Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects."

"As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their curiosity, introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which include scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and, on the other, that all life, including human life, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)"
 * There's quite a few things I like about that version. To Sam, I have no problem with God/Gods being in there, as it is true that it is something that has shaped our lives.  Some of our greatest creations were built to worship god/s, and the infuence of religion on our lives is more than obvious.  I opt for balance. My view for this artilce being more scientific is that there is an article on Human Nature which could cover the less biological aspects moreso than this one. -- Silversmith  Hewwo 10:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to rewind a few months, I fought (seemingly endlessly) against those among the religious who didn't want the taxobox at the top, feeling it reduced humans to an animal (rightly so IMO, I'm not very anthropocentric, despite, or more likely because of, my theism). My feeling at that time was that this article should be split between Homo sapiens (or maybe Homo sapiens sapiens?) and Humanity. I don't see that happening right now tho, for alot of reasons. Everybody needs to keep in mind NPOV, write for your enemies, were all human ;) After a bit more thought, banno's version might serve as a good foundation for a new stab at this paragraph. Obviiously I think it needs more links / content, but hey, at least its balanced, eh? Sam Spade 10:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human/Archive 13


text:
User:WikiWarden

My interests are schools and their structures.

title: User:WikiWarden


text:
Duty Now for the Future

Duty Now for the Future is the second studio album by American new wave band Devo, released on June 1, 1979, by Warner Bros. Records. Produced by Ken Scott, the album was recorded between September 1978 and early 1979 at Chateau Recorders in Hollywood.

Composition
Both Duty Now for the Future and its predecessor, Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! (1978), contained material from a backlog of songs the band had written between 1974 and 1977. By December 1976, Devo were already performing "Clockout", "Timing X" and "Blockhead" live, following the expansion of the band's line-up from a quartet to a quintet, with the addition of drummer Alan Myers (replacing Jim Mothersbaugh) and multi-instrumentalist Bob Casale. "Clockout" took advantage of this newly expanded line-up and featured Bob Casale playing bass instead of Gerald Casale. "Smart Patrol/Mr. DNA" was already being performed by November 1977.

While the song selections for the band's first two albums were devised ahead of time, Mark Mothersbaugh brought in three new compositions ("The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize", "S.I.B. (Swelling Itching Brain)" and "Triumph of the Will") for the second album's sessions and elected to abandon some of the previously chosen songs. Bob Mothersbaugh later stated that "We had been touring extensively after the first album; maybe we rushed to get another album out." In a 2015 interview, Gerald Casale said that the new material "was kind of still incubating and probably wasn't ready" at the time of recording.

"Devo Corporate Anthem" and its accompanying video were a nod to the 1975 film Rollerball, in which the titular sport is preceded by players and the audience standing solemnly while listening to a regional "corporate hymn". "Triumph of the Will" takes its title from Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda film of the same name, although the song is about desire. Music historian Andy Zax stated that, "On the surface, 'The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize' seems like one of Devo's happiest, bounciest pop confections, but a closer look reveals peculiar things lurking beneath." The band's cover of Johnny Rivers' "Secret Agent Man" features a rare lead vocal from Bob Mothersbaugh.

Production and recording
Duty Now for the Future was produced by Ken Scott. Like Brian Eno, who had produced ''Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!, Scott had also worked with David Bowie, most notably on The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1972) and Aladdin Sane'' (1973). According to Scott, Devo were "quite professional in the studio" and he "loved every minute" of the sessions.

Recording for the album began in September 1978, a month after the release of their first album. Scott discussed his role in the recordings and how Devo came to choose him for the album: "I know they chose me because of the Bowie records I did, but I don't know if it was a direct recommendation from Mr. Jones. Devo always wanted to learn. That's why they worked with each producer only once."

Duty Now for the Future found the band bringing synthesizers more into the forefront than before. Additionally, guitar sounds were often manipulated; in a 1979 interview with BAM magazine, Gerald Casale stated, "A guitar can only do what a guitar does. It's like only one tiny piece of a synthesizer. On this album, we did much more with the guitars, too. Sometimes you don't know that they're guitars." According to Scott, to record the solo for "Secret Agent Man", they "overloaded mic amps and fed the signal through headphones which were taped to the mic."

Several band members voiced dissatisfaction with the sound of the album in retrospect. Gerald Casale has stated that "Scott wanted something processed. We wanted something aggressive." Bob Mothersbaugh felt that Scott did not understand the band's "ideas and vision." Mark Mothersbaugh recalled that, at the time, he thought Scott had erred in recording the album one instrument at a time to a click track—to emphasize the band's tight, robotic qualities—rather than recapturing their live sound. Mothersbaugh ultimately felt that the results were not as satisfying as playing the material on the following tour. However, Casale later stated that Mothersbaugh, who loved synthesizers, had already wanted to move the band away from guitars.

The band were excluded from the final mixing process, with Casale later stating that they "barely knew how bland it sounded", and that, for the most part, Scott did not take their suggestions.

Artwork and packaging
The artwork was designed by Janet Perr, based on a concept by Devo. Universal Product Codes were a then-new phenomenon and the band devised a satirical fake code for the front cover. The cover also featured a punch-out postcard, which according to Mark Mothersbaugh was "a piece of art that you could take away, a repurposed album cover." Although Warner Bros. originally rejected the idea, saying it was too costly, Devo instructed the label to use the band's own money to pay for it.

The cover photograph of the band was taken by photographer Allan Tannenbaum for the SoHo Weekly News in New York City. It was used in the album artwork by simply taking it from the front page of the newspaper in the exact same dimensions, unbeknownst to the photographer. When he discovered this, he contacted the record company and was paid for its use.

The "Science Boy" logo was designed by George L. Kaufman in 1956 for the Cleveland Press newspaper's "Science Emblem" contest. The logo was rediscovered by Gerald Casale and Mark Mothersbaugh in 1976 on a pamphlet in Akron and the two began using it in their own art, accompanied by the phrase "Duty Now for the Future", coined by Casale. After first using it on a promotional item for Virgin Records, the band were contacted by the owners of the logo, which resulted in them acquiring the rights to the image. Casale was seemingly unaware of the author of the design until being contacted by Kaufman's son in 2024, after which a post was made to Devo's social media to commemorate him for his work.

The inner sleeve included the lyrics of all the songs printed in a single block of closely printed text. The sleeve also featured a West Hollywood address from which one could request information and news about the band. In addition, an address was included to allow purchasers to order a copy of the Devo-vision videocassette from Time Life. This tape was never actually made available and was issued a few years later under the title The Men Who Make the Music via Warner Home Video.

The artwork used on Virgin pressings of the album in the UK, which prominently featured the "Science Boy" logo on the cover, was created by John Zabrucky, again based on a concept by Devo, with graphic co-ordination by Malcolm Garrett. Initial pressings of the Virgin album also featured the US cover postcard as an insert.

Promotion
Devo produced one music video for this album. "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize" combined animation with blue screen effects of the band performing. In this video, Devo chiefly wore white shirts and pants and silver 3D glasses. The video also features Alex Mothersbaugh, the daughter of Bob Mothersbaugh. Alex would later be featured on the back cover of Devo's 1984 album Shout.

A short clip of the band standing at attention and then saluting was filmed to accompany "Devo Corporate Anthem", which was used in concert performance.

Commercial
Duty Now for the Future was on the Billboard charts for 10 weeks, peaking at No. 73. In Canada, the album reached number 87.

Critical
Dave Marsh, writing in Rolling Stone, condemned the album, feeling that "inspired amateurism works only when the players aspire to something better." Robert Christgau of The Village Voice panned side one as "dire" and "arena-rock", but felt that "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize" and "Secret Agent Man" were "as bright as anything on the debut, and the arrangements offer their share of surprizes." Red Starr of Smash Hits described it as "unimpressive", but noted that the "change of style definitely grows on you". They went on to say that, although the album was more accessible, it was "lacking the zany magic of old".

Scott Isler of Trouser Press stated that the album "doesn't score as many bull's-eyes as the first but includes two anthems of malaise, 'Blockhead' and 'S.I.B. (Swelling Itching Brain)'", and noted the band's "disturbing signs of portentousness". The Boston Globe dismissed Duty Now for the Future as "largely a failure." Among positive reviews, The New York Times deemed the album "undeniably catchy and fun." In a retrospective review for AllMusic, reviewer Mark Deming opined that the album "captures the group in the midst of a significant stylistic shift", while contending that "Triumph of the Will" "embraces fascism as a satirical target without bothering to make it sound as if they disapprove."

Track listing
1993 Virgin Duty Now for the Future/New Traditionalists CD bonus track:

1995 Infinite Zero Archive/American Recordings CD bonus tracks:

2010 Warner Bros. CD bonus tracks:

Personnel
Credits adapted from Pioneers Who Got Scalped: The Anthology CD liner notes:

Devo
 * Mark Mothersbaugh – vocals, keyboards, guitar
 * Gerald Casale – vocals, bass guitar, keyboards
 * Bob Mothersbaugh – lead guitar, vocals; lead vocals on "Secret Agent Man"
 * Bob Casale – rhythm guitar, keyboards, vocals
 * Alan Myers – drums

Credits adapted from the original album's liner notes, except where noted:

Technical
 * Ken Scott – producer, engineer
 * Brian Leshon – assistant engineer
 * Phil Jost – assistant engineer
 * Bernie Grundman – mastering
 * Janet Perr – cover art
 * Devo Inc. – graphic concept, package design
 * Yale Greenfield – dust sleeve production stills
 * George L. Kaufman – "Science Boy" design

title: Duty Now for the Future


text:
Murphy's Law (British TV series)

Murphy's Law is a BBC television drama, produced by Tiger Aspect Productions for BBC Northern Ireland, starring James Nesbitt as an undercover police officer, Tommy Murphy. There were five series of the drama, shown on BBC One. The first two were composed of individual stories. Series three, four and five were each single stories composed over multiple episodes. Colin Bateman adapted the pilot for a novel.

A sixth series has not been commissioned. In a 2008 interview, Nesbitt attributed this to the fifth series' ratings being damaged after it was scheduled opposite ITV's popular drama Doc Martin.

All 23 episodes have since been released on DVD. All episodes from series two onwards were released as edited 50-minute masters instead of the 60-minute versions that were broadcast, except series 3 which was released uncut in the US. The first, second and third series were all released on 28 August 2006. The fourth and fifth series were released in a joint box-set on 15 October 2007.

Plot
Detective Sergeant Tommy Murphy (James Nesbitt) is an uncompromising, sometimes tough talking cop. He has no issues with using his charm and sense of humour to attempt to impress any woman, especially Annie, his colleague and later boss. Murphy was previously married with a young daughter, in Northern Ireland. There, his family were taken hostage and he was forced to make a choice; either carry a bomb and blow himself up in a local barracks, or have his daughter killed.

He originally chose the first option but when he got to the barracks he couldn't go through with detonating a bomb that would kill a hundred people. When he got back to the house, he found that they had slit his daughter's throat and that his wife had been forced to watch. His decision affected almost everything he does in life. He reflects at intervals, and remarks that he received 'a nice medal' for 'saving' so many lives, by making such a sacrifice. Yet, he still feels responsible for his daughter's death.

Cast

 * D.S. Tommy Murphy – James Nesbitt
 * D.C.S. Edward Rees – Michael Feast (Series 3)
 * D.C.S. John Atwood – Robbie Gee (Series 5)
 * C.S. Ken Bowry – Ian Redford (Series 5)
 * D.C.I. Derek Warren – Francis Magee (Series 4)
 * D.I. Annie Guthrie – Claudia Harrison (Series 1)
 * D.I. Hilary Clark – Sarah Berger (Series 2)
 * D.S. Paul Allison – Owen Teale (Series 3)
 * D.S. Mitch Kershaw – Tim Dantay (Series 5)
 * D.C. Alan Carter – Del Synott (Series 1–2)
 * D.C. Michael Ollington – Shaun Dooley (Series 3)
 * D.C. Kim Goodall – Andrea Lowe (Series 5)
 * D.C. Jackie Cole – Jessica Oyelowo (Series 5)
 * Father McBride – Mark Benton (Series 1–2)

title: Murphy's Law (British TV series)


text:
Talk:Duty Now for the Future

Subject of "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprise"?
Mention if "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprise" is talking about someone close to the band members who had an accident. Jidanni (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprise" is a sequel to "Space Junk". Both songs are about fictional characters. ~ Devolicious77(talk) 3:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Track Names
Note: The original WB release includes tracks with these titles: "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize" and "Red Eye."

The song "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprize" is named "The Day My Baby Gave Me a Surprise" on the demo and on the music video. The spelling "surprise" is also used on some international printings. It is used on the Virgin album printings and on the WEA Discos Ltda. album printing for Brazil. It is used on the Australian WB single for "Working In The Coal Mine"(45cat.com/record/wb0529 )

The spelling "surprize" is used on the original Warner album, promotional single, and single release. It is used on the Virgin single pressing. (images.45cat.com/devo-the-day-my-baby-gave-me-a-surprise-1979.jpg ) It is used worldwide on the cover artwork of the single, but while the German single has that cover, the disc is printed with "surprise." (45cat.com/record/100676 )

The song "Red Eye" is named "Redeye Express" on all releases by Virgin.

discogs.com/Devo-Duty-Now-For-The-Future/master/52668 (At Discogs, click on "more images" at each listing to see photos which include that release's track spelling.)

~ Devolicious77(talk) 4:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duty Now for the Future. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dYr10mKEXyQJ:www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/duty-now-for-the-future-19790920+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20140412034135/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/duty-now-for-the-future-19790920 on http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/duty-now-for-the-future-19790920

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Secret Agent Man" lyrics
The cover of "Secret Agent Man" here is described as being "arranged" by Mark Mothersbaugh. Actually, the lyrics are completely different from the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.203.215 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * DutyNowForTheFutureHQ.jpg

title: Talk:Duty Now for the Future


text: Category:Operas by Richard Danielpour

title: Category:Operas by Richard Danielpour


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalban

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thalban
Page is hopeless - but that's not a reason to nominate - it is also non-notable fantasy-cruft --Doc (?) 22:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * delete fantasy race from a not mentioned fantasy setting. Likely to stay orphaned forever Fornadan (t) 23:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Term gets exactly 1 relevant google hit on a science fiction fantasy art page. You'd expect a real fantasy race of horse-mages to be all over the web. Probable vanity. -- BD2412  talk 00:48, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
 * Delete nn cruft. --Etacar11 01:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalban


text:
Yoshikazu Iwamoto

Yoshikazu Iwamoto (Japanese: 岩本由和; born 1945) is a Japanese-born professional shakuhachi player living in the United Kingdom.

title: Yoshikazu Iwamoto


text:
Trippin'

Trippin is a 2005 MTV environmental documentary television series hosted by Cameron Diaz. It also features many other celebrities, including Drew Barrymore, Redman, Jessica Alba, Eva Mendes, Mark Hoppus and Justin Timberlake. On the show, said celebrities visit various ecological locales around the world, in particular underprivileged areas of the world.

title: Trippin'