Bright Lights, Big Backlash

            The release of Bright Lights Big City ultimately faced backlash as a result of the prevailing mood of the time.  The late 70s into the early 90s had seen the growth of a new political coalition.  The conservative movement in the United States began to alter in geographical and ideological configuration, as conservative southern Democrats began to weaken in electoral strength due to their association with the Democratic Party at large, which was deemed too liberal by many in the South East United States.  As a result, the political grouping known as the Reagan Coalition began to coalesce.  The group would include moderate fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives, including the notable addition of Southern Evangelicals.  The coalition would in 1980 win a landslide election and gain significant numbers of national and state offices in the election.  After four successful years, the coalition would again make significant gains against Walter Mondale in the 1984 election.

            With the history lesson out of the way, the political power dynamics of the time created a situation conducive to challenging the publication of the book.  The themes of drug, and alcohol abuse would not sit well with the social conservatives at the time.  The political elections four years before and just after the book was published granted office to a number of conservative persons by means of Reagan’s coattails.  These elected officials were among those who would oppose the book, and also had the ability to amplify their opinions due to the public nature of the offices they held.  Similarly, the people who put these individuals into office shared a similar viewpoint to those of who elected them and would therefore also oppose many of the themes and elements of the novel.

            In many ways the book did reflect elements of the time.  Pablo Escobar was an up and coming leader of what was one of many large South American drug cartels which were growing at the time.  With new distribution mechanism, cocaine, the drug which was referenced many times in the book, began to infiltrate some of America’s largest cities including New York.  The novel’s disappointment with the “office job” type of work that the narrator took part in was also a key aspect of social critique of capitalism at the time.  Largely because the 80s were one of the earliest decades where desk jobs become more numerous.  In conclusion the opposition and themes of the novel were both shaped by the broader developments in American society at the time.

Persuasion

             Jane Austen presents a changing society in which the best characters are not of the best classes necessarily.  On the one hand the reader is presented with a Sir Walter Elliot, who is the highest class of the primary characters in the text.  But his situation degrades in his time, and is also shown to be one of the negative personalities in the novel.  Jane Austen ascribes what is important to Sir Walter, and his juxtaposition, Admiral Croft.  Walter’s compliment of Croft was that “He should not be ashamed of being seen with him any where” (Austen 38).  In contrast Crofts compliment was that “The Baronet will never set the Thames on fire, but there seems to be no harm in him” (Austen 38).  These differences in compliments point to the differing values of the people, Walter values the look both physical and class position wise of his company, on the opposite end lies Croft, who places value on the quality of the man holistically.  These statements taken as characterization however are just that, characterization. However, considering the work is satirical the two men likely represent portions of their social strata, with Croft representing the self-made man, and Sir Walter the landed gentry.  Another important aspect to note is that the wealthiest persons in the book are self-made (withholding the exception of Mr. Elliot, who gained his wealth largely through marriage), Captain Wentworth, and Admiral Croft are both wealthy, and at the same time the character representing the landed elite is in both in debt monetarily, and weak in character.

            Another notable comparison is the characters of both Wentworth and Mr. Elliot, the representation of the self-made, and gentry youth respectively.  Wentworth is presented as a moral paramount, kind, honorable, courteous and respectful.  Mr. Elliot also appear to be a good enough character on the surface, but is in reality a manipulative plotter.  So in many ways Austen portrays the faults of the elite in the way she creates the elite characters, presenting them as greedy, overly proud, deceitful and envious, while on the opposite end portrays the everyman as the paragon of moral virtue.  Ultimately the self-made man can also be seen as the winner in the courtship of Anne, and Wentworth, not Mr. Elliot is ultimately successful in the pursuit.

Works Cited

Austen, Jane. Persuasion. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1997. Print.

W.E.G.S. its probably an acronym

There is no doubt many cases where works contain hidden meanings that require for the reader to read between the lines.  However, Wegs’s analysis of “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been” by Joyce Carol Oates might be more in line with a Dan Brown novel, or a special on the History Chanel, than a true literary analysis.  Wegs comes up with a series of claims all of which she believes support the overarching idea that Oates was drawing parallels with religion, or at the very least a demonic figure present in Judeo-Christian faith. Wegs explains that “since music is Connie’s religion its values are hers also” (Wegs 69).  This portion of her explanation is easy to grasp Oates herself described the music as being “like music at a church service; it was something to depend upon” (Oates 2). Yet it is when Wegs begins to describe the nature of Arnold Friend, that it begins to blur the line, and become more akin to a conspiracy theory.  Wegs writes that “when he introduces himself… ‘friend’ is uncomfortably close to ‘fiend’; his initials could easily stand for Arch Fiend” (Wegs 70).  Though we may not know a definite reason for exactly why the original author chose the name, Arnold and Arch have little similarity, and if she bases the arch fiend assumption just off of initials, then there are another phrases that have AR as an acronym.  Arkansas, Argon, Argentina all share the same abbreviation AR, but have no relation to the plot, so just because the abbreviation for Arch Fiend could also be AR doesn’t mean anything.  Furthermore, basing the demon thesis on physical descriptions is equally as foolish.  Wegs claims that “his clumsy bow may be due to the dact that it must be difficult to manipulate boots if one has cloven feet” (Wegs 70).  In this instance Wegs seems to have forgotten the source material and the in text explanation as to why he walks strange.  Arnold Friend and his real life inspiration both filled their boots with cans or other materials in order to make themselves appear taller.  So although it may be tempting to claim that Oates’s antagonist was other worldly, the devil is in the details, and in this case the details don’t support that Arnold was truly a demon, but rather just a dark figure.

Wegs, Joyce M. "'Don't You Know Who I Am?': The Grotesque in Oates's 'Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?'." Journal of Narrative Technique 5 (1975): 66-72.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.

The Shocking State of Present Narrative Styling

The Godfather, often considered one of history’s greatest movies, with a complex but elegant plot it serves as a true showing of impressive story structure.  In contrast Saturday Night Live may well be among the causes of the destruction of quality narratives.  NBC’s Saturday Night Live has, to its credit, been a springboard for comedic careers since its inception in 1975, but perhaps its most impressive legacy is the popularization of sketch based comedy through the medium of television.  The idea of sketch based comedy is the antithesis of narrative story arcs, with most sketches being brief jabs at aspects of society.  It is this lack of continuity in story and narrative that that Rushkoff posits, has caused “television to lose its ability to tell stories over time” (Rushkoff 22).  Among the more popular of sketch comedy series in the modern era are South Park, Family guy, and Key and Peele, all of which have done some degree of harm to the narrative traditions of movies like the Godfather.

              Both Family Guy and South Park represent a half hour (commercials included) of content, with a story.  But the important thing to note is that the episodes are largely contained, with each one having a relatively limited story arc. The typical episode will contain a heavily condensed and simplified version of the hero’s journey, but will run very quickly through the individual parts and at points somewhat or entirely disregarding the journey to interject a cultural reference of negligible importance to what plot may exist.  Though it is still important to note, as it will be contrasted to later, the fact that there is a continuity in the way characters are portrayed, as they maintain the same physical and character traits.  This sort of construction, with a haphazard creation of background to the story creates what Rushkoff refers to as “something more like putting together a puzzle by making connections and recognizing patterns” than an actual narrative system (34).

              Though even this sort of partial narrative is more than exists in a true sketch comedy like Key and Peele.  This Comedy Central show saw a massive degree of success both critically and commercially.  The show however was still entirely sketch based.  Sketches could be five minutes long, or just over a minute.  In a sketch with only one minute of story there was almost no room to create any sort of arc. The steps of a hero’s journey are almost entirely eliminated, and substituted by the minimum aspects required for people to understand or laugh at jokes.  Background, and setting have to be judged by the audience member in the fractions of seconds before the dialogue starts off.  In the next few seconds the audience must quickly evaluate the characters who begin to talk, who the characters may be satirizing, and what relationship they may have to each other.  And so on with every few seconds the audience having to switch mental focus.  That in and of itself yields weight to the fixation on presentism, as all parts are rapid fire, giving little time for the audience’s minds to access the broader implications of the sketch.  But the other aspect of sketch shows that further reinforces presentism is the episode structure.  There is not one sketch per episode.  There is not a consistent set of characters.  There is often not a single aspect shared between one sketch and the next.  This type of episode structure is in sharp contrast to the way in which South Park, or Family Guy would function.  With this sort of self contained sketches rather than just self contained episodes, the problems posed by Family Guy and South Park like shows are only magnified by the condensed time format.

              To conclude, the ability to convey narratives and stories is under assault.  With ever more condensed and presentist shows taking more of the public’s attention it seems that stories and shows with defined beginnings middles and ends are becoming less and less important.  With that it seems clear that our culture has become all the more susceptible to Present Shock.

Rushkoff, Douglass. Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now. New York: Penguin, 2013. Print.

An Ernest Appraisal of Style

            In a Movable Feast Hemingway presents an important insight into his style of writing, and how those elements of style can engross the reader in a story.  The most striking elements of Hemingway's style were the subtle uses of second person, and the vivid imagery.  The latter of the two is prevalent whenever Hemingway writes about someone or something.  Every initial interaction he has with an artist or author within the novel begins approximately the same way.  The first step in Hemingway's description is of the individuals is the physical features, which Hemingway describes in great detail, integrating similes, and other devices to enable the reader to see the situations and people just as he remembered them.  The descriptions then generally move to focus on the character of a person.  This element of Hemingway's description paints as in depth of a picture of the person as his description of their physical features, but rounds out a holistic view of the individual by including Hemingway's memory of how the person acted.  Together the descriptions leave little to the minds of the reader which reveals how this element of Hemingway's style allows for the people he portrays to be seen nearly uniformly in the minds of all the readers.

            Perhaps a greater element of Hemingway's style is the use of second person.  The novel is largely written in the first person, as to be expected since it is effectively a memoir.  However, portions of the book subtly integrate second person.  Hemingway explains gambling’s impact on his financial situation by stating,

“But we had made plenty of money, big money for us, and now we had spring and money too. I thought that was all we needed. A day like that one, if you split the winnings one quarter for each to spend, left a half for racing capital. I kept the racing capital secret and apart from all other capital” (Hemingway 59).

It is easy to miss the use of “you” in the excerpt, but its impact as an element of style is present whether you recognize its presence or not.  That impact being a subtle shift in the mindset of the reader, making him or her feel more like a part of the story, rather than just an outsider looking in.

            In conclusion the reasoning behind reading this book was to see a stellar example of the ways in which writing style can impact the way a reader perceives the characters within a novel, and how style can help draw a reader into a story.

Works cited

Hemingway, Ernest.  A Moveable Feast. New York: Scribner, 2009. Print.

Common Core

It has been around twenty years since Niel Postman declared that Economic Utility was, “the preeminent reason for schooling” (Postman 27).  However time has not changed the goal of the American education system, though it has impacted some of its mechanisms.  In the early twenty first century the United States have become increasingly dominated by the new idea of standardized testing.  Though to be totally clear the SAT and AP classes have been around for quite some time, the sheer number of tests has reached a peak in the twenty first century.  The cause behind the swing towards standardized testing was spurred on by legislation commonly referred to as Common Core.  The legislation and resulting tests were well intended, with members of both parties hoping to increase the standards for achievement for all states in the United States by making sure that a student in the Bronx, and one from Topeka, Kansas would learn the same exact things.

The attempts to regulate a national standard for learning is, however, reliant on a system to compare students nationwide, the chosen, and likely only reasonable method, was standardized testing.  In states that take part in common core, or those that wish to have statewide tests, standardized testing is commonplace, with multiple standardized tests per class per year.  The emphasis on tests as well as the monetary importance placed on them has resulted in the phenomena of teaching to the test.  This would be fine as long as the standardized tests could test everything that was taught in a subject, however that is sadly not currently the state.   As a result some teachers and schools focus only on subject matter in the tests themselves, excluding the material that is a part of the required learning but not tested at the end of the year.  This is in many cases not too harmful, but in some subjects that require an intimate knowledge of the previous class in order to achieve in the next one, it results in students being woefully under prepared, effectively harming their ability to complete future courses, therefore serving to create more disparities in education rather than fix them.

Postman, Niel. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York, Random House, 1996. Print.

Plato and Postman, a unified view on modern America

            Plato was not only a philosopher but a political theorist as well.  His ideal government was one where “the state should be governed by philosophers” (Gaarder 91).  His theory was presented in ancient Greece, since then there have been many governments classified by the name republic.  The most notable republic may well be the United States, founded by well-educated philosophers, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.  Since then however there appears to have been a shift in how American government functions.  Niel Postman explains that “the fundamental metaphor for political discourse is a television commercial” (Postman 126).  This description of the modern American republic is in sharp contrast to Plato’s intended style of government. 

            These differences between modern American attitudes and the thoughts of Plato are also distinct in our style of news.  Plato was one of the most notable students of Socrates, and was heavily influenced by Socrates practice of asking questions and feigning ignorance.  In contrast the American approach is largely to never ask questions, and be ignorant.  This approach is personified in television news, or perhaps more accurately television newsertainment.  This newsertainment breaks the meaningful dialogue people can pursue as Postman explains,

“There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly—for that matter, no ball score so tantalizing or weather report so threatening—that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, ‘Now . . . this’” (Postman 99).

Effectively when a newscaster says “now this” the flow of information is ended, and any thought, question or view that a listener might have begun to formulate is likely terminated.  The now this phenomena has also killed another aspect of the Socratic system of dialogue using rational thought.  The death to rational thought comes about in response to the shorter news segments, that give only partial information with little context, thus making it impossible to truly make any rational conclusions.  In short if Plato could see today he may very well gravitate towards a similar view as that posited by Niel Postman.

Works Cited

Postman, Niel. Amusing ourselves to death Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New                       York: Penguin Group, 2006. Print.

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie’s World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print