Last week I saw a one-man rendition of Edgar Allen Poe’s greatest literary works in Hollywood, specifically in Thai Town. I must say that the performer, Jeffrey Combs, was excellent. This show is described by Goldstar.com as such, “a one-man show celebrating Edgar Allen Poe’s bicentennial”. I first discovered this play through my usual gallivanting through Goldstar.com. Weirdly enough, I had never heard of Poe’s story of “The Raven”, but I knew the majority of the other poems and tales that Combs performed. The performer made the poems and tales come to life, and his dialogue was enticing.
My favorite part of his act of the night had to be of his eccentric performance of the poem, “The Bells”. I had read this poem in high school, and it never really held my attention. It felt never-ending. However, he literally made the poem come to life. I felt entranced by him prancing across the stage in a furry, simultaneously screaming, “The bells, bells, bells!”, while the crickets hummed ever-so-slightly in the background of the tranquil darkness. It was terrifying like the start of a roaring orchestra, and made my heart beat just as rapidly. But it was just as electrifyingly bright, and it made my eyes light up with curiosity and awe.
Another key part that held my attention, like of a gaze with a new found love was his dialogue about plagiarism. Seeing as how I am a writing tutor it makes sense that I could easily relate to this bit. Combs angrily discussed the lack of creativity in this world, and his expressed anger toward a fellow writer in his time that did not express his own ideas, but simply stole from others’ creativity, such as Shakespeare. This part touched me because I often ponder in depth on plagiarism, and how everything can really be constituted as such due to the fact that everyone has had the same idea at some point in time. There is a lack of creativity in this world, and even Poe saw that in his time.
I definitely recommend this one-man show to anyone who has had an interest in Edgar Allen Poe’s written words. For more information on attending Nevermore, visit Goldstar.com for tickets, or directly get your tickets through Steve Allen Theater. According to Goldstar.com, there are several more performances available to attend in May.
And I would like to leave you all with The Simpson’s version of “The Raven”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXKwA4xt-o&feature=related
Friday, April 29, 2011
Trump! And the stacked cards fell down
So we’ve most likely all heard about Donald Trump’s inquiries into President Obama’s citizenship. To give you the gist on the situation, Trump is demanding an actual birth certificate from Obama, just because. Obama was born in Hawaii, and their system of birth certificates is a little different from within the central part of the United States, but they do have some form of birth certification. Now that you know a little about the situation, I would like to give you some background information on my views of what a president is. In my opinion, a president is simply a figurehead. Of course, they sign off on important decisions, but I believe that their people behind the scenes make a huge contribution to those decisions, including the wants of American citizens. And I am certainly not belittling a president’s position or the committee behind the president, but rather I am stating that the country’s actions are not purely based off of one man’s decisions. Which brings me to my next point, Obama is a citizen of the United States, and he is really no different than you and I. He is simply human. He does not deserve the statements that are being directed toward him by Mr. Trump. I ask of you, would you like giving someone personal information on yourself, when that person is clearly out to get you. I most certainly would not, especially if I have the right not to show that information. Mr. Trump’s remarks can be considered to be a form of propaganda called card stacking, and Deborah Tannen, a linguistic professor, gives further insight into the likely reasons as to why Trump is requesting personal information on Obama.
Now, Trump’s remarks on Obama not really being a citizen of the United States is a form of card stacking, which is based off of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and their definition of card stacking. ““Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal” (Institute). This being the case, it seems fair to assume that Trump is doing is implementing this very action. You see, Trump wants to become president in the next election. What Trump is trying to do is use “the arts of deception to win support for himself”, and bring less support to Obama during election time (Institute). Next, “He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to doge issues and evades facts” (Institute). I don’t know how many of you have seen Mr. Trump talk, but whoa, watch out! There is a lot of over-emphasizing going on there. This over-emphasizing is shown clearly in a video interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie states that Trump is “out on an island on this issue”, and his rebuttal is overtly emphasized, even almost sassy (Guthrie). Finally, the Institute states that, “By means of [card stacking] propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness” (Institute). Trump has convinced many American citizens already based off of just inquiry into the matter. In fact, according to CNN “More than four in 10 Republicans … believe [Obama] probably or definitely was not born in America” (Tuchman). He has convinced these Republicans by the means of aggression toward the issue, and nothing more. He has made them believe that his actions are righteous. However, Trump is just a propagandist that has fooled those Republicans.
In “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally”, Deborah Tannen gives insight as to why Trump is inquiring on Obama’s birth certificate. I found that the soul basis of Tannen’s argument, ironically enough seeing as how her essay is about the argumentative ways of society, is that “Everywhere we turn, there is evidence that, in public discourse, we prize contentiousness and aggression more than cooperation and conciliation” (Tannen). Trump is definitely in this category, seeing as how he loves aggressive arguments. People like Trump, “don’t just portray their subjects warts and all, but set out to dig up as much dirt as possible, as if the story of a person’s life is contained in the warts, only the warts, and nothing but the warts” (Tannen). Trump is attacking President Obama, and is trying to portray him as a warty intruder, but instead Trump’s face is sprouting all sorts of warts. Furthermore, Tannen goes on saying, “It’s all part of what I call the argument culture, which rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done”. Once again, this depicts Trump nicely seeing as how for no reason he is prying into the private life of Obama, which I may remind you is a human being like you and I. Trump is purposefully indulging in the argumentative culture. Certainly, he believes “The best way to begin an essay is to attack someone” (Tannen). That is who Trump is, and why he is consistently questioning the President of his citizenship, he is part of the argumentative culture.
Would you allow for yourself to be objected to the ridicule that President Obama is undergoing by Trump? Sure, he gets paid for it, but nonetheless he is human. He has daughters and a wife that he goes home to every night, and he has the worrisome burden of the world upon his shoulders. He has plenty of worries. He does not need to appease Trump’s irrational questions. Why should he have to bow down to the request of someone whose intentions are to stir a pot of propaganda? Clearly, card stacking is in Trump’s electoral agenda, and he is definitely part of the argumentative culture.
Now, Trump’s remarks on Obama not really being a citizen of the United States is a form of card stacking, which is based off of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and their definition of card stacking. ““Card Stacking” is a device in which the propagandist employs all the arts of deception to win our support for himself, his group, nation, race, policy, practice, belief, or ideal” (Institute). This being the case, it seems fair to assume that Trump is doing is implementing this very action. You see, Trump wants to become president in the next election. What Trump is trying to do is use “the arts of deception to win support for himself”, and bring less support to Obama during election time (Institute). Next, “He uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to doge issues and evades facts” (Institute). I don’t know how many of you have seen Mr. Trump talk, but whoa, watch out! There is a lot of over-emphasizing going on there. This over-emphasizing is shown clearly in a video interview with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie states that Trump is “out on an island on this issue”, and his rebuttal is overtly emphasized, even almost sassy (Guthrie). Finally, the Institute states that, “By means of [card stacking] propagandists would convince us that a ruthless war of aggression is a crusade for righteousness” (Institute). Trump has convinced many American citizens already based off of just inquiry into the matter. In fact, according to CNN “More than four in 10 Republicans … believe [Obama] probably or definitely was not born in America” (Tuchman). He has convinced these Republicans by the means of aggression toward the issue, and nothing more. He has made them believe that his actions are righteous. However, Trump is just a propagandist that has fooled those Republicans.
In “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally”, Deborah Tannen gives insight as to why Trump is inquiring on Obama’s birth certificate. I found that the soul basis of Tannen’s argument, ironically enough seeing as how her essay is about the argumentative ways of society, is that “Everywhere we turn, there is evidence that, in public discourse, we prize contentiousness and aggression more than cooperation and conciliation” (Tannen). Trump is definitely in this category, seeing as how he loves aggressive arguments. People like Trump, “don’t just portray their subjects warts and all, but set out to dig up as much dirt as possible, as if the story of a person’s life is contained in the warts, only the warts, and nothing but the warts” (Tannen). Trump is attacking President Obama, and is trying to portray him as a warty intruder, but instead Trump’s face is sprouting all sorts of warts. Furthermore, Tannen goes on saying, “It’s all part of what I call the argument culture, which rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done”. Once again, this depicts Trump nicely seeing as how for no reason he is prying into the private life of Obama, which I may remind you is a human being like you and I. Trump is purposefully indulging in the argumentative culture. Certainly, he believes “The best way to begin an essay is to attack someone” (Tannen). That is who Trump is, and why he is consistently questioning the President of his citizenship, he is part of the argumentative culture.
Would you allow for yourself to be objected to the ridicule that President Obama is undergoing by Trump? Sure, he gets paid for it, but nonetheless he is human. He has daughters and a wife that he goes home to every night, and he has the worrisome burden of the world upon his shoulders. He has plenty of worries. He does not need to appease Trump’s irrational questions. Why should he have to bow down to the request of someone whose intentions are to stir a pot of propaganda? Clearly, card stacking is in Trump’s electoral agenda, and he is definitely part of the argumentative culture.
Works Cited
Institute for Propaganda Analysis. “How to Detect Propaganda.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Tannen, Deborah. “Taking TV’s “War of Words” Too Literally.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 429. Print. 26 April 2011.
Guthrie, Savannah. “Trump: ‘The world is destroying our country.” Today. msnbc, 26 April 2011. Web. 26 April 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42762170/ns/politics-more_politics/.
Tuchman, Gary. “CNN investigation: Obama born in U.S..” CNN Politics. CNN, 25 April 2011. Web. 26 April 2011. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Lord Voldemort!: The consideration of taboo language and television
The world is always changing, and there are always new standards on what is considered okay, and what is simply not okay to do in society. Of course there are certain things that have stayed pretty much consistent throughout time in our society, such as certain taboos in place, like killing and incest. However, taboos in language are a little different. Words are changing, due to the world always changing. Words take on new meanings, and they can turn into words that should not be spoken, or words that can be spoken. This reminds me of Harry Potter, and how no one says Lord Voldemort’s name. This society in Harry Potter knows what this ghastly man, or Sorcerer, did in their time, and that is why they never speak his name because his name is considered a taboo word. Conversely, the people in the world we consider to be real, the Muggles, have no idea who this Lord Voldemort is, so it would not be a bad thing if they were to utter his name. You see, this Wizard’s name is considered a taboo in the society of the Wizardly world, yet in the powerless Muggles world there is no meaning placed on this word, so it is not considered something bad. Therefore, the question is brought to light, should we protect our society from taboo language on television, or should we expose it to the world because they are just words?
Taboo language on television is often not accepted by society, and this is primary due to the fact that people are sometimes sensitive to certain words, and people feel that children should not be exposed to such words for replication. Words are considered taboo for a reason, just like Lord Voldemort. Words have the ability to offend and hash up awful memories. People should not have to be exposed to certain taboo words while watching their favorite program on television. They should not be upset when listening to something that is supposed to take their mind off of the worries of the world. That is not the purpose of television. Television is there to entertain, and help a person escape from the world in which they live in. On the opposing side of this argument, people believe that taboo language should be exposed on television since it is what “real people” say in reality (McWhorter). However, that defeats the purpose of television. We live in the real world, and are encountered with “real people” and vulgar taboo language all the time (McWhorter). Thus, why should we turn something designated for entertainment into something that can offend and hurt, when it is the soul thing we are trying to escape. That is nonsensical. Of course, in the opposition’s defense television is sometimes reserved for educational and informative reasons, although the majority of people use it as a means of happiness. Next on the agenda for discussion are children and taboo language on television. This is a pretty clear cut case. Children should not be exposed all willy-nilly to taboo language on television due to the simple reason that they can replicate it in their own language. Children will soak up anything like a sponge. And if television allows for taboo language to be incorporated into everyday television shows that children watch, then they can harm their classmates and other children they interact with some hurtful language that can impact them negatively. Yet, people protest that it is not a realistic representation of life. However, it is up to the parent of that child to expose them to taboo language, not the media. The idea of a life where television presents taboo language is not a place of happiness or fairness.
In the entirety of this situation it is up to society to decide what is right, and what is not. It is up to society to deem what language is taboo, and what to show on television based off of taboo language. Right now, censorship puts restrictions of taboo language on television, unless you watch late-night television. But that is how things are presently. As I stated before, the world is always changing, and one day there might not be censorship on taboo language on television. In the mean time, let us protect our citizens and children from taboo language on television.
Works Cited
McWhorter, John. “Letting Words Fly.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 424. Print. 19 March 2011.
Taboo language on television is often not accepted by society, and this is primary due to the fact that people are sometimes sensitive to certain words, and people feel that children should not be exposed to such words for replication. Words are considered taboo for a reason, just like Lord Voldemort. Words have the ability to offend and hash up awful memories. People should not have to be exposed to certain taboo words while watching their favorite program on television. They should not be upset when listening to something that is supposed to take their mind off of the worries of the world. That is not the purpose of television. Television is there to entertain, and help a person escape from the world in which they live in. On the opposing side of this argument, people believe that taboo language should be exposed on television since it is what “real people” say in reality (McWhorter). However, that defeats the purpose of television. We live in the real world, and are encountered with “real people” and vulgar taboo language all the time (McWhorter). Thus, why should we turn something designated for entertainment into something that can offend and hurt, when it is the soul thing we are trying to escape. That is nonsensical. Of course, in the opposition’s defense television is sometimes reserved for educational and informative reasons, although the majority of people use it as a means of happiness. Next on the agenda for discussion are children and taboo language on television. This is a pretty clear cut case. Children should not be exposed all willy-nilly to taboo language on television due to the simple reason that they can replicate it in their own language. Children will soak up anything like a sponge. And if television allows for taboo language to be incorporated into everyday television shows that children watch, then they can harm their classmates and other children they interact with some hurtful language that can impact them negatively. Yet, people protest that it is not a realistic representation of life. However, it is up to the parent of that child to expose them to taboo language, not the media. The idea of a life where television presents taboo language is not a place of happiness or fairness.
In the entirety of this situation it is up to society to decide what is right, and what is not. It is up to society to deem what language is taboo, and what to show on television based off of taboo language. Right now, censorship puts restrictions of taboo language on television, unless you watch late-night television. But that is how things are presently. As I stated before, the world is always changing, and one day there might not be censorship on taboo language on television. In the mean time, let us protect our citizens and children from taboo language on television.
Works Cited
McWhorter, John. “Letting Words Fly.” Exploring Language. Ed. Suzanna P. Chambers. New York: Pearson, 2010. 424. Print. 19 March 2011.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
That’s So Gay: The spread of prejudicial language
So I turned on the tube the other day and saw a very interesting commercial with Wanda Sykes walking up to a few boys in a restaurant. The boys were talking, and they said “That’s so gay” ("That's So Gay"). In that moment Sykes swiftly gets up, and references a pepper shaker to the boy who said those harmful words, and she did so by stating, “Man this pepper shaker is so sixteen year old boy with a cheesy mustache”. Sykes is basically stating that people should not spread the usage of prejudicial language, and should examine what they are saying more closely. Society has become very familiar and accepting of the word “gay” to reference to things as essentially stupid. That is extremely insulting to the gay community because then it is implying that gay people are stupid, which is certainly not true and is a wrongful generalization. So how do words like “gay” become so popularly accepted in our everyday life? There are many ways this can happen, although prejudicial language can be easily spread through movies, television, books, and music.
The media and written word can multiply prejudicial language like festering bacteria because they can be easily widespread in the community. Movies and television have the ability to spread prejudicial language based on the likeability of storyline or characters. A television show that is extremely prejudicial and well liked is Family Guy. Sure, Family Guy makes light of serious situations, although in real life they are serious. The fact that people like Family Guy’s characters and storyline help spread prejudicial language. Also, books can spread prejudicial messages in language like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which was prejudicial against the Jewish race. This influenced a lot of people to follow in these prejudicial messages and ideas against the Jewish race. Music can also create prejudicial language among society because it can make something sound “cool”, and most important it can come off as acceptable. Songs have the ability to make prejudicial language acceptable because they are catchy and cool sounding. When a song is catchy people tend to sing it, and that message that the song is projecting is unknowingly enforced by that person. You see it all the time, someone will be singing sort of song, and not even realize what they are saying. Sometimes they don’t even know all the words, like me. Movies, television, books, and music all have the power to increase prejudicial language.
Wanda Sykes was trying to extinguish the wildfire of prejudicial language with her commercial, and I think that’s what we all need to do. We all need to grab a brimming bucket full of water, and smother the fire at the base of the blue. It is okay to watch shows like Family Guy, although we shouldn’t implement those hateful ideas or messages into our lives. In fact, it is sort of a guidebook on how not to act. In addition, books that share hateful language should be put aside. Finally, music that expresses prejudicial language should not be repeated like a squawking parrot. We all need to look at what influences our lives, and examine ways to take out prejudicial language.
The media and written word can multiply prejudicial language like festering bacteria because they can be easily widespread in the community. Movies and television have the ability to spread prejudicial language based on the likeability of storyline or characters. A television show that is extremely prejudicial and well liked is Family Guy. Sure, Family Guy makes light of serious situations, although in real life they are serious. The fact that people like Family Guy’s characters and storyline help spread prejudicial language. Also, books can spread prejudicial messages in language like Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which was prejudicial against the Jewish race. This influenced a lot of people to follow in these prejudicial messages and ideas against the Jewish race. Music can also create prejudicial language among society because it can make something sound “cool”, and most important it can come off as acceptable. Songs have the ability to make prejudicial language acceptable because they are catchy and cool sounding. When a song is catchy people tend to sing it, and that message that the song is projecting is unknowingly enforced by that person. You see it all the time, someone will be singing sort of song, and not even realize what they are saying. Sometimes they don’t even know all the words, like me. Movies, television, books, and music all have the power to increase prejudicial language.
Wanda Sykes was trying to extinguish the wildfire of prejudicial language with her commercial, and I think that’s what we all need to do. We all need to grab a brimming bucket full of water, and smother the fire at the base of the blue. It is okay to watch shows like Family Guy, although we shouldn’t implement those hateful ideas or messages into our lives. In fact, it is sort of a guidebook on how not to act. In addition, books that share hateful language should be put aside. Finally, music that expresses prejudicial language should not be repeated like a squawking parrot. We all need to look at what influences our lives, and examine ways to take out prejudicial language.
Works Cited
“That’s So Gay.” ThinkB4YouSpeak. Ad Council, n.d. Web. 13 April 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)