originally published by the History News Network, Election Season 2008
In this election season, it seems that the point cannot be made forcefully enough by pundits, delegates, supporters, candidates and other members of the political swirl that we are at a historical turning point: breaking with tradition with the first black Presidential nominee and only the second female Vice Presidential nominee of a major party. With all this talk of history being made, the way candidates and their supporters seek to use history to their benefit is often overlooked. A review of the transcripts of this summer's conventions reveals that one of the most common practices has been to borrow the heroes of the opposing party to discredit it.
The Democrats, at their Denver convention, frequently referred to heroes from the Republican Party's past in an attempt to discredit the current party. Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, in his speech supporting Barack Obama, indicated that he barely recognized his old party: "The Republican Party I once knew has become something different, something I no longer recognize.” By paying tribute to the most admired accomplishments of the G.O.P., the speakers sought to expose what they believed to be a failure of modern Republicans to uphold their legacy.
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), speaking of what he believed to be the failures of President George W. Bush, quoted Ronald Reagan in defense of his argument, using one of The Gipper's most famous lines against his putative heir: “In the 2006 election, Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans scored a victory that President Bush himself called ‘a thumpin'.’ Well, Mr. President, as Ronald Reagan used to say, ‘you ain't seen nothing yet’.”
Former Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA) spoke of the progressive efforts of Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, in a further attempt to suggest that the current Republican Party had grown distant from its roots:
[The Republican Party] includes Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, who built up the National Parks system and broke down corporate monopolies, and Dwight David Eisenhower, who ran on a pledge to end a war in Korea, brought a stop to European colonial intervention in the Middle East, quietly integrated the Washington, D.C. school system and not so quietly sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to squash segregation in public schools throughout the country.
By exalting grand successes of historic Republicans, Leach attempted to highlight alleged failures of Republicans today.
Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower, spoke of the divide between yesterday and today, in regards to Republican policy and action. In her words,
Once during the Eisenhower administration, Ike was under fire from his critics for moving too slowly in responding to political pressure. After a visit to the Oval Office by Robert Frost, the famous American poet sent the president a note: “the strong,” he wrote, “are saying nothing until they see.”
By highlighting the prudence of that characterized Eisenhower as President, she attempted to convey the message that the modern Republican Party behaved with a lack of prudence. She continued, “Let us restore the hope and bring the change that our nation so desperately needs.” While the themes of “hope” and “change” were certainly emphasized in almost every speech at the Democratic convention, the Democrats hoped they would ring truer coming from the progeny of one of America’s most well known Republicans.
Citizens involved in the American Voices Program also spoke of the difference between historic and contemporary Republicans. One speaker, Pamela Cash-Roper, elaborated, saying, “I’m a lifelong Republican who voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush. But I can’t afford four more years like this.”
Not to be outdone, Republicans also used the opposing party’s historical figures to score points. But in their case, history was used to reassure Americans that Sarah Palin was up to the tasks of the high office to which she had been nominated. Most frequently they invoked Harry Truman's name in defense of Palin.
Palin herself cited Truman in an attempt to reassure Americans that someone with her background in rural America could perform admirably: “Long ago, a young haberdasher from Missouri, he followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency." She then attempted to compare her life to that of Truman, saying, “A writer observed: ‘We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.’ I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people.” By positioning herself as a kind of “everywoman” she hoped to borrow some of his luster as America's "everyman." In what has become one of her most famous lines from the convention, she remarked: “I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.”
It was a neat historical swap. In 1948 the Republican "elitist" Thomas Dewey had been defeated by Truman, the everyman. Now Republicans were using their own "everywoman" to discredit a candidate they decried as an elitist.
A neat trick--if people buy it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Killing Angels: Martyrdom, Spirits and the Business of Symbolic Death
written for history class, 2008
What does one think of when the word “angel” is mentioned?
Perhaps, one sees an image of a cherubic, pudgy-cheeked, rosy-skinned infant or a curvaceous blonde draped in finest silks ascending towards the heavens guided by gilded ivory wings. Likely, the mind does not first conjure an image of a haggard, bearded, middle-aged man of towering stature lying slumped forward in a spectator seat of Ford’s Theater with a noticeable chunk of cerebral matter missing. Upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the populous of the United States (especially in the Northern states) began to associate Lincoln as a man and president with a higher meaning, a higher power, and indeed, a higher standard- a veritable angel, sent from God. Immediately following his death, newspapers ran sensational headlines and cartoon-style homages to the fallen leader. By careful examination of these papers and images, it becomes abundantly clear that Lincoln’s death transformed him from politician to demigod. Biblical allusion, attenuated metaphors regarding the Lincoln’s “guiding” influence and villainous media portrayal of John Wilkes Booth indicate a fervent opinion regarding Lincoln’s role in the cohesion of a union divided. Through examination of newspaper accounts immediately following his death, Abraham Lincoln was imaged as martyr, patriarch, savior and soul of the United States.
It becomes imperative to note, regarding sentiments about Lincoln’s death, the
seemingly unanimous nature of the populous’ feelings. On May 5th, 1865, the New York
Times ran a piece about the assassination, stating,
“Those national emblems, thousands in number, but yesterday floating proudly in the breeze, are lowered to half-mast, to mourn the loss of one dearly loved by all. Every house became one of mourning, none were found here so depraved as to refuse to condemn the act of the assassin, and all breathed but one sentiment that the deceased was an honest man.”
This unanimity reached across class and racial divide, as, in New Orleans, “Sixty thousand people assembled on the public streets to give vent to their public grief- not the least among them was found the colored race.” While people of all skin colors lamented the loss of their leader, solidarity amongst members of different social classes emerged as well. “It was the universal grief,” Harper’s Weekly reported, “that so heavily draped our streets. Not only the mansions of the rich, but the squalid hovels of the poor put on the habit of mourning.” The muddling of class divides indicates the extent to which Lincoln had become embedded in the fabric of the union. His death was recorded as, “a personal blow to every faithful American household.” The fact that one could plausibly claim that the death of one man touched every American household seems enough to show that Lincoln’s stature in society was not merely that of a removed president or war general, but of a man personally effecting millions of people.
Lincoln’s effect on the masses was also portrayed nicely in an illustration from Harper’s Weekly . As Lincoln’s coffin lies in front of sturdy, solid pillars, Lady Liberty kneels nearby, weeping, overcome by grief. With the American flag clutched in her hand, she embraces the coffin, signifying the connection between Lincoln and the livelihood of the United States. Around the name on the coffin there emanates glowing light, as if to indicate an influence reaching beyond temporal, socially constructed divisions. That distinctly different social and racial groups came together to mourn his death is an integral piece in understanding the seemingly extreme manner in which Lincoln was eulogized publicly, immediately following his death.
One significant way in which the American people remembered Lincoln was as a paternal figure, guiding the nation through rough times, leading the people with keen wisdom. Upon his death, the April 29th, 1865 issue of Harper’s Weekly reported, “and in his death it is not a party that loses a head, but a country that deplores a father.” The idea of Lincoln as the American patriarch permeated, as he was remembered (without irony) as, “holding the nation together through its darkest hours.” While he was the literal father of four children, he garnered a position in the collective mind of the country he left behind in death as a metaphorical, even metaphysical, father figure.
The “Lincoln-as-father” idea was not only found in the articles of the contemporary newspapers, but also in the images used to supplement the coverage of his death. In one illustration in the famous Harper’s Weekly , Lincoln was shown with his young son, Tad. As an aged Lincoln looks on, Tad stands at his side, intently laying his gaze upon the book in Lincoln’s lap as Lincoln turns a page. This picture creates a nice metaphor for Lincoln as the father figure of the nation, turning the pages of American history as a proud and diligent people look on. This picture, and indeed its underlying meaning, was a clear facet of the manner in which people eulogized the president publicly, as it ran the week after his death. Much like a young child without a parent, America is portrayed as an eager but young, entity without their guiding influence. But the nation did not stop at showing Lincoln as a father figure, and further images and metaphors were created that put Lincoln in a religious light.
Upon his death, newspapers immediately began using language and imagery that portrayed him as a savior and martyr of the nation, pulling it back from the brink of entire collapse. Spiritual and religious undertones circulated in the accounts of his death. Harper’s Weekly again reported, “The dust of our great leader, kissed to rest, and folded to our hearts, is there interned, beyond the breath of scandal, in sweet peace. Wounded with his wound, our hearts receive the mantle of his spirit as it flies.” The biblical reference (“ashes to ashes, dust to dust”) sparks an image of a person ordained by God for some sort of earthly mission. This image of Lincoln was countered by a devilish image of John Wilkes Booth and his actions. In The Chicago Tribune, the collision of good and evil was explored, as it was said, “President Lincoln, whose life was covered with glory by his faithfulness to his country, has ascended to his God. Pale in death, murdered by the hellish spirit of slavery, his body lies at the nation’s capital- a new sacrifice upon our country’s altar.” Lincoln assumes, in this text, the role of sacrificial lamb. It seems as though this sort of eulogy wording was perhaps heavy-handed in its estimation. However, other articles spoke quite literally about a connection between the messianic tale of Jesus on the cross and Lincoln’s death at Ford’s Theater.
To equate Lincoln with Jesus may seem far-fetched or sensationalized, but it was said, “He has sealed his service to his country by the last sacrifice. On the day that commemorates the great sorrow which Christendom reveres, the man who had no thought, no wish, no hope but the salvation of his country laid down his life.” Talk of an “ultimate sacrifice” was not fully fleshed out, as even more explicitly stated words were to follow. “It is the world’s old story, told again,” it was written, “that they who bruise the venomed head must bear, even as Christ did, its last foul sting, taking the savior’s passion with his crown.” Muddled metaphors thrown away, the newspaper directly correlated Lincoln’s death with Christ’s final act of faith. In both the press coverage of Lincoln’s death and in the collective mind of the American people, Abraham Lincoln had died a martyr, a savior of the union.
But the Biblical references did not cease there. Taking from another famous Biblical allegory, Lincoln was compared to Moses in a fusion of both his perceived image as a father figure and savior. In what can best be described as the climax of fervent Lincoln analogizing, it was said, “Like Moses, he had marched with us through the wilderness. From the height of patriotic vision he beheld the golden fields of the future waving in peace.” This quote encapsulated all three major themes in how the country began to memorialize Lincoln. First, the Biblical reference to Moses indicates the idea that Lincoln was somehow closer to God as a living man, given a divine purpose to guide the nation as the benevolent patriarch. Secondly, it says the “height of patriotic vision”, indicating that Lincoln was somehow of a higher intellectual plane, able to decipher the complex code of saving the union. Lastly, Lincoln is imaged as seeing “the golden fields of the future” as if to show that he had undoubtedly ascended to heaven was gazing down upon his country from the right hand of God. Lincoln emerged from these sort of memorials as a divine patriarch who had guided the nation as a politician and would continue to do so as an ascended spirit. However, the image was not completed without a complementing image of evil to act as a foil to the heavenly Lincoln.
In both words and images, John Wilkes Booth garnered a reputation as a villainous character. The Chicago Tribune reported in a headline, “Terrible news. President Lincoln assassinated at Ford’s Theater. A rebel desperado shoots him through the head and escapes.” Booth as the “rebel desperado” was used as a counterpoint to the divine image of Lincoln. In the minds of the American people, only a true scoundrel would murder the president in cold blood. This image was furthered by the wanted posters, which circulated the nation, offering a reward for Booth. In this poster, large bold type offers reward for “THE MURDERER” of “ our beloved president”. By using the word “murderer” juxtaposed with “beloved”, it puts the villain Booth in direct opposition to the angelic Lincoln, creating a battle between good and evil.
Even in smaller newspapers the theme of good and evil permeated. In Burlington, Iowa, a story ran saying, “That our most kind, lenient and magnanimous chief magistrate has been stricken down while in the exercise of his high office, by the bloody hand of the assassin, the climax of rebel crime, a martyr to the cause which lies dearest to the hearts of the people.” In this paper, the murder of Lincoln would only be reasonably justified by characterizing Booth as a “rebel”, clearly disregarding the ethos and moralities of the American union. By using the words “bloody hand”, Booth is portrayed as a devilish character who assumed full blame for the martyring of Lincoln. In a final characterization of Booth, it was reported that, “The assassin then leaped upon the stage brandishing a large dagger or knife…” By imaging Booth as a crazed man, armed and dangerous, he loses the human quality and takes on a slightly depraved, maybe even animalistic appearance. His craven image contrasts perfectly with the morally and socially elevated image of Lincoln as seraphim.
Abraham Lincoln’s death catapulted him into a posthumous image simultaneously as guiding father, selfless martyr and angelic savior. As the American people began to make sense of the assassination, newspaper and magazine accounts of Lincoln’s death and immediate legacy transformed him from human to demigod. Through metaphor, Biblical allusion, illustrated imagery and vulcanization of John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s death elevated him morally, ideologically and socially and placed him deep in the hearts and minds of his contemporaries.
What does one think of when the word “angel” is mentioned?
Perhaps, one sees an image of a cherubic, pudgy-cheeked, rosy-skinned infant or a curvaceous blonde draped in finest silks ascending towards the heavens guided by gilded ivory wings. Likely, the mind does not first conjure an image of a haggard, bearded, middle-aged man of towering stature lying slumped forward in a spectator seat of Ford’s Theater with a noticeable chunk of cerebral matter missing. Upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the populous of the United States (especially in the Northern states) began to associate Lincoln as a man and president with a higher meaning, a higher power, and indeed, a higher standard- a veritable angel, sent from God. Immediately following his death, newspapers ran sensational headlines and cartoon-style homages to the fallen leader. By careful examination of these papers and images, it becomes abundantly clear that Lincoln’s death transformed him from politician to demigod. Biblical allusion, attenuated metaphors regarding the Lincoln’s “guiding” influence and villainous media portrayal of John Wilkes Booth indicate a fervent opinion regarding Lincoln’s role in the cohesion of a union divided. Through examination of newspaper accounts immediately following his death, Abraham Lincoln was imaged as martyr, patriarch, savior and soul of the United States.
It becomes imperative to note, regarding sentiments about Lincoln’s death, the
seemingly unanimous nature of the populous’ feelings. On May 5th, 1865, the New York
Times ran a piece about the assassination, stating,
“Those national emblems, thousands in number, but yesterday floating proudly in the breeze, are lowered to half-mast, to mourn the loss of one dearly loved by all. Every house became one of mourning, none were found here so depraved as to refuse to condemn the act of the assassin, and all breathed but one sentiment that the deceased was an honest man.”
This unanimity reached across class and racial divide, as, in New Orleans, “Sixty thousand people assembled on the public streets to give vent to their public grief- not the least among them was found the colored race.” While people of all skin colors lamented the loss of their leader, solidarity amongst members of different social classes emerged as well. “It was the universal grief,” Harper’s Weekly reported, “that so heavily draped our streets. Not only the mansions of the rich, but the squalid hovels of the poor put on the habit of mourning.” The muddling of class divides indicates the extent to which Lincoln had become embedded in the fabric of the union. His death was recorded as, “a personal blow to every faithful American household.” The fact that one could plausibly claim that the death of one man touched every American household seems enough to show that Lincoln’s stature in society was not merely that of a removed president or war general, but of a man personally effecting millions of people.
Lincoln’s effect on the masses was also portrayed nicely in an illustration from Harper’s Weekly . As Lincoln’s coffin lies in front of sturdy, solid pillars, Lady Liberty kneels nearby, weeping, overcome by grief. With the American flag clutched in her hand, she embraces the coffin, signifying the connection between Lincoln and the livelihood of the United States. Around the name on the coffin there emanates glowing light, as if to indicate an influence reaching beyond temporal, socially constructed divisions. That distinctly different social and racial groups came together to mourn his death is an integral piece in understanding the seemingly extreme manner in which Lincoln was eulogized publicly, immediately following his death.
One significant way in which the American people remembered Lincoln was as a paternal figure, guiding the nation through rough times, leading the people with keen wisdom. Upon his death, the April 29th, 1865 issue of Harper’s Weekly reported, “and in his death it is not a party that loses a head, but a country that deplores a father.” The idea of Lincoln as the American patriarch permeated, as he was remembered (without irony) as, “holding the nation together through its darkest hours.” While he was the literal father of four children, he garnered a position in the collective mind of the country he left behind in death as a metaphorical, even metaphysical, father figure.
The “Lincoln-as-father” idea was not only found in the articles of the contemporary newspapers, but also in the images used to supplement the coverage of his death. In one illustration in the famous Harper’s Weekly , Lincoln was shown with his young son, Tad. As an aged Lincoln looks on, Tad stands at his side, intently laying his gaze upon the book in Lincoln’s lap as Lincoln turns a page. This picture creates a nice metaphor for Lincoln as the father figure of the nation, turning the pages of American history as a proud and diligent people look on. This picture, and indeed its underlying meaning, was a clear facet of the manner in which people eulogized the president publicly, as it ran the week after his death. Much like a young child without a parent, America is portrayed as an eager but young, entity without their guiding influence. But the nation did not stop at showing Lincoln as a father figure, and further images and metaphors were created that put Lincoln in a religious light.
Upon his death, newspapers immediately began using language and imagery that portrayed him as a savior and martyr of the nation, pulling it back from the brink of entire collapse. Spiritual and religious undertones circulated in the accounts of his death. Harper’s Weekly again reported, “The dust of our great leader, kissed to rest, and folded to our hearts, is there interned, beyond the breath of scandal, in sweet peace. Wounded with his wound, our hearts receive the mantle of his spirit as it flies.” The biblical reference (“ashes to ashes, dust to dust”) sparks an image of a person ordained by God for some sort of earthly mission. This image of Lincoln was countered by a devilish image of John Wilkes Booth and his actions. In The Chicago Tribune, the collision of good and evil was explored, as it was said, “President Lincoln, whose life was covered with glory by his faithfulness to his country, has ascended to his God. Pale in death, murdered by the hellish spirit of slavery, his body lies at the nation’s capital- a new sacrifice upon our country’s altar.” Lincoln assumes, in this text, the role of sacrificial lamb. It seems as though this sort of eulogy wording was perhaps heavy-handed in its estimation. However, other articles spoke quite literally about a connection between the messianic tale of Jesus on the cross and Lincoln’s death at Ford’s Theater.
To equate Lincoln with Jesus may seem far-fetched or sensationalized, but it was said, “He has sealed his service to his country by the last sacrifice. On the day that commemorates the great sorrow which Christendom reveres, the man who had no thought, no wish, no hope but the salvation of his country laid down his life.” Talk of an “ultimate sacrifice” was not fully fleshed out, as even more explicitly stated words were to follow. “It is the world’s old story, told again,” it was written, “that they who bruise the venomed head must bear, even as Christ did, its last foul sting, taking the savior’s passion with his crown.” Muddled metaphors thrown away, the newspaper directly correlated Lincoln’s death with Christ’s final act of faith. In both the press coverage of Lincoln’s death and in the collective mind of the American people, Abraham Lincoln had died a martyr, a savior of the union.
But the Biblical references did not cease there. Taking from another famous Biblical allegory, Lincoln was compared to Moses in a fusion of both his perceived image as a father figure and savior. In what can best be described as the climax of fervent Lincoln analogizing, it was said, “Like Moses, he had marched with us through the wilderness. From the height of patriotic vision he beheld the golden fields of the future waving in peace.” This quote encapsulated all three major themes in how the country began to memorialize Lincoln. First, the Biblical reference to Moses indicates the idea that Lincoln was somehow closer to God as a living man, given a divine purpose to guide the nation as the benevolent patriarch. Secondly, it says the “height of patriotic vision”, indicating that Lincoln was somehow of a higher intellectual plane, able to decipher the complex code of saving the union. Lastly, Lincoln is imaged as seeing “the golden fields of the future” as if to show that he had undoubtedly ascended to heaven was gazing down upon his country from the right hand of God. Lincoln emerged from these sort of memorials as a divine patriarch who had guided the nation as a politician and would continue to do so as an ascended spirit. However, the image was not completed without a complementing image of evil to act as a foil to the heavenly Lincoln.
In both words and images, John Wilkes Booth garnered a reputation as a villainous character. The Chicago Tribune reported in a headline, “Terrible news. President Lincoln assassinated at Ford’s Theater. A rebel desperado shoots him through the head and escapes.” Booth as the “rebel desperado” was used as a counterpoint to the divine image of Lincoln. In the minds of the American people, only a true scoundrel would murder the president in cold blood. This image was furthered by the wanted posters, which circulated the nation, offering a reward for Booth. In this poster, large bold type offers reward for “THE MURDERER” of “ our beloved president”. By using the word “murderer” juxtaposed with “beloved”, it puts the villain Booth in direct opposition to the angelic Lincoln, creating a battle between good and evil.
Even in smaller newspapers the theme of good and evil permeated. In Burlington, Iowa, a story ran saying, “That our most kind, lenient and magnanimous chief magistrate has been stricken down while in the exercise of his high office, by the bloody hand of the assassin, the climax of rebel crime, a martyr to the cause which lies dearest to the hearts of the people.” In this paper, the murder of Lincoln would only be reasonably justified by characterizing Booth as a “rebel”, clearly disregarding the ethos and moralities of the American union. By using the words “bloody hand”, Booth is portrayed as a devilish character who assumed full blame for the martyring of Lincoln. In a final characterization of Booth, it was reported that, “The assassin then leaped upon the stage brandishing a large dagger or knife…” By imaging Booth as a crazed man, armed and dangerous, he loses the human quality and takes on a slightly depraved, maybe even animalistic appearance. His craven image contrasts perfectly with the morally and socially elevated image of Lincoln as seraphim.
Abraham Lincoln’s death catapulted him into a posthumous image simultaneously as guiding father, selfless martyr and angelic savior. As the American people began to make sense of the assassination, newspaper and magazine accounts of Lincoln’s death and immediate legacy transformed him from human to demigod. Through metaphor, Biblical allusion, illustrated imagery and vulcanization of John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s death elevated him morally, ideologically and socially and placed him deep in the hearts and minds of his contemporaries.
American Girls in Florence 2008
We made it, we landed, we’re finally here!
Our school’s reputation, we’re ready to smear.
Our lips are all pouty and the camera shoots,
Who cares about Dante, look at my new boots!
From our tongues not a word of Italian does slip,
Our waiter didn’t speak English- let’s not leave a tip.
We’ve been drinking all night, Ponte Vecchio and back,
Excuse me, but upon this palazzo I must yack.
Il Duomo, what? Sistine, who?
Let’s hit Chanel for a bag or two.
We don’t do the carbs, no pasta for us,
Can we grab a taxi? I’m not one for the bus.
Sure, we’ve “studied”, taken classes and stuff,
But knowing grazie, that oughta be enough.
We’ve train’d, we’ve plane’d, we’ve bus’d so far,
Where the hell is the American bar?
Our school’s reputation, we’re ready to smear.
Our lips are all pouty and the camera shoots,
Who cares about Dante, look at my new boots!
From our tongues not a word of Italian does slip,
Our waiter didn’t speak English- let’s not leave a tip.
We’ve been drinking all night, Ponte Vecchio and back,
Excuse me, but upon this palazzo I must yack.
Il Duomo, what? Sistine, who?
Let’s hit Chanel for a bag or two.
We don’t do the carbs, no pasta for us,
Can we grab a taxi? I’m not one for the bus.
Sure, we’ve “studied”, taken classes and stuff,
But knowing grazie, that oughta be enough.
We’ve train’d, we’ve plane’d, we’ve bus’d so far,
Where the hell is the American bar?
Death of the Power Network
originally published in the Gonzaga Bulletin 2009
Ladies and gentlemen, we gather here in honor of a fallen friend. For years, it served us well, entertaining us; making us laugh, making us cry. But now it’s time to say goodbye… to the big network power lineup. In the recent past, the big time networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) have provided us with solid, four episode power blocs that dominated the TV markets and captured our collective attention. However, with the rise in premium cable show cult followings, the popularity of lesser-known networks, the prevalence of syndicated shows and a growing obsession with trashy reality shows, the primetime cable lineup is a dying breed.
Gone are the days when NBC would dish out four quality shows in their primetime lineup, ending with veteran powerhouse mainstay, ER (undeniably a resident geriatric show gasping for its final gasp on life support). ABC never fails to provide us with forgettable formulaic comedies and family laugh tracks and CBS seems to be using a scramble play, flooding the market with more CSI:s than we know what to do with. Suddenly, we are faced with the unfortunate decision between watching a comically absurd David Caruso skulk around South Beach on CSI:Miami or suffer the pain of watching has-been B-listers crack carpool jokes on ABC.
To be fair, there are a few bright spots still remaining on these networks. Lost, The Office, 30 Rock and House all continue to impress with innovative humor and engaging plotlines. The recent Screen Actors Guild Awards shined upon these shows, clinging to the vestige of a commanding primetime.
Taking the place of the old network dominance starts with a growing popularity of premium cable. Once a mysterious force in the television world, premium cable channels like HBO and Starz have become more commonplace as digital cable and satellite are found in more homes across the nation. Shows like Flight of the Conchords, Entourage, Big Love, Weeds and Californication have accrued cult followings and an undeniable cultural importance. Premium cable shows are highly recognized and infuse their influence in common vernacular, dress and style.
Similarly, the bigger network shows are getting passed up for shows on previously lesser-known networks like AMC, TBS and TNT.
Mad Men, the AMC sensation features a suave and sexy cast of hourglass figures, crisp cut 60s suits, impeccably slicked hair and enough hard liquor to drown a seasoned dockworker. Mad Men is bringing back the cigarette, the pin curl and the three-martini lunch- and they’re doing it with style.
In the same way, TNT and TBS bring viewers to cable with underdog shows that have become supremely popular like Monk, The Closer and Saving Grace. These shows originally started quietly, amassing more loyal viewers every week, eventually winning major accolades such as Emmys, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards. Although Monk has been on air since 2002, it has fully come into its own as one of the more popular shows on television.
Syndicated shows are enjoying a newfound resurgence in value. More and more people are turning their TVs to channels including the CW, TBS and Bravo where they can watch older episodes of perennial favorites like Scrubs, The Office and Project Runway. With a seemingly constant stream of syndicated shows playing on these channels, viewers are more apt to watch a repeat of a beloved series than a new mediocre episode to which they hold no loyalty.
Lastly, trashy reality shows still hold sway over our every free minute. Whether it is watching burnt out strippers fawn over Bret Michaels on Rock of Love Bus, taking bets on which one of the Ikki twins will find “true love” on a Double Shot at Love or delighting in the schadenfreude that is The Biggest Loser, we have to admit it- we are suckers for awful “reality” TV. Like syndicated shows, these reality shows are on all the time, taking the attention off of primetime shows when you must tune in at a certain time.
The demise of the big network power bloc has been a long time coming. It has not been a quick downfall, but rather a long, slow battle against alternate sources of popularity in a world of ever expanding channel choices. Likely, these changes are only the beginning and the face of television will undoubtedly continue to morph as time passes. As we sit down, grab the remote and tune in- one thing is certain, television as we know it is changing right before our eyes.
Ladies and gentlemen, we gather here in honor of a fallen friend. For years, it served us well, entertaining us; making us laugh, making us cry. But now it’s time to say goodbye… to the big network power lineup. In the recent past, the big time networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) have provided us with solid, four episode power blocs that dominated the TV markets and captured our collective attention. However, with the rise in premium cable show cult followings, the popularity of lesser-known networks, the prevalence of syndicated shows and a growing obsession with trashy reality shows, the primetime cable lineup is a dying breed.
Gone are the days when NBC would dish out four quality shows in their primetime lineup, ending with veteran powerhouse mainstay, ER (undeniably a resident geriatric show gasping for its final gasp on life support). ABC never fails to provide us with forgettable formulaic comedies and family laugh tracks and CBS seems to be using a scramble play, flooding the market with more CSI:s than we know what to do with. Suddenly, we are faced with the unfortunate decision between watching a comically absurd David Caruso skulk around South Beach on CSI:Miami or suffer the pain of watching has-been B-listers crack carpool jokes on ABC.
To be fair, there are a few bright spots still remaining on these networks. Lost, The Office, 30 Rock and House all continue to impress with innovative humor and engaging plotlines. The recent Screen Actors Guild Awards shined upon these shows, clinging to the vestige of a commanding primetime.
Taking the place of the old network dominance starts with a growing popularity of premium cable. Once a mysterious force in the television world, premium cable channels like HBO and Starz have become more commonplace as digital cable and satellite are found in more homes across the nation. Shows like Flight of the Conchords, Entourage, Big Love, Weeds and Californication have accrued cult followings and an undeniable cultural importance. Premium cable shows are highly recognized and infuse their influence in common vernacular, dress and style.
Similarly, the bigger network shows are getting passed up for shows on previously lesser-known networks like AMC, TBS and TNT.
Mad Men, the AMC sensation features a suave and sexy cast of hourglass figures, crisp cut 60s suits, impeccably slicked hair and enough hard liquor to drown a seasoned dockworker. Mad Men is bringing back the cigarette, the pin curl and the three-martini lunch- and they’re doing it with style.
In the same way, TNT and TBS bring viewers to cable with underdog shows that have become supremely popular like Monk, The Closer and Saving Grace. These shows originally started quietly, amassing more loyal viewers every week, eventually winning major accolades such as Emmys, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards. Although Monk has been on air since 2002, it has fully come into its own as one of the more popular shows on television.
Syndicated shows are enjoying a newfound resurgence in value. More and more people are turning their TVs to channels including the CW, TBS and Bravo where they can watch older episodes of perennial favorites like Scrubs, The Office and Project Runway. With a seemingly constant stream of syndicated shows playing on these channels, viewers are more apt to watch a repeat of a beloved series than a new mediocre episode to which they hold no loyalty.
Lastly, trashy reality shows still hold sway over our every free minute. Whether it is watching burnt out strippers fawn over Bret Michaels on Rock of Love Bus, taking bets on which one of the Ikki twins will find “true love” on a Double Shot at Love or delighting in the schadenfreude that is The Biggest Loser, we have to admit it- we are suckers for awful “reality” TV. Like syndicated shows, these reality shows are on all the time, taking the attention off of primetime shows when you must tune in at a certain time.
The demise of the big network power bloc has been a long time coming. It has not been a quick downfall, but rather a long, slow battle against alternate sources of popularity in a world of ever expanding channel choices. Likely, these changes are only the beginning and the face of television will undoubtedly continue to morph as time passes. As we sit down, grab the remote and tune in- one thing is certain, television as we know it is changing right before our eyes.
Conchords Set For Second Flight
originally published in the Gonzaga Bulletin, 2008
The boys are back in town. Starting this Sunday the highly acclaimed HBO series Flight of the Conchords returns for its second, and some say final, season. The novelty band turned cult sensation is comprised of innocuous New Zealanders Bret and Jemaine and their antics with their preposterous manager Murray in New York City.
While Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm may have invented the “show-about-nothing” genre, Flight of the Conchords perfects it. Whether the pair are bickering over using their “rapping names” (Rhymenoceros and HipHopopotamus), making bike helmets that look like hair or debating the finer points of tickling, the two never fail to entertain with ceaseless banality. The show’s cast frequently breaks into song, including tracks that are found on the CDs by the group… think Tenacious D but funnier.
Last season included such highlights as the return of Bret’s coldblooded ex-lover Sally, Murray’s hopeless crush on the computer assistance woman, Bret’s Footloose style dance montage, anti New Zealand discrimination at a fruit stand and the stalker antics of their pudgy-cheeked creeper-fan Mel.
Last season ended with an episode entitled “The Third Conchord” where a new bongo player, Todd (comedian Todd Barry) is introduced to the band, eventually ending in the spinoff group, the Crazy Dogggz. With the new hit “Doggie Bounce”, the Crazy Dogggz (also featuring comedian Demetri Martin) take the international music charts by storm. The new band rapidly gains popularity and even loyal Mel leaves the Conchords behind.
However, no real tutorial is needed to join the swarms of fanatical viewers who swear by the show’s ability to make one laugh harder at nothing than ever thought possible.
According to NPR’s FanBoy blog, the show is pretty easy to follow.
"Two guys from New Zealand come to New York," McKenzie says. "And they're a band. And they fail, uh ..."
"Weekly," Clement jumps in.
"They fail every week, yeah, at 10 o'clock," McKenzie says.
This season picks off where the last left off, as Flight of the Conchords fire Murray and attempt to move on with growing their band and the Crazy Doggz face a copyright fiasco and Murray is forced to return to the original band.
The show frequently features famous stand-up comedians and actors including Arj Barker and Saturday Night Live’s Will Forte to assist in spot-on deadpan and hipster hilarity. Various pop culture blogs insist on the presence of so-called “darker themes” of season two and Jemaine’s failed attempt at becoming a gigolo.
Some worry that the show is in its final season, owing to the departure of Bret and the length of time it takes to create enough material for an entire season of the show. Also, for those still on the campus cable package without HBO, the show will be available for online viewing.
Whether you are a plaid clad hipster with a deep appreciation for the “keytar” (a combination keyboard and guitar) watching the show through ironic Buddy Holly glasses or a hipster hater with a secret love of the kiwis, this show will not disappoint. Flight of the Conchords is perfect for college students, encapsulating everyday ridiculousness in way everyone wishes they could.
If you have never seen this show or a true Mel at heart, stop everything you are doing at 10 pm on Sunday, January 18 and enjoy hilarity with a heavy New Zealand accent.
The boys are back in town. Starting this Sunday the highly acclaimed HBO series Flight of the Conchords returns for its second, and some say final, season. The novelty band turned cult sensation is comprised of innocuous New Zealanders Bret and Jemaine and their antics with their preposterous manager Murray in New York City.
While Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm may have invented the “show-about-nothing” genre, Flight of the Conchords perfects it. Whether the pair are bickering over using their “rapping names” (Rhymenoceros and HipHopopotamus), making bike helmets that look like hair or debating the finer points of tickling, the two never fail to entertain with ceaseless banality. The show’s cast frequently breaks into song, including tracks that are found on the CDs by the group… think Tenacious D but funnier.
Last season included such highlights as the return of Bret’s coldblooded ex-lover Sally, Murray’s hopeless crush on the computer assistance woman, Bret’s Footloose style dance montage, anti New Zealand discrimination at a fruit stand and the stalker antics of their pudgy-cheeked creeper-fan Mel.
Last season ended with an episode entitled “The Third Conchord” where a new bongo player, Todd (comedian Todd Barry) is introduced to the band, eventually ending in the spinoff group, the Crazy Dogggz. With the new hit “Doggie Bounce”, the Crazy Dogggz (also featuring comedian Demetri Martin) take the international music charts by storm. The new band rapidly gains popularity and even loyal Mel leaves the Conchords behind.
However, no real tutorial is needed to join the swarms of fanatical viewers who swear by the show’s ability to make one laugh harder at nothing than ever thought possible.
According to NPR’s FanBoy blog, the show is pretty easy to follow.
"Two guys from New Zealand come to New York," McKenzie says. "And they're a band. And they fail, uh ..."
"Weekly," Clement jumps in.
"They fail every week, yeah, at 10 o'clock," McKenzie says.
This season picks off where the last left off, as Flight of the Conchords fire Murray and attempt to move on with growing their band and the Crazy Doggz face a copyright fiasco and Murray is forced to return to the original band.
The show frequently features famous stand-up comedians and actors including Arj Barker and Saturday Night Live’s Will Forte to assist in spot-on deadpan and hipster hilarity. Various pop culture blogs insist on the presence of so-called “darker themes” of season two and Jemaine’s failed attempt at becoming a gigolo.
Some worry that the show is in its final season, owing to the departure of Bret and the length of time it takes to create enough material for an entire season of the show. Also, for those still on the campus cable package without HBO, the show will be available for online viewing.
Whether you are a plaid clad hipster with a deep appreciation for the “keytar” (a combination keyboard and guitar) watching the show through ironic Buddy Holly glasses or a hipster hater with a secret love of the kiwis, this show will not disappoint. Flight of the Conchords is perfect for college students, encapsulating everyday ridiculousness in way everyone wishes they could.
If you have never seen this show or a true Mel at heart, stop everything you are doing at 10 pm on Sunday, January 18 and enjoy hilarity with a heavy New Zealand accent.
Why Does Biggie Matter?
originally published in the Gonzaga Bulletin, 2009
Even here, at a private, Catholic university in Spokane, the name Biggie Smalls means something. With last week’s release of the feature film Notorious, the memory of the slain rapper has been resurrected. While hardened gangsters on the gritty streets of America’s cities and pocket-protector-wearing white kids in the suburbs of the Midwest alike know his lyrics, it begs the question: why does Notorious B.I.G. matter?
Born in Brooklyn in 1972, Notorious B.I.G. (legally named Christopher Wallace) was quickly faced with the hardships that accompany the hardscrabble life of the projects. Although many records show that his early academic performance looked promising, he soon fell prey to the drug trade, buying and selling by the time he was 12.
Like many other rappers, he got his start on the street, quickly impressing others with his flowing lyricism and storytelling abilities. His enormous stature earned him the nickname “Biggie Smalls” which soon morphed into Notorious B.I.G. After he released a demo tape, noted producer, entrepreneur and nickname aficionado Sean (P. Diddy, Puff Daddy, Diddy, etc.) Combs quickly set up meetings and record appearances for the budding star. When Combs started his powerhouse Bad Boy Records, Notorious signed on.
Fame could not hold back the persistent symptoms of a life defined by crime and strife and Notorious was arrested and served nine months for a drug deal gone awry. He was later arrested for other violations involving violence and drugs. Shortly thereafter, he was back on top of recording industry and had many singles hit the Billboard charts with resounding success.
In 1994, Notorious married singer Faith Evans with whom he would go on to have a child. His marriage to Faith Evans merged the two into one of hip-hop’s most powerful and recognizable duos. It was his friendship and subsequent rivalry with Tupac Shakur, though, which he is most famous (indeed notorious) for.
Originally, Notorious’s relationship with Shakur was on friendly terms. That changed when Shakur was robbed at gunpoint in 1994, which was subsequently blamed on Notorious’s entourage. By this time, Notorious had collaborated with a group called Junior M.A.F.I.A., a rapping entourage and hip-hop culture dynasty.
What ensued quickly spiraled into all-out turf war between East and West, Shakur and Notorious and competing rap labels. Rappers, producers and average civilians found themselves embroiled in a nationwide rivalry that encouraged violence both explicitly and implicitly. Tensions boiled over in 1996, at the height of the coastal beef, when Shakur was murdered in Las Vegas in a drive-by shooting.
Immediately, rumors swirled about Notorious’s involvement in Shakur’s death. Notorious traveled to Los Angeles to promote his popular single “Hypnotize”. On March 9, 1997 Notorious left a party accompanied by Junior M.A.F.I.A. members in a black Suburban. When the car stopped at a red light, an unidentified man rolled down his window and shot Notorious, killing him.
The saga of the unsolved Shakur-Smalls murders plays on in rap songs today, cultural lore and hip-hop history. People call for greater efforts to find the culprits. However, it is in the final chapter of this story that is the most important in understanding the importance of the life and death of one of rap’s biggest superstars.
It is not the tale of his meteoric rise to fame out of a life of crime, poverty and despair into one of unimaginable riches but rather the persistence of the tragic narrative of the lifestyle he could not escape. With his extreme popularity, stranglehold over the rap game, endless monetary resources and a powerful network and entourage it seemed that he had transcended his toxic past. Perhaps what matters most is not the allusion to the American dream of the young, poor scrapper rising to the top but rather the fact that his lifestyle of crime, rivalry and violence followed him to higher levels of fame and wealth, with its symptoms reverberating over the entire nation. Notorious, in all ways, lived on an exaggerated scale. As the scope of his fame widened, so did the magnitude of the tragic narrative he could never escape.
Even here, at a private, Catholic university in Spokane, the name Biggie Smalls means something. With last week’s release of the feature film Notorious, the memory of the slain rapper has been resurrected. While hardened gangsters on the gritty streets of America’s cities and pocket-protector-wearing white kids in the suburbs of the Midwest alike know his lyrics, it begs the question: why does Notorious B.I.G. matter?
Born in Brooklyn in 1972, Notorious B.I.G. (legally named Christopher Wallace) was quickly faced with the hardships that accompany the hardscrabble life of the projects. Although many records show that his early academic performance looked promising, he soon fell prey to the drug trade, buying and selling by the time he was 12.
Like many other rappers, he got his start on the street, quickly impressing others with his flowing lyricism and storytelling abilities. His enormous stature earned him the nickname “Biggie Smalls” which soon morphed into Notorious B.I.G. After he released a demo tape, noted producer, entrepreneur and nickname aficionado Sean (P. Diddy, Puff Daddy, Diddy, etc.) Combs quickly set up meetings and record appearances for the budding star. When Combs started his powerhouse Bad Boy Records, Notorious signed on.
Fame could not hold back the persistent symptoms of a life defined by crime and strife and Notorious was arrested and served nine months for a drug deal gone awry. He was later arrested for other violations involving violence and drugs. Shortly thereafter, he was back on top of recording industry and had many singles hit the Billboard charts with resounding success.
In 1994, Notorious married singer Faith Evans with whom he would go on to have a child. His marriage to Faith Evans merged the two into one of hip-hop’s most powerful and recognizable duos. It was his friendship and subsequent rivalry with Tupac Shakur, though, which he is most famous (indeed notorious) for.
Originally, Notorious’s relationship with Shakur was on friendly terms. That changed when Shakur was robbed at gunpoint in 1994, which was subsequently blamed on Notorious’s entourage. By this time, Notorious had collaborated with a group called Junior M.A.F.I.A., a rapping entourage and hip-hop culture dynasty.
What ensued quickly spiraled into all-out turf war between East and West, Shakur and Notorious and competing rap labels. Rappers, producers and average civilians found themselves embroiled in a nationwide rivalry that encouraged violence both explicitly and implicitly. Tensions boiled over in 1996, at the height of the coastal beef, when Shakur was murdered in Las Vegas in a drive-by shooting.
Immediately, rumors swirled about Notorious’s involvement in Shakur’s death. Notorious traveled to Los Angeles to promote his popular single “Hypnotize”. On March 9, 1997 Notorious left a party accompanied by Junior M.A.F.I.A. members in a black Suburban. When the car stopped at a red light, an unidentified man rolled down his window and shot Notorious, killing him.
The saga of the unsolved Shakur-Smalls murders plays on in rap songs today, cultural lore and hip-hop history. People call for greater efforts to find the culprits. However, it is in the final chapter of this story that is the most important in understanding the importance of the life and death of one of rap’s biggest superstars.
It is not the tale of his meteoric rise to fame out of a life of crime, poverty and despair into one of unimaginable riches but rather the persistence of the tragic narrative of the lifestyle he could not escape. With his extreme popularity, stranglehold over the rap game, endless monetary resources and a powerful network and entourage it seemed that he had transcended his toxic past. Perhaps what matters most is not the allusion to the American dream of the young, poor scrapper rising to the top but rather the fact that his lifestyle of crime, rivalry and violence followed him to higher levels of fame and wealth, with its symptoms reverberating over the entire nation. Notorious, in all ways, lived on an exaggerated scale. As the scope of his fame widened, so did the magnitude of the tragic narrative he could never escape.
25 Things
originally published in the Gonzaga Bulletin, 2009
It seems every day lately, as I sign onto my Facebook for my daily allotment of time wasting, I am greeted by countless stories in my Mini-Feed about so-and-so’s TOP 25 THINGS. At first, intrigued, I clicked on these notes, only to descend into lists of banal, uninteresting or simply uncomfortable facts. Soon after the 25 Things explosion, people began to complain about the transformation of Facebook into Myspace, a transformation that compromised a former refuge of the bulletin-weary masses into more of the same.
Each note becomes painfully more formulaic, as people attempt to distinguish themselves as individuals with statements like, “I love strawberries. I always have,” or, “I love singing along with the radio!” Truly fascinating notions towards understanding human condition…
For years, users turned to Facebook because it provided a different, simpler online space. Until recently, Facebook stood, glittering on the horizon, a Myspace without the training wheels. However, with the advent of trends like 25 Things notes, the question rises; is Facebook becoming Myspace?
Simply put, yes.
But the problem isn’t that it is becoming Myspace, but rather that the change represented by 25 Things notes is much larger.
25 Things lists are the symptoms of a larger epidemic evident on other websites — not just Myspace. Websites like Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, Friendster, LiveJournal and the variety of other networking and communication sites perpetuate a certain level of cultural narcissism especially prevalent today in our highly internet-dependent society. The problem is not what our 25 Things are, but rather what the list itself says about us.
The true problem with 25 Things (and the fusion of Myspace and Facebook) is that it perpetuates the idea that our personal lives are so interesting people should want to know about them. Both Facebook and Myspace are oozing with information no one cares to know about. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that what we put up matters.
The assumption within the Facebook “status” is that people care about what we do. Everyday, we update our statuses, assuming that people care that “Hanna Laney is watching TV”. It is this obsession with our own actions and lives that becomes uncomfortably obvious when trends like 25 Things emerge.
Another confusing layer of the 25 Things phenomena is the simultaneous acknowledgement of its stupidity and the unyielding acquiescence to its social influence. Many times, people begin their notes with the utterly befuddling, “I-didn’t-want-to-do this-but-I-guess-I-will!” sentiment, as if our being tagged in an online note is enough to make us abandon our sense of online propriety. It is this preamble that suggests we ought to know better. We understand the ridiculousness of the trend but we continue to perpetuate it. Are we merely bugs hurdling towards the entrancing bright light of the 25 Things with reckless abandon?
I fully assume a spot among the narcissistic masses, as quick review of my own Facebook exhibits enough pointless pictures, trite updates on my everyday actions and sections of useless information regarding my interests to bore even the most dedicated of viewers.
I suppose what it comes down to is the fact that we have become obsessed with our own lives. 25 Things notes do not signal the shift from Facebook to Myspace, but rather a reality about who we are and how the internet makes us that way. It is not the morphing of Facebook into Myspace that should alarm us; it is the constant stream of updates, pictures and statuses that should send us running for the hills.
Where do we go from here? Do we give up on trying to separate Facebook from Myspace, Twitter from Photobucket, and LiveJournal from Blogspot? I am not sure that’s entirely possible. Perhaps we simply accept the reality of what these websites say about us, we accept a certain level of obsession with our lives. Maybe these issues are anything but clear. However, the truth about 25 Things is clear.
You can skip the extra 24, it really comes down to one thing.
1.) Nobody cares.
It seems every day lately, as I sign onto my Facebook for my daily allotment of time wasting, I am greeted by countless stories in my Mini-Feed about so-and-so’s TOP 25 THINGS. At first, intrigued, I clicked on these notes, only to descend into lists of banal, uninteresting or simply uncomfortable facts. Soon after the 25 Things explosion, people began to complain about the transformation of Facebook into Myspace, a transformation that compromised a former refuge of the bulletin-weary masses into more of the same.
Each note becomes painfully more formulaic, as people attempt to distinguish themselves as individuals with statements like, “I love strawberries. I always have,” or, “I love singing along with the radio!” Truly fascinating notions towards understanding human condition…
For years, users turned to Facebook because it provided a different, simpler online space. Until recently, Facebook stood, glittering on the horizon, a Myspace without the training wheels. However, with the advent of trends like 25 Things notes, the question rises; is Facebook becoming Myspace?
Simply put, yes.
But the problem isn’t that it is becoming Myspace, but rather that the change represented by 25 Things notes is much larger.
25 Things lists are the symptoms of a larger epidemic evident on other websites — not just Myspace. Websites like Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, Friendster, LiveJournal and the variety of other networking and communication sites perpetuate a certain level of cultural narcissism especially prevalent today in our highly internet-dependent society. The problem is not what our 25 Things are, but rather what the list itself says about us.
The true problem with 25 Things (and the fusion of Myspace and Facebook) is that it perpetuates the idea that our personal lives are so interesting people should want to know about them. Both Facebook and Myspace are oozing with information no one cares to know about. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that what we put up matters.
The assumption within the Facebook “status” is that people care about what we do. Everyday, we update our statuses, assuming that people care that “Hanna Laney is watching TV”. It is this obsession with our own actions and lives that becomes uncomfortably obvious when trends like 25 Things emerge.
Another confusing layer of the 25 Things phenomena is the simultaneous acknowledgement of its stupidity and the unyielding acquiescence to its social influence. Many times, people begin their notes with the utterly befuddling, “I-didn’t-want-to-do this-but-I-guess-I-will!” sentiment, as if our being tagged in an online note is enough to make us abandon our sense of online propriety. It is this preamble that suggests we ought to know better. We understand the ridiculousness of the trend but we continue to perpetuate it. Are we merely bugs hurdling towards the entrancing bright light of the 25 Things with reckless abandon?
I fully assume a spot among the narcissistic masses, as quick review of my own Facebook exhibits enough pointless pictures, trite updates on my everyday actions and sections of useless information regarding my interests to bore even the most dedicated of viewers.
I suppose what it comes down to is the fact that we have become obsessed with our own lives. 25 Things notes do not signal the shift from Facebook to Myspace, but rather a reality about who we are and how the internet makes us that way. It is not the morphing of Facebook into Myspace that should alarm us; it is the constant stream of updates, pictures and statuses that should send us running for the hills.
Where do we go from here? Do we give up on trying to separate Facebook from Myspace, Twitter from Photobucket, and LiveJournal from Blogspot? I am not sure that’s entirely possible. Perhaps we simply accept the reality of what these websites say about us, we accept a certain level of obsession with our lives. Maybe these issues are anything but clear. However, the truth about 25 Things is clear.
You can skip the extra 24, it really comes down to one thing.
1.) Nobody cares.
Greetings!
Hi All,
Thanks for checking out my blog. In So Many Words is a collection of my writing from various assignments, jobs, personal interests or narcissistic whims. Some pieces have been published, some pieces have not, and some pieces never should. This writing represents what I am passionate about, issues I believe in or wanted to understand better, and simply, words I put on paper.
Have a splendid day.
All The Best,
Hanna
Thanks for checking out my blog. In So Many Words is a collection of my writing from various assignments, jobs, personal interests or narcissistic whims. Some pieces have been published, some pieces have not, and some pieces never should. This writing represents what I am passionate about, issues I believe in or wanted to understand better, and simply, words I put on paper.
Have a splendid day.
All The Best,
Hanna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
