#it’s hard to see the rest of it as some satire or joke when key points of it are real | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

buzzdixonwriter · 4 years

Text

Tears In The Rain

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe…All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”

-- Blade Runner (David Peebles & Rutger Hauer)

The radar screen manufacturers -- RCA, GE, and others -- started jonesin’ for cash when the end of WWII dried up all that sweat & easy military materiel money.

Commercial consumer television existed before WWII in England, the UK, and Germany but it was a super-expensive technology confined to a few very wealthy homes in a few select markets or in Germany’s case, public venues such as beer halls.

Radar screens and TV tubes were basically different applications of the same thing, so the radar tube manufacturers shifted their production to TV sets pitched to post-war consumers as the must-have status symbol.

Problem: Said TV sets needed something to show and while there was live national network and local programing, most early stations filled their air time with old movies / cartoons / serials / comedy shorts.

That was the cultural gestalt I and other boomers grew up in during the 1950s, an era when much of the on air media dated back to the 1930s.

I’ve always been more culturally observant and curious than others in my generational cohort, and while they blandly / blindly watched Bugs Bunny and Popeye and Betty Boop and Our Gang, I was asking my parents and grandmother and aunt about the odd details I saw in old media (it didn’t hurt that we had a beautiful art deco edition of Collier’s Encyclopedia that my grandparents acquired in the 1920s in the house as well).

As a result I knew far more about the Depression and Prohibition and war rationing and other major cultural events and touchstones prior to our generation than did most other boomers.

When our history and social studies textbooks finally introduced these topics in junior high and high school, I was already intimately familiar with them.

As a result, I fell in love with the Marx Brothers and continue to love them to this day.

And while I watched and re-watched The Three Stooges, once I discovered Laurel and Hardy I left Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe behind.

But the thing is, to fully understand and appreciate and know and love the Marx Brothers, you have to understand the pop culture of their era.

The same applies -- to a lesser degree -- to Laurel and Hardy.

The key difference is that The Three Stooges are pure physical mayhem: There is nothing to understand.

They are imbeciles who inflict pain on themselves and one another, and while far, far inferior to Groucho / Harpo / Chico or Stan & Ollie, they will outlast them.

Anybody from any era or any culture can access The Three Stooges, but if you don’t understand a “gat” (short for gatling gun) is 1930s slang for an automatic pistol, then Groucho’s line upon seeing a automatic in a drawer with a pair of derringers -- “This gat’s had gittens” -- is absolute gibberish.

Likewise Laurel and hardy require some understanding of how American cultural values functioned in the 1920s and 30s; if you don’t get that, a lot of their humor is lost.

Our Gang / Little Rascals ages better because kids are kids and much of what they do is universal.

But even there much of their references have to do with the Depression or WWII rationing and scrap drives and if you don’t grasp that then those jokes zoom past you.

The situation isn’t confined to pre-WWII media, either.

The Marx Brothers and Laurel & Hardy might possibly be recognized by the current generation as something their parents and grandparents watched, but the Ritz Brothers are forgotten by all except those who specialize in comedy / pop culture history. Wheeler & Woolsey are even more obscure, and Olsen & Johnson obscurer still, and if you’ve ever heard of Lum & Abner my hat’s off to you.

And holy shamolley, those are just the comedians we’re talking about. There’s a whole universe of pop culture lost as fans of old B-Westerns die off, not to mention minor pop stars of music and small movies in the 1930s / 40s / 50s.

Silent movies have virtually disappeared from pop culture today; they are things of the past, historical artefacts.

Thanks to the Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg and Comic Book + and Digital Comics Museum and other sites, literally tens of thousands of hours of old radio shows and countless pulp magazines and comic books and other media are available, but who accesses them today except the truly die-hard genre fans or the pop culture historians?

Why morn their passing?

As Theodore Sturgeon famously observed, isn’t 90% of everything crap?

Yes, it is.

But that doesn’t make it any less of the cultural gestalt, the zeitgeist of the era than the few timeless gems that shine through.

. . .

As pop culture historian Jaime Weinman points out, the boomer generation -- the late 1940s to early 1960s -- offered a particularly fallow time for pop culture.

We enjoyed access to previous generations of pop culture, brought to us in curated form. Even if those curators were costumed local cartoon show and horror movie hosts, we got at least some understanding of what led up to our own generation.

Weinman observes that because of technical broadcast reasons, only a few avenues fell open to new programming -- and that new programming could be rerun again and again to fill in gaps in local stations’ air time.

It created a generation with remarkably deep pop culture roots, even if relative few members of that generation were aware of them.

We were, to some degree or another, aware of a vast library of older pop culture media and icons and idioms.

Ironically, this began changing in the late 1960s, slowly at first, but coming full flower in the mid-1970s as music cassette recordings allowed us to create our own playlists off radio shows and record players, and cable TV stopped being something for the hinterlands and started penetrating urban markets, thus literally uniting the country with first dozens then hundreds and a virtually infinite number of channels and streaming options.

But the real nail in the golden age of pop culture’s coffin was the introduction of home TV recordings and time shifting, meaning we no longer needed to wait for curated programing but could watch what we wanted when we wanted.

Despite a wider range of options, older material became less and less popular, and the lack of curation is a big part of that.

With nobody to supply some sort of context -- even goofy horror host context -- older examples of pop culture became less accessible.

The newer generations look less to the past, more to the future.

. . .

As I’ve written before, endings fascinate me.

Right now I’m seeing a generational shift with the boomer generation’s pop culture rapidly fading to be replaced by Generation Z and the generations to follow them.

I look at the boomer era and wonder how much will survive.

Very little, I’m afraid.

And that includes losing some of the best our era had to offer.

For example, how many people today know of The Firesign Theatre?

In the mid-1960s through the early 1970s, they performed absolutely brilliant satirical comedy on radio and recordings. Their album Don’t Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me The Pliers received a Hugo nomination for best sci-fi drama presentation of 1970.

I still laugh when I hear their recordings -- but I laugh because I lived in that era.

Their humor relies heavily on topical subjects and the counter culture of the late 1960s-70s. They were very much a Southern California phenomenon…and thanks to radio and TV and movies of that era, that culture permeated the entire country.

But that era is gone, and now when I listen to them I laugh, but to use a specific example I laugh because I know who Ralph Williams was and what he meant to Southern California pop culture in that time.

You don’t get that, you don’t get the joke, and the brilliance of The Firesign Theatre’s humor is lost.

Like tears in the rain.

. . .

Cheech y Chong will survive, because like The Three Stooges, their appeal lies in their basic stupidity.

True, many of their routines make contemporary pop culture references, but material like “Dave’s Not Here” is timeless.

You don’t even have to get the drug references to find it hilarious.

Conversely, the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers will fade.

As characters, they are of a particular time and place: Hippie dippie San Francisco.

They can’t survive transplantation, as was demonstrated in their last few stories.

Now there’s an animated series that brings them from the swinging 60s to to Trump 20s and it just doesn’t work.

The creators Don’t Get The Joke.

I don’t blame them for failing to get the joke, but updating the Freak Bros. would be like updating the Marx Brothers.

It can be done, but only badly.

. . .

Music will always have musicians and buffs who will track every obscure item they can find, but a lot of the best and most innovative work will be forgotten by mainstream culture.

This is because in many case, the best musicians are way ahead of the rest of their field, and their innovations are only made palatable by others who take them up and reinterpret them in a way to make them accessible to contemporary audiences.

Frank Zappa, as much as I personally love him as a cultural icon, will fade fast after the last boomer dies.

Basically, he didn’t make singable music.

There are a lot of brilliant innovations in his work, but his lyrics are so idiosyncratic as to be impossible to cover.

That, and a lot of his lyrics and subject matter would not be comfortably acceptable today.

Yeah, when he did it he was trying to make a satirical point, but when modern audiences hear it, they don’t hear the sharp commentary on the culture of his time, they hear songs that seem to glorify sexual violence and racial bigotry.

Most of the people who decry so-called “cancel culture” today are hypocrites trying to justify their own offenses, but there will be creators and components of pop culture who simply aren’t going to make the cut.

I can show you on paper why radio’s Amos And Andy was a brilliantly written show.

You’re not going to get modern audiences to accept white actors doing blackface…or black voice.

Zappa is acceptable today because there are still enough people who get the joke.

When we’re gone, so are most of his songs (his instrumentals hopefully will live on).

. . .

Quentin Tarantino’s star is already starting to set.

His copious dropping of the n-bomb seemed daring and edgy in the early to mid-90s now seems boorish and tiresome.

People don’t want to listen to that, and how can you make them watch what they don’t want to watch?

The Hateful Eight might endure since it gives a sorta context for its racial animosity, ditto Django Unchained, but even they will be problematic due to Tarantino’s Red Apple universe -- a world similar enough to ours to be mistaken for it at first glance but ultimately completely different.

Inglorious Basterds will ultimately fail the history smell test by audiences who will perceive it as wildly inaccurate.

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood probably has the least problematic elements in it, but it too is so firmly set in a specific time and place that only those who lived it can truly appreciate it.

When we’re gone, who can follow the pop culture breadcrumbs that lead us through the movie?

Tarantino is a brilliant writer / director, and film students in the know will study his movies to see how he pulled them off…

…but they’re going to move far past him.

(He may enjoy a revival 50 years from now, the way certain film makers get rediscovered a half century after their deaths. If so, it will be by people able to see past the pop culture references to the real story beneath.)

. . .

Roger Corman and other exploitation film makers aren’t going to as welcomed once the boomer generation departs.

Boomers see them as transgressive artists, tweaking the nose of so-called respectable society.

New generations will see they as creeps who exploited violence and sexism.

(And we shouldn’t mourn its loss; most of it is soft-core pornography. But there were a few shining moments that shine only if you know the context, and that is fading fast.)

. . .

Superheroes probably won’t die out just as Westerns never completely died out, but like Westerns their audience is rooted in a very particular time and place.

I mentioned B-Westerns earlier; once upon a time there were literally dozens of B-Western stars, each with their own face base and merchandising and movies…

…and now there are no more B-Westerns.

We remember Roy Rogers because he’s culturally referenced elsewhere (and Gene Autry because he left a great big museum in his name).

B-Westerns’ success was based on fulfilling audience expectations, essentially giving the same thing they’d seen before, only slightly different.

Superheroes have degenerated into that.

In their current form, they’re deconstructions based on what a previous generation’s pop culture produced.

The superhero market has been supersaturated in the past and collapsed before.

This time when it collapses it will take along countless near-identical characters and storylines.

What emerges from it will be as different from the current iteration of superheroes as The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly was from My Pal Trigger.

. . .

Likewise, if James Bond is to survive, there will be a drastic retooling of the property.

It is possible; Sherlock Holmes has been retooled often.

The original Connery Bonds, the ones we consider to be “iconic” will eventually be viewed as an embarrassment.

The world and its attitudes are changing, and while there will always be room for heroes, audiences will be a bit more discerning about which heroes they want.

The attitudes of the original Bonds will not fly with future generations.

. . .

Finally, one prospect that will make it into the future, though not necessarily on its own strengths, no matter how significant they are.

Mystery Science Theater 3000 has skewered pop culture via bad movies since 1988.

Supported by a legion of fans, there are several books and websites that annotate all the references found in the various MST3K series.

Scholars 500 years in the future will thank these fans and researchers for their efforts.

Mystery Science Theater 3000 and its various annotated spinoffs will be the Rosetta stone of 20th century pop culture.

It will provide a context to make the jokes understandable, but more importantly than that, it will open a window into what people were thinking and feeling in the last decade of the 20th century.

It and the films it spoofed will be studied with near Talmudic intensity (you think I jest; I do not). They’ll provide insight that will help future generations and cultures understand this one.

#Once Upon A Time In Hollywood #Wheeler and Woolsey #Lum And Abner #The Ritz Brothers #The Firesign Theatre #The Marx Brothers #Laurel And Hardy #Frank Zappa #Olsen And Johnson #Our Gang #Little Rascals #The Three Stooges #Groucho Marx #Harpo Marx #Chico Marx #Stan Laurel #Oliver Hardy

12 notes · View notes

jeffmac813 · 5 years

Text

Too Many Cooks Stories

On October 28, 2014, a short comedy piece named Too Many Cooks aired in the "Infomercials" slot on Adult Swim -- 4am. Within one week, though, the short had garnered over 5 million views on YouTube and become a viral smash. I asked my editor Sarah Ottney at Toledo Free Press if I could cover the phenomenon, and thanks to Adult Swim, garnered interviews with the short's creator, Casper Kelly, and actor William Tolarsky, who played the silent killer named Bill. These stories are some of my favorite pieces I've ever written, because of how quickly they came together and how kind and excited their subjects were at Too Many Cooks' surprising success.

(written 11/12/14)

"Too Many Cooks": Creating a New Cult Classic

The writer behind the net's most bizarre viral sensation

Written by Jeff McGinnis

It starts out looking like most any cliche, cheesy sitcom opening sequence from the 80s. Upbeat, bland theme tune. Actors turning with a smile to the camera. All very familiar.

But then things start to happen that feel ... wrong. The theme music never stops. Just keeps on playing. More and more cast members appear, past the point of being ludicrous. The show's genre seems to change -- from sitcom to cop drama to prime time soap and more. And then there's the creepy guy who suddenly starts killing the rest of the cast.

This is "Too Many Cooks," the comedy short that is taking the internet by storm. Produced for Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" late-night lineup, the dark satire first aired during the network's "Infomercial" slot -- meaning 4 a.m. -- earlier this month. But something happened when the clip found its way online, and soon the bizarre short had exploded virally. In about a week, the myriad postings of the short -- both official and otherwise -- have garnered over 5 million hits.

And at the epicenter of it all is a young writer and director named Casper Kelly, who is both ecstatic and a little dumbfounded.

"It is super, super -- THREE supers -- exciting and thrilling, almost veering into the other side, of flop sweat and panic," Kelly said in an interview with Toledo Free Press. "I'm holding it together, having fun."

Kelly is not a new voice among Adult Swim's class of comedic subversives. He has worked for years at production headquarters in Atlanta, composing funny promos for Cartoon Network shows, writing for shows like "Squidbillies" and "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," co-creating the series "Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell." Not typical fare, even for late-night basic cable, but Kelly revels in the creative freedom working at Adult Swim provides.

"It's wonderful, and our boss, Mike Lazzo -- he's a tough audience," Kelly said. "He's a very sophisticated viewer, and gets bored easily. But when he likes what you're doing, he gives you a lot of rope. A lot of freedom to try it. And does not micromanage. He gives you kind of big ideas at the beginning, and might give you ideas at the end, but in the middle, he lets you do your thing -- which is great."

Still, Kelly was hesitant to pitch the idea that would become "Too Many Cooks." Though there was plenty of precedent for the network doing experimental ideas like it in their late infomercial slots, he wasn't totally confident that the concept could sustain a full short.

"I had the idea, and I didn't even tell Mike Lazzo, because I didn't know if it would work. So I was afraid to pitch it. But I told some co-workers, who at a work party told him. And the idea made him laugh, so I had to do it at that point."

Filming came together remarkably quickly given how complicated the finished product would prove to be, Kelly said. "Interestingly -- and this was probably a good thing -- we did not have a lot of time, because we had a narrow window open up where our production company could do it. So once I had the outline, I think we only had a couple of weeks. So I just had to think about it constantly and just kind of throw down every idea I could.

"We had a lot of time in post, but leading up to it was a mad dash. And so much work was getting headshots, and finding people that had the right look, to give you the feeling for that character."

Another crucial element would be the short's music -- that initially chipper tune that mutates into forms that are dramatic, haunting and more. Kelly was hands-on with its creation, as well.

"That took a lot of time. I wrote the lyrics -- most of the lyrics -- and then we used one audio guy, who was great, and then it got to be too much. Because we had no money -- he was doing it for us as a favor. He did as much as he could, and then we had to hand it off to someone else to finish it, who did a great job. I think I really got the best out of both of them.

"People were saying that song gets stuck in their head. It sure did get stuck in our head when we were editing it."

Kelly has no plans to rest on his laurels, even now that "Too Many Cooks" has garnered such remarkable fame and acclaim in such a brief amount of time. He's hard at work on the second season "Your Pretty Face," for one thing. And as to whatever opportunities may arise from here, Kelly said he's primed and ready.

"I'm excited, because I have opportunities now to make more stuff. And I have a notebook full of ideas, short films, and feature scripts and more. And I feel like a kid in a candy store right now."

"Too Many Cooks": Killer Bill

Atlanta actor makes mark as short's silent assassin

Written by Jeff McGinnis

The voice on the other end of the phone is kind. Bright. A little higher than you'd expect, given its owner. A definite southern twang, understandable since he's lived in Georgia so long -- though he's Pennsylvanian by birth. He's gracious, good-natured, a sweetheart. You wouldn't guess how natural he looks chopping people's heads off with a machete.

William Tokarsky is his name, and for the past week or so his face has become the central image of one of the internet's most wildly successful viral videos. He plays the killer -- "Bill," if the credit on IMDB is to be believed, though he's never named in the short -- at the center of the bizarre satire "Too Many Cooks," produced by Cartoon Network.

"I was working as an extra for [director] Casper Kelly on another show he does on Adult Swim," Tokarsky said in an interview with Toledo Free Press. "And we became friends, and he liked my look. And there were two or three other people he had in mind for that role, and we all submitted this little tape and audition, and he picked me. And I think I did a decent job."

Tokarsky is putting it mildly. His gleefully crazed facial expressions and malevolent presence are key to much of the short's dark comedy. It's a look that has served Tokarsky well since he first began dipping his toe into acting.

"I retired from General Motors. And they were making a movie where I live. And suburban Atlanta has become a hotbed of movie and TV production. And I was talking to some people that used to be on the line working, and there's people that were extras. And I thought, 'Well, I could do that!' And I just started doing that.

"I have a unique look, that garnered me a position up front sometimes, to the point where someone tapped me on the shoulder on 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire' and said, 'You have a speaking line next week if you want it.'"

No speaking lines were needed on the set of "Too Many Cooks," though. Tokarsky's silent maniac appears subtly at first, stalking in the background of many shots, to the point where many viewers may not notice him until he begins his mad slasher act in earnest. Even Tokarsky is surprised at how often he appears in the finished product.

"I never had a script when we did it. So basically, what occurred was, they would place me, or give an action, and I would do it. And you don't necessarily shoot in order. So it was a surprise to me that we were playing 'Where's Waldo,'" he said.

"I watched it the first time, and never saw myself in locations -- like the 24-second mark in, where I'm standing behind the little girl -- I didn't see myself there. But I was there when we filmed the damn thing! It's like I didn't see the big picture in Casper's mind when we filmed it. He gave me an action, and I did it."

The success of "Cooks" -- both on an artistic and popularity scale -- has come as a surprise for most. But even though Tokarsky admits he's not exactly part of the demographic the short is aimed at, he said he had a feeling it would either be a colossal success or an equally memorable failure."

"I was speaking with my wife, and I said, 'Well, there's one of two things that's going to happen. This thing is going to stink so bad, no one's ever going to see it. Or, it's going to go viral.'"

Now that his latter prediction has come true, Tokarsky's excited about the opportunities his sudden exposure may bring. "I would think I would get a few things out of it -- you know, the creepy janitor on a TV show," he joked.

"I've found my genre; I've found what I can do. So, I'm retired, and I have a decent pension, so, as a friend of mine, another actor, said -- 'It's all gravy.' And I'm having fun with it, I got an agent last April, I've pretty much stopped doing extra work except for Casper -- I'm going to work for him, because I like him, and he likes me, and maybe I can get a contract out of him on his other show!"

Is he worried about being typecast, thanks to "Too Many Cooks"' popularity? Not at all. In fact, he relishes the idea.

"I know who I am, so it doesn't bother me," Tokarsky said. "If you want to act, you got to get an agent, you get an agent where they don't have ten other guys looking for your role. Because how many guys want to be the creepy guy?"

View "Too Many Cooks" on Adult Swim's YouTube page: http://youtu.be/QrGrOK8oZG8

1 note · View note

slavinggrace-blog · 5 years

Text

Book Review 1: “The Master and Magarita” by Mikhail Bulgakov

Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.

At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.

Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!

So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.

Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.

Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.

Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.

The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.

And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.

Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.

#book review #literature #long reads #reading challenge #the master and margarita

2 notes · View notes

thegoing-gayhoax-blog · 7 years

Text

“Ars Ratio” Reflection (Second Draft)

Kara Ireland

WRIT 3160

Reflection

What's in my portfolio? In my portfolio are various modes of the depiction of how the myth of going gay functions in society. I've compiled a series of gifs, pictures, and scenes from various shows. These shows include MTV’s Faking It, ABC’s Glee, FOX’s Scream Queens, and Freeform’s The Bold Type. My argumentative piece follows these depictions. I used MTV’s Faking It pilot episode as my main source of scrutiny. I listed numerous discrepancies I had with the show. Mainly, I wanted to highlight how damaging the very first portrayal of lesbians on mainstream television since The L Word was. It was revolutionary for me because I was struggling with my own sexuality at the age of fifteen. Seeing two women in a same sex relationship at any stretch was good exposure for me, it increased my sense of normalcy. It wasn't until I got older, got more experience, and a wider world view that I began to see how awful the show’s premise was. My argumentative paper ventures into how I felt it missed the mark. I then have a comedy skit that will be supposedly performed at Atlanta’s Gay Pride. This original piece is modeled after the kind of comedy I'd seen at my own experience at Pride 2017. Most of the comedy was made at the expense of heterosexual people. In a safe environment full of people who have had similar experiences, it was okay to poke fun at the majority. The skit touches on inappropriate touching, unrequited crushes, and personal experience with girls supposedly going gay. It addresses some of the bothersome situations lesbians often run into in a lighthearted way.

My third argument was a series of tweets I’d composed in response to real-life depictions of “going gay.” I searched buzz words on twitter, such as “be gay, go gay, try girls” etc. to reply to. Though confined to 140 characters – even less, because of the handle, I felt that I’d used Aristotelian appeals accurately to challenge their beliefs.

The gif set from The Bold Type contrasts the problematic tropes shown in both Faking It and Glee. It supports a stereotype, then dismantles it. In the first gif set, Kat is shown identifying with the lesbian experience, but saying that she didn't think she could get past “all this” referencing to the female anatomy. The lesbian character of the show, Adena, countered her statement with “it's not about all this. It's about this” in reference to her heart and emotion regarding a person.

I believe this is relevant to my discussion because Kat admitted that the sexual nature of their budding relationship was offputting, as she did not identify as a lesbian. She was merely exploring her sexuality, and she'd done so by kissing Adena. They hadn't gone further, and she didn't think she could pursue a relationship because of the sexual barrier that existed between them. Adena validated it, but also said that it wasn't about the body. Being in a relationship transcended sex and the parts involved. It rested solely on the heart and the emotion surrounding the couple that determined it's sustenance. This was the point I was trying to convey, myself through my argumentative paper. Too many people believe that “going gay” is about sex, when it is only a mere part of the exploratory experience. To truly give oneself to a same sex relationship, it needs more substance than an attraction and willingness to explore. The Bold Type executed this well.

ABC’s Glee enacted several stereotypical tropes about lesbians and gays throughout their series, but it was mostly for educational purposes to highlight and identify bigotry. Nevertheless, the openly lesbian character, Santana, was made out to be predatory in several instances. Quinn was one of her best friends, and they eventually had sex together. The scene where it happened was on prom night, when they were both single and feeling lonely. Alcohol was featured heavily in the episode. It implied that intoxication can make someone “go gay”. Quinn then emphasized the fact that she'd never slow danced with a girl before, and Santana smirked at her. This is the predatory lesbian fallacy being portrayed. The scene then cut from Santana leading her away by the hand from the party to a suggestive morning after scene. Additionally, with prior knowledge from the season, Quinn had gone through a rebellious bad girl phase, and this was amongst the last things she did. It was never explicitly said that this was part of her regime, but it can be interpreted that way.

FOX’s Scream Queens was a satirical show that was made to offend people in the masses. There was no stroke to identify why the quotes were problematic, but it was understood by most that it was satire. There was one butch lesbian on the show, who was one of the first killed during a serial killing. She was dubbed Predatory Lez immediately, and we never learned her real name. In her brief duration, she developed a superficial relationship with Chanel #3 based on lewd jokes. Naming a character Predatory Lez does not help the view that lesbians really are predatory and infringe on boundaries. Viewers never got insight on the intricacies of their peculiar relationship, but at one point, Chanel #3 begs the killer not to kill her because she was “sort of gay now too”. Beyond the implication that a few kisses and explicit jokes made between one another changed someone's sexuality, it was also used as a discriminatory saving grace. She partially identified as a member of the LGBT community to be pardoned. She denied it later. This abrupt change makes it hard for people to come out. Though the show is based on satire, it does have parallels to real, ignorant people that think this way.

Through this class, I have discovered that argument transcends pro and con. Essentially, everything is an argument. Commercials, designs, font choice, music, inflection, gesture, clothing, hairstyle – everything has the potential to be an argument. Anything can be designed to persuade. After analyzing various shows, I began to consider them differently. Words are not the only mode of argument because everything has the power to make a statement.

I have learned that the color scheme of a product or an advertisement serves to persuade someone, years prior. Since being in this class, I have learned that the mere existence of the product is an argument within itself. The product serves an argumentative purpose initially. It was difficult to wrap my mind around, but throughout the semester, my mindset has been malleable. It has increasingly made more sense. In reading Heinrichs, mostly, I was offered several new perspectives through relatable material. I would like to thank you, Dr. Harris, for assigning such a book – rather than a text that is purely academic. It was much easier to read and retain. By reading Heinrichs, it has become more apparent to me that argument lives in everything.

The philosophy of argument and writing is something I’m not entirely well-versed in. I understood it minimally when I came in, and I still have a tentative hold on it now. When I was a junior in high school I learned for the first time what ethos pathos and logos were. At Chamblee, Coach Smith taught it to us. It’s funny because we never even did anything with that information. I think we might’ve had one project or assignment that incorporated it, then I put it on the backburner. We learned the basics. When I came into WRIT 3160 three years later, I didn’t know what to expect. I didn’t plan on delving into Aristotelian appeals because I didn’t know about them and truthfully, I didn’t care about that stuff. For every argument I’ve made in the past, every persuasive paper, it was solely the rights and wrongs and do’s and don’ts. It was all pros and cons. Never once did I think that my delivery itself was part of the argument, that my rhetoric was just as influential as my facts.

I didn’t care about the technicalities of argument. I didn’t care about the impact of pathos, logos, and ethos in real life situations. It was fascinating to discover that they’re all around us all the time. Reading Heinrichs was tedious for me at times because even though he made it relatable, I still couldn’t get engaged. This class was good nevertheless because it kept me writing when I didn’t want to and often times I resented the fact. As a writer and an author, I needed that push. This can now be used in my books, because my communication can be stronger.

The concept of rhetoric is still somewhat lost on me, just because it encompasses so much. I would not say that I’m an expert, nor that I could effectively explain it to someone new. It’s still confusing for me, but this class has offered a little clarity. Assigning a weekly riff and response forced me to read for comprehension. I would skim Heinrichs, then have to go back and read it over again because the meaning was lost on me. Because rhetoric is all new to me, it was hard to absorb and apply the information. However, creating a riff and understanding how an author initially wrote their piece turned out to be the key to comprehension for me. This was an incredibly original recurring assignment. You forced us to read for interpretation, and you can’t effectively interpret something that you don’t understand. The riff and response held me accountable for my reading. Without it, I very well may have skipped the readings altogether because being introduced to new topics I haven’t had any prior knowledge about intimidates me, and I just opt out of participating. The riff was easier to produce than the response, for me.

I learned about syllogism and can decipher it when it happens. I have noticed that people use syllogism incorrectly, more often than not. The most recent one I can remember hearing and identifying was on the premise of who can say the N word and who can’t. Essentially, the argument was: Black people are people of color. People of color say the N word. Mexicans are not black, but they are still people of color, therefore they can say the N word. People were using this syllogism to defend their right to say a word that didn’t pertain to them. I’ve also been noticing fallacies since being exposed to the different types.

Since discovering the intricacies of rhetoric, I have subconsciously been noticing and labeling certain moves as such. I’ve been decoding people’s decorum and spotting disingenuous advances. I’ve seen it a lot at work with my managers, the difference between their interactions with the customers at Target and their interactions in the break room. I can identify more deadly fallacies when I speak to people. The main ones my counterparts fall victim to are tautology, slippery slope, and the red herring. They love to change the subject. I’ve seen all of the Aristotelian appeals in play at work as a cashier, ranging from children using logos to get a toy, parents using ethos to justify their refusal to buy said toy, older adults using pathos to get a discount, people using Kairos to justify their splurging (“It’s on sale!”). I’ve noticed code grooming a lot too, especially within mixed racial crowds. White people’s decorum shifts when in a predominantly black environment, they begin code grooming. Those are the few from Heinrichs that have stayed with me, those that I can readily identify. Without this class, those behaviors would not be blanketed by any academic terms. The child would be whining, the parent would be annoyed, the old people would be trying to mooch, and the splurgers would be irresponsible. My managers would’ve just been fake, just as the mixed crowds. I’m glad that I can pinpoint all of this as forms of rhetoric, even though they are not the conventional argument we automatically think of. Being in this class and reading these books give me a stronger sense of interpretation as I go through the world. It’s one of the more valuable things I’ll take from any class since I’ve been in college.

As far as my e-Portfolio is concerned, it is not ideally what I wanted. When I was first assigned this project, I was excited because I got to create a blog regarding something personal to me. I had already been using tumblr for most of my teenage years, so I thought it would be easy enough. My use of tumblr consisted of me, mostly reblogging relevant pictures and quotes. I’d never focused on the posting and the organization of it all. That was a more daunting task than I’d expected. My gifs did not post accordingly, in the grids I’d always seen them. They took up way too much space and required too much navigation. Originally, I had the vision of having my gifs with explanations and analyses beneath them, but the reflection wouldn’t allow me to do that effectively. I also didn’t have the tabs that I thought I would. Everything is just straightforward and narrow. I thought it would be more exciting, but the material was more important that the aesthetics of it all, so I left it alone.

#wip #second draft #rough draft

0 notes

russellthornton · 7 years

Text

How to Entertain a Girl Over Text: Excite Her Mind with Words

The song was right! Girls just want to have fun. Here’s how to entertain a girl over text and keep her coming back for more of your wit and charm.

Have you ever wondered how to entertain a girl over text? Does it make a difference? I’ve found that you don’t have to entertain a girl through text to get her out and on a date, but having the skill set still helps me:

#1 Keep long-term female friendships going even when we don’t meet often.

#2 Keep long-term intimate options open, even when we’ve yet to meet up.

#3 Convince a girl to meet up if she’s unsure about me or busy.

#4 Get a girl excited about me.

#5 Have lots of hilarious conversations over text that make me actually LOL and my week feels that much cooler.

For me, entertaining a girl is not about tap dancing for her. Rather, it’s about getting my unique voice across. Obviously, communication limitations occur with texting.

However, I’ve not only used text to convert a girl from being unsure about me to saying I was super fun and amazing. Once I even had a girl text me that she would leave her boyfriend because I’m the man she really needs in her life. *I actually told her I would not go out with her because she already had a boyfriend, which is why she decided to leave*

How to entertain a girl over text

You can absolutely keep a girl’s interest and excite her over text. Here are a few tips on how to go about it.

#1 Using memes. If you’re like me and don’t want to work when you send text messages then memes are invaluable. Memes are shared pictures, sayings, general ideas, or sometimes very short video clips that for whatever reason have become so popular that they get shared over and over again within a culture.

Maybe it’s a still from a movie or some YouTuber who went viral or a presidential blooper moment that got snapped and used by journalists all around the world. Others are specific to particular cultures such as Jamaican patois. People sometimes write text on top of these images or videos or sayings—to support or make a point or just be funny or satirical.

Maybe you have a still of a cat wearing a small top hat and looking untrustworthy. If a girl says something that seems unbelievable, rather than reply with words, hit her with the meme. Or surprise-meme her during your day with one that made you laugh.

Memes are great because they don’t need a proper reply. They are casual, but often start a fun conversation. Here’s where the skill comes in: if you use memes that show you’re playful and fun but also show you get the type of culture she’s into, you tap right into her world, which may well be her Twitter and Facebook feed—people these days… [Read: Smartass quotes: 48 smart and sarcastic lines that kick ass]

#2 Writing how you talk—just more punchy. Example:

Her: Hey how are you sweetie? Me: Good hun x. I went for a run. Super thirsty now @_@

I think sometimes the more you try to be clever or invulnerable or whatever ‘supreme confidence’ persona, the more you come off as odd or insecure. Not everyone has time to sit down and craft a well-thought out text. We all have busy lives. I trust she knows this and doesn’t expect that with every text she sends, I’ll spend 15 minutes thinking about my reply. [Read: 18 casual things to text a girl and leave her addicted to you]

#3 Not overanalyzing her. This probably just makes you seem try-hard. I prefer going with the flow and if something doesn’t make sense I might just text her ‘okay… I’m following you *insert confused emoji*’.

#4 Making statements not questions. You know the saying *I’ve just made it up by the way*: ‘it’s easy to make a question, it’s hard to make a statement.’ Making a statement tells her about your personality, the way you think, and that you have your own opinion. It’s entertaining to try and decode somebody.

However, a barrage of questions usually makes me feel as if the person’s trying to get something out of me. So, I never drill her for answers. Although it can be fun to drop some daring questions about her interests and personality suddenly and briefly, to catch her off guard. [Read: How to text a girl you like and make her want you]

#5 Being casual *think Twitter*. Nothing kills entertainment more than when someone cares too much about what others think of them. Or when they’re too structured. When I’m texting to entertain, I write as if for some crazy blog, not for a formal essay.

I’m never afraid to be random, instant, or shocking when looking to entertain. Entertainment is all about holding attention and moving it where you want it to move. I’m not long-winded. I’m thinking 150 characters rather than 1500 words. I want to leave her wanting more and not as if she has homework to do when she receives a text message from me.

Here’s the key I use, which serial entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk calls ‘document, not create’: I don’t need to create a new text idea or thread every time I send a message. I might post a photo of me hanging out with a mate. I ask myself: what’s happening right now? Or when something happens I share it, sometimes with a twist.

Example:

Me: ‘My neighborhood cat is just watching me.’ Her: ‘LOL, what?’ Me: ‘It’s expression kind of reminds me of when you look surprised.’

You can always go back to an old thread if one dies out, because new things are always happening to you. [Read: How to start a text conversation with a girl – 15 rules to impress]

#6 Disagreeing. Nothing is more annoying than a people pleaser. I’ve definitely been there before. You are way more interesting when you have your own opinions. I’ll avoid being too serious when I disagree if she doesn’t know me well.

#7 Talking about ‘we.’ This can be used in the silliest of contexts: ‘We should climb Mount Everest this weekend or maybe that’s a bad idea?’ Using ‘we’ creates a feeling of progress in a cool way, as if you build something together. [Read: Texting etiquette: 20 unwritten rules of savvy flirting]

#8 Not setting a date/place/time to meet. It can be boring and even annoying when you know what’s going to happen before it happens. Yeah, maybe it’s safe and secure but not exactly exciting.

So, even though I might use ‘we’ to let her know that I intend on doing something with her at some point, I’m not overeager to put it all in digital ink. This is an adventure together, not a business deal.

#7 Matching the length of her text messages. The only time I ignore this rule is if I’m in a particularly no F’s given sort of mood or tipsy. But generally, if a girl always replies to my messages with a much shorter reply, I take this to mean she’s not as invested in me as I am in her.

In that case, I slow it down. Anything too abundant in supply and too low in demand usually has low value, let alone low entertainment value. [Read: How to play hard to get with a girl and do it just right]

#8 Avoiding emojis if she doesn’t reciprocate. This keeps more mystery with regard to my level of excitement and interest. I’ve experimented with using lots of emojis and I suspect it makes you seem too keen if it’s only one-way. [Read: 18 really obvious signs a girl likes you over text]

#9 Being cheeky. I’ve written about this before because it so damn useful. The problem with text messages is that you can’t give a nod and a wink when you’re being playful. But you don’t need to when you can send a ;-).

Emojis also let you get away with more than you would think. So when you send a risqué message that might surprise her, just add a 🙂 afterwards. We all have busy lives and don’t have the time to read between the lines constantly, this helps her know you’re being cheeky.

#10 Doing these and seeing how she reacts. I’ll show different sides of me and see how she reacts to it. I might:

a. Be bold – ‘Yeah, I kill people for a living.’

b. Be cheeky – ‘Sp, what are you wearing right now?’

c. Be cocky – ‘My nickname is God.’

d. Be complimentary – ‘Wow, you are seriously cute, love that pic.’

[Read: What to text a girl – Dos, don’ts and all the secrets to know]

#11 Responding to her tests fearlessly. The key I use when keeping an entertaining conversation going is to respond rather than to react. For me, being reactive becomes like an addiction that makes my mood shift with each reply. Whereas, when I’m responsive I just share my good energy and invite her to also share.

So if she becomes rude then I just call her out on it fearlessly and without getting emotional. Sometimes I improvise a joke out of it, because I don’t really care what some girl thinks of me if she doesn’t know me. I try not to text if I’m in a crappy mood or if she’s pissed me off.

Example *this is roughly how it’s panned out in the past for me*:

Her: ‘That’s not funny. You actually sound like an asshole.’ Me: ‘Yes, I keep getting rewarded with coitus for it. I’m a victim.’ Her: ‘Okay… sure weirdo.’ Me: ‘Listen, I was having fun, but if you really don’t like my sense of humor then maybe we just won’t hit it off as I like to banter. It’s a pity because I liked you when we met.’ Her: ‘LOL. Okay… actually I was just teasing you :-).’ [Read: How often should you text a girl? 17 must-know rules of texting]

#12 Not always being available. Distance makes the heart grow fonder. I don’t text a girl on a Friday or Saturday unless I already created the habit of meeting her on those days. I don’t text her because those days are for people who are actually part of my social life in person.

I also don’t always reply immediately. I might leave it a day in some cases. Other times we might have a text marathon—I play it by ear. Also, if she delays in her reply to me for a significant amount of time then I might give it a bit of time before I reply.

Casual, playful, unpredictable, challenging, and fearless are good approaches for entertaining text. Keeping some mystery and unavailable at times lets her do the rest of the work for me in her imagination.

[Read: Texting your crush: A step-by-step guide to doing it right]

Use these tips on how to entertain a girl over text, and be that textual drug that makes her want to read your messages before any of the other boring texts she receives from the other guys.

The post How to Entertain a Girl Over Text: Excite Her Mind with Words is the original content of LovePanky - Your Guide to Better Love and Relationships.

0 notes

thegoing-gayhoax-blog · 7 years

Text

Reflection (First Draft)

Kara Ireland

WRIT 3160

Reflection

What's in my portfolio? In my portfolio are various modes of the depiction of how the myth of going gay functions in society. I've compiled a series of gifs, pictures, and scenes from various shows. These shows include MTV’s Faking It, ABC’s Glee, FOX’s Scream Queens, and Freeform’s The Bold Type. My argumentative piece follows these depictions. I used MTV’s Faking It pilot episode as my main source of scrutiny. I listed numerous discrepancies I had with the show. Mainly, I wanted to highlight how damaging the very first portrayal of lesbians on mainstream television since The L Word. It was revolutionary for me because I was struggling with my own sexuality at the age of fifteen. Seeing two women in a same sex relationship at any stretch was good exposure for me, it increased my sense of normalcy. It wasn't until I got older and got more experience and a wider world view that I began to see how awful the show’s premise was. My argumentative paper ventures into how I felt it missed the mark. I then have a comedy skit that will be supposedly performed at Atlanta’s Gay Pride. This original piece is modeled after the kind of comedy I'd seen at my own experience at Pride 2017. Most of the comedy was made at the expense of heterosexual people. In a safe environment full of people who have had similar experiences, it was okay to poke fun at the majority. The skit touches on inappropriate touching, unrequited crushes, and personal experience with girls supposedly going gay. It addresses some of the bothersome situations lesbians often run into in a lighthearted way.

#reflection #first draft #rough draft #wip

0 notes