In the essay entitled “Harry Potter the Ignomious Cup” the author has one main purpose: prove once and for all the absolute, complete and utter ridiculousness of the Harry Potter series. BNow, the author makes his point by mocking the book, plot characters while analyzing what did (or didn’t happen.) For example: he felt that because Harry lived that JK Rowling was a sell out, and the readers were “gyped.” He believed that we (as readers) were owed teh death of this belovid character, because it follows the rules of “good writing” (which apparently exist?) and because of this was highly disappointed. One specifically vulgar use of this sardonic humor includes: “This is roughly the equivalent of Oedipus Rex’s tearing his eyes out, then stumbling across a wise old friend who tells him: “Hey, guess what, buddy? You know how you just killed your dad and slept with your mom, like the oracle predicted? Well, since you did it all with totally innocent love in your heart, it doesn’t count! Go tell your mom to untie that noose! And look, your eyes just grew back! All is well!” as we can see because it is not only humorous, but mocking and a personal attack against Rowling as a writer, which seems to me a low blow.
In his essay, Shelly claims that because poets shape and describe out feelings, actions and is a major foundation in preserving our history, that they are the guiding engineers of the world. His argument states that poetry is the catalyst for the changes in this world created by the leaders and great nations because it influences their thoughts and he does this through his eloquent style of writing and diction, as well as his multiple metaphors. THrough this imagery, he is able to convince the reader because they know that he is a) intelligent and therefore more believeable and b) extremly adept at making things sound beautiful, and most are convienced by beauty. For example: “It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words.”
In this film the claim is readily found, as the writers make no effort to give the viewer room to interpret or see the other side. The purpose is to justify the former Secretary of Defense’s actions and alleged war crimes. From the beginning, we see that this documentary is shot with only his perspective and justifications, first for why America went to war, and then the human reason and pain (assumedly) felt for the atrocities that occurred. Because he uses excellent rhetoric by trying to evoke sympathy and admitting that he made mistakes, the viewer no longer focues on the war or its tragedies, instead the story of a powerful man in an impasse, and we know, that we are supposed to feel sympathy. This is where the first issue with the documentary arises, as he not only contradicts himself but as the movie continues the bias because literally one man tells his story and we see the weakness in this argument. No others sides were interviewed or quoted, and because of this “one way” type of documentary, although at first sympathy and acceptance may be felt, in the end we can see that it is skewed only to not make him look like a complete failer and ultimately and murderer. Therefore, in order to make this movie more compelling more sides and arguments would need to be presented and refuted, because when dealing with such a powerful and “hot” topic as the Vietnam War, it is clear that many sides and oponions need to be heard, because that is what what going on at the time.
Living in a town that lies just north of Seattle, my life has been shaped by a multitude of unique and diverse influences: music, pride in being original, liberalism, the presence of drugs, protests and a generous freedom of speech and expression are all elements that allow the people of Seattle as well as myself to live in a community that sanctions all types of lifestyles and views.
So naturally, it was surprising that even when living in a modern and socially accepting suburb with an apparent drug presence, that I was received with skepticism and many quizzical brows, as I carried around a day-glo colored book titled The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. Now, one may argue that these looks were because I was the one carrying such a book, but I can refute this with complete confidence, as I an in fact more often then not ridiculed by close friends for my dire love of apparent “hippies,” subsequent “stoners, ” and that whole stereotype. Nonetheless, I was disturbed by the obvious discomfort from others, but more discomforting was how reading such a book allowed others to judge myself as well as my values.
I wondered how one book cover (yes, exceedingly bright,) but having no summary, no pictures, only the slight connotation of drugs harbors could allow for such judgements? It was not until sometime later that I began to realize that no matter how diverse and open-minded one’s surroundings may be, this book and others like it will always only be seen at face-value and is assumed to only include these five things:
Counterculture. Drugs. Peace. Tie-Dye. Anti-Vietnam. Oh, and drugs. Sound familiar? The issue is that without reading one sentence the majority of our society would believe they have seen and heard it all and do not need to bother with another hippie book. And despite my arguable bias, having a keen interest in the subject, I knew that as I reread the first page of for the fourth time that this was not the case. Yes, it was going to be a book chalked full of confusing context, language and ideas, drugs and conceivably a “typical” hippie story, but intertwined and under the surface was a deeper meaning; one which would completely alter my view of what American culture has created hippies to embody.
But on the contrary I found this to be entirely untrue and once the initial “language” barrier of the book was crossed and I became accustomed to Wolfe’s sporadic, trippy sometimes even nonsensical style the story and characters became alive and a story began to unfold. It was so much more then what the American connotation of hippies was, the characters were real people, fighting issues but most importantly they followed a specific philosophy and way of life that went so much deeper then drugs or any of the others listed above.
“—when Cassady misses, its never an accident. He’s saying something…That’s typical. You see that? You see how this thing is designed to open out? It’s always out, into, it’s got to be out, into your life, the old bullshit thrust—you know?—they don’t even think about it—you know? (page 18).
Although obscure, this style of accentuating certain words and creating dramatic pauses that is what makes the characters unique and more believable. The reader knows characters are imperfect, confused, conflicted and trying to figure out what is everything means. The reader is allowed to grow and feel with those who they are observing, learn as they do, triumph with their success and suffer as they fail. It is because Wolf was able to relentlessly observe, interview and listen to all who were on “the bus” that the reader becomes part of the story and almost in the story, rather then merely just watching it. His ability to recreate and paint the drugs, the experiences, the drug induced experiences, and most importantly the way of life and philosophy encompasses the characters in the book, as well as the reader.
Tom Wolfe described creating this dialogue and story as “I have tried not only to tell what the Pranksters did but re-create the mental atmosphere or subjective reality of it. I don’t think their adventure can be understood without that.” In his quest to do so, we enter into the world of each of people who make up the Merry Pranksters, a group who rallied behind and followed the famous author Ken Kesey. It is a true account of their journey and chronicles all parts from the famous bus trip across the country, communal living in California, trouble with the law and its eventual fall. This community which began with the motto “You’re either on the bus…or off the bus,” literally referring to those who made the trip, turned into their entire governing principle and way of life, as those who were in-tune and understanding of the group and Kesey plan were “on the bus” whereas the rest of civilization was “off.” The many metaphors and psychedelic style of writing embodies both the drugs that were used to induce their state of mind, but also the offbeat and extremely kooky personalities of those on the bus itself.
When reading this book it is important to understand that it is not just that, it is not a story for pleasure-it is more so an experience, a slim portal that allows for glimpses of this world to be seen. And just as the mindsets of those within the story were forever changed, as were their views of the world, my experience inevitably did the same. Ken Kesey sums up this newfound awareness: “They’re just beginning to open the doors in their minds…but once you’ve been through that door, you can’t just keep going through it over and over again-” This analogy holds true to both the experiences seen in the book as well as how they particularly impacted and changed my perspective as well. Unfortunately, as the misconception of what a hippie is and stands for, will remain unchanged in the vast majority of societies eyes, it is with a novel like this that some barriers can finally be removed. Although reading such can cause judgment of others and discomfort, it is with this raw information that the hippie culture can be seen and not overshadowed by a stereotypes and misconceptions, instead it can be appreciated for its roots, its meaning and for its ability to change the worlds perspective with such a small group of people who started a revolution.
It was STAR at Shorewood high school, and after a grueling period (which Casey happened to sleep through) she was so hungry from the hard work, that she needed something more then the pitiful snacks the Student Store offered. No she needed quality sustenance, something that would allow her to focus, concentrate-a breakfast of champions: Large curly fries and coke from the all-too convenient Jack in the Box. The notion of a “closed campus” no longer existed, and as she confidently walked past teachers and pending security guards she began her quest for greatness. A quick get a way, drive up the street and turned
This visual essay is a prime example of how an essay accompanied with images that only exemplify the point that the author is trying to make, is one of the most successful methods of persuasion. This is because not only is one first taken aback by the use of logic and logos with the words, but then as the raw emotion of ethos is added as well, the statements and support become so much more compelling. It is the emotion and reaction that is what causes most to be persuaded, and in this case merely describing the woman and her baby falling from the fire escape does no justice when put against the photograph which captured the fear and sadness, of this now famous and momumenal moment in history.
After reading John Canaday’s explication of the two art pieces I find it extremely interesting how he was able to analyze and take apart the painting while understanding the subjects. I will admit that i was was completely off in my original views about the subject, because looking predominately at the “warm” versus “cool ” colors, The Peales appeared to be filled with much more tension and anger as the reds and orange tones stood out from the black. On the other hand, The Bellellis appeared to be much warmer due to the apparent brightness, and blues or cool colors and stark white which were emitted from this picture. Of course, in reality as I looked closer at the portrait and read his description it was obvious that i could not be more wrong. After looking more in depth
This is a very striking photograph because of the contrast between warm and cool colors, while they visually appeal to the rule of thirds. When first looking at the photograph, I noticed the foreground was prominent with warmer colors, in particular the woman’s red garment. Then, on the final third of the photograph the composition of cool colors allows for a stark contrast of two people in a situation. How this picture was composed allows for the feeling and rhetorical ethos to be felt, as the pain and sorrow accompanied with the colors allows on to feel their pain as well.
So you read the title of this essay: “Creativity”-expecting some quirky hook or amusing story that draws you in and makes want to continue reading? Well sorry to disappoint, but although the template for a “good” essay delegates just that: a creative, fresh and interesting take on a subject, I have instead pointed out my lack of creativity and otherwise “wrong” introduction. Why did I do this? To put it simply, not only does my introduction directly relate to what the personal and media ideals of creativity are supposed to be, but the definition of creativity that has been given by society as a whole. Specifically, the idea of creativity has become more of a formula then a passion, our culture has made it so that something must be done the “creative” way and because creativity is now expected, the true meaning and passion behind the word has lost its value in our society, as it has molded into two contradictions.
Creativity has become a paradox: on one hand, it is a synonym for originality and innovation, but conversely it has also evolved into specific traits and a specific identity. Creativity now embodies a distinct look, sound, or feel-it has been commercialized and standardized by specific qualities, and is identified by these accepted characteristics. Take for example, describing two different persons to a stranger only using adjectives. The first who is identified as “creative” would immediately create an image of someone like this to come to mind, right?
Consequently, the second person would not need to be labeled as “uncreative” and could instead be described using any adjective and most likely someone like this would be pictured.
(Both photos courtesy of flickr)
The issue? The “distinct” look of someone who is creative has been lumped together by certain characteristics that our culture has accepted. Because no matter what, when comparing pictures the “creativity value” of the person in second picture will always be less than who was in the first. This idea of determining one’s creativity purely from looks is no longer based on one’s personal judgment, but it is in fact the product of our societal standards, and the allowance for such criticism to occur.
Although the fact that the vast majority of society accepts this view is quite disheartening, even more so is societies stifling creativity as a whole. It has become increasingly apparent that we judge others in all aspects of life-it is intrinsic and despite what many will say, humans will always form some kind of opinion about others. The issue with such thoughts is the sense of fear that it creates among people; the fear of not being accepted, of being ridiculed and mocked, but most importantly the fear of being shut down and turned away. Now, when dealing with purely a “face value” (as mentioned earlier) it is not as devastating because one is defined based only on their appearance. But when creativity is an idea, a movement, something that will have even the slightest impact on the world, it becomes a part of the inventor: it is a piece of their soul-it represents who they are and what they stand for. Because of the anxiety caused from the fear of being rejected by society and its views, many censor their creative potential, ignoring their instincts and intuition, and thus further hurting society by not contributing one’s full potential.
One such example is the film Garden State, the protagonist Andrew Largeman returns home for the first time in nine years, to attend his mother’s funeral. During the funeral he finally realizes the extent of his numbness from heavily medicated on anger-curbing pills for the past nine years. He is unable to cry at his mothers funeral, and because of this he chooses to stop taking his medication and meets Sam, a beautiful, free spirited, quirky girl who helps him understand live with the pain and joys of life for the first time. The significance of Sam’s impact on Andrew not only allows him to experience emotion, but more importantly she helps him break down societal barriers that Largeman was surrounded by for so long. In this clip, one can see that Sam’s patience and lack of fear of society’s views, as well as her genuine creativity, allows Largeman to overcome this fear, and no longer live in shadows. His ability to overcome these obstacles and the expectations of society is what makes the story inspiring, and applicable-as his fears are what we face and deal with in society as well.
Creativity has come to represent many things, but in doing so our culture has produced a word directing and influencing everyone in some way shape or form. And although the “identity” of creativity mentioned earlier is exceedingly prominent and consequential, what is almost equally accepted and perhaps more dangerous is the idea that creativity requires originality. It is a common misconception that a “creative idea” needs to be completely original and entirely new and innovative and because of this many products inspired by or based off the work of others are considered “creative”.
Take for instance my observation from two weeks ago: it was a Saturday night, one could even say Sunday morning-and as I comfortably sat in my friends muggy basement, as a very interesting debate was unfolding before my eyes. As the sun’s rays began sliding through the crack in the curtains, I was amazed that of all possible topics my peers were still debating one thing: if the artist Lil Wayne was a “good artist” or otherwise creative. My cousin claimed that he was not a good artist because all of his most successful songs are remakes of other peoples work. Here is an example: this is a link to the music video of the song Apologize by One Republic. Although it was made famous by the artist Timbaland (who happened to remix the original), Lil Wayne also created his own rendition of Apologize. Numerous other songs have also attributed from his artistic talent such as he has either remixed the entire song, or simply remakes it and adds a verse. The argument made was that because he is more recognizable from his work with other artists and on “others” songs then his own album, he is not creative or an example of a good artist. But once again this common belief is another product of society’s views, and the forgotten meaning of creativity itself: to produce something new and unique, with a personal joy that came in producing it. Is it not valid that Lil Wayne used his inspiration from these other artists in order to create and make something new and perhaps better? Is it not a legitimate claim, that although he based his work from that of another he is crediting their worth, and adding his own interpretation?
When presented like this it seems that creativity is a necessity and apparent in all aspects of life. Clearly, the society that we live in has allowed the judgment of music, film art literature, even ones own personal being to be described as “creative” or not. It is interesting enough, that the accepted definition falls under two distinct categories: both which inhibit our world and limit our views on something that should have endless potential.
In the article “The Truth About Beauty” beauty is defined as what is often seen as the physical aspects of it, and the definition that has evolved over the years because of the media. The author then uses this claim in order to prove the flawed ideas in Dove’s campaign for beauty. She claims that beauty does not exist, instead it exisits only in a slim few. She qualifies this by using experiments from Harvard, and research from other credible sources, psychologists ect. Although her point appears valid, I diasagree because I feel that (as cliche as it sounds) beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It allows one person to find something beautiful, and others to not feel the same. Physically, she seems to state that if a group of people were in a room, only one would possibly be beautiful, and others would therefore be ugly. THis definition is saying that beauty is purely physical, which is entirely untrue and often some of the most beautiful attributes about a person is not the “textbook” definition, or even anything physical.
Hosted by 