Romeo + Juliet

Sorry for the late posting, I'm horrible about these things. Here is a link to a review of William Shakepeare's Romeo+Juliet movie directed by Baz Luhrmann. This link was found on Amazon as the "most helpful" movie review by a user.

I watched this rendition of Shakespeare's work my Freshman year of high school after finishing our Shakespearean reading, and I must say that I think that it was an excellent idea and it executed exactly what it needed to for it's audience. This contemporary, gangster-like film stars Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes and just really was a homerun for me. Not because it had wonderful acting or special effects (those aspects of the film were actually poor), but because it used Shakespeare's verse in contemporary times, which is normally something I'm horrible about interpretting and brought it to life in a modern-day setting with guns, gangs, violence, etc. Everything that appeals to our generation. And I thought that this would be incredibly helpful for students or interested persons who just didn't find what they were looking for in the text and needed to view some action that they could relate to. I know that some may see it as a disgrace to Shakespeare's amazing story and whatnot, but it serves its purpose and offers and interesting point of view in a more recent setting. The story remains the same, and think about it... it's an over-exaggerated tragedy... the acting and setting aren't poking fun at his work, they're simply recreating it in an interesting and fun way.

Now, for the record, I'm not saying that movies are better than books in many ways, or any ways. I am simply saying that when it comes to complicated and often misunderstood verse and language, or even other aspects of literature that make it difficult for the less intellectual to understand, movies can be helpful as a visual aid, or to engage an otherwise disinterested audience to well-known or good stories.

Obviously, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most, books are almost always better than movies. This hold true for a number of reasons that have been discussed in previous posts, and also because, though one cannot see exactly what is going on, he can relate to the character moreso and be exposed to finer details and more importantly, unspoken thoughts and feelings that movies cannot capture. While movies do a very nice job of translating text, as in the Harry Potter movies, the audience cannot identify as closely and miss important points, thoughts, and things that are not spoken aloud by the characters, and aren't thrust completely into the heads and imaginations of characters as they are in books. But, if something is meant to be a play originally, as in my Romeo + Juliet example, it is easier to translate the original text to the big screen, because it was meant to be acted out and the author took into account that we wouldn't be exposed to private thoughts of the characters unless they were spoken aloud on stage. So I think that movies like such are more successful as the directors have been given an easier time.

My questions are:
Have you seen this version of Romeo and Juliet? If so, what did you think of it? Were you in favor of what it was trying to prove and did it do a decent job of appealing to its target audience?

If you haven't, do you think that after reading the Amazon review that you would agree or disagree with it?

Hamlet and Harry Potter

I'm sure we've all read Shakespeare's Hamlet at some point. When I read it in one of my english classes we watched the 1996 movie (the one with Kate Winslet) as we read. I still enjoyed the play more than the movie, but I have to admit the movie was extremely helpful. They stay very close to the actual script and plot. This made it easy to picture what was going on and understand the action of the scenes a little better. This review also gave the movie positive feedback, saying it "engaged [his] intellect, senses, and emotions."

In this situation, the movie was a success and I'm glad it was available; however, this is not always the case. Movies like The Hunger Games and Harry Potter tend to stray from the original text. It's not that the movies are bad, but I'd rather they stick to the plot or go a completely different way, like use the same idea, but change up the plot and title so the book can be its own being. The Harry Potter series, for instance, seems to mean all things Potter - books, movies, board games, etc.

It seems like books become movies to appeal to a larger audience. So many people say "Oh yeah I've seen the movies, I just haven't read the books." For Harry Potter, many people just don't want to spend the time reading thousands of pages, when they can just sit back and watch the movies. This is what's frustrating because in my opinion, the books are so much better. It's not just the storyline that is more compelling, but the way Rowling tells the story. She is actually a good writer, unlike so many series-authors today (i.e. Stephanie Meyer).

In my opinion, a movie rendition can change the value of a book, in the public's eye. The Potter series was unique in that it grew up with a generation. The first book targeted 3rd graders; the last one featured gory death scenes aiming for teenagers and young adults. You can't see that in the movies, its just not the same. Before the first movie came out, everyone went out and bought the book to see what all the hype was about. Now they just rent the movie and say, "that was decent."

In contrast, movie-Hamlet does not change anything about the original Shakespeare piece - that's what's so great about it. Everyone would still rather read the play for the experience of reading Shakespeare. This is one example of a movie that doesn't spoil the original literature, and I'm sure there are more out there. So it goes both ways, in my opinion, but more often than not, the movie doesn't live up to the book's standards.

Here are my questions:

1. What do you think about movies that are based on a book - or real life events - that have a different title and storyline (i.e. The Vow, Rambo, Die Hard)?
2. What about movie propaganda? Do transformers action figures and party favors have any impact on the cultural significance of the film?

Dante's Inferno: 14th Century to 2007

Dante's Inferno is the epic first part of the Divine Comedy following a man on a quest through the nine circles of hell, written and narrated by Dante Alighieri sometime in the 14th century.  Alighieri in 34 cantos (chapters) basically designs every concept of Hell that we have in our heads when asked to imagine it. Furthermore, he creates every punishment for every sin from 1st circle atheism all the way to 9th circle treachery.  The novel is very serious, very frightening, and just a wild story in general.

Fast forward to the 21st century,  Sandow Birk and Marcus Sanders re-tell Alighieri's tale in terms of 2007 through their puppet-based film by the same name.  They establish a modern setting with modern idealism and utilize a humorous prose while holding true to the original Inferno.  If the book is too difficult to read with it's verse format, I'd venture to say that the film could give you a detailed grasp on everything within Alighieri's writings.

I feel that books usually become movies whenever some film maker is an avid fan of a work, or when a writer sees the potential movie within an author's work.  I can't imagine any writer creating novels with the intent that his pieces end up on the big screen.  This is why the film people have to be the ones to see the movie potential within a book, because they have much more feel on the length of movies, budgets, actors, etc.  Upon reading the book or getting an adapted script, they have to choose what's the most important, what to omit, think about scenes and what have you.  The makers of the film adaptation of Inferno had an apparent interest in the book, and decided that they would remake the story for their time and their voice.  And they actually do a great job in adapting the writing to a movie.

Which brings us to books vs. movies.  Books will always have the upper hand in that there's no time limitations, and therefore every detail needed is in the story.  They also allow you to make your own ideas in regards to the imagery of each scene, of each character, and of the general setting.  Movies on the other hand cannot be 5 hours long, and they spoon feed you the faces, the places, the things.  So you might miss out on some key parts.  Since Alighieri's work is written in it's verse format,  the film makers where actually able to take the story and dumb it down to common 21st century language.  Because of this, the film does well in capturing every circle of hell, every demon creature encounter, and so on.  The only difference is, is that some of the creatures and scenes are portrayed in a modernized way, compared to the book.

With this specific example,  I feel that someone who has seen the film interpretation of Dante's Inferno before reading the book may not seek out the actual book. And even if they did, I could see them seeing the way it is written, getting frustrated and calling it quits.  The film is also much more comical than the novel, so some audience may even be lost on that principle alone when it comes down to actually reading Dante Alighieri.

The Crucible Vs. The Crucible

The Crucible, written by Arthur Miller, is both a play and a movie (made based off of the play).  Now whenever a movie is made based off of some text, the question is always asked, “Will the movie stay true to the text?”  And in the case of  The Crucible, a large number of people on Amazon.com agree the movie adaptation was incredibly well done and very historically accurate.  Granted Miller wrote the screenplay so already there was a good advantage of the writing staying true to the text in the script, and since the text was also a play, the formatting is already similar to a screenplay making it that much easier to include as much original content as possible.

Of course not all book-to-movie adaptations are successful in terms of being equal in quality to the original text.  There are many movies out there that butcher a book by completely changing  either the ending or simply leaving out so much of the novel’s original contents that it’s difficult to follow anything super intimate or detailed in a storyline (can anyone say Eragon?).  Which is really unfortunate because movies are the opportunity of taking something readers could only imagine in their minds and turning those images into a tactile moving picture. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that a movie usually can’t be a carbon copy of the original novel, and that there are aspects of a book that must be sacrificed because they don’t translate well into movies.  But still, when key, important details such as the ending or random plot twists that weren’t in the story are thrown in, I usually get angry because it demolishes the integrity the original text.

Even though I love the freedom of imagining the contents of a book however I so choose, it’s always so interesting to see a director’s vision, actor portrayals,  and special effects that bring something that was once only available to visualize in my mind into something I can actually look at and make my own judgments as to whether or not the movie was everything I dreamed it would be.  Isn’t that why we want books become movies anyways? It fulfills a vision we had; when other people in the world say they also envisioned a novel in a similar way we did, it’s empowering to know weren’t officially not alone and also can give the feeling we were right… even though we know we can’t really say another’s imagination is really wrong if it was different…

Now let’s ask ourselves if we’re likely to read a book if we watch a movie based off of a book? Quite honestly, I don’t know if I’ve ever read the book a movie is based off of after seeing a movie, but I know that I LOVE to see the movies that are made about books I’ve read and loved.  So does that support the whole reason our earlier reasoning as to why these movies exist?  I think it does. These movies are an entertaining short investment of time compared to reading most books, so it’s easier to watch a movie about a story we may only be mildly interested in but haven’t read the yet. And of course, if we loved the book originally, it’s the opportunity to see the words we loved on paper come to life.

Questions:

1) Do you usually read the book a movie is based off of after you see a movie (obviously assuming you’ve never read the book before seeing a particular movie)? Why or why not?

2) How much liberty should a storyline be given because it’s being translated from a novel to the big screen?

The Wizarding World Once Again...

I constantly use Harry Potter references, get used to it. I'm going to use the reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (The Seventh Book) On Amazon and evaluate the importance and flaws of these reviews.

When I looked up the book, I was very relieved to see that they had illuminated directly underneath the product the most helpful FAVORABLE REVIEW and the most helpful CRITICAL review. I feel that this is a great way to showcase the reviews, rather than just having uneducated or biased jumbled messes of reviews that would obviously contort the buyers. THANK GOODNESS, is what I must say. Users can deem reviews "helpful" if they wish, and that's awesome, so we aren't just caught in a sea of bewilderment and confusion when we are looking for a decent review of a book we are potentially going to buy or read.

The first gives it 5 stars. (<- click to view)

This review is, I believe, on point. He gives a lengthy, appealing, justified review that credits JK Rowling and the plot and characters for being awesome, and the writing for being better than ever, but this isn't the universal point of view about the book.

Review 2: 3 Stars (<- click to view)

This review is rather critical, and has absolute relevance, he says that the book is good, but can’t receive a five-star review because Rowling uses many clichés and shortcuts to make her story work, and also includes many plot holes in her novel.

While both of these reviews are indeed helpful, and seem to be written by intelligent people, I don’t believe that we can entirely base our opinions or desires to read a book solely on these reviews from users who don’t necessarily do this professionally. I'd like to say that I absolutely LOVE Harry Potter, and would say that I'm moderately obsessed in comparison to most. So, obviously I'd give the book five hundred stars on a 5 scale, but that's just me. Based on complete and total literary aspects of the book? Hell no. And that's where we have a problem: average joes like myself rating books and others basing their opinions or purchasing of the books on user reviews entirely.

Do I think that these reviews are a step in the right direction? Absolutely. One can look and see how favorably a book is generally reviewed by an audience of his own people, and it helps to get a more realistic idea of how a book is reviewed by the intended audience. I like New York Times reviews and all that get posted on the back of the books, but they aren’t always realistic and don’t sway me in either direction. Real people with real reviews are important in today’s world. I was also happy to see that when I was browsing on the page for the book, it first lists literary critiques and reviews from other sources before I could even find the link to user reviews, this gives the users the ability to first see what professionals think of the book before they are thrust into an environment where thousands of normal people give their “two cents.”

So, overall I think that the way that Amazon has their reviews constructed is helpful and logical. There’s always going to be positive and negative feedback for books and other entertainment or educational products, and one must be prepared to encounter these and still go into the use or reading of it with an open mind. I know that I’m guilty with biasing movies based on Rotten Tomatoes movie reviews, because I end up agreeing with the critics 90% of the time, but if we are capable of open-mindedly entering the world a book creates, and not continuously recalling reviews and other’s perspectives when reading, these reviews are very helpful and can help us to avoid reading things that are generally unfavorable, IF they are unfavorable for good reason and by those that we seem to be able to relate to on an intellectual level.

So, I suppose my questions are: Do you think that it is helpful or harmful (or both) to read book reviews BEFORE reading or purchasing the actual book? Why or Why not? Should we leave the critiquing up to the experts? Or ignore them entirely?

Twilight

I chose to look up Twilight on Amazon because I was sure there would plenty of reviews to choose from - and I was right. Over 5,000 people wrote critiques of the first book in the series and over 3,000 of these people gave it 5 stars. I think this says something about who's writing the reviews. If someone is going to write a critique, they probably either loved it or hated it. In this case, most of them loved Twilight.

In my opinion, Amazon invites book reviewers for this reason. Books like Twilight will get thousands of great reviews, only further spreading the hype that accompanies fantasy novels. Also, customers would much rather here the thoughts of their peers than professional critics. Who cares what these journalists think when fellow thirteen year olds think Twilight is amazing?

Although I'm not a die-hard fan, I have to admit that I've read the entire series. It was a nice way to wind down the day with a non-challenging page turner. The storyline was good enough, and the writing wasn't distracting enough to stop me from reading. Overall, I wouldn't give it five stars - but thats just me.

I found an interesting review that provided a good amount of insight. The critic basically stated that Meyer's book needed more time and editing to achieve literary merit. She said it felt rushed, that it should've been looked over more carefully and condensed to exclude the unnecessary details. She also explained that the storyline gave a bad message to its audience: the only way to get a guy is to give up everything for him. Meyer should've targeted girls older than thirteen if she wanted to use this theme. This reviewer gave Twilight 4 stars because of the character development and addicting storyline.

This review does a good job of analyzing the Meyer's novel, but the rating seems a little too kind. The critic spends all this time on what is bad, and little time on what is good. Giving the book a good rating makes it seems like she is trying to please her audience of commenters rather than give an honest rating.

Overall, I think reviews can be helpful at times but mostly they can distract you from creating your own opinion, especially if they are read before purchasing the book. I like to read them when I'm finished to see if I agree or disagree with the general opinion of whatever I'm reading, but reading reviews beforehand can sometimes ruin the story.

So here are my questions:

1. Do you agree with Amazon critics that Twilight deserves over 3000 5 star ratings? If so, is it because of literary merit or cultural influence of the series?
2. Since you have the ability to reply and comment on these reviews, is this just another form of social networking?

The Hunger for Book Reviews

Recently The Hunger Games has taken the nation by storm as the newest book and  book-to-movie series fad. So naturally when a book becomes incredibly popular, it also means everyone who is reading will have something to say about it.  On Amazon.com it’s incredibly easy to leave a review about any book even if we didn’t purchase it from their website.  Which is perfect, because then reviews aren’t as biased towards the people who wanted to purchase a desired book anyways.  Currently, on Amazon The Hunger Games has 4.6 out of 5 stars from 7,588 votes, and some of the top reviews range from the book being spectacular to below average and overrated.

Amazon and other popular book websites always encouraging reviews is a huge marketing tool.  People get an outlet to vent their excitement or frustration about the book itself (and possibly can divert any annoying complaints to a company for a poor book that distributors like Amazon and Barnes and Noble may not know really sucks).  Also, reviews are literally a “consumer insider.”  Leaving reviews on a largely used Internet shopping site is the best place to see what people really think void of situational peer pressure to not completely rave about or destroy a book. And that means free reviews for Amazon for other customers to read and determine if they were helpful.  A lot of the time it’s easier to trust a review for an everyday Average Joe than some presumptuous bookworm who has a PhD in Literature.

I personally take into consideration book reviews (or at least the number of stars it has) if there are a large number of reviews (a larger sample of people is indeed more reliable and accurate versus only a handful), mostly because I don’t want to necessarily invest time and money into a book if it’s going to end up being an awful experience.  But at the same time I don’t like the let them dictate my reading selection, but rather a suggested guideline and maybe shift my expectations to a more appropriate level.  Besides, usually only the people who felt passionately (either positively or negatively) about a book are the ones who write reviews.

Now do I actually take the time to write reviews? Nope.  I suppose when thinking about the impact that such a decision(a.k.a. to not write a review) contributes to the literary culture, American culture, and most importantly Internet culture, I realize  it’s actually a lack thereof.  But at the same time, I feel like there are larger ways to impact the thinking of others and the Internet culture than solely writing book reviews on various online bookstores.  So the balance already in place is a pretty good one; those that currently write reviews will continue to write, and I will continue not to (unless I was reallyyyyy bored or feel super passionate about a specific story I suppose).

Granted though, the more experience a person has in writing, even if it’s simply writing many book reviews or blog posts, greatly contributes to overall, individual writing ability.  A person can definitely exploit these opportunistic outlets to develop a unique voice and become more comfortable with a lot of the nuances that are apart of the writing process, which honestly are probably the most important parts of writing academically anyways. The question is whether or not writing is more influenced by Internet or the classroom.  I personally think the classroom still influences writing in individuals more so than the Internet.  And that's primarily due to the fact that most people don't write papers on the Internet.  The Internet has actually caused us to condense a lot of our writing to short statements and hashtags instead of developing and supporting incredibly complex thoughts.  Now I only mean this as it applies to the majority of people I observed in my life.  For those who make a living blogging and writing reviews on the web, the Internet and the people on the Internet most likely influences those people a lot more in their writing.

Regardless of what category any of us falls under, we must also appreciate the significance that the Internet has given everyone the opportunity to write whatever we want about whatever books we read (and really any topic at all) through reviews and blogs and other countless writing options.  We can't deny that in allowing anyone to be critic online we've actually challenged people to step up and voice opinions to the world where they may not have said much about a book or any sort of topic otherwise.

Questions:
1) Is it progress for book reviews to be dominated by ordinary, everyday people instead of literary critiques? Granted literary critiques still exist and are always writing reviews as well, but what other differences can be noted about reviews done by anyone?
2) Do book reviews on the Internet impact literary culture? American culture? Internet culture?
3) Does English composition writing get more influence primarily from the Internet these days or is the classroom still the place writers develop their voice and unique style of writing?

Engine 2

*sorry about the late post. I had to come home on Thursday due to a family emergency.

Last summer, I found myself reading as many nutrition books as I could get my hands on. One in particular was called The Engine 2 Diet, by Rip Esselstyn. This particular diet is all about being "plant-strong"  - aka vegan (no animal products). It presents a plant-based diet in a positive light as a cure for obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and any other weight-related diseases. Esselstyn is a firefighter who first started this diet at his station and then proceeded to perform studies about its outcomes on volunteers of all ages.

Esselstyn and everyone working at this project rely on social media for success. Their facebook page is a constant stream of recipes and success stories. Through this medium, many people are able to get support on their weight loss journeys. It is also a great way to find new and interesting recipes from all over the internet that people have posted to this page. Engine 2 is seen as a great way to become healthy, lose weight, or whatever your goals may be. The facebook profile does a good job of representation, based on the ideas and support that is updated constantly.

Of course, Engine 2 has now become a company and needs to advertise. What better way than through social networking? Esselstyn and his team put on conventions called "Engine 2 Immersions" where they provide healthy food, exercise classes, and speakers. They last a few days and turn over great results. Advertising for these events is done through facebook and twitter. It must be successful if they are still able to host the conventions almost once a month. Esselstyn is using social networking in a positive way to help people get healthy and raise awareness of the dangers of unhealthy lifestyles.

All of this started with Esselstyn's original book, and its growth was surely a surprise for everyone involved. It appears as though the book is interacting with social media to produce the most effective means of communication. In situations like these, it is easy to see how this is possible because diets are about a lifestyle change - something which needs constant attention. This attention is available when social networking is involved; however, that is not always the case.

With novels, or other literary forms, social networking plays an entirely different role. Advertising can still be used to market the product, if so desired. However, from there on it seems that facebook and twitter are used more often to critique the work. There are fan pages and communities in support of novels, but it is more about discussing the novel than creating something outside of the novel itself. In cases like that of Twilight, social networking can create things like the "Team Edward" vs. "Team Jacob" war, however. So here are my questions:

1. What does it take for a novel to go beyond a simple fan page, to become more than words on a page? It has got to be more than a story involving to two boys competing for one girl.

2. Should companies have to pay for a facebook or twitter account because of all the advertising? If so, would it be by post, monthly payments, or a one time fee?

Pottermania

Good ole J.K. Rowling is one of the most influential literary figures of our generation. She has formed such a wide array of fans, not only from her seven books, but from 8 movies that have swept our nation. And, though many of us picture the “Potter-crazy” geeky, nerdy, fan base, she has acquired so many diverse fans of all ages and countries that it seems almost impossible to have done so without the help of the internet and media. I, of course, follow her on Twitter, like her on Facebook, and loosely follow other websites and blogs concerning the author. That’s the beauty of J.K. Rowling, she has so many loyal followers that they have made websites concerning her and the Harry Potter fandom. She is also helpful with the website www.pottermore.com, where you can actually get exclusive content concerning each book while you virtually journey through the storyline and the Wizarding world,  chat with other users, and create and online profile based on your favorite characters, spells, etc. I just recently joined this site to see what all the hype was about, and it’s a really interesting atmosphere that can further your reading experience that much more. Harry Potter fans will never be disappointed or run out of activities or things to talk about. Harry Potter has many other fan sites, fan fiction, literature assessing the novels so deeply that other fans find the need to purchase these readings on Kindle and such, YouTube videos, video games, even characters from Harry Potter have parody twitters that are widely followed by users. I just think that Harry Potter is something that would be much less widely-known without the internet and social networking, and the hype may have died or been stifled without the use of these networks.

            As far as J.K. goes, she doesn’t even really have to create her own public persona, as her fans are so avidly doing it for her, and in a sense worshipping her as some literary goddess. Now, I don’t think that Harry Potter books are the best written books I’ve ever read, but they are my favorite, and they are appealing to children, teens, and adults internationally, so she’s obviously onto something here. Nonetheless, I think it’s important to follow the actual author on social networks to get her personal thoughts and tweets, rather than be completely biased by how the fans and social media have constructed her. J.K. Rowling has only tweeted 12 times, simply to indicate that it is in fact the REAL her on this twitter page, and that people have been tweeting on her behalf. She says that “pen and paper are still (her) priority” several times. Even with this, she has over 1 million followers. She refers fans to the Pottermore site and her own personal author website jkrowling.com. She really seems like a humble individual with little concern for the happenings of today and being in others business, or at least doesn’t voice her opinion much. I have great respect for her in this sense, as she is diverting attention away from tweeting and constructing an internet persona, and shines through mostly based on her writing and relies on her fans to keep her popular and strong in the social world. And boy, do they do an amazing job at that. Without the internet, Harry Potter may not still be such a worldwide obsession.

            So, is the internet helping or hindering the literary world? If both, in what ways does is do so? And do you think that it is a safe or smart move for an author such as J.K. Rowling to put her persona in the hands of her fans rather than her own self?

Our Therapeutic Internet

In America we have brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends, and other family that suffer from eating disorders, anxiety, or maybe are just in need of a good therapy session to talk out current problems and issues.  Amy Hanson-Akins is one of those selfless people who gives her time to help all sorts of people with any issues that can’t always be solved or worked through alone.  She is a Psychotherapist who specializes in treating eating disorders and anxiety for all age groups for both men and women.  She has written countless eating disorder and anxiety presentations and seminars in and around the Toledo-land area in Ohio. She is also someone who networks heavily with the help of facebook and twitter so she can spread her knowledge, gain knowledge from others in her profession or similar professions, and reach out to countless individuals, which would otherwise be impossible without the help of social media sites. 

The second you access either of her profiles, it’s obvious she is someone who cares about making life a meaningful experience where we are happy with who we are and are able to focus on the positives in life.  Granted her profiles are only limited to those who already follow her or are her “friends,” or those who willing go out of there way to find her profile.  But just having the huge number of connections she has between both websites, anything she posts, reposts, or tweets about is sent out to everyone she is connected with.  And hopefully there will be at least several people who will be affected enough by the positive messages she puts out there about anxiety and eating disorders will be reposted and resent through her contacts to people she probably doesn’t even know.  I could continue on about the internet is like a pool of water, and anything that is posted on the internet is like the ripples created from dropping stuff into the pool (posting on the internet), and how those ripples continue to expand and reach further and further towards the edges of the pool, but this analogy alone seems to serve my point. We all know that knowledge has never had the capability before to travel as fast as a simply click of a computer mouse, but now since it does, it redefines the traditional notion of “literary culture,” by making it less formal and able to expand upon itself exponentially.

I suppose it could be debated that simply networking over the internet isn’t really “literary work.” But remember she has written and led numerous presentations and seminars about the issues her profession deals with.  And also any sort of networking and spreading ideas over the internet during a period of time, and trying to make the world a better place (however that is defined for an individual), is similar to writing a series of short anecdotes and ideas. Honestly, I’ve always thought literature and literary works’ main purpose to be a catalyst for new thoughts and ideas that are presented in a way in which readers can still interpret many aspects of the text freely, but a core ideology or criticism is still evident and apparent.  And that’s exactly what using facebook and twitter to spread knowledge and awareness about issues that are import to us is all about.  So while Amy Hanson-Akins may not always be posting original thoughts but reposting ideas and extensions of ideologies she already believes in, she has been able to become an exceptional therapist and enhance her seminars by exploiting the possibilities social media sites have been able to offer.  And honestly, what author has ever has an idea or plot in their story that was 100% original? We use literature to expand upon our core ideals, just as Amy Hanson-Akins has, which is why she is one of the many public “literary” figures that exist on the internet today.

Questions:

1)  How far do you extend your definition of a “literary” figure? Can we define it as general as someone who has been able to write about an issue intelligently and bring awareness to any criticisms they have about society?  Or perhaps should we really leave it at that someone who published some fiction/nonfiction story that has been published by a well-known publishing company?

2)  In today’s society we can find literary works in digital form and download with the click of a button instead of needing to go to a library or bookstore to purchase what we need. So how has the internet changed literary works?

Frontmen and Twitter

Nathan Williams is the bratty, pot-head, used-to-live-in-his-mom’s-basement-until-his-macbook-recordings-were-deemed-“rad”-by-the-hipster-blogs frontman of his now esteemed beachy, punk-pop band, WAVVES.  Regardless of being brilliant or just being uncreative and lucky at the same time, Williams is an excellent writer in terms of catchy, simple lyrics that swept him up out of his mom’s basement and into MTV and celebrity-hood.  In this age of social networking, Nathan turns out to be some sort of pioneer, in that he has always been constantly tweeting.  At 44,806 followers, the kid has his audience well informed on his drunkenness, his drug usage, his drunken drug use at the VMA’s (read this: http://www.thefader.com/2011/08/29/wavves-wins-the-vmas/), etc.

As a fan of his, as well as many other tweeting frontmen (the excellent lyricist Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand got drunk two days ago and answered an infinite amount of questions from his followers: http://www.nme.com/news/franz-ferdinand/63686?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fanpage-nmenews-franz#5), I love that fact that the audience can now be so close to the artists.  The mystique of these talented people leaves and soon the follower is left only to their glamorously intoxicated lifestyles, allowing for more “nobodies” to feel more confident in their own abilities.  Not to mention, it’s a blast to get to see a glimpse of the exact person a popular musician is.

Literary culture to me is simply any form of writing that delivers entertainment and worth.  As far as this specific post goes, I would say that guys like the previously mentioned Alex Kapranos or Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys are all to be considered masterful in the literature field seeing as they write fantastic melodic poems that connect with many people who listen to the music daily.  Even so, on the other end of the spectrum you have somebody like Nathan Williams or Jake Orrall of JEFF the Brotherhood who write explicitly “punk” lyrics that may not be the most intelligent (baby please/can’t you see/I think you are so sexy/won’t you mellow out with me?), it’s still considered impressive because it’s simply relatable, albeit in a low-IQ fashion.  Literature, like art, is subjective. It all depends on the spectator.

These literary figures do not make any attempt to state that they are in fact literary figures or that they write well or anything like that.  Instead, they just explain their lifestyles, their thoughts, and what they do, which is interesting because you can have their every day average joe dialogue and then see their works post-facto and make links between the two.  Before these social networks, there was no such capability.  David Bowie was actually Ziggy Stardust, Jimi Hendrix was insanely mystical and enchanted, Jim Morrison was on a different level mentally and spiritually.  If the people of those writers times had access to Twitter, then maybe more songwriters would’ve popped up once they realize that Bowie, Hendrix, and Morrison aren’t gods or extra terrestrial beings.  They’re just people (with different tolerance levels for different drugs).

To answer the question about the digital age being a red herring: Facebook friends are not real friends at all.  Everybody’s a creep, and Facebook is a haven where everyone can stare at everyone else without bothering anyone.  All the same with Twitter, except you hang on words rather than images.  I would not consider any of the before mentioned musicians as my friend just because I follow them on Twitter and know what they’re up to.  Even as some artists follow me, that’s not a real life friend.  It’s just a network.

 -Jon @JonnMac

South Park? Yes.

I was contemplating this topic for so long, and I knew that there were a million different things I could choose, but when it came down to actually remembering one to focus on under pressure, I was having difficulty. So many films, songs, and works of art offer blatant social criticism, and I couldn’t think of a measly one, until I went to watch my nightly South Park episodes on Netflix with my boyfriend…it dawned on me. How didn’t I think of this before?
            Okay, so South Park isn’t exactly a “work of art” or anything, but since it’s so loosely defined in this topic, I would say that it counts as art. It’s an expression of emotion intended to entertain an audience and prove a point. If plays, films, advertising, and songs are art pieces, then why not a television show? As long as it’s not a reality show that wasn’t well prepared and based on a script, I think it can fit under the classification. South Park may be raunchy in the eyes of many, but it is still a comedy that has influenced our generation.
            South Park goes places that many wouldn’t dare to go in today’s society. They hit on social issues that many wouldn’t bring up in a even the most casual conversations for the sake of being “politically correct” or seeming bias or irrational, and they don’t discriminate with their bashings, either.  This show will focus on issues in today’s world that are sometimes overlooked or misunderstood by the majority of the population, and brings them to light in a humorous fashion. I think that one of the best, if not the absolute best way to convey a message is through humor, especially in this generation. Not too many care about the political mumbo-jumbo and are bored by even the slightest indication of it, but South Park can capture the attention of even the least intellectuals and steer them into thinking a certain way. Can this be bad? Possibly, since South Park mostly focuses on the faults of the government or certain happenings, but they also focus on the fault of the people for not understanding or correctly interpreting social situations.
            The people of South Park, especially the adults are often shown overreacting or misunderstanding a situation in a way that is relatable to society. Sure, they go a bit over the top with the plots and actions, but that’s where humor plays it’s role, and they are often very real issues. In one episode, “The China Problem,” it shows the townspeople portraying the irrational American fear of the Chinese, and this is a common theme in episodes. The irrational racism of Americans is brought to light and is a very influential form of social commentary.
            They bring political issues out of the dark too, there are episodes pertaining to Osama Bin Laden as well as just about every president or political figure. South Park definitely provides a humorous form of social criticism in every episode, some more serious than others. And I think that it really is influential, because I, for one, don’t know much about political issues because they are of disinterest to me, but when I see a South Park episode I don’t want to sit there and just automatically conform to their point of view, so I research the situation to get some background info on what they’re talking about. So, I can see where it can be dangerous for the show to target not only intellectuals, but the “not so intellectual” side of our country, but either way they get the point across.
            My questions are: What are your thoughts on the significance of South Park in our generation beyond that of a humorous, obscene television show, IF you have any at all? And do you think that the way that they approach their target audience is appropriate or crafty? And, obviously, it is targeting a limited audience, but, for the purpose it serves, is this a large enough span of individuals, since it is definitely covering a larger audience than many social criticisms?

Marley

Absurdity

At first glance, the absurdist movement seems silly and childish. After all, how can you call this art? To some this is nothing but a strangely placed urinal. And yes, that is exactly what it is, and exactly the first impression the artist wants out of his audience. It is not until further reflection that the work's meaning is revealed. Artists of the absurdist movement are not necessarily striving for beauty, but instead for social commentary on the definition of art.

An upside down urinal on the street is commonly thought of as garbage, just awaiting the dumpster; however, what happens when this everyday object is put in a museum? If people pay to see it, does that make it art? Anything can be called art if it is seen through the correct medium. To define art, we would have to make so many specifications that the creativity of the institution would be lost. Perhaps, there is no purpose to discussing definition of art. After all, if someone wants to build beer can pyramid and call it art, there is no stopping him.

So what is the cultural significance of art if anyone can do it? The answer is obviously too complex for one analysis; however, in my own opinion, art is more of a personal journey for the artist than a business deal or occupation. It is about freedom and political statements and emotions and life events. Museum art, however, is a completely different story.

If people are going to pay to see a masterpiece, I believe they should see something outstanding, something virtuosic. If I go to a museum, I want to be impressed by an amazing photograph, or a statue that is pure perfection. I don't want to see a urinal tipped on its side that made it into the museum because someone famous happened to do the tipping. That would be more personal art, or as said before, a social commentary on the definition of art - a piece better saved for the internet.

To define art is surely an impossible task, that is for certain; however, the question remains, is it our job as a society to pass judgment on what type of stylistic works belong in which venues? Or perhaps, it is up to the artist to decide whether his work is personal, commercial, or a combination of the two. Regardless, I feel that the absurdist movement exists as a platform for these questions rather than a mode of expressing creativity. It is for the sake of the questions that this movement continues to grow.

The Art of Satire

Satire is defined as a literary or art form in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, and wit.  It has numerous forms; one popular form used in our society today is through television programs.   For example, “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” both have a huge following and their main purpose it to point out how ridiculous a politician or a cause is using irony, derision, and wit, also known as satire. 

Satire plays such an important part in our society.  It addresses social critiques in an interesting and clever way that makes most people not only laugh at the audacity of the irony presented in many situations but also makes people interested enough to stop and think about the how these individual situations can directly impact us and whether or not we agree or disagree with the issues presented.  It gives us a chance to decide whether or not it seems like an issue is large enough on a social scale to start debating, discussing, addressing any worries or concerns, and even wanting to go so far as to push for social change.

I’ll be completely honest. I. LOVE. Satire.  I feel one of the best ways to get a point across in today’s society is to first of all being able to grab an audience’s attention, and since we are so distracted by so many different innovative technological things, it’s more difficult than ever to get people to stop for just a moment and think about some of the social issues around them in society even if they don’t directly effect us.   While the original main purpose of satire wasn’t necessarily intended to present an ironic situation as humorous, I definitely know that satire has been able to thrive a lot by exploiting the humor behind the irony of many political candidates and social issues.  And also, I don’t know about everyone else, I feel awesome when I see a satirical picture or watch “The Colbert Report” and it manages to perfectly describe how I feel about a situation.  For instance, I loved all the satire against Rick Santorum back when he was still running for president.

The fact that satire is used widely as political propaganda doesn’t make it any less of an art form.  There are people who would rather express their ideas in a more entertaining fashion such as a comedy show or drawing a thought provoking picture than just write words on a paper or a quick speech, and actually we can consider those actions to be art as well.  Art can really just be defined as simply taking some aspect of the world around us and transforming it into some creative form that is meaningful to us personally. 

Now if we want to debate whether or not satire brings social good for a society, I think it does.  Granted, it will at some point or another offend someone, but in terms of promoting and debating different ideas in an entertaining format, I don't think there’s really a better way of going about it.  Also, if someone were to mock my ideologies, point out the irony, or address some flaw, that would give me the drive to confront such mockeries rather than just accept someone else’s ideologies as their own opinions.

Now what I want to know do you agree that satire is indeed an art form? And if you do, do you feel that it also promotes social good?  Or perhaps, does satire do more harm on society than good?  Is satire ultimately productive or counterproductive to progress in a society?

What's Art For? Whatever You Want.

                  The idea of art is all based on perception in my opinion.  Music, painting, writing, as well as everything else along those lines are all subjective, which is why people have so many different tastes.  I do not believe there is a one lone, true “goal” towards which all art is created either as many different artists with different reasons for what they do.  One artist may work to make an audience laugh or be entertained while another is attempting to start a revolutionary coup d’etat in his or her country

I saw a film earlier in the quarter called RiP!: A Remix Manifesto about how the copyright laws have become progressively and ridiculously more strict in the past decades on creative property of artists.  The prime example used in the documentary was mash-up artist Girl Talk, and his utilization of pieces of other artists’ music to make a new product and call them his own (Ex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bMM7tGV9MI).  While, Girl Talk’s goal is simply to entertain and make half naked women and sweaty bros dance til heart attack, the film itself is an artistic piece created to raise awareness about a claimed issue and get people thinking or choosing sides.

                  Although this specific example may not cause the social change it would like -simply because the laws won’t bend so easily- it is still having a go at the unreasonable “grey areas” of our government’s rules on copyright.  At the same time, it is also informing a specific group of society (music pirates, mash-up artists, cartoonists, etc.) what exactly is going on.  As a musician, I never really knew what was going on with big corporation ownership and creative licenses.

For instance, a little day care center was sued for having Disney characters painted on some of the walls.  The irony is that, Mr. Walt Disney borrowed almost every idea he turned into an animated film from past creations (Alice in Wonderland, Steamboat Willie, Fantasia).  Once that point is dropped, I am now against these bullshit copyright laws and want to get angry at “The Man” and protest and on and on. You get the point...

On the other hand, you have the purpose of entertainment and leisure, which really doesn’t have to be explained.  This is why we have our Ke$ha, our Justin Beiber, our T-pain, and reality TV.  People would probably avoid shit like that if art was only used to become smarter or make changes in the world.  Though I put those select artists and concepts in a negative light, 50 years from now, Ke$ha will be there on the out-dated technology that is the Compact Disc to show a newer generation what we were working with.  God forbid if there are any reruns of Jersey Shore, our kids will gain perspective. And therein, laugh at us (hopefully).

                  Lastly, I wanted to address the idea of efficacy and reproduction stated in the final bullet of the assignment:

A friend of mine recently released an EP with his new musical project, Wooden Teeth.  I had heard a few of their originals that were awesome pieces, but one that was really exciting to hear was the group’s cover of “My Girl” by The Temptations (http://woodenteeth.bandcamp.com/track/my-girl-cover-by-temptations).  With a driving, almost dub-reggae rhythm, and pretty, delay guitar based melodies, the song is a whole new look on the Motown classic, and an enjoyable one at that.

If by some crazy chance that there is a person who hates the original, classic cut of “My Girl,” the Wooden Teeth cover may still come through to the weird guy that is unimpressed by The Temptations as the best song he’s ever heard.  The accessibility is increased thanks to a re-creation of an old masterpiece.  The Girl Talk song I have posted above can hold the same concept. A girl could hate Black Sabbath and love Ludacris. When she hears how Girl Talk has portrayed the two artists, she may be tickled pink by Sabbath in such a light.

I've only got one obvious discussion question that might spark a debate: Given that people agree with the first sentence of this post, is art so subjective as to allow one to claim that a 5th grader's artwork on the fridge rivals that of a Michael Angelo or a Pablo Picasso? If there is a line to be drawn, how can one decide where? 

-Jon

Sorry for the Wait

Hello fellow bloggers,

I apologize for not getting my blog post in on time... I don't want you to think I'm a careless crackhead or anything, because I'm not. I am, however, a procrastinator, but that is beside the point. My very educated mother decided that the family should go on a random beach trip to Hilton Head on Thursday, and I didn't get back until last night at ungodly hours. I couldn't figure out how to do any of this on my iPhone because I'm new to the technological team, so I do apologize, it won't happen again. I'll probably post something tonight regarding the recent SOPA and PIPA censorship issues, which seem to be a major impending form of containment in recent times. Blogs are swimming with complaints and opinions concerning the issue, because, it would, in a sense, be a "blogger" genocide. I think this is a very obvious containment of a cultural norm, and the fact that the government was even slightly considering passing some sort of bill regarding this issue is a blantant display of ignorance to how important it is that the internet ISN'T censored, and how important the people in charge of websites and technology really are to today's society. They hosted blackouts on many websites in January to protest these issues, and it's amazing what the people are capable of. Anyway, I do apologize again, you all can stone me to death in the town square later if you wish.

Marley

Infection Control

I think we are all in agreement. Containment can be horrible when used to keep women in the household doing the dishes or slow down the civil rights movement; however, what about infectious disease? Is it possible to use containment in a good way to protect the common good? The blog, " CDC recommends polio boosters for travelers to 44 countries " explains the nature of polio and for which countries a vaccination is required. It also explains the dangerous effects of polio, including respiratory paralysis, and the immediacy of attaining a vaccine when traveling. The goal of the CDC is to keep polio at bay in the countries where it already exists. Perhaps without even knowing it, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is promoting a form of containment.

In this light, it appears that containment can save lives and increase global prosperity by protecting outsiders from local disease. This blog specifically looks at polio in "countries at risk for reestablishment." The vaccine is supposed to protect travelers from this sometimes life-threatening disease. Polio can cause paralysis and is most commonly spread through throat secretions. In this case, I believe containment is not only a good idea, but also a necessary precaution.

But what about those who happen to live in these "at risk" countries? Is it our job to provide the vaccine just because we can? Indeed, doing this would save many lives of children - where polio is most common - but just giving people what they need will not help them grow as a civilization. Many organizations (Doctors without Borders, etc) do help out by providing essential medicine because it seems so cruel to withhold it from those in need; however, the reverse is true. The cruelty lies in providing things like vaccinations or primary care and allowing people to become dependent. In the short run, it is wonderful to save a life; in the long run, this can lead to false hope and crippling disease.

So, how do we help? What can we possibly do to end diseases like polio if providing the vaccine will only cause dependency on foreign aid? If the right answer was out there, we would live free of infectious disease already. However, I believe certain steps can be taken to begin the process of ousting some unfortunate aspects of third world civilization. For instance, funding a training program for doctors or setting up hand-washing stations could lead to more knowledge about disease and a cleaner environment.

Certainly, this cannot be fixed overnight. For now, containment of polio and other infectious diseases seems to be the only viable solution. In class, we have only looked at containment in a negative way, but I would like to suggest a discussion in which we look at containment positively. After all, where would we be if not for vaccines that prevent diseases like polio, H1N1 (commonly known as swine flu), and HPV?

Containment of Women and Adolescents

            Blog post “Governor Walker repeals equal pay, bans abortion coverage, mandates abstinence,” essentially screams containment of women and adolescents through state legislation in Wisconsin. Apparently 50 bills were passed on April 5^th, some of them made getting an abortion harder to obtain for women. While it seems like the doctor speaking privately with the patient to make sure she is not being coerced into the abortion is really just a way for the doctor to have a chance to coerce the women out of the abortion. Another bill passed was what the blog implies: sex education teachers don’t have to address contraception in lectures and are instead expected to emphasize that abstinence is the ONLY way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

             I honestly believed a year ago, that for the most part, we, as a country, had moved past such nonsensical topics such as debating women’s rights (minus the abortion issue), and sex education in public schools.  I thought it was an understanding that a women has the right to decide what happens to her own body without outside influence in the form of laws and legislation mandating otherwise, and that more knowledge gives people the power to make better informed decisions.  However, I guess that’s not the case. 

            Lately, I’ve begun noticing that there are certain groups of people in this country who want to contain women. They do not want to present women with opportunities to have other options when they get pregnant or even to prevent a pregnancy.   Apparently, despite how far our society has come we still have politicians and people who feel that women aren’t competent enough to be the primary decision makers for themselves.  Or maybe it’s the fear that women will finally become fully equal to men. Maybe there’s even a greater fear that women could even surpass men. Maybe there's a fear that women would be the ones in charge of this country if they had the option to completely control their ability to have children when and where they so choose, and thus allow them to also advance further in the workplace. In the past a woman was expected to quit work, settle down, get married, and have a family if she got pregnant, essentially ending her work career, which also gave grounds for gender discrimination in the work place, such as unequal pay between genders for the same work.

            Obviously women can’t be eliminated though. The human race would be unable to reproduce especially since cloning humans isn’t anywhere close to being perfected.  So the only solution to having control of something, or in this case someone, is to contain it.  And what better way to contain a group of people than to make it either illegal, make it incredibly difficult to obtain abortions, or even worse, contain the younger generations so they don’t even get to learn about sex and all the different forms of contraception that help make sex safer. 

           

            If anything this ignorance is going to result in negative consequences for our society.  I would predict a rise in teen pregnancies both from lack of access to abortions and overall ignorance to the dangers of unprotected sex (and after they’ve been at an all time low since 1946!), and sexually transmitted diseases.  Not giving future generations all the information we possibly can will lead them to be easily misinformed from other more unreliable sources, such as their peers who also won’t know the whole truth, to the Internet (because for all the good the Internet provides there is a lot of information that is also incorrect as well, or at least unreal expectations that porn provides).

            Essentially, while these bills aren't the most outrageous legislation to have been passed in this country, I would like to stress that this is how widespread containment can begin.  Without fighting back for individual rights, we'll become slaves to own government, which is the very government that prides itself for supposedly being governed by the people.

            So my questions are:

            1) Do you feel that some members of society trying to push against affordable contraception for women and other affordable preventive services, such as those provided by Planned Parenthood, are trying to contain women for an ulterior motive (such as wanting women to be more oriented to housewives), or religious based motives, or even simply they personally don’t want to pay the tax-dollars that go into such programs?

            2) While it is completely constitutional for states to make laws for their own school systems, do you feel any potential containment presented to any group of people will do more harm than good to society in the long run? Or can containment be a good thing for society? Is some level of containment good for some societies?

--Kasey Ostarello--

U.S. & North Korea Containment

                  On Friday, April 13, North Korea attempted to launch some satellite-rocket against the word of the rest of the world.  Although it failed, Barack Obama has decided that the U.S. may need to engage the issue.  He explains that, “…they made a decision that they have to live with…We can’t keep trying to help them help themselves.” Hilary Clinton has been attempting to gather N. Korea for talks but explains that each time anyone tries to intervene with their affairs, their behavior only gets worse. All in all, after violating two Security Council resolutions, the U.S. is pushing for tough condemnation of North Korea.

                  With all other countries against the launch of this satellite and the North Korea launching regardless, another instance of necessary containment seems to be at hand here.  In another blog article by CNN, it is stated that this attempted launch is a clear signal that N. Korea may be on the verge of an underground nuclear testing, threatening many nations of the world.  Obama rightfully so sees that allowing North Korea to continue with such misbehavior will only encourage the same until North Korea becomes a clear and present danger to what peace currently exists.

                  If there is no containment of North Korea by the U.S. or the rest of the U.N., then the safety of the people is at stake.  As we mentioned in class recently, containment culture has received a horrible name from its Cold War beginnings.  In many situations, it absolutely deserves that name.  But in some drastic scenarios, containment must be employed for the greater good.  In this instance – albeit at worst – the lack of U.S. control over North Korea could cause a threat that builds into nuclear war.  Once this happens, then the bad-name containment can be expected to most definitely make a return, as war time containment is much more propagandistic and deft towards the people taking it in.

                  It’s ironic that I myself am taking sides with the U.S. in their world super power actions, seeing as I generally find our country’s intervention over the line and sometimes for the wrong reason.  Let it be known that I am not the most knowledgeable person of international news either.  This makes me wonder whether or not North Korea is even a threat at all.  Are they actually attempting to conquer the world?  All the accounts within the CNN blog are from U.S. officials and there’s been no opportunity to get an account of what North Korea has perceived of us (Is North Korea being difficult, or is our government not hearing them out?).  From the way these few articles are written and framed, it does seem that way.  It does seem strange however, that I myself have seemed to miss any word on the fact that this was in progress at all.  If it is such a possibly dangerous ordeal, I feel it should have held more chatter around this campus (which is the only way I – who reads no blogs or news, who watches no television – would hear of such a thing).

                  To sum it up, if we are being told the total truth, then the containment of North Korea must be called for. However, if we are missing some pieces of the story, then perhaps we have some questions to ask ourselves, here on the home front.

-Jon McAllister

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/13/u-s-could-shift-to-containment-strategy-for-north-korea/