As soon as I read the title “Love your kids? Prove it by beating them,” I knew I would enjoy myself on Maddox’s website. The statement is so outlandish that it can’t possibly be true, yet he writes with conviction about how “kids today need a good beating every now and then.”
Maddox obviously writes with the intention to offend. He must thrive off of confrontation, controversy, and the attention his bizarre stances give him. The fact that he posts his hate mail on his site and tears apart every aspect of the letters is evidence of that. With a step-by-step manual on how to beat children, Maddox is hardly looking to play it safe.
Most of the article is filled with “helpful hints” and “useful techniques” when dealing with – and dishing out – child abuse. The first half goes through reasons why one should support the physical abuse because of everything that is wrong with the modern generation of children. “The problem is that kids today think their opinions matter” he rants, seemingly joking, but with a tone of seriousness. That is the difficult thing to detect in Maddox’s writing; at times he is obviously joking and looking for a reaction, but at other moments the reader almost has to convince himself the articles are meant for humor.
The second half of the article details popular techniques on how to abuse children. He explains moves such as The Yard Stick and The Dragon Kick, and he describes which situations merit which methods. And while I hardly condone any type of child abuse, the article’s absurdity had me enjoying every line.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
i'm lovin it
Before I read Maddox's article entitled "McDonald's new ad campaign is an anagram for ailing vomit," I thought I was one of the few people who disliked McDonald's food. In this article, Maddox goes on a diatribe against McDonald's food and its marketing strategies using cartoons along with his writing to convey his belief that McDonald's food is of low quality and that its techniques for appealing to the masses actually cheapen our culture's identity.
Maddox's writing style is inappropriate and controversial in comparison to our societal norm . He cusses rampantly and uses phrases such as "bland pig shit" to describe McDonald's food. Nevertheless, his writing style isn't so unorthodox when you consider his audience. Soccer moms and white collar 4o-somethings aren't going to be reading his website. His audience is older teenagers and people in their twenties. His style will appeal more easily to teenagers and people in their twenties who will appreciate his offensive humor.
However, Maddox's purpose in writing the article isn't to entertain or piss people off so much as it is to get his view across, that McDonald's is targeting stereotypes in an attempt to sell more Big Mac's. Maddox addresses this by acknowledging McDonald's new marketing campaign of using hip-hop, r&b, and rap artists in "five cutting-edge, high energy television commericals." Just because McDonald's uses popular rappers in its tv commercials, ethnic stereotypes should somehow feel more connected to McDonald's and as a result buy more unhealthy artery hardening food. His underlying point is that McDonald's cheap, unhealthy, processed food tastes terrible, but because of their marketing ignorant masses will continue to eat at McDonald's.
Maddox's writing style is inappropriate and controversial in comparison to our societal norm . He cusses rampantly and uses phrases such as "bland pig shit" to describe McDonald's food. Nevertheless, his writing style isn't so unorthodox when you consider his audience. Soccer moms and white collar 4o-somethings aren't going to be reading his website. His audience is older teenagers and people in their twenties. His style will appeal more easily to teenagers and people in their twenties who will appreciate his offensive humor.
However, Maddox's purpose in writing the article isn't to entertain or piss people off so much as it is to get his view across, that McDonald's is targeting stereotypes in an attempt to sell more Big Mac's. Maddox addresses this by acknowledging McDonald's new marketing campaign of using hip-hop, r&b, and rap artists in "five cutting-edge, high energy television commericals." Just because McDonald's uses popular rappers in its tv commercials, ethnic stereotypes should somehow feel more connected to McDonald's and as a result buy more unhealthy artery hardening food. His underlying point is that McDonald's cheap, unhealthy, processed food tastes terrible, but because of their marketing ignorant masses will continue to eat at McDonald's.
How to spot a pedophile
The writer Maddox uses comedic writing to draw the reader in and to keep them entertained. The article I am writing about is about his thoughts on pedophile detection; it is called How to Spot a Pedophile. He opens up his in his first sentence saying: “Ever see a guy at work or school who sends off creepy vibes, and you say to yourself, ‘man, I know that guy rapes children’?” His rude and dirty sense of humor, are some of the things that make people angry, and complain about his various writings; but at the same time it draws many readers to his writings. Even though he makes harsh judgments, I like the way he expresses himself when talking about subjects such as this. I was really surprised when I saw the way his writing was actually reader interactive. He lines up faces in the suspect column, and next to the faces there is a yes or a no column. This was used for the reader to indicate their opinion if the person is a pedophile or not. The “suspects” were wanted murderers, politicians, or actual pedophiles. After the answers are submitted, immediately it is seen who is actually a pedophile or whatever they might be. This next page also provides the suspects information and their crime. It is interesting how the internet can change the styles and methods of writing. Here it is seen that the reader gets to be involved, with the topic and also instant results are seen.
Suicide isn't so bad, give it a chance.
"Hope you found this guide helpful, mention it in your suicide note. On second thought, why bother? Nobody will read it." This is how Maddox ends his suicide decision making guide in the article "Suicide isn't so bad, give it a chance." This is one of my absolute favorite Maddox articles along with "How to kill yourself like a man" and "I am better than your kids." In the article, Maddox takes the viewpoints of a depressed person and trivializing them, showing how he believes anyone who contemplates suicide is an idiot and probably deserves to die.
I myself will never understand how anyone could ever commit suicide, no matter how depressed they may be. There is so much to live for, and suicide is one of the most irresponsible and wasteful things a person could possibly do. This is why "Suicide isn't so bad, give it a chance" appeals to me so much. What it really does it shows a suicidal person just how ridiculous their thought processes are. Maddox begins with the typical thoughts of a depressed person as one of his first bullet points is:
Obviously, Maddox has no sympathy for the suicidal, which I really do not have much of either. Maddox presents his argument in a witty and clever way. He presents his argument in stark contrast to what would be considered the social norm. Furthermore, this article is just hilarious. I for one, contemplate suicide every time I get stuck in a traffic jam. Just sitting there twenty minutes, I really just don't know if that's tolerable.
I'm really disappointed Maddox doesn't update his site more often, his unadulterated, uncompromising opinions and remarks are in high demand in our sterilized and censored commercial mainstream, (which by the way sucks.)
I myself will never understand how anyone could ever commit suicide, no matter how depressed they may be. There is so much to live for, and suicide is one of the most irresponsible and wasteful things a person could possibly do. This is why "Suicide isn't so bad, give it a chance" appeals to me so much. What it really does it shows a suicidal person just how ridiculous their thought processes are. Maddox begins with the typical thoughts of a depressed person as one of his first bullet points is:
"If you just got out of a bad relationship and you feel like things are never going to get better; you're right. Everyone knows that suicide is the only option, stop procrastinating. Look on the bright side, at least your ex will feel guilty for a couple of minutes--but don't count on it."
His guide then grows more and more ridiculous, further trivializing the views of a suicidal individual. He continues with hitting depression, friendlessness and failure, but then goes on to such items as receiving too many calls from telemarketers and getting a flat tire. In No. 8 Maddox gives advice such as:
"Flu? You realize that there's no cure for the flu, right? Well, no cure that doesn't involve painting the wall with your brains."Obviously, Maddox has no sympathy for the suicidal, which I really do not have much of either. Maddox presents his argument in a witty and clever way. He presents his argument in stark contrast to what would be considered the social norm. Furthermore, this article is just hilarious. I for one, contemplate suicide every time I get stuck in a traffic jam. Just sitting there twenty minutes, I really just don't know if that's tolerable.
I'm really disappointed Maddox doesn't update his site more often, his unadulterated, uncompromising opinions and remarks are in high demand in our sterilized and censored commercial mainstream, (which by the way sucks.)
Though your writing makes me want to hate you, I admit that you are right.
The author is obviously trying to communicate that he thinks Garfield is not at all funny and that you should believe the same. Let’s take a look at how he communicates this.
Throughout the article, Maddox clings to the hope that by using crude humor, vulgar language, and the self-control of a five-year-old, his readers will overlook his lack of writing skill and agree with his ridiculously proposed ideas. Though I personally agree with his main point that Garfield is, in fact, retarded, I found myself longing to disagree with him due sheerly to the fact that Maddox writes like some angry bum throwing a temper tantrum after he just got put in timeout.
Secondly, Maddox wonders from topic to topic as if he took three different random articles and copied and pasted their middles together onto a blank Microsoft Word document. He goes from raving about how Garfield gets more awards than Family Guy to talking about how much he hates babies. He then proceeds to expound on this subject for three more sentences as if he thought the reader, whom originally decided to read an article on Garfield, actually cared about his opinions on abortion. Maddox’s writing commands the respect of not even the lowliest reading creature on the earth, and I hope never again to have to endure the tortures of dissecting another one of his works. (if it can even be called that) Nevertheless, at the end of this article, I did find myself saying , “You’re right, Garfield does, in fact, suck, and it evidently must not take a bright individual to come to that conclusion.”
Throughout the article, Maddox clings to the hope that by using crude humor, vulgar language, and the self-control of a five-year-old, his readers will overlook his lack of writing skill and agree with his ridiculously proposed ideas. Though I personally agree with his main point that Garfield is, in fact, retarded, I found myself longing to disagree with him due sheerly to the fact that Maddox writes like some angry bum throwing a temper tantrum after he just got put in timeout.
Secondly, Maddox wonders from topic to topic as if he took three different random articles and copied and pasted their middles together onto a blank Microsoft Word document. He goes from raving about how Garfield gets more awards than Family Guy to talking about how much he hates babies. He then proceeds to expound on this subject for three more sentences as if he thought the reader, whom originally decided to read an article on Garfield, actually cared about his opinions on abortion. Maddox’s writing commands the respect of not even the lowliest reading creature on the earth, and I hope never again to have to endure the tortures of dissecting another one of his works. (if it can even be called that) Nevertheless, at the end of this article, I did find myself saying , “You’re right, Garfield does, in fact, suck, and it evidently must not take a bright individual to come to that conclusion.”
How To Kill Yourself Like A Man
As I browsed some of the articles on this site trying to find one to write this blog about, I came across this one, with an opening paragraph that immediately piqued my interest. The obvious sarcasm mixed with humorous rhetorical questions, and the repeated analogy of a fourteen year old girl reveal the authors feigned frustration at people committing suicide.
Maddox is obviously not pro-suicide and is using his usual medium, an eloquent blend of hate and condescension, to satirize the idiotic reasons some people choose to end their lives over. The opening paragraph of this article does a good job of engaging the reader, using a fair amount of humor and the usual bad-mouthing, while offering some hint of credibility with the “mortal coil” Hamlet reference. The first paragraph offers most of the actual content in the article, the vast majority of it is merely gruesome depictions of uncanny suicide techniques, each offering a small insight into the author’s opinion of those who commit suicide. The author constantly belittles the people he is giving “advice” to saying things like “you have no friends,” and “eat shit,” revealing his negative opinion of people who try to kill themselves.
A brief glimpse of humanity can be detected when he describes the fourteen year old girl. “You can't go on because you're the only person who has ever been dumped,” points out the stupidity of suicide while at the same time bringing the person a bit of normalcy, almost to the point of consolation.
Overall I thought the article was great. I can’t believe that I had never seen this site before. It offers opinions in a humorous way, similar to The Onion, but with a large amount of vulgarity, making it seem pure and untainted by any bias aside for the author’s own judgments.
Who would make a better president Bush or a box of Tic-Tacs? An objective analysis.
Because this was the first time I had ever been on this site, I decided to read several different articles before I chose which one to comment on. And let me just say, Maddox is certainly hilarious. This article concentrated on the pros and cons of George W. Bush as president vs. Tic-Tacs. I was actually surprised to find that Maddox didn’t use any vulgar language in this one, which may be part of the reason why I liked this one the best and why I respect his opinions more.
His point came across very well: I really hate Bush, and here’s why. From saying Bush “Causes unprecedented world-wide support to turn against the U.S. with inflammatory rhetoric and borderline imperialism,” while a box of Tic-Tacs “Just sits there,” to saying Bush “Has about 20% body fat,” while Tic-Tacs have “Only one and a half calories,” he lets his opinions and ideas known without being too harsh and disrespectful about it.
I really liked his style of comparing Bush to an inanimate object. His evaluation of our current president is quite valid, and he presents it in such a way that is both humorous and very appealing to his audience, not to mention it’s easy to read and follow. It’s short and to the point.
And if all of these comparisons don’t convince you, you can always cast your vote for who would make a better president at the bottom of the page. Currently, Tic-Tacs are in the lead 70% to Bush’s 30%.
His point came across very well: I really hate Bush, and here’s why. From saying Bush “Causes unprecedented world-wide support to turn against the U.S. with inflammatory rhetoric and borderline imperialism,” while a box of Tic-Tacs “Just sits there,” to saying Bush “Has about 20% body fat,” while Tic-Tacs have “Only one and a half calories,” he lets his opinions and ideas known without being too harsh and disrespectful about it.
I really liked his style of comparing Bush to an inanimate object. His evaluation of our current president is quite valid, and he presents it in such a way that is both humorous and very appealing to his audience, not to mention it’s easy to read and follow. It’s short and to the point.
And if all of these comparisons don’t convince you, you can always cast your vote for who would make a better president at the bottom of the page. Currently, Tic-Tacs are in the lead 70% to Bush’s 30%.
Sick Sad Little Man
Soon after perusing around the self-proclaimed 'Best Page in the Universe', I was searching for the return line to get my time back. Maddox is funny and all, but I fail to see the point of his arrogance. He is inherently cruel and ridiculously sarcastic. Besides a few cleverly placed words, I see not a single shred of intelligence in his writing. There are enough sadistic people in the world to support this page and keep it running, which is very sad. The specific article I read was about how modern day parents are too scared to beat their kids anymore. His viewpoint vocalized that kids are too out of line these days and it directly proportional to parents not hitting their kids. Maddox hits on sensitive issues to get reactions out of his readers, whether it be positive or negative. He brings up insane arguments that have no relevancy to the real world. He makes his living off appeasing and pissing people off and I think there is nothing more to it. I would be very surprised if I ever waste another minute on this webpage.
The only bright point of the entire webpage is it serves as a perfect example of what happens to sad little men that have way too much time on their hands. Anyone who puts that much effort into a meaningless blog probably did not have many friends growing up and I am left sympathetic for Maddox and his readers.
Apparently ‘The Best Page in the Universe’ has a no return policy on all worthless articles read, oh well, at least I know for next time.
The only bright point of the entire webpage is it serves as a perfect example of what happens to sad little men that have way too much time on their hands. Anyone who puts that much effort into a meaningless blog probably did not have many friends growing up and I am left sympathetic for Maddox and his readers.
Apparently ‘The Best Page in the Universe’ has a no return policy on all worthless articles read, oh well, at least I know for next time.
Let's Blow Up The Moon!
After reading a few of Maddox’s recent rants I decided to look at some of his previous posts. The piece that I ended up reading had the title used above. This fascinated me because the moon has always been my favorite celestial object. He wrote very little on the subject (only139 words) and it lacked the serious tone that I enjoyed with some of his other work. The concept is so ridiculous that he did not even try for enough seriousness to make it controversial or even very funny (as I find straight faced humor to be) and it was just an off the wall sort of thing that was kind of funny. The whole thing appears to have been sparked by one stray thought while he was driving home at night very tired. The entire article seems to flow one thought at a time from the previous thought. He does not seem to dwell on anything as each new thought pops into his head. The actual concept of blowing up the moon is discussed and decided in the first few sentences and then he moves on to discuss the various contingencies in a manner akin to that of a person with the attention span of a humming bird that has had three cans of vault. Although it was funny I was in the end disappointed with his post about destroying the moon. I felt that such a topic deserved better than to consist mostly of a discussion on the need for a giant robot monkey head that would fill the role of the man in the moon by staring at you with glowing eyes while you drive (my reason for my statement as to the origins of this topic on his site). The fact that he cannot see that Monkor is a cooler name than Fojar is the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned.
"Phrases that make my blood boil."
For years, the internet has had a schoolgirl crush of Maddox. I mean, what's not to love? He's funny, he's smart, he's handsome, and he has a way with words that will make even the most miserly old man crack a smile.
No, wait. Those are the things he's not. He's arbitrarily aggressive, he thinks he's right about everything, and he's more profane than a talking, racist shark on amphetamines. And now, thanks to the wonderful trash heap known as the internet, he's got a following, and a god complex. There's a reason we're spiraling into debauchery, and I'm willing to bet that Maddox accounts for more than thirty-five percent of it.
The article I choose was about several phrases that, for whatever reason, makes Maddox angry. First of all, he thinks this is completely original. It's not. For years, comedians have been analyzing old adages and making fun of them. It's not funny when they do it. It's especially not funny when you do the same thing, but make every other word a curse, a la Maddox. Second, the fact that these innocuous phrases anger him so much puts strong doubt into me of his sanity. While some of these phrases can be slightly annoying, they are nothing more than words, and words that aren't even meant to inflame. There is absolutely no reason to be so offensive about phrases such as "I'm a child at heart," which he classifies anyone that says that as "a boring middle-aged loser with sagging tits and yellow nails who survives off greasy TV dinners every night as you contemplate the exact moment your life became such a miserable shit hole."
One of the major things that Maddox did wrong about this article (and lets face it, all articles) was that he assumed that I care about his opinion. I don't. He's a terrible, filthy-mouthed hooligan, and I'd really just prefer forming my own opinion, instead of having one forced on me. The only think I can think of that Maddox does right is aesthetic. He has decent grammar, and keeps spelling mistakes to a minimum. His page is black with gray lettering, which is much easier on the eyes than the standard black text on a white background. But that's it, folks.
And I know what you're going to say. "Aren't lowering to his level by sharing your bad opinion of him?" First of all, I don't think I could ever sink down so far as to be at his level. Secondly, someone asked for my opinion, which is more than I can say for Monsignor Maddox.
No, wait. Those are the things he's not. He's arbitrarily aggressive, he thinks he's right about everything, and he's more profane than a talking, racist shark on amphetamines. And now, thanks to the wonderful trash heap known as the internet, he's got a following, and a god complex. There's a reason we're spiraling into debauchery, and I'm willing to bet that Maddox accounts for more than thirty-five percent of it.
The article I choose was about several phrases that, for whatever reason, makes Maddox angry. First of all, he thinks this is completely original. It's not. For years, comedians have been analyzing old adages and making fun of them. It's not funny when they do it. It's especially not funny when you do the same thing, but make every other word a curse, a la Maddox. Second, the fact that these innocuous phrases anger him so much puts strong doubt into me of his sanity. While some of these phrases can be slightly annoying, they are nothing more than words, and words that aren't even meant to inflame. There is absolutely no reason to be so offensive about phrases such as "I'm a child at heart," which he classifies anyone that says that as "a boring middle-aged loser with sagging tits and yellow nails who survives off greasy TV dinners every night as you contemplate the exact moment your life became such a miserable shit hole."
One of the major things that Maddox did wrong about this article (and lets face it, all articles) was that he assumed that I care about his opinion. I don't. He's a terrible, filthy-mouthed hooligan, and I'd really just prefer forming my own opinion, instead of having one forced on me. The only think I can think of that Maddox does right is aesthetic. He has decent grammar, and keeps spelling mistakes to a minimum. His page is black with gray lettering, which is much easier on the eyes than the standard black text on a white background. But that's it, folks.
And I know what you're going to say. "Aren't lowering to his level by sharing your bad opinion of him?" First of all, I don't think I could ever sink down so far as to be at his level. Secondly, someone asked for my opinion, which is more than I can say for Monsignor Maddox.
9K115 Metis
PROTIVOKLOPNA VOĐENA RAKETA
Protivoklopni raketni sistem 9K115 Metis (NATO oznaka AT-7 Saxhorn) razvijen je 1978. godine u konstrukcionom birou "Priborostrojenije" iz Tule. U oružane snage SSSR-a uveden je kao zamena za stariji sistem 9K111 Fagot u ulozi protivoklopnog sredstva mehanizovanog pešadijskog bataljona.
Sistem Metis je namenjen za uništavanje tenkova, oklopnih vozila, bunkera, utvrđenih objekata i drugih nepokretnih i pokretnih tačkastih ciljeva na zemlji na daljinama do 1000 m.
Kompleks 9K115 Metis se sastoji od:- Vođene rakete 9M115 u transportno-lansirnom kontejneru;- Prenosnog lansera 9P151;- Uređaja za testiranje ispravnosti lansera;- Rezervnog alata i pribora.
Raketa 9M115 ima poluautomatsko vođenje (operater održava končanicu nišana na cilju, a podaci za vođenje se automatski generišu i prenose na raketu putem mikrokabla). Smeštena je u hermetički zatvoren transportno-lansirni kontejner koji se pre lansiranja postavlja na lanser 9P151. Kumulativna bojeva glava mase 2,5 kg probija oko 500 mm homogenog čeličnog oklopa pod uglom od 90 stepeni. Raketni motor na čvrsto gorivo ubrzava raketu do maksimalnih 223 m/s. Minimalni domet projektila je 40 m, a maksimalni 1000 m.
Sistemom Metis se gađa iz ležećeg stava sa tronošca ili sa ramena. Raketa se može lansirati i iz zatvorenog prostora, ali treba voditi računa da iza lansera bude najemanje 6 m slobodnog prostora i da je zapremina prostorije veća od 100 m3.
Raketni sistem 9K115 Metis poslužuju dva vojnika. Operater nosi lanser i jednu raketu, dok pomoćnik nosi tri rezervne rakete.
Daljim razvojem sistema Metis nastao je protivoklopni kompleks 9K115-2 Metis-M (NATO ozanaka AT-13 Saxhorn). Metis-M koristi isti lansirni uređaj (9P115), ali novu i efikasniju raketu 9M131. Projektil 9M131 ima tandem-kumulativnu bojevu glavu koja probija reaktivni oklop i 800 mm homogenog čeličnog oklopa. Minimalni domet projektila je 80 m, a maksimalni 1500 m. Za sistem Metis-M razvijena je i raketa sa bojevom glavom punjenom aerosolnim eksplozivom, koja je izuzetno efikasna u dejstvu protiv žive sile, utvrđenih objekata i neoklopljenih vozila.
Sistem Metis je namenjen za uništavanje tenkova, oklopnih vozila, bunkera, utvrđenih objekata i drugih nepokretnih i pokretnih tačkastih ciljeva na zemlji na daljinama do 1000 m.
Kompleks 9K115 Metis se sastoji od:- Vođene rakete 9M115 u transportno-lansirnom kontejneru;- Prenosnog lansera 9P151;- Uređaja za testiranje ispravnosti lansera;- Rezervnog alata i pribora.
Raketa 9M115 ima poluautomatsko vođenje (operater održava končanicu nišana na cilju, a podaci za vođenje se automatski generišu i prenose na raketu putem mikrokabla). Smeštena je u hermetički zatvoren transportno-lansirni kontejner koji se pre lansiranja postavlja na lanser 9P151. Kumulativna bojeva glava mase 2,5 kg probija oko 500 mm homogenog čeličnog oklopa pod uglom od 90 stepeni. Raketni motor na čvrsto gorivo ubrzava raketu do maksimalnih 223 m/s. Minimalni domet projektila je 40 m, a maksimalni 1000 m.
Sistemom Metis se gađa iz ležećeg stava sa tronošca ili sa ramena. Raketa se može lansirati i iz zatvorenog prostora, ali treba voditi računa da iza lansera bude najemanje 6 m slobodnog prostora i da je zapremina prostorije veća od 100 m3.
Raketni sistem 9K115 Metis poslužuju dva vojnika. Operater nosi lanser i jednu raketu, dok pomoćnik nosi tri rezervne rakete.
Daljim razvojem sistema Metis nastao je protivoklopni kompleks 9K115-2 Metis-M (NATO ozanaka AT-13 Saxhorn). Metis-M koristi isti lansirni uređaj (9P115), ali novu i efikasniju raketu 9M131. Projektil 9M131 ima tandem-kumulativnu bojevu glavu koja probija reaktivni oklop i 800 mm homogenog čeličnog oklopa. Minimalni domet projektila je 80 m, a maksimalni 1500 m. Za sistem Metis-M razvijena je i raketa sa bojevom glavom punjenom aerosolnim eksplozivom, koja je izuzetno efikasna u dejstvu protiv žive sile, utvrđenih objekata i neoklopljenih vozila.
Christopher Reeve is an Asshole!
The article that I chose to write about was the article named “Christopher Reeve is an Asshole.” At first glance, the title is offensive and highly disrespectful. Christopher Reeve is dead now and he did a lot of beneficial things for people that would come after him that would also have paralysis. I believe that Christopher Reeve is remembered by some more for being paralyzed than being Superman. I almost did not want to read it, but as we discussed in class; we need a wider perspective of what people are saying out there. So I read the article and my opinion swayed slightly. I agreed with some of his point of view and I understood the reasoning behind it all. I did not disagree with his approach. Although regretfully I admired Maddox’s play on words, but the overall language he used was harsh and unforgiving. I did not find the curse words offensive because as a college student there is no slur of words that can I think will shock me. It was his relentless attack on disabled/ handicapped people. I refrain from using the word crippled to describe handicapped people, just as I refrain from using the word midget to describe dwarfs. I think Maddox is extremely arrogant and selfish for no legitimate reason. He is a college dropout that does nothing with his life but provide this unique, self-centered comedy at others behalves. His work should not be praised, but it is important to understand where he is coming from. He does speak some truth. Christopher Reeve did not have a foundation until he was paralyzed and more people paid attention to his case because he played Superman in four movies. How can this offend Maddox? As human beings, we all have life-defining moments and choices to make. So what, Christopher Reeve decided to help himself and others like him only after he almost died. This is not an outrage. It is common for people to sympathize for something after they experience it first hand. I think the majority of this article neglects this as an object of human nature. I respect Maddox’s argument at times, but his approach and background discredit anything he can say as plausible.
You're not Dave Chapelle, and you are not funny
In this article Maddox expresses his hatred of the copycat. While very sarcastic, Maddox lets you know how he really feels about anyone other than Dave Chapelle immitating Rick James. The phrase "I'm Rick James bitch" is only funny when said by the one and only Dave Chappelle, according to Maddox. This rule extends far beyond Chappelle, Maddox explains that it is also not funny to oull an "Alrighty then" or "OOOOOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaaaaayyy" inspired by Jim Carey's Ace Ventura. The point Maddox is trying to make is that origionality is funny, impostors are not, but I think he goes a step further in saying that people who are "not funny" should just stop trying to be funny. His sarcastic tone draws in his audience, and his over the top rage for seemingly unimportant subjects may intrigue some audiences. On the other hand, I think he loses a huge audience base because he is so over the top. Many readers may be offended by his language and subject matter. He has definitly picked his audience and isn't afraid to lose everyone else.
Mad Maddox
I read the article titled “Happiness? Bah!” which was actually quite tame compared to some of the others I perused. Honestly I am a little confused after reading this article. The point he was trying to make was that people aren’t really happy. They just “walk around in circles” thinking they are happy. For some reason Old Navy and Pepsi in particular really irritate him. He also says he can’t wait to become a hermit so he won’t have to deal with people. But that poses the question then why have a blog? He obviously really enjoys people despite his insistence that he doesn’t. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be discussing this very article with thousands of people that visit his website. In addition he openly states how much hate mail he gets and if he truly hated people as he claims, he definitely wouldn’t want to receive mail from them.
His first line reads “I can’t wait until I become a hermit.” I don’t understand why he’s waiting at all. If he hates people so much, what is keeping him from becoming the recluse he so desires to be. Overall he seems to be hypocritical in his statements. I don’t understand why he cares so much if other people are truly happy or if they’re just faking. If he truly can’t find anything in the world to make him happy, then he sounds depressed to me. And according to him, depressed people should all hang themselves. He seems to be writing just to get a reaction from people. I understand everyone is entitled to the first amendment; I just don’t understand why you’d waste it writing blogs and articles you don’t even believe yourself.
His first line reads “I can’t wait until I become a hermit.” I don’t understand why he’s waiting at all. If he hates people so much, what is keeping him from becoming the recluse he so desires to be. Overall he seems to be hypocritical in his statements. I don’t understand why he cares so much if other people are truly happy or if they’re just faking. If he truly can’t find anything in the world to make him happy, then he sounds depressed to me. And according to him, depressed people should all hang themselves. He seems to be writing just to get a reaction from people. I understand everyone is entitled to the first amendment; I just don’t understand why you’d waste it writing blogs and articles you don’t even believe yourself.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
So what is I haven’t seen them? I’m still going to bitch.
I love this man. He is horrible and nasty, but I can’t help but love him. He complains and whines about so much, but he says it in such a funny, unique way that it makes you see it from his point of view. You can tell he knows exactly what he is doing and knows exactly what audience he wants to reach. In the blog I choose, he is complaining about movies that he thinks are horrible, even though he has never seen them. I thought this was a fitting article to investigate, seeing as we are working on movie reviews right now too.
Some of the movies he talks about are You’ve Got Mail, Step Mom, Ever After, and Titanic. The first line (centered, in huge text) says, “I’m right, go to hell.” This pretty much sums up his attitude for the whole article. He is making assumptions and speculations that have no basis, and it doesn’t matter if you disagree, because he is right, don’t even try to argue. He swears all of the movies suck, even though he’s never seen them.
The basic premise of this whole site is a man trying to write about things that will rile people up, but this review is also being satirical. He is playing upon the fact that people do this all the time, judging a movie based on its trailer, or even it’s title, and deciding they hate it without even giving it a chance. I know I’ve done this. I’m sure a lot of people have.
Some of the movies he talks about are You’ve Got Mail, Step Mom, Ever After, and Titanic. The first line (centered, in huge text) says, “I’m right, go to hell.” This pretty much sums up his attitude for the whole article. He is making assumptions and speculations that have no basis, and it doesn’t matter if you disagree, because he is right, don’t even try to argue. He swears all of the movies suck, even though he’s never seen them.
The basic premise of this whole site is a man trying to write about things that will rile people up, but this review is also being satirical. He is playing upon the fact that people do this all the time, judging a movie based on its trailer, or even it’s title, and deciding they hate it without even giving it a chance. I know I’ve done this. I’m sure a lot of people have.
Oops! You're Racist!
Maddox, the author of "Oops! You're Racist" comments on illegal immigration in the United States and its effect on the availability of jobs. He feels that Americans should not complain about illegal immigrants taking their jobs because obviously it is a reason why they are getting the jobs over Americans. "I'm sick and tired of lazy gluttonous Americans bitching about immigrants "taking" our jobs. It's not like they can literally come to America, ambush us in the parking lot and take our jobs." Maddox feels that they are getting the jobs over Americans because we are lazy and the illegal immigrants are simply willing to work harder for less pay. He poses the question, "Why wouldn't the employer give the job to the person that is willing to work harder and for less money?" However, he feels that illegal immigrants should not have to work for less pay. Although they are not legal, if they do the job then they deserve to be paid the same amount as everyone else. He points out that Americans are lazy and afraid of competition. "I'm not going to sit back like every other racist piece of shit bitching about having to work harder because there's a little competition for my job, immigrant or otherwise. I know I can do my job better than anyone, and if an immigrant thinks he can do a better job than I can, I welcome him to try." Maddox believes that if you do your job and if you do it well then you should not have to worry about an illegal immigrant taking your job.
In trying to argue his point the author uses profanity profusely. This shows the reader how strongly he feels about his topic and how aggresively he is willing to argue his point. Of course this article would not be sent to a family oriented, childrens, or conservative magazine. The type of language and the way the author expresses his views is extrememly radical. Simply put, my mother and grandmother would proabaly be offended by Maddox not because of what he says but because of how he says it. I believe that his audience is geared more towards a younger people who have open minds. There is no sugar coating in his articles. Maddox says what he feels and does not try conform it to what is socially acceptable.
In trying to argue his point the author uses profanity profusely. This shows the reader how strongly he feels about his topic and how aggresively he is willing to argue his point. Of course this article would not be sent to a family oriented, childrens, or conservative magazine. The type of language and the way the author expresses his views is extrememly radical. Simply put, my mother and grandmother would proabaly be offended by Maddox not because of what he says but because of how he says it. I believe that his audience is geared more towards a younger people who have open minds. There is no sugar coating in his articles. Maddox says what he feels and does not try conform it to what is socially acceptable.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Now with 50% less shame, too!
If you're looking for the quintessential Maddox article, look no more. The Guiltless Grill article is a perfect sample of both the best and worst of Maddox.
On the positive side, we have a compellingly written, cogent argument that may use facts sparingly, but often enough and with enough verification that we can be reasonably certain about trusting them. The fourth paragraph is a perfect example - the argument that the meal cannot be guiltless even if the deaths were unintentional, since the purchaser of the meal would have to be aware of the damage caused, is beautifully reasoned. Properly cleaned and polished, it could hold its own against any editorial from any newspaper in the country.
On the other hand though, we've got the ingredients that made Maddox into an Internet sensation, and his articles far more popular than those editorials - invective, insults, imprecation, and intolerance. All vegetarians, for instance, are lumped together as one large group, and Maddox ignores the fact that some vegetarians might disagree with the ones being referenced in this article. Profanity litters the page, and in some places actually makes the text harder to read, as the reader must wade through curses to find the narrative thread.
Maddox, however, isn't trying to appeal to those who might be offended by this article. By making his writings so angry and coarse, he appeals to the young, to those who are already angry or annoyed, to those who simply want a good laugh. Much like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, he uses the style of his presentation to attract a broader audience, the better to spread his message - in this case, a condemnation of some vegetarians' hypocrisy. Groups like Mothers Against Maddox are never going to enjoy his work, but that's because he's not writing to please them.
So, is Maddox a good choice for a source of news? Nope. A place to get your opinions? No again. It's not intended for anything other than providing humor, and just maybe sparking thought. Sometimes, it takes a bit of fire in the speech to start that spark.
On the positive side, we have a compellingly written, cogent argument that may use facts sparingly, but often enough and with enough verification that we can be reasonably certain about trusting them. The fourth paragraph is a perfect example - the argument that the meal cannot be guiltless even if the deaths were unintentional, since the purchaser of the meal would have to be aware of the damage caused, is beautifully reasoned. Properly cleaned and polished, it could hold its own against any editorial from any newspaper in the country.
On the other hand though, we've got the ingredients that made Maddox into an Internet sensation, and his articles far more popular than those editorials - invective, insults, imprecation, and intolerance. All vegetarians, for instance, are lumped together as one large group, and Maddox ignores the fact that some vegetarians might disagree with the ones being referenced in this article. Profanity litters the page, and in some places actually makes the text harder to read, as the reader must wade through curses to find the narrative thread.
Maddox, however, isn't trying to appeal to those who might be offended by this article. By making his writings so angry and coarse, he appeals to the young, to those who are already angry or annoyed, to those who simply want a good laugh. Much like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, he uses the style of his presentation to attract a broader audience, the better to spread his message - in this case, a condemnation of some vegetarians' hypocrisy. Groups like Mothers Against Maddox are never going to enjoy his work, but that's because he's not writing to please them.
So, is Maddox a good choice for a source of news? Nope. A place to get your opinions? No again. It's not intended for anything other than providing humor, and just maybe sparking thought. Sometimes, it takes a bit of fire in the speech to start that spark.
Twenty-six things a perfect guy would do
If I had to describe this man and his writing style in one word, it would simply be fearless. Even though I don’t fully agree with his word choice and use of language, I have to admit that this website would not be as popular or successful if all of the articles were written in a more conservative form. The racy comments and overall offensive material draws attention from the audience, whether it is in a positive or negative sense. In the article entitled Twenty-six things a perfect guy would do, and other propaganda disseminated by misguided women, this man created a commentary based off of a woman’s list of perfect qualities in a man. Of course, he listed them out, one by one.
The first quality this random woman listed was that she wants a man who “Knows how to make you smile when you are down.” To this, Maddox wrote, “The door swings both ways, B****!” Then, when this woman stated that she wanted a man who will “Stick up for you, but still respect your independence,” his translation was that women want a man who will “Bail you out when you fail at life, but never bring it up during conversations.” Later on in the list, this woman wrote that she wants a man who will “Come up behind you and put his arms around you.” Maddox’s reply: “Sounds like something out of a herpes commercial.”
Although his commentary is extremely vulgar and offensive to most women, I found it really amusing. This guy really just forces his readers to view situations and relationships from a completely different point of view. In the past, I would have considered this list of “Perfect qualities” in men to be helpful and relatively insightful. Now, however, I have realized how ridiculous some of those fantasies really are, especially through the eyes of most men. Even though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops probably would not approve of this website, I have to give this guy a little bit of respect for truly speaking his mind and not giving a crap what anybody thinks about him. My guess is that he's sitting at home right now, reading another form of hate mail, and laughing out loud.
The first quality this random woman listed was that she wants a man who “Knows how to make you smile when you are down.” To this, Maddox wrote, “The door swings both ways, B****!” Then, when this woman stated that she wanted a man who will “Stick up for you, but still respect your independence,” his translation was that women want a man who will “Bail you out when you fail at life, but never bring it up during conversations.” Later on in the list, this woman wrote that she wants a man who will “Come up behind you and put his arms around you.” Maddox’s reply: “Sounds like something out of a herpes commercial.”
Although his commentary is extremely vulgar and offensive to most women, I found it really amusing. This guy really just forces his readers to view situations and relationships from a completely different point of view. In the past, I would have considered this list of “Perfect qualities” in men to be helpful and relatively insightful. Now, however, I have realized how ridiculous some of those fantasies really are, especially through the eyes of most men. Even though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops probably would not approve of this website, I have to give this guy a little bit of respect for truly speaking his mind and not giving a crap what anybody thinks about him. My guess is that he's sitting at home right now, reading another form of hate mail, and laughing out loud.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
TheOnion.com, vol. 2
The author of TheOnion.com’s Nation Sickened by Sight of Happy Young Couple may best be described as jealous, but hilarious comes in a close second. The pseudo-article takes on the impartial tone of a description of presidential approval rates, but instead describes a poll drop to below 40 percent approval for the relationship of Dave Petrun and Julie DeSimone.
Dislike of their relationship, which was in its fourth month at the time, is a rallying point for not only local residents, but citizens across America. The entire country is ablaze with contempt for the couple; in fact, “millions of people who say they want to shoot themselves in the face after observing the tender relationship.” Something as outlandish being articulated in such an informative manner simply adds to the humor of the article.
However, the whole piece is based on one simple truth: Couples can be really, really annoying. You know that pair that seems to be perpetually giggling at some inside joke, whispering in each others’ ears and exchanging goofy smiles? This story is about them. It’s no wonder 80 percent of the fictitious people polled “wished the couple would die, preferably in a fiery automobile accident.” While it may be humorous on an official news site, the article basically describes what anyone familiar with new couples feels.
With this Young Couple article, TheOnion.com yet again uses a satirical “news” article to describe the frivolities of society and, hopefully, make those couples understand just how obnoxious they really are.
Dislike of their relationship, which was in its fourth month at the time, is a rallying point for not only local residents, but citizens across America. The entire country is ablaze with contempt for the couple; in fact, “millions of people who say they want to shoot themselves in the face after observing the tender relationship.” Something as outlandish being articulated in such an informative manner simply adds to the humor of the article.
However, the whole piece is based on one simple truth: Couples can be really, really annoying. You know that pair that seems to be perpetually giggling at some inside joke, whispering in each others’ ears and exchanging goofy smiles? This story is about them. It’s no wonder 80 percent of the fictitious people polled “wished the couple would die, preferably in a fiery automobile accident.” While it may be humorous on an official news site, the article basically describes what anyone familiar with new couples feels.
With this Young Couple article, TheOnion.com yet again uses a satirical “news” article to describe the frivolities of society and, hopefully, make those couples understand just how obnoxious they really are.
U.S. Counter-Counterterrorism Unit Successfully Destroys Washington Monument
In this article the government’s position on homeland security is satirized using a mock agency, the Counter-Counterterrorism Unit or CCU. The article focuses on the CCU’s latest operation, the demolition of the
An important part in the article to note is President Bush’s urge “to pass a proposed $291 million spending package for the counter-counterterrorism program, while pointing out "the clear need" to provide the counterterrorism program with better training and equipment.” This point emphasizes the excessive amount of money that Congress has allocated towards groups that are unlikely to get the job done.
Another part of the article that emphasizes the government’s ineptitude is the fondness with which the “counter-counterterrorists” are referred. They are often called “brave” and “dedicated” men. This sentiment is also shown with the line “at least I know their sacrifice was not in vain.” The satire is taken a step further with the last line: “Special officer Jeremy Stillwell, the only member of the counter-counterterrorism unit to survive the exercise, died early yesterday morning while being questioned by counter-counter-counterterrorism personnel.”
In its entirety, the article serves to draw attention to the government’s supposed response to terrorism. It raises the question: How far will we let the government go for the sake of security? Will the government really be able to get the job done? And at what cost?
U.S.>little poland
I again find myself speechless by the skill with which The Onion satirizes our nation's politics. This week I was drawn to a very short article. It had only three sentences and barely one hundred words. There was little to no commentary as the article merely relayed what was transpiring within the Democratic Party's presidential race. It is a wonderful commentary on political mudslinging as it clearly shows the obvious hypocrisy of accusing someone of being an awful and downright mean person for making attacks on the character, actions, past, voting record, face, wife and/or mob connections of an opponent or for actually slinging mud at an opponent while he makes a speech. This "criticism of criticism... ...has become a key element of this" year's Democratic presidential primary according to The Onion. "Sen. Hillary Clinton had harsh words for Sen. Barack Obama's recent criticism of blunt remarks made by former Sen. John Edwards over what he called 'petty Democratic-party infighting.'" If that does not cause you to die of a heart attack laughing while at the same time considering what our political races have become than you probably do not have a severe heart condition. If you have a severe heart condition then you should not read the above quote and should see a heart specialist and start taking Bayer aspirin. Politics today have become too political and too personal as you have career politicians waging war for votes based not on platforms but by character assassinations; politicians (insert a vulgarity or string of such words that adequately describes my feeling about these men and women who represent us in Washington).The Onion successfully commented on the nature of modern political races without directly mentioning it and for that they have my vote.
The Onion #2
I just couldn’t stay away from the videos on The Onion because they are just so hilarious. This time, I viewed one titled ‘Gays Too Precious to Risk in Combat’ Says General. The best line in the video was when the general being questioned explained why homosexuals should not be allowed to be part of the military: “They’re special, pure, and rare, like a gleaming diamond, or a snow white colt. We must protect them.”
The reason that this article was produced is because one of the biggest issues in the United States today is whether gays and lesbians should be/are treated the same way as heterosexuals. For example, they are not allowed to marry…this is one of the biggest controversies today. Should they be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals?
As far as the military is concerned, the United States government has issued a policy called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality. However, there is still a lot of discussion about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the military at all.
The article is taking the controversy of homosexuality to a new level by making fun of this policy, saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to join the army…not because they are “different,” but because they are so important to today’s society. I found this article very interesting because the point they are trying to make is “Are homosexuals really any different? If they want to fight for their country, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to join the military?” However, this is still open to personal belief.
The reason that this article was produced is because one of the biggest issues in the United States today is whether gays and lesbians should be/are treated the same way as heterosexuals. For example, they are not allowed to marry…this is one of the biggest controversies today. Should they be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals?
As far as the military is concerned, the United States government has issued a policy called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the military, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality. However, there is still a lot of discussion about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the military at all.
The article is taking the controversy of homosexuality to a new level by making fun of this policy, saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to join the army…not because they are “different,” but because they are so important to today’s society. I found this article very interesting because the point they are trying to make is “Are homosexuals really any different? If they want to fight for their country, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to join the military?” However, this is still open to personal belief.
First Draft of Paper Inadvertently Becomes Final Draft
The title of this article is pretty self-explanatory. The article is about a student that didn’t bother writing a final draft and just turned in her first draft as her final. She claims she was “gonna add a bunch of stuff . . . but then was like, fuck it.” The article is obviously an “Onion” piece because of the falsely dramatic style. The article makes it sound like turning a first draft into a final draft is big news, a front-page story, when in reality it is an ordinary occurrence for most students, at least the students I know. The article is making big news out of an ordinary occurrence.
The author is trying to get across that college student don’t have much drive when it comes to schoolwork. The student in the article is perfectly fine with turning in her first draft; she is very nonchalant about the whole thing. The article says she ended up watching Friends instead. The article is addressing college students’ work ethic and how they don’t have their priorities in order. They put play ahead of work, and everyone finds that perfectly acceptable.
The article is very short, only three sentences. I think this format echoes the theme of the article, that being people don’t work hard enough to make their papers complete and include all the facts. They just do the minimum requirement, or even less. If they can get away with it, they will do it, no questions asked. Today’s students tend to have a problem with work ethic, and this article addresses that.
The author is trying to get across that college student don’t have much drive when it comes to schoolwork. The student in the article is perfectly fine with turning in her first draft; she is very nonchalant about the whole thing. The article says she ended up watching Friends instead. The article is addressing college students’ work ethic and how they don’t have their priorities in order. They put play ahead of work, and everyone finds that perfectly acceptable.
The article is very short, only three sentences. I think this format echoes the theme of the article, that being people don’t work hard enough to make their papers complete and include all the facts. They just do the minimum requirement, or even less. If they can get away with it, they will do it, no questions asked. Today’s students tend to have a problem with work ethic, and this article addresses that.
What Should Have Been
This article left me debating to myself whether the author was more focused on praising Ken Griffey Jr. or ripping on Barry Bonds. Most assuredly he is an intense Griffey fan, and most assuredly he does not approve of Bonds’ steroid-tainted home run record, however it is debatable which point took a more active role in the article.
While most people would express their thoughts from a first-person point of view, this author chose to interview others with similar opinions and then report their feelings as quotes. Much of his article even consists of quotes from the fictional character he refers to as “the nation” or “
I loved this article because I, also, am a life-long Griffey fan. In fact, I even chose the jersey number of thirty in high school, because it was his number at the time. I have been a Reds fan my entire life and could compare with everything that the author wrote. I especially enjoyed the humor that the author expressed when he made up the following report. “Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, responding to overwhelming demand, has confirmed that an asterisk will be placed next to Griffey's name in the record books in order to indicate that, in a perfect world where dignity is always rewarded, cheaters never triumph, and people always get what they really deserve, Griffey would have hit one more home run than Barry Bonds' career total.” This quote rips on Bonds by indirectly calling him a cheater. It is especially funny because many have argued that there should be an asterisk next to Bonds’ name in the record books because of the steroids many believe him to have taken.
This leads me to my next point. Though I don’t have a vendetta against Barry Bonds as the author does, I still enjoyed several of the shots that he took at Bonds. For instance, “Frankly, you’re an inspiration—unlike some players this nation could name.” The author clearly has substituted “some players this nation could name” where he wanted to put “Barry Bonds.” Also, “In fact, that’s the point—we think you’re a man who is actually worthy of this record.” This implies that Bonds is not worthy of the record. Later on, in a hand-crafted, fictitious quote that the author claims to have been by Hank Aaron, it is written, “’I would be proud to have Ken Griffey Jr. break my home-run record," current record-holder and Hall of Fame legend Hank Aaron said upon being told of the nation's statement. "I would most certainly attend any game in which he had a chance of doing so. And I would come down from the stands and hug him fiercely after he crossed the plate and had been congratulated by his teammates. I really don't think I'd be able to help myself. Hell, I'll probably attend the game he's playing in when my record is broken in any case.’” This stroke of literary genius is particularly funny because there had been extreme controversy over whether Hank Aaron would attend the game in which Barry Bonds broke his record.
This article made me smile and on a nostalgic whim I imagined watching Griffey break the home run record in place of Barry Bonds. I agree with the author that this would have been far more satisfactory and much more deserved.
iWorld..Coming Soon!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/itunes_to_sell_your_home_videos
Apple recently unveiled there new technologically revolution with the addition of ‘iHomeMovies’ this week. This new technology will instantly take the videos you record and store them on iTunes, just sitting there until you are ready to buy the digital form back for a small one time fee of 1.99$. However, for the same price, your precious home videos are available to everyone in the iTunes network. The Onion takes this story and reveals it for what it really is- a ridiculous way to squeeze more money out of the consumers pocket. If you think like me, you already are set on never giving this a second thought; however, someone out there is going to use this and it probably will be a success. The Onion uses an arbitrary quote to show the obvious faults with this system. Two such quotes are:
-"I wanted to show my boyfriend a video I made for his birthday of me dancing in my underwear to our favorite song," Jessica Dupree of Manchester, NH said. "But his credit card was declined. I guess he'll just have to get it from someone at work."
-Eliza Quintana of Montclair, NJ, went online to purchase her daughter's fourth birthday party to find that it had reached No. 5 on the top video downloads.
Said Quintana: "I guess I'm not the only one who thinks she's the most adorable little girl in the world!"
The Onion goes to prove that not only are you getting ripped off for having to pay for something you composed, it also opens the door for the sick pedophiles that are just waiting for your daughters pool party to show up.
Apple recently unveiled there new technologically revolution with the addition of ‘iHomeMovies’ this week. This new technology will instantly take the videos you record and store them on iTunes, just sitting there until you are ready to buy the digital form back for a small one time fee of 1.99$. However, for the same price, your precious home videos are available to everyone in the iTunes network. The Onion takes this story and reveals it for what it really is- a ridiculous way to squeeze more money out of the consumers pocket. If you think like me, you already are set on never giving this a second thought; however, someone out there is going to use this and it probably will be a success. The Onion uses an arbitrary quote to show the obvious faults with this system. Two such quotes are:
-"I wanted to show my boyfriend a video I made for his birthday of me dancing in my underwear to our favorite song," Jessica Dupree of Manchester, NH said. "But his credit card was declined. I guess he'll just have to get it from someone at work."
-Eliza Quintana of Montclair, NJ, went online to purchase her daughter's fourth birthday party to find that it had reached No. 5 on the top video downloads.
Said Quintana: "I guess I'm not the only one who thinks she's the most adorable little girl in the world!"
The Onion goes to prove that not only are you getting ripped off for having to pay for something you composed, it also opens the door for the sick pedophiles that are just waiting for your daughters pool party to show up.
In the article titled US to Re-hang Saddam Hussein it elaborates on how the United States government did not feel comfortable with what the way Saddam died. House officials say that the hanging was done in a grainy, amateur, and gruesome and lacks a sense of excitement. When put on by the American Government there will be inspiring music and there will also be prime time footage directly form Baghdad. They claim that they want the people of America to watch the re-hanging, to show the positive outcome of the war. The body of Saddam was dug up and then wired together by US Army forensics experts so that the body would stay together. This whole idea is ludicrous, the fact that someone would think of that is in bad taste. I am not sure if this article is real and this is actually going to happen, if it is there is something wrong with our government.
The article written is very one sided; only those who would like to see a dead man get hung again were really the ones who were in this article. The opposition never really had a voice in this article at all, and with something like this it is good to see both sides reaction. Me being a person who is against the death penalty in general, I argue that digging a body up just to “kill” it again is just grotesque and immoral; and it would be just a show to try and raise more support for a war that lacks it a lot right now
The article written is very one sided; only those who would like to see a dead man get hung again were really the ones who were in this article. The opposition never really had a voice in this article at all, and with something like this it is good to see both sides reaction. Me being a person who is against the death penalty in general, I argue that digging a body up just to “kill” it again is just grotesque and immoral; and it would be just a show to try and raise more support for a war that lacks it a lot right now
Man Who's 1/16th Irish Proud of His Irish Heritage
This article had me literally laughing out loud. It talks about a man who is "fiercely proud" of his Irish heritage despite being only 1/16th Irish. What makes this article so hilarious to me is the fact that I have actually known people like this in real life. People will do like 15 minutes of genealogy research on their relatives and find out which country they are from and what percentage of each nationality they are. They will then get an immediate surge of pride in finding out they are from Ireland, Germany or insert some other random country.
I don't really know what it is that compels people to attach themselves to a country like that. A good example of this false patriotism for a country is in one of my best friends. He is like 1/8th Irish and is so crazy about his heritage that he wants to get a tattoo of the Irish flag on his arm. However, if I were to ask him what the capital of Ireland was he probably couldn't even tell me. I also know another kid fairly well who is part Italian. He watched too many Rocky movies or something and loves playing it up that he is the Italian Stallion. This kid probably couldn't locate Italy on a map. People won't know the first thing about their nationalities' culture, but they will fake it anyway.
My best guess as to why people attach themselves to a nationality like that is to seem unique and be a part of something bigger, but for the most part, it's hilarious because most people have false patriotism anyway and they end up looking plain ridiculous.
I don't really know what it is that compels people to attach themselves to a country like that. A good example of this false patriotism for a country is in one of my best friends. He is like 1/8th Irish and is so crazy about his heritage that he wants to get a tattoo of the Irish flag on his arm. However, if I were to ask him what the capital of Ireland was he probably couldn't even tell me. I also know another kid fairly well who is part Italian. He watched too many Rocky movies or something and loves playing it up that he is the Italian Stallion. This kid probably couldn't locate Italy on a map. People won't know the first thing about their nationalities' culture, but they will fake it anyway.
My best guess as to why people attach themselves to a nationality like that is to seem unique and be a part of something bigger, but for the most part, it's hilarious because most people have false patriotism anyway and they end up looking plain ridiculous.
Laid-Off Zoologists Seeks Vengeance!
I read an article about a zoologist seeking revenge after being fired from his job. The story took place a San Diego Zoo. The angered zoologist, seeking some sort of personal satisfaction, entered the zoo from which he was fired and sprayed an unknowing crowd with a tranquilizer gun. A total of 15 people were heavily sedated and unconscious for the better part of a half an hour, including the zoologist. After his mad rampage he felt that he should turn the tranquilizer gun on himself. The article is extremely brief and gives no background to the culprit or his feelings.
This story of the zoologist sort of mimics the story of V. He seeks vengeance against those that “hurt” him and sends a message by sedating himself. The zoologist’s personal vendetta becomes very public when he decides to unwillingly incorporate others into his plot to get back at the zoo itself. We see, essentially, the same aspects in V for Vendetta, just a bit more extravagant and a bit flashier.
Vengeance is one of those thorny subjects. Many do not support hurting others, but simultaneously many feel that violence on a personal level is somehow justified. In the case of the zoologist probably not so much but as for V, maybe it is justified. I am not one to judge anyone, but on the same note, who is V to judge anyone? We all go through difficult times, some more so than others. When did murdering a human being become an inalienable right simply because of vengeance? If V would have just told his story to the masses to persuade rather than murder, he could have still got his point across. It is a question of morality.
This story of the zoologist sort of mimics the story of V. He seeks vengeance against those that “hurt” him and sends a message by sedating himself. The zoologist’s personal vendetta becomes very public when he decides to unwillingly incorporate others into his plot to get back at the zoo itself. We see, essentially, the same aspects in V for Vendetta, just a bit more extravagant and a bit flashier.
Vengeance is one of those thorny subjects. Many do not support hurting others, but simultaneously many feel that violence on a personal level is somehow justified. In the case of the zoologist probably not so much but as for V, maybe it is justified. I am not one to judge anyone, but on the same note, who is V to judge anyone? We all go through difficult times, some more so than others. When did murdering a human being become an inalienable right simply because of vengeance? If V would have just told his story to the masses to persuade rather than murder, he could have still got his point across. It is a question of morality.
Nike, Nike, Nike...
LINK
I had to write about this piece - it caused me to burst out laughing in a public library. So after hushing myself and dodging the librarian's glares, here we are.
How many of us have seen commercials where we not only could not tell what message the commercial was trying to send us, we couldn't even tell what company was being advertised? I saw an ad this very morning that consisted of a group of animated gas cans trying to catch a train - I have not the faintest clue what they were trying to sell me. Nike is particularly bad at this - which is why it is incredibly hilarious to see them so accurately lampooned for it. By far the most entertaining line of the piece is when we we hear the CEO of Nike explain that it's not just about selling shoes.
It has serious point however - far too many companies are moving away from providing any information about themselves or their products in favor of promoting their brand. Witness McDonald's "I'm lovin' it" campaign - no information on what food products they sell or why they are superior to their competitors at all, just simple logo and brand promotion. By simply taking this idea to its illogical extreme, The Onion points out that the primary focus of any company should be to make a profit - not "Make It Happen, Children Of the Earth—Find The Courage To Go Out And Make The Most Out Of Life."
I had to write about this piece - it caused me to burst out laughing in a public library. So after hushing myself and dodging the librarian's glares, here we are.
How many of us have seen commercials where we not only could not tell what message the commercial was trying to send us, we couldn't even tell what company was being advertised? I saw an ad this very morning that consisted of a group of animated gas cans trying to catch a train - I have not the faintest clue what they were trying to sell me. Nike is particularly bad at this - which is why it is incredibly hilarious to see them so accurately lampooned for it. By far the most entertaining line of the piece is when we we hear the CEO of Nike explain that it's not just about selling shoes.
It has serious point however - far too many companies are moving away from providing any information about themselves or their products in favor of promoting their brand. Witness McDonald's "I'm lovin' it" campaign - no information on what food products they sell or why they are superior to their competitors at all, just simple logo and brand promotion. By simply taking this idea to its illogical extreme, The Onion points out that the primary focus of any company should be to make a profit - not "Make It Happen, Children Of the Earth—Find The Courage To Go Out And Make The Most Out Of Life."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Unemployed Scientists Prove Dog Likes Beer
Apparently experiments never end in the lives of some scientists. I actually had to laugh out loud and explain this story to my friends when I first read it. It appears that in New Brunswick, New Jersey, three biologists, who were obviously out of work at the time, decided to conduct an experiment with a few beer bottles and a purebred boxer. Evidently providing a break from their frequent stem cell research projects in the past, these three men decided to have a good laugh when they poured a little taste of beer into Franklin’s dog bowl.
After watching Franklin enjoy his tasty refreshment, these men decided to conduct experiments on the canine to find out what effects alcohol would cause on him. They actually monitored his tail-wagging, equilibrium, speed of consumption, and overall playfulness continuously throughout the four week long experiment. One researcher noted that since their funds were low, the experiment was limited to tests with only the cheapest types of beer. However, they were able to conclude that Franklin developed a preference for Presidente beer, followed by Rolling Rock, Pabst Blue, Ribbon, Milwaukee’s Best, and finally, Icehouse.
Near the end of the experiment, it became clear that Franklin had developed a tolerance for the alcohol that actually rivaled that of his human overseers. Nevertheless, he was observed vomiting on several occasions while attempting to chase tennis balls or vehicles shortly after his consumption of the alcohol.
From reading this news story, I have to say that my respect for modern science has slightly decreased. On the other hand, I found this story to be extremely amusing and humorous. A small photo of Franklin drinking from a beer bong was simply icing on the cake for me. I am still amazed at what people can come up with when they have too much time on their hands. Who knows, maybe one day we will all be fortunate enough to make the headlines in TheOnion.com.
After watching Franklin enjoy his tasty refreshment, these men decided to conduct experiments on the canine to find out what effects alcohol would cause on him. They actually monitored his tail-wagging, equilibrium, speed of consumption, and overall playfulness continuously throughout the four week long experiment. One researcher noted that since their funds were low, the experiment was limited to tests with only the cheapest types of beer. However, they were able to conclude that Franklin developed a preference for Presidente beer, followed by Rolling Rock, Pabst Blue, Ribbon, Milwaukee’s Best, and finally, Icehouse.
Near the end of the experiment, it became clear that Franklin had developed a tolerance for the alcohol that actually rivaled that of his human overseers. Nevertheless, he was observed vomiting on several occasions while attempting to chase tennis balls or vehicles shortly after his consumption of the alcohol.
From reading this news story, I have to say that my respect for modern science has slightly decreased. On the other hand, I found this story to be extremely amusing and humorous. A small photo of Franklin drinking from a beer bong was simply icing on the cake for me. I am still amazed at what people can come up with when they have too much time on their hands. Who knows, maybe one day we will all be fortunate enough to make the headlines in TheOnion.com.
Same Idea, Different Angles
As a reader, the difference between a graphic novel and a normal text novel are actually small. The main differences are the speed and ease of the author communicating how everything looks and where it is. As far as the actual communication of the story, however, a graphic novel does just as well as a text novel.
While seemingly strikingly different, the graphic novel simply adds another dimension to what would still be a great novel. The visual aspect of the graphic novel simply takes the variability of the reader's imagination out of the equation. While some may see this as a negative aspect, it allows the authors to portray their characters and scenes with exact specification. What a graphic novel really allows for is the author to communicate very clearly with the reader. In the form of text, the author can try as hard as they can to verbally portray their characters and scenes, nothing works quite as well as actually giving a visual representation. A graphic novel allows for this.
Really, the point I'm trying to get at is a graphic novel is still a novel in every aspect.
One of the only major differences between a text novel and a graphic novel is how emotions are communicated. While in a graphic novel there is little description of what the characters are thinking, as opposed to most text novels, their emotions are conveyed through imagery instead. While the author may not say that the character is overjoyed, disappointed, upset, or furious, they can communicate this to the audience through the medium of the graphic novel. The audience still gets the same emotional appeal as they would in a text novel, but simply in a different way.
While seemingly strikingly different, the graphic novel simply adds another dimension to what would still be a great novel. The visual aspect of the graphic novel simply takes the variability of the reader's imagination out of the equation. While some may see this as a negative aspect, it allows the authors to portray their characters and scenes with exact specification. What a graphic novel really allows for is the author to communicate very clearly with the reader. In the form of text, the author can try as hard as they can to verbally portray their characters and scenes, nothing works quite as well as actually giving a visual representation. A graphic novel allows for this.
Really, the point I'm trying to get at is a graphic novel is still a novel in every aspect.
One of the only major differences between a text novel and a graphic novel is how emotions are communicated. While in a graphic novel there is little description of what the characters are thinking, as opposed to most text novels, their emotions are conveyed through imagery instead. While the author may not say that the character is overjoyed, disappointed, upset, or furious, they can communicate this to the audience through the medium of the graphic novel. The audience still gets the same emotional appeal as they would in a text novel, but simply in a different way.
Why A Graphic Novel Changes Perception
The fact that V for Vendetta is a graphic novel changes everything about the story in my mind. I tried to imagine what the picture of V's mask would look like in my head if it had not been illustrated, and I think I would have a ended up with a very different mental picture. It's because of all the illustrations that it is so easy to know the character's emotions. With a picture, it takes one glance to know how a character is feeling. In writing, much more description would be needed to convey the same emotion. I think V for Vendetta could still be written as just a book, but I think a graphic novel format fits the quick pace and action of the story much better.
However, there are some negatives to this story being a graphic novel as well. When I read literature as entertainment, part of the enjoyment in reading comes from me forming my own mental image in my head of what is going on in the story. With the graphic novel format, it is much harder to formulate your own mental image because a drawn image is provided for you. The most you can do in your head is try and imagine what is going on between the slides of pictures and text.
After having seen the movie, if I had the choice between a graphic novel and a book format of V for Vendetta, I would still choose the graphic novel format. I haven't read a graphic novel before and I really like the way this type of format fits the story and illustrates the action.
However, there are some negatives to this story being a graphic novel as well. When I read literature as entertainment, part of the enjoyment in reading comes from me forming my own mental image in my head of what is going on in the story. With the graphic novel format, it is much harder to formulate your own mental image because a drawn image is provided for you. The most you can do in your head is try and imagine what is going on between the slides of pictures and text.
After having seen the movie, if I had the choice between a graphic novel and a book format of V for Vendetta, I would still choose the graphic novel format. I haven't read a graphic novel before and I really like the way this type of format fits the story and illustrates the action.
I want to say something derogatory about Poland but will not
A graphic novel can be seen as a mix between a book and a movie. A book allows for more of the imagination and personality of the reader to seep in as the writer cannot do more than direct the thoughts (sometimes with a frightening amount of skill) of the reader who is free to use the writers description as a template and then expand on them with the imagination. A book also allows for the readers to set their own pace and take as long as they want to ponder and consider each passage (or even each word [let us hope that no one ponders the significance of individual letters {The Hours could not be read in a reasonable number of hours if that were the case}]) and take breaks as they see fit. A movie on the other hand puts a great deal more in the hands of the director. A skilled director sets the pace, action and emotion in the manner of the conductor of a symphony; his ability to control every detail (the mood can be controlled by well-planned lighting and music that perfectly mirrors each nuance throughout the movie; the perspective is controlled at each moment; each character goes through a long casting process that endeavors to fit the character with a perfect shell of an actor to contain it; the pace is set to the second) places the emotions of the audience directly into a skilled director’s hand. Both ends of the spectrum can be likened to Lord Shiva, holding a drum in one hand and fire in the other (the drum represents creation and the fire destruction). Both books and movies require a great deal of skill from their creators but books require more from their readers. This can be construed as a drum or as fire for either medium; movies will reach a broader base and allow the argument to remain more true to its author but can result in minds unable to think in creative terms (a mothers milk may have great nutritional content but man must branch out as he develops); books will reach a smaller audience and the author will have less control over the message but allow for a more shared creative experience. The graphic novel lies in between the book and the movie as it takes the visual away from the imagination and gives it over to the artist. Each medium serves its purpose and in the right hands can be a work that truly moves people, the graphic novel no less than the others.
The Best of Both Worlds
Though the definition of the term “graphic novel” is extremely vague, the use and purpose of such a genre is very clear. Such an invention bridges the gap between a book and a movie. A book leaves its reader free to create images and illustrate stories in his head. Two readers of the same book generally have entirely different ideas about how characters and scenes are visually represented. In a movie, nothing is left for the audience to create or imagine in their head. They have lost their freedom to have any input into the movie or any influence on how it appears. Perhaps this is why films never live up to their book form. The reader has created a flawless world of how things “should” look and then must undergo the trauma of seeing this same world come crashing down as the “error” in their imagination is exposed.
A graphic novel is the genre that fills in the gap. It is the happy medium between perfect freedom of imagination and a visual dictatorship. A graphic novel provides a loose structure for the reader to build on. It is the perfect way to satisfy both audiences—that of books and that of movies. While the reader is given enough of a general idea of how things appear to satisfy the movie buff, the ambiguity of the pictures leaves enough freedom to satisfy the book monger.
Another way that a graphic novel provides common ground between movie-lovers and those who prefer books is in regards to time required. A movie is quick and thrilling while a book may span days. One fifteen-minute scene in a movie may require two hours of reading in a book. The graphic novel uses pictures to convey many things that would ordinarily be described by words in a book. This enables the reader to spend a little less time receiving the same message or provides the movie buff with a slightly more time consuming alternative.
From the previous three points it is easy to see why the graphic novel is such a great literary addition. It bridges the gap between books and movies by allowing freedom to those who love books and providing structure for the movie buff. It also gives the avid reader a means to spend a little less time doing what he loves to do, while at the same time providing a more lengthy alternative for the impatient movie critic. Clearly the graphic novel is the best of both worlds!
Graphic Novel = Change?
A graphic novel constricts the reader’s imagination. In a narrative novel, a reader can imagine the visualization that they think would go along with any particular scene. But on the flipside, in a narrative there is a lot more chance of misinterpretation and/or images that may deviate from the author’s intended message. Sometimes this can be good and not bad. For example, in our classroom, the ideas that we discussed in The Hours demanded less guidance from Mr. Severe. This is so because there was more discrepancies as far as what we thought because that novel lacked a visual counterpart to better display the characters emotions. Friday’s class needed more guidance, as we all recall the initial silence when asked what we thought about V for Vendetta. So the downside of a graphic novel is the silencing of the reader’s imagination, specifically to the inner thoughts of the characters. A graphic novel, especially in this one, shows nothing that goes on inside the mind of the main character. But this is not really a downfall because it lets us, the readers; contemplate what V may be thinking. My creativity is what keeps my interest when reading a novel and without some free space to think, my interest would wane. The colors and how they are arranged can leave a different interpretation of the text overall, one unavailable in a simple narrative. There is little divergence from the author’s intended message because most of what they thought was the important text is illustrated. I think a graphic novel does change everything. It the closest a novel can be to a movie. It allows for a quicker read and a clearer understanding of the author’s concepts.
Graphically Enhanced Novels
Being a graphic novel, V for Vendetta is able to transcend the boundaries created in traditional literature. Instead of concentrating on creating images in the mind of the reader, the author can take more time to develop the structure and dialogue of the story. The reader sees exactly what the author intends, no more, no less. This aspect of a graphic novel can be seen both as a positive and a negative. This type of configuration leads to less ambiguity as well as less room for personal interpretation.
As a graphic novel, it is also able to reach a wider audience. Even an illiterate person would be able to, generally, grasp the plot of the graphic novel through the pictures alone. This being said, it would be fair to assume that most of the communication is being done through the images rather than the text. The role of the illustrator becomes more important, more like an author, because he or she must choose what to include in the cells to indicate the emotions, and feelings usually conveyed in writing.
Another aspect of graphic novels that I find personally pleasing is that the reader does not have to decipher the esoteric writings often included in more traditional, often Russian, writings. The novel takes a route that makes it more understandable to the proletariat. I believe that this makes the plot more enjoyable, mainly because you do not have to focus on the author’s presentation, but rather just enjoy what is there.
The Onion (2)
The article I chose was called "Child Unimpressed with Aurora Borealis After Whole Day of Tekken 3". I originally chose this article because I’ve always wanted to see the northern lights myself. However after reading this article I was both amused and frustrated. The story is about a boy who would rather play playstation then watch “one of nature’s most beautiful and awe-inspiring phenomena”. Sadly, this is probably not as unlikely an event to occur in society today.
The article is stressing the inability of children in today’s society to fully appreciate the wondrous occurrences in nature due to action-packed games on the computer or television screen. Games such as “Tekken 3” are much more preferable because the child doesn’t actually have to think. The scenes change so quickly that they can’t possibly get bored, and therefore realizing what an incredible scene such as the aurora borealis really is, is quite impossible. Many people of late have expressed concerns about television and computer screens becoming baby sitters for children today. This article expresses that same sentiment. Children will have no interest in the actual world if they have fictional games consisting of “giant ice bears” and “cat-headed guys” to occupy their time. Instead of running outside to explore the world around them, kids are staying inside to play computer games or watch television which does nothing for their mental growth. Many blame the children for their lack of interest in the world, and many blame the parents for letting their children play such games. Regardless of who is at fault, the fact remains that television and computer games are not helping the children of today develop an interest or awareness in the world around them.
The article is stressing the inability of children in today’s society to fully appreciate the wondrous occurrences in nature due to action-packed games on the computer or television screen. Games such as “Tekken 3” are much more preferable because the child doesn’t actually have to think. The scenes change so quickly that they can’t possibly get bored, and therefore realizing what an incredible scene such as the aurora borealis really is, is quite impossible. Many people of late have expressed concerns about television and computer screens becoming baby sitters for children today. This article expresses that same sentiment. Children will have no interest in the actual world if they have fictional games consisting of “giant ice bears” and “cat-headed guys” to occupy their time. Instead of running outside to explore the world around them, kids are staying inside to play computer games or watch television which does nothing for their mental growth. Many blame the children for their lack of interest in the world, and many blame the parents for letting their children play such games. Regardless of who is at fault, the fact remains that television and computer games are not helping the children of today develop an interest or awareness in the world around them.
Comic book vs. Real book
In graphic novels such as V for Vendetta I feel like the pictures limit your imagination. What you see is what you get with a graphic novel. Although some may consider them more visual and interactive, I must disagree. I believe that graphic novels constrain the reader leading him to not imagine beyond the illustrations laid out on page. The author cannot rely on the reader to fill in pictures he is describing, he has to fill those pictures in for us. Graphic novels are more concentrated on dialogue in the actual text and not many narrative lines. Some may argue that this gives the reader a better idea of what is happening in the story, especially those ‘visual learners’ who need a picture to accompany their text to really understand it. However, I disagree because picture books were meant for little kids who did not have the matured imagination adults have. Graphic novels are obviously not one of my favorites, solely because I think they are more closely related to comic books rather than actual novels. I may also add I was never a kid who enjoyed reading comic books.
I contend that The Hours was a more graphic novel than V for Vendetta. Yes, you may think I am an idiot, but I can draw tons of more pictures in my head from a paragraph than any illustrator will ever be able to put on paper. Some say that a picture says a thousand words, but I say when words are already on a picture what does it really matter what it could say. On the other hand I do agree that a larger number of readers will understand the story with pictures, but where is the challenge in that. Overall I think graphic novels should stay in the comic book store.
I contend that The Hours was a more graphic novel than V for Vendetta. Yes, you may think I am an idiot, but I can draw tons of more pictures in my head from a paragraph than any illustrator will ever be able to put on paper. Some say that a picture says a thousand words, but I say when words are already on a picture what does it really matter what it could say. On the other hand I do agree that a larger number of readers will understand the story with pictures, but where is the challenge in that. Overall I think graphic novels should stay in the comic book store.
Graphic Novels
V for Vendetta is not your usual novel. Because Alan Moore and David Lloyd teamed up to make this a graphic novel, the way in which the reader views the story changes. I have never read a graphic novel before so this was quite a change. I must admit it took some time to begin reading the novel because I found myself trying to get every detail possible from the graphics. However you cannot call V for Vendetta your average “comic book”, at least not in the usual sense of the phrase. This story is not about a man with the ability to fly, but the ability to think. This particular graphic novel was also meant for a mature audience with issues dealing with racism, sexism, vengeance, and anarchy throughout the entire story.
But “V” is different from usual novels because it contains graphics. These graphics enhance the story for several reasons. A great majority of the story is dialogue and the reader can utilize the pictures to get a better sense of the scene unfolding. Whereas in typical novels, the reader must rely on textual clues to make the scene come alive in his or her mind. In addition each picture gives the dialogue a powerful effect. For example when V is explaining the day in which he escaped from Larkhill a picture of the outline of a man amongst bright yellow flames accompanies the dialogue. It’s a powerful tool to help the reader feel the emotions of both the characters and the overall story. It would be interesting to see if reading the novel without the graphics would still have the same effects.
But “V” is different from usual novels because it contains graphics. These graphics enhance the story for several reasons. A great majority of the story is dialogue and the reader can utilize the pictures to get a better sense of the scene unfolding. Whereas in typical novels, the reader must rely on textual clues to make the scene come alive in his or her mind. In addition each picture gives the dialogue a powerful effect. For example when V is explaining the day in which he escaped from Larkhill a picture of the outline of a man amongst bright yellow flames accompanies the dialogue. It’s a powerful tool to help the reader feel the emotions of both the characters and the overall story. It would be interesting to see if reading the novel without the graphics would still have the same effects.
Graphic Novel vs. Regular Novel
V for Vendetta is only the second graphic novel I have ever read (the first being Maus), but I have very quickly become comfortable with the sudden change in writing style. I actually really enjoy how the author(s) uses graphics to depict emotion and detail, rather than just writing it all out for the reader. Anything that a character says is of course written out (along with a highly detailed drawing to go along with it), but all other detail must be taken in by viewing the graphic.
In some ways, I think that reading a graphic novel is more difficult than reading a regular novel, like The Hours. This is because while our eyes may just be reading the words, I think it’s important for the reading to take some time to actually look at what is going on in that frame of the story. Just look at the characters faces, their emotions, what’s going on in the background. If you look carefully enough, you can find all these little details that would normally have been written out for you. Graphic novels are so interesting because they leave it to the reader to find the nitty-gritty details…they aren’t just given to you. I think that to really get the whole idea behind a graphic novel, it takes a lot more time than you would think to actually take in all that a single graphic is showing you.
I think V for Vendetta could have been written as a regular novel, however, the graphics definitely make it more interesting. I am really enjoying this novel, however, if it hadn’t been written as a graphic novel, I’m not sure I would find it as interesting.
In some ways, I think that reading a graphic novel is more difficult than reading a regular novel, like The Hours. This is because while our eyes may just be reading the words, I think it’s important for the reading to take some time to actually look at what is going on in that frame of the story. Just look at the characters faces, their emotions, what’s going on in the background. If you look carefully enough, you can find all these little details that would normally have been written out for you. Graphic novels are so interesting because they leave it to the reader to find the nitty-gritty details…they aren’t just given to you. I think that to really get the whole idea behind a graphic novel, it takes a lot more time than you would think to actually take in all that a single graphic is showing you.
I think V for Vendetta could have been written as a regular novel, however, the graphics definitely make it more interesting. I am really enjoying this novel, however, if it hadn’t been written as a graphic novel, I’m not sure I would find it as interesting.
Graphic Novel vs. Narrative Writing
Reading V for Vendetta is definitely a notably different experience than reading a more conventional novel in the form of a narrative, such as The Hours. Through reading a graphic novel, there are many aspects that arise which cannot be reproduced in a more typical writing style. For instance, it is nearly impossible to show facial expressions in writing without the use of graphics. These facial expressions from the characters aided the understanding of the novel by the reader. In addition, a graphic novel can provide the reactions of other characters, in contrast to the traditional narrative. Therefore, the novel of V for Vendetta has the ability to go beyond the text and show the reader more than just the characters’ thoughts and dialogue.
In addition, I found the story of V for Vendetta to be easier to follow than most novels, since I was able to visually see the characters and their emotions in addition to their dialogue and surroundings. However, ironically enough considering the plot and overall theme of this story, I feel as if this graphic novel somehow has more control over the audience and their thought processes. Since the characters and their environments are already designed and illustrated for the reader, little is left for the imagination of the audience. Consequently, I found it a little more difficult to really dive into the novel since I was not able to create my own idea of the characters and their settings.
On the other hand, there are many scenes that were described in this novel in which graphics were necessary in order for the reader to truly comprehend what was happening in the plot, especially since the events were taking place in such a rapid manner. For that reason, I could not see this text being as successful if it were written in any other style.
In addition, I found the story of V for Vendetta to be easier to follow than most novels, since I was able to visually see the characters and their emotions in addition to their dialogue and surroundings. However, ironically enough considering the plot and overall theme of this story, I feel as if this graphic novel somehow has more control over the audience and their thought processes. Since the characters and their environments are already designed and illustrated for the reader, little is left for the imagination of the audience. Consequently, I found it a little more difficult to really dive into the novel since I was not able to create my own idea of the characters and their settings.
On the other hand, there are many scenes that were described in this novel in which graphics were necessary in order for the reader to truly comprehend what was happening in the plot, especially since the events were taking place in such a rapid manner. For that reason, I could not see this text being as successful if it were written in any other style.
V for Vendetta is written in a rather unusual format – that of a graphic novel. While it may dissuade some from the work, since they may dismiss it as a “comic book”; it also grants it distinct advantages – succinctness and suspension of disbelief.
The Hours took an entire novel to follow a little over three days. Imagine then, how much text would be required to accurately describe V for Vendetta. V’s first appearance alone would require a chapter of its own to do it justice. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the text version of V for Vendetta would require thousands of words per panel, tens of thousands for every page. Reproducing every detail from V for Vendetta would make the work absurdly long – but condensing it would lose much of the detail that makes the work so entertaining. There’s no need to spend half a page describing the way that V’s cape flaps as he moves – it can be accomplished in one panel.
If V for Vendetta was written as text, it would seem a bit ludicrous – a political activist with superpowers and trick gadgets, fighting for anarchy in apocalyptic Britain? Preposterous! Yet that same premise seems real and wholly believable when we can not only hear about it, but see it as well. We can look down the London streets, peek over the Leader’s shoulder, and follow the Fingermen. V would sound ridiculous should you try to describe him – a man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, dressed in period clothing? Yet when we can see him, he looks sinister and deadly serious.
A graphic novel may have been an unusual choice for a political commentary, but I doubt that this work could have been written as well in any other printed form. Alan Moore is a master of this genre, and V for Vendetta foreshadows his many other masterpieces, such as Watchmen and Tom Strong. I can’t wait to read the rest.
Graphic Novel Fun
This book is different from anything I’ve ever read before in terms of style and organization. In the simplest terms, it is just an expanded picture book with way more adult themes. The images are just as much a part of the story as are the words. They convey emotions and details that are impossible to relate through words. I mean, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I can see how that is true. In some situations, a picture conveys a situation so much quicker and with so much more clarity than a paragraph of writing.
It is also interesting that in a book so full of expression, on of the main characters, V, has no expression at all. He wears a mask throughout the whole book and we never see his face. This adds to his anonymity and mystery as a character. He is always cool, calm, and collected, he hardly ever shows emotion of any kind. This is portrayed really well as a graphic novel. As a text only book, the reader may end up giving V a countenance that he does not have. It is easier to imagine him with facial expressions. The graphic novel forces the reader to see V as the authors intended him to be seen. I’m really excited to see how this character transfers on to the movie. I would expect it would be really difficult for an actor to portray a character without being able to use any facial expression at all.
It is also interesting that in a book so full of expression, on of the main characters, V, has no expression at all. He wears a mask throughout the whole book and we never see his face. This adds to his anonymity and mystery as a character. He is always cool, calm, and collected, he hardly ever shows emotion of any kind. This is portrayed really well as a graphic novel. As a text only book, the reader may end up giving V a countenance that he does not have. It is easier to imagine him with facial expressions. The graphic novel forces the reader to see V as the authors intended him to be seen. I’m really excited to see how this character transfers on to the movie. I would expect it would be really difficult for an actor to portray a character without being able to use any facial expression at all.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Blog Status Update...
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000
I claim this blog in the name of Poland!
Congress Awards Itself Congressional Medal Of Honor
This article is a commentary on the powers of the legislative branch of our government. It describes the process through which Congress passed a certain law. This law stated that it was allowed to award the Congressional Medal of Honor not only to soldiers, but also to – surprise - congressmen. It then utilized this law and awarded the medal to its five-hundred-and-thirty-five members. The reason? It felt that they had done a good job legislating.
This article brings attention to the fact that congressmen can and do abuse their powers for their own benefit. They vote for the laws which improve their own situations. It was noted in the article that the aforementioned law was passed with an “overwhelming majority.”
This article also shows the nonchalance of the congressmen in regards to their actions. One of them responds to the claim that the Medal of Honor was not intended to be given to so many individuals at once with, “How does honoring more people cheapen the medal? I'm honored to be counted among so many other brave and patriotic Americans, past and present.” Another congressman goes on a rant as to which type of medal he would prefer – an Army, a Navy, or Air Force Medal of Honor – and pouts that there is no Marine Medal of Honor.
Overall, this article shows how politicians tend to put a slant on things. Although the actions of the congressmen are clearly wrong, they are unaffected as they calmly attempt to give reason and rationalize those actions.
This article brings attention to the fact that congressmen can and do abuse their powers for their own benefit. They vote for the laws which improve their own situations. It was noted in the article that the aforementioned law was passed with an “overwhelming majority.”
This article also shows the nonchalance of the congressmen in regards to their actions. One of them responds to the claim that the Medal of Honor was not intended to be given to so many individuals at once with, “How does honoring more people cheapen the medal? I'm honored to be counted among so many other brave and patriotic Americans, past and present.” Another congressman goes on a rant as to which type of medal he would prefer – an Army, a Navy, or Air Force Medal of Honor – and pouts that there is no Marine Medal of Honor.
Overall, this article shows how politicians tend to put a slant on things. Although the actions of the congressmen are clearly wrong, they are unaffected as they calmly attempt to give reason and rationalize those actions.
Book vs. Graphic Novel vs. Movie
As we go from reading a book, to perusing a graphic novel, to watching a movie, we progress from a slow paced, detailed depiction of a story to a faster, more wide-ranging one.
In a book, a single event may span a few paragraphs, or the length of a chapter, or even the entire length of the book itself. The thoughts, emotions, and actions of the characters have to be spelled out. A reader knows only what he or she is told. Although they might be able to make connections and draw inferences on their own, they can’t draw conclusions without first being presented with some sort of information.
In a graphic novel, a number of different events can be presented on the same page. The way in which these events are presented – their order, their tone, their emphasis – determines how the story is viewed. The reader can draw conclusions not only from the text – the narration and the dialogue – but also from the images that are in front of them. This result in a sort of paradox: while the reader is presented with a more vivid, detailed view of the story, he or she is less likely to note the details. This is because a graphic novel provides details, but does not focus in on them. The reader is shown the décor of a room and the colors of a character’s outfit, but they are rarely ever drawn to pay close attention to them through the text.
In a movie, the story is often cut down to its bare essentials and crammed into a single, two hour sitting. The amount of detail is far greater than in a book or a graphic novel – the reactions of characters can be seen, and the tones of their voices can be heard – but the amount that the viewer actually remembers is far less.
In a book, a single event may span a few paragraphs, or the length of a chapter, or even the entire length of the book itself. The thoughts, emotions, and actions of the characters have to be spelled out. A reader knows only what he or she is told. Although they might be able to make connections and draw inferences on their own, they can’t draw conclusions without first being presented with some sort of information.
In a graphic novel, a number of different events can be presented on the same page. The way in which these events are presented – their order, their tone, their emphasis – determines how the story is viewed. The reader can draw conclusions not only from the text – the narration and the dialogue – but also from the images that are in front of them. This result in a sort of paradox: while the reader is presented with a more vivid, detailed view of the story, he or she is less likely to note the details. This is because a graphic novel provides details, but does not focus in on them. The reader is shown the décor of a room and the colors of a character’s outfit, but they are rarely ever drawn to pay close attention to them through the text.
In a movie, the story is often cut down to its bare essentials and crammed into a single, two hour sitting. The amount of detail is far greater than in a book or a graphic novel – the reactions of characters can be seen, and the tones of their voices can be heard – but the amount that the viewer actually remembers is far less.
I Hate Writing Titles!
Any time you have something written by a follower of Glycon, a roman fertility puppet, you are going to have controversy. Alan Moore is, in addition to a worshiper of Glycon, an anarchist who has fought for council housing to stay under government control. It is interesting to note that V for Vendetta was written as a mainstream work to make money and was not written during one of his forays into the extremely controversial. V for Vendetta is nevertheless a controversial work for its views on government, religion and society. Alan Moore is a believer in the "reality" of ideas; this is epitomized in his worship of Glycon, a god who he admits to be a probable hoax. This belief, which includes fiction, really ups the controversy of everything he writes as his writings become fact. In his introduction for the novel he shows his belief that England is reaching that state and he writes "It's cold and it's mean spirited and I don't like it here anymore." Many of his social views differ from the norm here in America, his views on sexuality especially (In conjunction with his wife and their mutual love he set up Mad Love Publishing which published such works as AARGH, Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia, and Lost Girls, which explored the hidden sexuality in works such as Peter Pan; the publishing company dissolved when his wife and Deborah Delano, their mutual lover, left him and took his children [this was after he wrote that he was going to move his family out of England, he still lives in England]). The themes of his life carry over to V for Vendetta and it is easy to see how a man with such controversial views and lifestyle choices could write something that is controversial in an extremely partisan country.
(This blog has been written without mentioning terrorism or the main character because everyone else wrote about that)
(This blog has been written without mentioning terrorism or the main character because everyone else wrote about that)
War on Terror = Vendetta?
V for Vendetta is controversial in the United States for many reasons, including the glorification of murder, violence, terrorism and the overthrow of government. One very intriguing, and of course controversial aspect of V for Vendetta is the positive portrayal of the villain, V. While one could argue that V is fighting for all of the right reasons, his methods may be deemed disdainful. The people he kills are not all necessarily evil, but as he sees it, the ends justify the means.
The main reason V for Vendetta is controversial in the United States is the parallelism between the fascist government in dystopic London and our own Government. While the relations are small, they are enough to make people wonder: How far away are we from being controlled to the extent that those in the graphic novel are? While one would argue that our government is not based upon prejudice and hatred like that of the novel, one can see the similarities between regulations and safety protocols in a post 9/11 world.
The film of course, drew much more controversy than the graphic novel. Graphic novels have a much smaller and more select audience than Hollywood. Not to mention the world has changed over the past two decades. The movie reached a large audience and of course the reaction would be magnified. Is it possible that something as catastrophic as a nuclear war could result in such conditions? What parallels can be drawn between the fallout of the nuclear war in the novel and the reaction by the United States to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? We've all heard how Muslims and people of Arab descent are targeted by security at airports, or even hated by ignorant Americans. How close is this prejudice to the rounding up of every minority into concentration camps? Not very close, not by a long shot, but it does make one wonder where fear and bigotry can lead. We've made long strides as a society since the inception of this nation, and it is worrisome to think that something similar to 9/11, but on an altogether larger scale, could reverse our advancements as a society.
The main reason V for Vendetta is controversial in the United States is the parallelism between the fascist government in dystopic London and our own Government. While the relations are small, they are enough to make people wonder: How far away are we from being controlled to the extent that those in the graphic novel are? While one would argue that our government is not based upon prejudice and hatred like that of the novel, one can see the similarities between regulations and safety protocols in a post 9/11 world.
The film of course, drew much more controversy than the graphic novel. Graphic novels have a much smaller and more select audience than Hollywood. Not to mention the world has changed over the past two decades. The movie reached a large audience and of course the reaction would be magnified. Is it possible that something as catastrophic as a nuclear war could result in such conditions? What parallels can be drawn between the fallout of the nuclear war in the novel and the reaction by the United States to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? We've all heard how Muslims and people of Arab descent are targeted by security at airports, or even hated by ignorant Americans. How close is this prejudice to the rounding up of every minority into concentration camps? Not very close, not by a long shot, but it does make one wonder where fear and bigotry can lead. We've made long strides as a society since the inception of this nation, and it is worrisome to think that something similar to 9/11, but on an altogether larger scale, could reverse our advancements as a society.
"C" for Controversial
V for Vendetta is obviously a controversial book. Topics regarding homosexuality, racism, genocide, human experimentation, and nuclear warfare are all prevalent within. Even today, almost 20 years since V for Vendetta was published, these topics are still hotly debated. However, for me, the main reason this graphic novel is so controversial is the fact that Alan Moore wrote this negative utopian future almost as a warning to humanity. He is essentially calling out the British government to reform.
You can see Moore's viewpoint from the very beginning from his introduction. He calls England "cold and mean spirited" after citing many policies he disagrees with such as the government's stance to abolish homosexuality and an idea to create concentration camps for people with AIDS. His disappointment with his country is so great, he even says he may move his family somewhere else in the next couple of years. Moore writes V for Vendetta to illustrate his viewpoint that our personal freedoms are continuing to be taken away at an alarming rate. Although in V for Vendetta personal liberties are taken away to an extreme degree, Moore is trying to show that over time a totalitarian government can gain power and things could get worse. Moore is using a hypothetical situation as a warning to us all. It's because of this attack on the government that I find the book to be so controversial. Anybody affiliated with the government or who supports the government and thinks it is doing a good job would obviously disagree with Moore's opinions. However, whether you agree or disagree with Moore's opinion, it should make you think about the people you are electing into power, because their decisions will ultimately effect your life.
You can see Moore's viewpoint from the very beginning from his introduction. He calls England "cold and mean spirited" after citing many policies he disagrees with such as the government's stance to abolish homosexuality and an idea to create concentration camps for people with AIDS. His disappointment with his country is so great, he even says he may move his family somewhere else in the next couple of years. Moore writes V for Vendetta to illustrate his viewpoint that our personal freedoms are continuing to be taken away at an alarming rate. Although in V for Vendetta personal liberties are taken away to an extreme degree, Moore is trying to show that over time a totalitarian government can gain power and things could get worse. Moore is using a hypothetical situation as a warning to us all. It's because of this attack on the government that I find the book to be so controversial. Anybody affiliated with the government or who supports the government and thinks it is doing a good job would obviously disagree with Moore's opinions. However, whether you agree or disagree with Moore's opinion, it should make you think about the people you are electing into power, because their decisions will ultimately effect your life.
Psychological and Social Perspectives on Terror, Violence, and a Vulgar Display of Fashion Sense
There is no reason that “V for Vendetta” should be considered controversial. The United States is, I believe, the one place in the world that would be most willing to embrace a masked, middle aged man with a partiality towards explosives and a flair for theatrics as a hero. It’s been done before, and I’d argue that V is, in comparison to Spiderman and Daredevil, much better dressed. Plus he has a wig. And Evey is a half decent sidekick.
There is, of course, the issue of V being a terrorist. That may irk some, but, in all honesty, so might the respective characters Peter Parker and Matt Murdock. One’s a nerd and reject, responsible for the death of his grandfather, and the other is, well, a lawyer. Out of the three, I’d definitely pick the last as the most dangerous. (Have you heard of the McDonald’s worker being sued for putting too much salt in a man’s burger? It's almost as if we're making negative social progress nowadays.)
Then there is the issue of violence. V uses violence, but, then again, Rambo didn’t exactly go around picking flowers and helping senior citizens cross the street either, did he?
The ideals of diversity and individuality are, generally speaking, encouraged in the United States. There is also the notion that “you can accomplish anything you want” and that “one person can make a difference.” These themes can be seen in “V for Vendetta.” V is a man that has had his life ruined, that is different as a result, and that is fighting for the general good of the world. He embodies, although in a roundabout sort of way, all that which we admire.
There is, of course, the issue of V being a terrorist. That may irk some, but, in all honesty, so might the respective characters Peter Parker and Matt Murdock. One’s a nerd and reject, responsible for the death of his grandfather, and the other is, well, a lawyer. Out of the three, I’d definitely pick the last as the most dangerous. (Have you heard of the McDonald’s worker being sued for putting too much salt in a man’s burger? It's almost as if we're making negative social progress nowadays.)
Then there is the issue of violence. V uses violence, but, then again, Rambo didn’t exactly go around picking flowers and helping senior citizens cross the street either, did he?
The ideals of diversity and individuality are, generally speaking, encouraged in the United States. There is also the notion that “you can accomplish anything you want” and that “one person can make a difference.” These themes can be seen in “V for Vendetta.” V is a man that has had his life ruined, that is different as a result, and that is fighting for the general good of the world. He embodies, although in a roundabout sort of way, all that which we admire.
controVersy
Before seeing V for Vendetta I was told that it was a controversial movie, due to the fact that the government was to represent our own, under Bush’s rule. In some ways I can see how our government may go overboard, but it does not go to the extremes like the fascist government in the graphic novel or the movie. An example of our government becoming controlling would have to be the patriot act. Its purpose is to stop any terrorist plot that is talked about via phone conversation; it is here to help the people of America from a terrorist attack, while also invading our privacy by being able to list to our own personal phone conversations. In the graphic novel it is said many of times that the reason the government is doing these various curfews, restrictions and ect. Is to protect the people they govern. The idea of terrorism to change a government is a very controversial topic. It conveyed the point that if one does not agree with their government they can easily tear it apart with distinctive terrorist plots and cause a entire many to rise up with them and revolt against the government. In the movie and the graphic novel, there are things that some may relate to the society we live in. The big television network that V takes over can be a symbol as the FOX news network, with its conservative and way right news. Some have also said that they relate the Leader in V for Vendetta to George Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)