Both of these essays are some of my favorite pieces of writing we've read for this class.
Didion is a genius at creating empathy. Even parts I did not relate to were so clear that I could feel how she felt when she was young and in New York. And even if creating a connection with the reader wasn't her strong suit, the subject still really hits home for me.
"...I was discovering that not all of the promises would be kept, that some things are in fact irrevocable and that it had counted after all, every evasion and every procrastination, every word, all of it."
Now, I believe that change in people happen gradually, and that sudden "wake-up calls" are kind of a sham. Nevertheless, this sentence really made me feel something, that kind of "this affects me and I should do something about it" feeling that you only get when you read something that is not only really well written but also you find yourself relating to in a big way. I mean, look at me, posting this blog post two days late. I'm a procrastinator in the worst sense. And I need to start working on correcting that instead of just stating it and labeling myself as a procrastinator and acting like it's some badge. I should write an essay on it. I'll do it tomorrow. (PROCRASTINATOR JOKE. STOP MAKING THEM AND JUST DO YOUR WORK ON TIME ZANE)
Anyways, back to the writing. Another element of the Didion essay I really enjoyed was the conciseness of it. Every sentence felt irreplaceable and I didn't feel like any sections needed trimming.
The Rodriguez essay was also awesome. He explained a lot of things to me that I had no clue about without being boring or monotone. His metaphors were amazing. He had a short section on the idea of going to the gym that I would have been happy to read a whole essay on.
"Physical revelation - nakedness - is no longer possible, cannot be desired, for the body is shrouded in meat and wears itself."
Not only is this a powerful image, it's one that I found to be really original and thought provoking.
Oh, I also loved how much the whole essay reminded me of American Psycho, one of my favorite books.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Anti-Humor vs Humor
"Spandex (Spandex),
I pull up with a lamb text,
Too strudel, toaster strudel
Ballin' on you poodles"
-RiFF RAFF
My roommate and I have been on the improv team for almost a whole schoolyear now, and without fail we have listened to the same goddamn song before every Thursday show. Five minutes before we leave, we pull up the track, jump around and rap every single word.
And let me clarify, this song is not good. In fact, the main verse, the closer, the big feature, the part that we go crazy at, is pretty awful. Why don't I just let you decide for yourself.
If you made it to the end, to that glorious rap verse, maybe you can see the appeal. Or maybe you don't. There is no appeal. Is there?
In the first line, he raps rhinoceros with immaculate.
See, my roommate and I love good rap. MF DOOM, Kendrick, Kanye, Nas, etc. We're big fans of great hip hop. But we're also big fans of bad hip hop. Specifically: Riff Raff.
Right? He's an idiot, right? Just another crazy out-of-touch product of modern society. Is he? Because I really think he might be a self-aware satire, on a Stephen Colbert level. Rap game Stephen Colbert, etc.
But wait, another question, and this is the one I'm trying to get at (I swear this blog post has a point), would it be funnier if he was serious? Would you feel better if he was a parody? Does trying to be funny make something less funny? Do the funniest things happen on accident? Have I used enough italics in this blog post?
Think of your favorite sitcom, sketch, comedian. Find what you think is the funniest video ever and watch it for the 100th time (if you really do this, please share what it is!). Chances are a lot of work went into it. Writers, actors, directors, somebody got paid. Probably a lot of money (especially if you picked Friends).
But can you really put a price on this, which was used non-ironically in a real commercial?
Thanks Obama.
I'm asking a lot of questions in this blog, and to be honest, I really don't know the answer to them. If the funniest things happen on accident, why do I spend so much time thinking of jokes?
I'll leave you with this. I think Tim and Eric (AKA genius comedians or utter wastes of time, depending on who you are) would say that trying to be funny is not funny, and that not-funny is the funniest thing ever. It's all a circle of self-awareness and putting so much effort into looking like you don't give any effort at all and when you reach the center it's just nonsense. Here's a clip from their show:
Dumb? Genius? Funny? Disturbing? Stupid? I don't even know anymore. I know I laughed.
I just renamed this blog Anti-Humor vs Humor. I also realized it's not as media focused as I intended. Which is disappointing since I am a media student.
Italics.
I pull up with a lamb text,
Too strudel, toaster strudel
Ballin' on you poodles"
-RiFF RAFF
My roommate and I have been on the improv team for almost a whole schoolyear now, and without fail we have listened to the same goddamn song before every Thursday show. Five minutes before we leave, we pull up the track, jump around and rap every single word.
And let me clarify, this song is not good. In fact, the main verse, the closer, the big feature, the part that we go crazy at, is pretty awful. Why don't I just let you decide for yourself.
If you made it to the end, to that glorious rap verse, maybe you can see the appeal. Or maybe you don't. There is no appeal. Is there?
In the first line, he raps rhinoceros with immaculate.
See, my roommate and I love good rap. MF DOOM, Kendrick, Kanye, Nas, etc. We're big fans of great hip hop. But we're also big fans of bad hip hop. Specifically: Riff Raff.
The question you have to ask yourself: Is he serious? And I have to say, as someone who is a huge fan, I'm not sure. But it's so funny. Watch as much of this video as you can take. 30 seconds is plenty
Right? He's an idiot, right? Just another crazy out-of-touch product of modern society. Is he? Because I really think he might be a self-aware satire, on a Stephen Colbert level. Rap game Stephen Colbert, etc.
But wait, another question, and this is the one I'm trying to get at (I swear this blog post has a point), would it be funnier if he was serious? Would you feel better if he was a parody? Does trying to be funny make something less funny? Do the funniest things happen on accident? Have I used enough italics in this blog post?
Think of your favorite sitcom, sketch, comedian. Find what you think is the funniest video ever and watch it for the 100th time (if you really do this, please share what it is!). Chances are a lot of work went into it. Writers, actors, directors, somebody got paid. Probably a lot of money (especially if you picked Friends).
But can you really put a price on this, which was used non-ironically in a real commercial?
I'm asking a lot of questions in this blog, and to be honest, I really don't know the answer to them. If the funniest things happen on accident, why do I spend so much time thinking of jokes?
I'll leave you with this. I think Tim and Eric (AKA genius comedians or utter wastes of time, depending on who you are) would say that trying to be funny is not funny, and that not-funny is the funniest thing ever. It's all a circle of self-awareness and putting so much effort into looking like you don't give any effort at all and when you reach the center it's just nonsense. Here's a clip from their show:
I just renamed this blog Anti-Humor vs Humor. I also realized it's not as media focused as I intended. Which is disappointing since I am a media student.
Italics.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Eggers comparison
The first section I would like to talk about is on pages 179 and 180.
In this section, Eggers is explaining some of the features in the first issue of Might, detailing many photographs with the word NOPE superimposed over them, and then he uses footnotes to explain what how each individual picture explains what their magazine is not. I enjoy passages where Eggers talks about what is specifically in the magazine because it seems that this is when he is the most comfortable playing around with the formatting. The way he goes non-traditional with the prose in sections like these actually sort of creates the feeling that one might be looking at a magazine, which might very well be his intent.
The second section is on page 279, where Eggers complains about having to give a speech to his suicidal friend but does it anyway. This section has elements of that stream-of-consciousness writing we've seen him use many times, but it's not as frantic as it sometimes is. The passage has a tone of purposeful sluggishness, especially with the placement of this long paragraph after three or four pages of quick dialogue. The lengthy paragraph is used to make the reader identify with Dave and how annoyed he is that his friend is guilting him into doing this.
Obviously there are huge differences between those passages, but the connection I'm trying to make is tone through formatting. One of the reasons I like Eggers is because I've never seen this utilized so much in one book, it is very unique. Eggers will literally change the way his book is read from chapter to chapter or even section to section in order to further emphasize tone. Another great example is the long MTV interview section, where he was able to fit so much information into one section, and also create an "open book" feel through the way the section was formatted. I love the way he does this and in the future I'd like to do more experimenting with format in my own writing.
In this section, Eggers is explaining some of the features in the first issue of Might, detailing many photographs with the word NOPE superimposed over them, and then he uses footnotes to explain what how each individual picture explains what their magazine is not. I enjoy passages where Eggers talks about what is specifically in the magazine because it seems that this is when he is the most comfortable playing around with the formatting. The way he goes non-traditional with the prose in sections like these actually sort of creates the feeling that one might be looking at a magazine, which might very well be his intent.
The second section is on page 279, where Eggers complains about having to give a speech to his suicidal friend but does it anyway. This section has elements of that stream-of-consciousness writing we've seen him use many times, but it's not as frantic as it sometimes is. The passage has a tone of purposeful sluggishness, especially with the placement of this long paragraph after three or four pages of quick dialogue. The lengthy paragraph is used to make the reader identify with Dave and how annoyed he is that his friend is guilting him into doing this.
Obviously there are huge differences between those passages, but the connection I'm trying to make is tone through formatting. One of the reasons I like Eggers is because I've never seen this utilized so much in one book, it is very unique. Eggers will literally change the way his book is read from chapter to chapter or even section to section in order to further emphasize tone. Another great example is the long MTV interview section, where he was able to fit so much information into one section, and also create an "open book" feel through the way the section was formatted. I love the way he does this and in the future I'd like to do more experimenting with format in my own writing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)