The Brain Dead Megaphone

In The Brain Dead Megaphone Saunders is trying to demonstrate the power that mass media has on the population at its mercy. “In the beginning, there’s a blank mind. Then that mind gets an idea in it, and the trouble begins, because the mind mistakes the idea for the world.” This illustrates the control that the media, which is represented by the megaphone, has on our view of the world and the way we perceive humanity. Through his metaphor Saunders is showing how important it is for the media to distribute its information responsibly, because whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, their broadcasts, which are so often misleading, alter our opinions and shape our actions.  

Opinions?

Tomb Raider

Mikula brings up an interesting point that Lara Croft is a role model and a sexual icon.   However I don't think she has the influence over young girls that Mikula does.  I am not an avid video game player but I don't see how someone would choose an animated character as a role model over a real person who has role feats and accomplishments to account for.  Also even though Lara's character is of an idealized womans body, I fail to see how that is significant seeing how all the male characters in games are idealized men.

gender & video games

I disagree with Mikula's claim that Lara is a positive role model for female players. I don't think anyone would want to be this character if she was overweight or if she wasn't pretty, even if she could still fight and shoot and play just the same. This leads me to believe that female players specifically choose to identify with Lara while playing the game because of her looks, and because they want to look like her. Girls idolize a body type that doesn't exist, which is unhealthy! If Lara was more natural looking (in size, shape, proportions, etc.) then I think she would be considered a positive role model for female players. It is because of the unattainable looks that I disagree with Mikula.

Gender and Videogames

I thought Mikula brought up an interesting topic relating gender roles to videogames. One claim Mikula makes in her essay is that Lara is both a sex idol and a role model. I agreed with her claim because while Lara is sexually attractive, Lara is also immensely independent and invulnerable. I thought Lara was developed to appeal to both genders. While male gamers like Lara for her attractiveness, female gamers like Lara for her capabilities. This dual symbolism enable gamers to both identify with and objectify Lara while playing Tomb Raiders. Overall, I think Lara Croft is a well-developed character who is liked generally.

Lora Croft

One claim that Mikula makes is that women tend to play Tomb Raider in order to be Lara, rather than controlling her. Women want to be her because she symbolizes "adventure, independence, possibility, and strength" (184). Although this claim may seem as though Lara is an empowering figure, I would have to disagree because of the fact that she is  video game character. Because she was created to fit the stereotypical "hot" woman, I find that the woman tend play in order to live under a facade of fitting these stereotypes. They live in a virtual world where they are physically perfect. Through this, I feel like they fail to see imperfection, which is counter intuitive to what I believe is adventure and strength. Women should be able to see their flaws or their troubles and use them to their advantage, rather than hiding behind a perfect specimen like Lara. If women get too caught up in Tomb Raider because they're living vicariously through a fictional, flawless character, then what are they doing in the real world to become truly adventurous, independent, and strong?  

Tomb Raider

In Mikula's essay about gender roles and video games she brings up important points about the player/character connection. Lara Croft, the protagonist in the tomb raider video game falls into gender roles while defying them at the same time, her appearance is very exaggerated (large breasts and hips), yet she is strong and has fighting skills. The gameplay involves the player controlling Lara but seeing her as well. Mikula compares the playing experience of men vs women with interesting results. Men who play feel like they are watching and looking out for Lara while women feel like they are controlling and identifying with Lara.

Not having ever played the game, I can't say if I would be connecting with or watching Lara Croft, but I definitely do understand the double point of view that players can have of their characters.

Lara Croft

As I read Maja Mikula's essay relating gender with video games, I realized that she made many good points and brought up various arguments having to do with the main character of the game, Lara Croft. One that I found stuck out the most was one that was brought up at the beginning which was is Lara Croft a good role model? There are many people that would think that she is a good role model. She has a perfect body and her job is to fight off harm. What is wrong with that? Unfortunately, that is the problem. Nothing is wrong with her and she is perfect. I think that this makes her a poor role model. Girls who look at Lara will compare themselves to her and they will feel degraded. They may try to be as good as her which will be impossible because Croft is a fictional character. It is almost like Lara gives real girls false hope.

Lora Croft

One claim that Mikula makes about gender and video games using Lora Croft is that men and women have different reactions and desires when faced with a female character such as Lora Croft. Men feel that they must protect, care for and control Lora who for them is a sex symbol that they develop a personal "relationship" with. For women they tend to want to identify with her, using Lora Croft as a way for them to access their inner strength, femininity, and fearlessness. The article says that Lora Croft is both heroine and sex symbol, she is what you want her to be and that regardless of gender people developed personal connections to her character. I would agree that men and women would look at a dominant female and have different ways of interacting with such a character. Men, who would be intimidated by someone like Lora Croft, seek to control her and sexualize her, whereas women endeavor to become her and seek to embody her "all in one" personality.

Gender and Videogames

     One claim that Mikula makes is that when a man plays as Lara "His experience of the game thus encapsulates the patriarchal rhetoric of 'control' and 'care', by a male subject of a female object.  Ironically, even when offered empowerment to view themselves in the position of the subject and see Lara as the object of their 'control' and 'care', with her exaggerated sexuality subjected to their disciplining gaze"(Mikula 183).

     This claim bases itself off of the basic instinct of a man to protect the woman.  I do not agree that all woman need protecting and that it is solely the man's job to protect and care for women, but it does play  on the male's instinct to be the protector and provider.  In a lot of cases this is true, but it is not entirely true, and this video game is a way to let men act on this urge to feel "manly" and protect something, even if it isn't real.  I think it shows that women can be strong, and despite that fact that she is "hot" and says sexual things, she does things that many men cannot do.  She is the ideal woman to many men, but there is nothing wrong with this, because it is a video game and it is not real, and most people that play games know that it is not real.

Gender and Videogames

Maja Mikula makes many interesting claims in her essay about the role of gender in video games, and it is a world I cannot be further removed from. Her views on what video game characters represent and how players relate to them I can empathize with.
Firstly, by reading just this essay alone, I am surprised at how closely relate to fictional video game characters. I thought you just play the game, and in the stretch of time that you are playing the game you delve into the character and that's it, it does not affect yourself at all when not playing the game. That is no the case however, when Maja cites people relating to the character Lara in ways like wanting to spend more time with her and protecting her. My previous thoughts to this essay was that video game characters were left more on the vague side in their characteristics to focus more on the player themselves and what the game entails, not just the character.
Another point she makes is how unrealistically Lara is portrayed in the game, with many sexual attributes enhanced and it is not accurately portraying women. I can understand this point but as a rebuttal I say, how can anybody in a video game accurately represent a person? It is a world of fantasy where everything is embellished and enhanced, every male character isn't an accurate portrayal of men in either. In any video game, realism and accuracy is not going to exist and for a reason, because it is a videoGAME, not a virtual reality.

Lara Croft

In her essay, Mikula makes the claim that male gamers prefer to feel like they have control over their female avatars while females prefer to identify with their icons. She goes on to say that within the context of the game Tomb Raider, Lara allows both males and females to play out the game in the context that they see most fit (the women choosing to identify and the males choosing to control). Because Laura is physically attractive, this compels males to want to look at her, “spend time” with her and control her. Mikula argues that women appreciate the fact that Lara is so worldly and tough. I have to disagree with her idea; I think that men are much more comfortable controlling Lara than women are identifying with her. Her “hotness” outweighs her intellect in terms of where the attention of the gamer is going. If she retained the same “personality” but she wasn’t hypersexualized, I doubt that males would have much interest in the game. Since male customers make up most of the game’s profit, I think the game is much better tailored to suiting male fantasies, no matter what the makers claim. 

Gender & Videogames

"Lara shocks feminist writers; Lara excites feminist writers. There are many Laras, and many positions hat can be taken on her politics. She is indeed a sex object, she is indeed a positive image and a role model; and many things in between."(189).

Lara is a representation of many things, nothing, and essentially anything you'd like her character to be. She is a fictional character seen as several things which makes her unique. She was the first female heroine; so, some see her as influential, others see her solely as an object of their pleasure and then there are those that see her character as someone they'd need to protect further because she's a woman. In the market for entertainment, sex is primarily advertised, and then influence and lastly for the gamers (if it's a game, like Lara/Tomb Raider). One claim that Mikula makes is that the makers target both genders with Lara. I agree with this because they make fair arguments for both sides, for women, there weren't really any girl gamer icons as Lara, and for men, it's another game for them to play but in a different perspective, playing as a woman. Both men and women win playing this game.

Gender and Videogames

"She is a drag queen and female automaton, dominatrix and queer babe, at the same time, in different ways, for different audiences. We cannot simply answer the questions: 'is she a feminist icon or a sexist fantasy?'; a 'male fantasy' or a positive image'? But we can state, with some certainty, that she has certainty been taken up by feminists, and used for feminist ends." (188).

As the quote clearly displays, Lara is a confusing character. She is neither a sex nor feminist icon. If I had to choose though I think I would say she is more of a sex icon. The producers of the game know that they were targeting a male audience, and used this fact to their advantage. They knew that since boys are attracted to "hot" girls they could use Lara as an advertising tool for the game. Also based on what the people who played and talked about the game said they did not see her as a powerful women but rather as someone they had to "care" for.

Megaphone

I think that the purpose of the megaphone essay was to display how social media controls the world around us. The megaphone is an analogy to social media because whatever is loudest--aka said on the megaphone--is followed. Thus we are all being controlled by the media subconsciously. I agree with the essay to a certain extent. Certain trends such as fashion, which is always rapidly changing, could be easily controlled by celebrities seen in the media most often. This fact is rather disconcerting because it shows how little impact a normal individual has in comparison to someone who is seem in the media often.

Megaphone

Saunders very clearly sets up the metaphor of the man with the megaphone to represent today's media. I think this is a very well-crafted metaphor because it has different parts.
(1) "He's not the smartest person at the party, or the most experienced, or the most articulate. But he's got that megaphone." The media does not always feed us correct information, but we listen because it wouldn't be on TV, or in the newspaper, or in a magazine if it weren't important, right? The people at the party can't help but listen because all they hear is the megaphone over everything; we can't help but listen, too, because the news and media surround us. News stations broadcast every hour, the newspaper is updated each day, and advertisements on buses and benches and billboards catch our attention all the time. The media is everywhere.
(2) "These responses are predicated not on his intelligence, his unique experience of the world, his powers of contemplation, or his ability with language, but on the volume and omnipresence of his narrating voice." The people at the party slowly started listening to the guy with the megaphone and changed the topic of their conversations as he changed the topic. Did the guests do this on purpose? No, they couldn't help it. All they could hear were the cues of the megaphone which brought ideas and topics to mind and then infiltrated them into their conversations. We hear weather predictions, breaking stories, bad news, good news, war stories, etc. everyday and, like the guests at the party, infiltrate them into our own conversations. As new stories come out to the public, the old stories are left behind, and the subject of conversation follows the patterns of the news.
(3) "Let's say he hasn't carefully considered the things he's saying. He's basically just blurting things out... Because he feels he has to be entertaining, he jumps from topic to topic.." The guests at the party would be fed false information that was decorated, if you will, to make the information more appealing to them. Today's news sums up very complex stories in two minutes, cutting out anything that isn't exciting or compelling to viewers. How can we really understand what's going on if we're not given the full, detailed, true story?
(4) "This yammering guy has, by forcibly putting his restricted language into the heads of the guests, affected the quality and coloration of the thoughts going on in there." The guests have no choice almost but to think about all the false, unconnected information the guy with the megaphone has thrown at them. They interpret his feelings and opinions as fact and believe every word he says. We watch the news to "be in the know" but we don't learn much about what's really going on unless we ask questions and contact different sources. The news affects the way we think about problems in the world by including subtle connotations into the presentation of information.

Purpose of a College Education

In this day and age, everything is about money. How much you make and how much you spend. More importantly, it is about who you know. However, who you know tends to come from how much money you have so the two are intertwined.I believe that a college education is to help establish a very strong network with very powerful people. Otherwise everyone would go to a regular community college where they can receive basically the same education for much less as opposed to a private and Ivy League schools. Its not about what you know but who you know that makes people successful (and by successful I mean to a higher rank in their chosen field of study). Well, all this with the exception of those extremely rare cases like Mark Lederberg's where he dropped out of school and made it bigger than anyone his age had ever done before. Although he did go to Harvard so that might have given him a bigger boost as compared to a lonely student who left a regular community college.

The Braindead Megaphone

I think that through the metaphor of the dinner party and the person with the megaphone, we see that Saunders is trying to represent the media and its profound affect on the community. In the dinner party scene, it is not the most intelligent or most articulate person who affects the way that the guests think or hold conversations, but it is the person who has the loud megaphone that shapes their thoughts. Even without consciously realizing it, the people will begin talking about the weather if the person with the megaphone does. This is a parallel to media and how it's proliferated or "loud" presence morphs the way that we think about certain issues, or not think about certain issues. Saunders explains in part 4 that the media fails to address important issues, and instead focuses hours and hours on the exciting, but insignificant events, like the OJ Simpson trial. Therefore, we as the guests at the dinner table will focus our time more on the insignificant cases like the OJ Simpson trial and ignore the other, more pressing problems in the world, like the War in Iraq.

The Braindead Megaphone

In George Saunders' essay The Braindead Megaphone, he writes of a person who is not necessarily intelligent but manages to gain the attention of even the most successful people in a room. Slowly but surely, the party goers begin to agree and the speaker and manages to get them to agree with him because he possesses a megaphone. What makes the story scarier as it goes along is that the speaker does not think through their words before they speak them so the audience is potentially being fed the wrong information. After a while, I came to realize that George Saunders was not just speaking of a random guy with a megaphone but the megaphone stood for much more than that. In the end, I started seeing the person with the megaphone as a politician trying to convince their citizens that their stance on an issue was the right one. And whether the people wanted to listen or not, they were always bombarded with news of the latest stance the politician took. Many people would understand this especially after the recent presidential election we had where a person could not change to a random television channel without hearing something about the ongoing campaign.

The Megaphone

I think that Saunders uses the megaphone to represent the mass media. Much like the megaphone man, today’s news stories have evolved with the intention of shocking and grabbing the public’s attention. Instead of the ‘dinner party’ conversations of different flavors and carefully crafted arguments, the one-sided media brings down the level of discourse. The loudest opinion is the one that people are most inclined to listen to and react to. In fact, many talk programs are simply reactionary to other more dominant news shows; their programming serves to reiterate, debate, and ultimately agree with the “loudest” source.  I think the dinner party analogy is very clever because he makes the function of the megaphone very clear.

In section 7, Saunders goes on to say that the megaphone is draws its life-force from attention. He states that “today we are led into the arena of public debate by seers whose main gift is their ability to compel people to continue to watch them” (Saunders, 245). This fits perfectly into the idea that the megaphone is the media; it would be unable to survive and lose its validity entirely if no one watched it. But yet, the mass media continues to entice the public with shocking, offensive headlines and flashy half-truths. And because it’s the loudest voice, we are compelled to react and feed the fire. 

Saunders-megaphone

The party setting is arbitrary along with the topics of discussion, but the megaphone has a purpose. This is apparent from the start of the essay it is easy to tell even though Saunders isn't being direct. He writes about a "megaphone" without spelling out exactly what he means, just as in real life, people may not be aware of the "megaphone". The megaphone in the essay is used by someone who may not be the most knowledgeable or have the best opinions, but others are forced to listen due to their volume and overpowering voice. As the guests at the party listen, they begin to discuss the same topics and find themselves agreeing with the holder of the megaphone.
The megaphone is a metaphor for sources that we believe to be voices of authority in our country such as the government or news stations. Saunders expresses strongly that they shouldnt always be trusted despite our expectation of them to deliver the truth to us.

The Braindead Megaphone

At the beginning of Saunder's essay, I think he gives a pretty clear idea of what the megaphone represents, and I agree with this idea. The thought that most forms of media, the news on TV in particular, influence are minds greatly and have an affect on how we think. Likewise, when carefully planned by newsrooms or news directors or who ever really runs the show (no pun intended) at a news channel, this form of media can be used to manipulate what and how people think- to an extent. Where I disagree with George when he starts implying how gullible most people are and how easily people can be manipulated. I believe most people when the watch the news can tell what is just filler stories and what really happens at breaking news stories.
Comparing the megaphone in the first few sections to the last few sections, I find a difference in their representations. Saunders then switches to how the manipulated mind responded to 9/11 and invaded Iraq, all without proper planning. I disagree with this, every military decision is well thought out before action, and when they are poor decisions, the population can see through them and not blindly agree.

Meaning of the Megaphone

    The megaphone in George Saunders' essay "The Braindead Megaphone" is a metaphor for the censorship and control that the government and the media have over the general population.  A great example of an extreme case of this is North Korea.  The people there are told lies on a daily basis, but they believe them all because the source of the lies is somebody that they believe has all of the answers.  They only hear what he says, and he drowns out what everybody else is thinking or saying.  When Saunders says, "He has, in effect, put an intelligence ceiling on the party" it relates to how when a government forces it's ideas onto it's people, it restricts how intelligent they can be.  They lose the ability to think for themselves and to question the world around them.

    Saunders mentions the media in section five, and he says that they way they present the news lessens the viewers ability to communicate and think freely.  He says that the news anchor will read some story, but the story is pointless and common sense, but the way that they read it makes it seem like the person watching has learned something new.  The viewer then takes this "knowledge" and feels that they should do the same thing, because this figure on television has done it.  They restrict a person's ability to have an intelligent conversation and instead they just comment on things that are easily observed.  This in a way is placing an intelligence-ceiling on these people.

Meaning of the Megaphone

As I was reading The Braindead Megaphone by George Saunders I quickly realized that the focus of this essay was not on a real megaphone. The megaphone is being used as a metaphor which could be perceived as may different things. I think one of  the most widely recognized things that the megaphone could be is the government or some type of ruling power. In this essay the megaphone is perceived as something that is powerful and in control, capturing people's attention. I feel that this is what the government does. Whether people in society agree with the decisions that the government is making or not, they always find themselves listening to the news or some time of publication where the government is reaching out to the community.

  Saunders even makes a connection to the government in this essay. He quickly touches upon the subject of war. In section 4 of this essay Saunders refers to the people as "sitting ducks." He believes that people just sit around and take orders from the megaphone which in this case is the government. Although looking at society, this may seem true, I think that there is a a lot more to it. People see the megaphone as a leader, so we do follow them, but also, we trust them. We follow them because we believe that they are making a decision which will better us. We do not follow because we have nothing better to do or because we do not have enough knowledge to lead ourselves. We are doing what we feel is right. The people that are apart of the government are people that a majority of the community has thought would be best to make decisions for them, therefore we follow their beliefs.

Meaning Of a College Education

My view of education has changed drastically since my return from Africa. Prior to my trip I enjoyed learning and was eager to do well in school but I realize now that I hadn’t valued it nearly as much as I should have, and not for the right reasons. After seeing how eager the children were to learn and how genuinely they wanted to gather as much knowledge as possible, it has made me appreciate my education more than I thought it would. People are constantly exposed, through books and movies, to the idea that a big enough event would change your life and that you would become a different person by the credits if you’d experienced what the actors did. I’d heard stories specifically about how life altering somewhere like Africa would be to a western teenager, but still I was skeptical. I am not a person to be easily moved and I didn’t expect that kind of powerful shift in thinking to happen to me as my life does not now nor has it ever resembled a movie. It is excruciating cliché, but the month I was there did change me, and in many ways it re-formed how I look at several facets of the world. This is highlighted in my views of education. Now I feel beyond lucky that I have access to the level of education that should never be taken for granted and feel that it would be almost disrespectful to every one of those children if I were to neglect or in some way marginalize my educational opportunities. Of course college is a means to the end goal of a career as is the byproduct of our society, but it is my duty, and the duty of every person who has even the whisper of a chance at an education to pursue it.   

Wallace- Lobster

Warrant- One warrant that Wallace uses is that people don't generally think about how or where their lobster comes from and don't pay attention to whether or not the process is inhumane.

In his essay “Considering the Lobster,” Wallace isn’t only writing about lobster but about the lack of attention or care afforded to the process by which they are killed simple for our culinary delight. When people think of corruption and inhumane acts in the food industry we immediately think of cows and chickens and big corporations strong arming farmers and poisoning our meat. Rarely do people think of the lobster industry as something that uses inhumane and borderline torturous methods to produce food. Wallace uses his essay to question the merits of killing something, in what is most likely a very painful way, for human pleasure. I would publish this because it is always worth exploring the various institutions that we participate in, regardless of how unpleasant something is. People can't run from things like animal rights/ cruelty just because it makes them feel guilty, in fact that's even more of a reason to talk about it.    

“Have your adventures, make your mistakes, and choose your friends poorly -- all these make for great stories.”

― Chuck Palahniuk

Lobster - Wallace

A. One warrant that David Foster Wallace has in his essay is that people can carry on with their lives eating lobster not knowing the history and what the lobster signifies in the ocean.

B. I think that this essay isn't about just the festival but for people to really understand what they are eating. A lobster is an animal, and during these festivals they're being killed one by one in giant clusters just for this one day. It is to alert the reader that lobsters are being brutally killed. We as people tend to ignore the brutality that is the killing of live animals. It is easier just to not think about the harm than good that we are doing. Most people only think about benefitting themselves, and in our society today- people see eating lobster as this classy dish - so they eat more of it without thinking twice. They don't realize that they were once the animals of the sea that people wouldn't even touch, and were fed to prisoners on occasion. Wallace analogizes that these these people eating lobster are people turning a blind eye to situations that are difficult to talk about in society. I would not have published this article in a Gourmet magazine because this article didn't really speak to me, and made lobsters less appetizing.

Lobster's Pains

A) What is one warrant of Wallace's?

One warrant of Wallace's is that Maine Lobster Festival turns a blind eye to sufferings of lobsters.

B) One learns quickly that this essay is not really (or only) about  the lobster festival, or even about eating lobster. What is it about,  then? If you had been the publisher of Gourmet magazine (in which this  article originally appeared), would you have published this article?  Why or why not?

The article is really about how we, as consumers, turn a blind eye or doesn't think about the organism that we are eating, whether it is a cow, pig, or lobster. But Wallace points out that the practice of eating/cooking a lobster is much more intimate. If I wanted to eat a lobster, I will be the direct cause of that lobster's death. If I wanted to eat a burger, I won't be the direct cause of that cow's death because the cow, generally, is already killed and divided into many parts. Wallace also hints at the irony of the Maine Lobster Festival, which sounds like it is celebrating lobsters, but in fact is a killing ground for thousands of lobsters. 
If I had been publisher of Gourmet magazine, I would hesitate to put this article on the magazine, because while it is good to create awareness in consumer's minds, a Gourmet magazine's job (I think) is to promote food. Nevertheless, the article is very interesting. I think it would belong more in the category of animal(?) rights...

Foster-Lobster

"There is no cerebral cortex, which in humans is the area of the brain that gives the experience of pain" pg. 308
Claim: Boiling lobsters is acceptable because they have no pain receptors
Grounds: It is not cruel if the lobster doesn't suffer.
Warrant: It is not acceptable to harm for our own pleasure

Part of the magic of eating lobster is the simple cooking process, no mixing, toppings or chopping. Only boiling the lobster is necessary until it reaches that attractive hunger inducing bright red. The consumption of lobster along with all of its glorified festivals is viewed by many as an important part of american culture. It is one thing for animals to be killed and the purchased to cook and eat, but to bring home a live lobster and boil it whole should be seen as anything but glorified. This would be a risky article to publish in a gourmet magazine, it would turn people away from eating lobster and I think it would fit in better with national geographic o time magazine

Consider The Lobster

One warrant that Wallace has is that people turn a blind eye to the treatment of lobster and that as long as they do not think about it, they can go on with their day.

I would publish this article in the magazine, mainly because it gives another perspective on the lobster.  When a restaurant cooks the lobster for you, you are separated from the process and do not realize what the happens.  This is showing how inhumane cooking lobster can be, and clearly they are suffering when they scream.  This essay reveals how many people will just take any information from organizations and trust it because it sounds scientific.  If they are told that lobsters cannot feel pain then they will believe that because the source seems credible when they start throwing around anatomical vocabulary.  He is trying to show that things aren't always what they seem, and the lobsters being boiled is a great example because it is something than you can easily space yourself from and the result of cooking them is a great meal, so people are more willing to forget about what has to happen.

Consider The Lobster

A) One warrant that is apparent in Wallace’s essay is his idea that the festival-goers would rather not think about the lobster suffering. Although the activists are present at the MLF, the attendees choose to ignore their presence and continue with their consumption. It's easier to block out these ideas than it is to confront them and make any possible lifestyle changes that would follow.

B) It’s true that Wallace’s essay surpasses a description of a lobster festival; the true content lies in its discussion of what is morally right and what is wrong. The essay is about how we quantify rightness and wrongness and the human capacity to ignore what we would rather not think about. Because we are comfortable eating lobster, we chose to gloss over the touchy subject of cruelty. It makes us uncomfortable. Honestly, if I were the publisher of Gormet magazine, though I might get personal interest and satisfaction out of the article, I would not publish it. It’s too provocative and too ‘heavy’ to put in a culinary magazine. People buy these magazines because they want to read about luxurious and delectable dishes, the do not pick up an issue with the desire to read something that will make them feel bad or indirectly accuse them of being in the wrong.

Considering he Lobster

A) One example of a warrant in Wallace's essay is the following quote: "The more important point here, though, is that the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it's also uncomfortable" (309). Wallace warrants that all people would find the cruel methods for killing consumed animals as uncomfortable. He claims that the community can be uncomfortable because animal cruelty is seen in his point of view as an uncomfortable and complex subject matter.
B) I would definitely want to publish this article because I enjoyed how Wallace uses the transition of a humble, ignorant, but appeased story about the Maine Lobster Festival to a deep, self-analysing, and disillusioned story about the ethics of cooking lobster. This article teaches us that, although Gourmet magazine may pride itself on the aesthetics and perfectness of food, there's a deeper underbelly nagging at its core. Wallace doesn't tell us that we must be guilted into not eating meat for the sake of anti-animal cruelty, but he tells us to have more of an awareness of how our food is made and killed. This article doesn't deter us from wanting to eat luxurious food like lobster, but enlightens us on how we can appreciate and understand food better, which is perhaps one of the reasons to have a food magazine to begin with.

Acker's Writing Prose

In Acker's essay, I noticed that she had a very distinct writing prose. In the essay, she continuously repeats certain words over and over again; words like "failure," "foreignness," and "strangeness." I believe that Acker uses this style of writing to provide an unspoken parallel to bodybuilding. I think that when Acker repeats these words over and over again, she forces us to notice these strange repetitions. By noticing them and trying to analyze the meaning behind them, she indirectly points us towards her purpose for bodybuilding. This in itself conveys one of the central themes of her essay, that things in life aren't always spoken out loud. Similarly, Acker writes how bodybuilding cannot be spoken with words; instead, it "rejects language" (21). When Acker repeats the words "failure," "foreignness," and "strangeness," she also portrays a parallel to her bodybuilding, which is full of repetitive actions. However, even though there is a lot of repetition and repetition is associated with plain and boring, Acker repeats these exciting words to show that there is more depth to just the repetitive. Bodybuilding doesn't just consist of doing constant motions, but a process where your body changes and becomes foreign or strange as well as a process where you must fail to suceed.

Consider the Lobster

The claim Wallace makes is that it lobsters shouldn't be boiled alive.  They should be boiled alive because they "scream" when they are cooked.  I think his point is that there should be a better way to cook lobster.
Although the essay seems to start off as being about the lobster festival it quickly becomes more about the moral issue of cooking the lobster.  People don't think about what the lobster feels when they cook it since they are usually more concerned about their dinner.  When a lobster is cooked it is usually boiled alive.  The lobster will scratch at the pot and scream as it dies and the question Wallace brings is whether or not that is the humane way to cook the lobster.

Purpose of Education

After reading these two articles on education I don't think that I have changed my stance on this argument at all.  While I do better in maths and sciences and tend to dislike english, writing and language classes, I understand the importance of having a well rounded education.  Even though I am a business major being able to read, analyze and then portray my thoughts in an educated manner is still very important.  Knowledge from the humanities transfer over to other areas and are just as important as sciences or math.

Kathy Acker

Although I myself am not a body builder and subconsciously viewed those who are as unintelligent, reading Kathy Ackers essay was a way of thinking that I had not considered. I found it interesting that she noticed the silencing of her verbal skills as she immersed herself into the sport of bodybuilding but I did feel that her ideas regarding the “language of body building” were a little contrived. To me it seemed that she was simply describing the “zone” that most people enter when an immense amount of concentration is required to complete whatever task they are performing. When I go to the gym I have my own mental tactics to pump myself up, push myself, and keep focused. What I do believe is that by body building she found a new connection to her body that was, for her, more powerful than words could describe. In that respect I can understand her frustration over the inability to articulate an experience that gave you a heightened awareness of yourself and somehow brought you an inner peace.   

consider the lobster

To go through Toulmin's process... I would say Wallace's overall claim of the essay is that it is immoral to boil lobsters alive. His reasons for believing this would be mainly the behavior lobsters display as they are being boiled (resistance, scratching the pot, "screaming", etc.). So I believe his warrant is to find a better, less painful way to prepare lobster so that they do not experience pain.

Wallace's essay is very clearly not solely focused on the 2003 MLF, but instead focuses on the moral issue of boiling lobsters alive. I definintely would have still published this article. I found it easy to read and relate to, with all of Wallace's colloquial sayings and terms. I also enjoyed his sarcasm surrounding the event itself, such as "you only have to pay $20 for a folding chair if you want to sit down." Wallace almost seems to deny the purpose he was asked to write this essay by focusing on this moral issue rather than just the activities of the 2003 MLF. He states very clearly that he kows he is straying from the article's topic, which is also another reason I enjoyed and would have published Wallace's essay.

Wallace on Education

David Foster Wallace reads from "Consider the Lobster"

The Reason for College Education

I never really thought of college as an option in my life. My mom was very educated and through her, I valued the importance of being educated - in other words, going to college. Especially with the job security of today's society, it's very hard to get a decent, secure job without a college education. While the tuition has gone up to outrageous prices, college is still not the worst. With increasing competition, graduate schools are becoming more and more mandatory in having a decent job. Not to mention that graduate schools are generally more expensive than colleges.

So I think that the main purpose of attending college is for your future security. But I also value education. I think college, despite the price tag, offers tons of opportunities and freedom to explore and discover new things. I didn't know what I wanted to be in high school and if I were to be forced to find a job after graduating high school, I think I would be very lost, trying to figure everything out. College years can really build and change a person and during those four years, I think people find what they want to do in life. Otherwise called majors.
Since college is more or less mandatory, I think it would just be best to make the best of it.

Consider the Lobster

A.) "the Maine Lobster Festival has been drawing crowds with the promise of sun, fun, and fine food." Wallace is assuming here that humans are attracted to sun fun and fine food.
B.) The beginning of the essay didn't delve into the real issue. The article is not about the lobster festival at all, but rather about the moral status and physical suffering of the animals involved. Much of this essay is very controversial. I believe that Wallace tried to play devils advocate, or so he says, but he did not succeed very well. He focused far more on the negatives of this business than the positives. The only real positive he mentioned was that lobster are a delicacy, and lobsters are fresh. He goes into detail about how the lobsters suffer and how they feel pain and how they are like humans being tortured. If you ask me he is being rather one sided in his argument. I secretly think he is a member of the PETA. He also questions morality. Should humans feel bad for boiling the lobster alive just for ones own pleasure? If you ask me I personally am rather biased. I cannot eat seafood because I am allergic and I do not eat red meat because it grosses me out. I only eat chicken and I cannot find a good reason as to why I find eating chicken okay but everything else not. If I owned the magazine I would check the demographics of my viewers before publishing this controversial article.

Acker

Acker's form of her essay is parallel with her description of bodybuilding.  Her paragraphs are very short, never more than a few sentences and they are to the point.  When she says "the verbal language of the gym is minimal and almost senseless, reduced to numbers and a few nouns" she is describing the language of the gym, which matches how her essay is structured.  Despite this simple, short structure of her paragraphs, there is also complexity hidden within them.  She does not just state things and move on, she describes them and elaborates, but still keeping with the short form.  She describes this similar structure when she is in the gym by saying "when i am in the gym, my experience is that I am immersed in a complex and rich world"(22).  This is parallel with her structure, on the surface it looks short and concise, but when you read it and experience it, there is a lot more than you expect.

Consider the Lobster

A.) One warrant that Wallace makes is that it is okay to boil lobsters because they do not have the part of the brain that most people/ animals have that allows them to feel pain. I personally do no agree with this but it is stated in Wallace's essay.

B.) As I first started reading this essay I thought that it was going to focus on the lobster festival that goes on in Maine, but I quickly found out that that is not the case. This essay focuses on whether it is okay for people to boil lobsters and whether they feel pain. I would have published this article in the magazine because I think that it brings about a point that I do not think alot of people even think about. When people boil lobsters, usually there main concern is eating it when it is done. I think that it is important for them to recognize that they may be putting the animal through pain. This is especially important at the Lobster Festival in Maine because here there large numbers of lobsters that are being boiled, and potentially being put through pain, in just one day.

Acker

I think Ackers connection between bodybuilding and language is an unique but relatable connection.  Although I have never personally been a bodybuilder, I have done sports that require going to the gym and I can understand where she is coming from when she talks about how the repetition and flow of a workout is like how someone would talk or write.  There is the same kind of rhythmic sense that is used in language.

Consider the Lobster

A) One warrant of Wallace is the Maine Lobster Festival in which many many people are eating lobster without acknowledging or just ignoring the process of how the lobster was prepared for them.
B) I believe this article, deep down, is about moral or ethical decisions that humans have to face and how we face them. In this case, the example of morals and ethics is represented with a very basic element of surviving, eating. I believe at its most basic level, it comes down to taking another animals or crustaceans life so you can live. With this basic element of life comes great resistance, opposition, or even chosen ignorance over the matter. A lot of people don't want to think about this subject because our culture has eliminated the need to think about it. In today's world, the vast majority of people have prepared food presented to them with having to see the process behind it, but at the same time knowing the process. In a way it has sensitized humans. I believe people would be surprised however, at how quickly they could become desensitized to this subject. If everyone had to hunt or harvest every meal they needed, including killing it, of course at first there would be huge opposition, like becoming vegetarian and in a condescending manner refuse to kill animals. But then a simple fact of life would come into play, if I do not kill I do not eat. It is also not cold hearted killing being done, for nothing. As humans and being at the top of the food chain, it is more just a matter of life. And it is also not a barbaric way of life, not 200 years ago everyone knew and participated in the process of harvesting food. If i had been the publisher of Gourmet magazine, i would have had no problem publishing this article because it is not a ground breaking unknown fact. Everybody knows whats behind each meal, some just refuse to think about it. Bringing it to light, as sad as the subject can appear, is a good reminder of how human we still are and how basic elements of life work.

Acker

The purpose of Acker's form/style of Against Ordinary Language: The language of the Body is represented in the text material. Her whole essay is about body building but more specifically the repetition and counting aspect of body building. During and between each work out and rep there is counting involved, with the simple action of inhaling and exhaling on each count. This creates a very structured and routine regiment, also making a very structured and simplified mindset. This is logically represented in her writings with a structured breakdown of the whole work out process, and the her idea that the "language" of body building cannot be easily translated into text because of how different the language is.

Acker the Bodybuilder

Bodybuilding is a foreign subject to me, a person who doesn't even workout regularly. True, as Acker stated, I've always stereotyped the bodybuilder to be unintelligent. But Acker, in her essay, laid out the underlying world of a bodybuilder one by one. Though I didn't quite understand why she kept bringing up Canetti, I understood that bodybuilding had a rhythm of sort, a language, if put elaborately. To be honest, I've never experienced it, so I can't quite believe her. I do know that there is a mind state, or a "zone", that happens when you push your body over the limit and concentrate completely, yet aloofly, on the physical task at hand. The athlete's mindset is very interesting. I would have liked to know more about her experience rather than complicated descriptions and paraphrases of others in her essay though.

Acker's language

Acker’s act of going to the gym is a language in itself. Although less descriptive or flowery than the language most humans use in conversation, the language of body building is effective all the same. Both languages have different contexts that they make sense in. When body building, there isn't much to say since the entire sport is built around the act of repetition; not much variation is necessary in the vernacular. I agree with Acker’s discussion of the two languages. Although I have not experienced this in the realm of body building, I could see where she was coming from and her argument was effective. 

Kathy Acker

The way that Acker writes this essay is very unique. She relates language to the physical activity of body building. I think that works well with the message that Acker is trying to convey. She is trying to show that there is a lot more to athletes than people think. She describes what she does as a body builder and how that relates to the way in which she communicates. I think that it works well the way that she brings up literature in the beginning of the essay and ties it together at the end with it. The reader gets the real perspective of the essay through Acker's form of writing.

Kathy Acker

       I appreciated the personal insight to the piece at the very beginning called "Preface Diary." I think this section helps the reader to understand where the author is coming from and it sets the stage for the whole essay. I found Acker's wording interesting in the diary. She has an abstract way of describing things that is intruging and different from other authors we've read so far.
       Her language of bodybuilding is described in "A Language Which is Speechless." This section is dedicated to trying to describe how she feels when she is in the gym. "Imagine that you are in a foreign country.." is a neat way to start off the section because it really gets the reader in the mindset of not knowing how to describe something you're experiencing. It shows the confusion of the author.
       Next Acker describes "The Richness of the Language of the Body." In this section her main purpose is relating this language she has learned to the readers in order to describe it. "bodybuilding (a language of the body) rejects ordinary language and yet itself constitues a language, a method for understanding and controlling the physical which in this case is also the self." This shows that bodybuilding is a more physical language of controlling the self, rather than of manipulating the meaning of words as other authors do.
       "The Repetition of One" paints a picture of a typical work out session with Acker. But in a more personal way. "For though I am only repeating certain gestures during certain time spans, my body, being material, is never the same; my body is controlled by change and by chance." This excerp puts us in the mind of the author who is finally able to describe the language of bodybuilding. Her body is different every day she goes to the gym even though Acker repeats the same exact motions.
       Acker's essay is set up in a way that builds up to the final insight into bodybuilding as a language. The different parts all come together to paint a picture of the way Acker communicates with her body.

Bodybuilding-Ackers

Ackers' use of repetition of her thoughts and actions in her essay correlates with the repetitions of her workout. She struggled to begin writing the essay, or even her thoughts/observations because not many can be put into words. In the gym, rather than announcing or describing what she is doing to herself, she simply does it. Breathes, counts, goes. Do or fail. There can not be much variation or surprises in her workout, she has to stay focused on her counting, and in doing so, slowly loses her use for language. When she finishes and wishes to write, no words come to her, because during the experience she doesn't use words at all, only her muscles.

Purpose of Kathy Acker's Essay

I think the purpose of Kathy Acker's essay is to analogize the human form through exercising and working on oneself. She shows this through the process that bodybuilding requires in order to get to where one would see themselves as ideal. This can be related to life and the trials that everyone has to face. We all strive to work our hardest to get to where we ultimately would like to be in the end. In most cases, we accomplish exactly what we hope to. There's a saying that goes, if you really want something bad enough, you'd do everything in your power to obtain this goal just like bodybuilding.

What's the purpose of the form/style of Acker's essay?

I believe Acker chooses her style in this essay to mirror the topic she is writing about. The essays form is rather choppy and a bit random, but at the same time it is separated into headings and sectioned off by quotes and topics. The gym is similar. If you try to watch someone else workout at the gym, his or her actions seem random. They use each machine at random, they do random repetitions, they lift random weight sizes. However, to the person doing the workout there is very much a schedule to be followed. Maybe not a written schedule, although sometimes it is written, but often a mental schedule. A routine each individual plans out in advance.

Purpose of College Education

I think that the purpose of a college education is to help obtain a better job in your future. The degrees are what gets you money. Going to school for an extra four years to get a bachelor's degree can double your salary. However, in this economy I question whether going to school is even worth the opportunity costs that we, students are giving up. All of the stress and worry about loans, debt, and tuition can be seen as a burden because working to pay for college is a pain. 

I guess you can also see a college education as broadening your knowledge to become a smarter person. The lectures from your professors, TAs and teachers can help open your eyes to what you're really interested.

What is the purpose of a college education?

I think the first college ever started truly was focused on a higher education to better people. But I can see through these two readings that college is now more focused on finaces. Tuition, scholarships, grants, loans, etc. are all among the worries of high school seniors when they should be thinking about what career is right for them and what they want to accomplish in life.

My stand on the humanities is that they should still be a part of everyone's education. Students should be well rounded and have a more diverse schedule (to an extent since there are many majors that have multiple required courses). Language and communication are extremely important no matter what you do in life.

I really enjoyed reading Petsko's letter to the President. He almost made the President sound stupid, and I believe that was his point all along. Petsko made many great points but my favorite part was the reoccuring sort of personal jab when he would end a paragraph with "but of course, now you don't." This seemed to rub in the fact that the President had made the wrong decision, and I agree!!

Response to Fish and Petskos

I had never really considered the arguments in these articles before I read them, however; I have decided that I agree. I am typically  more left brained and tend to understand Maths and Sciences much better than English and History. I do struggle to meet the CORE requirements of institutions because I take English and History grudgingly. I know how important English is to every major though. It is important to be able to read and write purposefully and effectively. In any work environment one will have to communicate in some way. Whether it be with other people with other companies with other countries, we all must communicate in a way in which our colleagues will understand. I also believe all languages are important to learn. In many fields of work including: medical work, business work, sports work, languages are essential across the board.

Education

After reading the "Opinionator" by Stanley Fish and the letter written by Gregory A Petsko I have learned a lot about the true meaning of education and the importance that it has. I agree with the point that Fish says when he is defending Classical high school about creating diversity. He says, "Students should be brought "to see themselves as members of a heterogeneous nation . . . and a still more heterogeneous world, and to understand something of this history." There should be diversity amongst schools, but there are other points that he makes that I do not agree with. I do not think that the format of this type of education is interesting enough. It seems boring. If I had to go to school everyday with such a strict layout, then I would not look forward to going to school. Going to school with a more relaxed atmosphere makes it more intriguing. Teachers should be able to teach the way they want to. As I read Petsko's letter I had more interest. I enjoyed how he used wit in his letter. He repeatedly said "which now, of course, you don't." He is referring to the departments that the president of the University plans to cut. I can understand the point that he makes in his essay for keeping the programs that are expected to be cut. I do agree when he says that the University should not be like all of the others and take stand. I personally feel that education is important. It is what shapes society. If people were uneducated then there wold be chaos. Although, I do not feel that schools need to have a strict layout with a syllabus, having each teacher teach the same thing in the same way. I think it is important for teachers to be unique. I think that that plays a role in the way students are shaped into the people tat they become. Throughout my life I have, and still do, enjoyed school. I have learned a lot from each and everyone of my teachers. I hope that I continue on this path and learn even more.