TOW #10 - Saturday Night Live: Westworld

Last night, Saturday Night Live aired a skit which imitated HBO’s “Westworld” in order to parody Anderson Cooper and CNN’s way of delivering news. In the skit, there are five participants led in conversation by Anderson Cooper (played by Alex Moffat). In the skit, the writers used parody, repetition, and symbolism to demonstrate CNN’s flawed news coverage. Anderson Cooper starts out by telling the group that Donald Trump had recently called for top secret security of his kids. Each respondent shared their opinion (all were against it) claiming that this was as of yet the worst thing that Trump had done. Anderson Cooper brings up another point about the KKK, to which the respondents repeat their exact same lines, just at a faster pace, claiming that now this was the worst thing Trump had done so far (including the incident from seconds earlier). This happens a few more times until Anderson Cooper begins to realize that everyone was just repeating themselves. All of a sudden, everyone freezes and two mechanics come out and replace the conscious Anderson Cooper with a new, lifeless Anderson Cooper (this one played by Beck Bennett) and the skit continues as before.

The skit was created as a parody to first off remake “Westworld,” but more so to mock news sources like CNN. Saturday Night Live is obviously a satirical program, and this would not be one of their skits without some satirical strategies like parody. Within this parody, the writers of the skit used repetition to show that the news providers don’t come up with much new content. It is all repeated, over and over. In the skit, the participants all responded negatively to Donald Trump’s actions, but then moved on and accepted them. Some of the things Trump had been said to have done were horrible, yet they were forgotten by the anchors. It goes to show that news anchors almost blindly read their lines. In the end, it turns out that all of the characters are robots, and this symbolism further depicts the news anchors as mechanical. If they were just plain news anchors (if we never saw the robotic side to them), there would not be such a great emphasis on their (lack of) qualities. It really highlights the lack of creativity in the news anchors and programs. Through the pure repetition of similar events and the symbolism of news anchors as robots, ultimately, I think that SNL was successful in bringing light to the faults of news programs like CNN.

IRB Intro #2 - How to Read and Why (Harold Bloom)

For the second marking period, I will read "How to Read and Why" because I do not know how to read. Just kidding.

Harold Bloom, the author, takes the reader through different types of texts, highlights some of the world’s most famous pieces, and challenges the reader to pursue literature with a purpose. He urges his readers to try and find themselves through language and literature. The back cover immediately asks the question, "Information is endlessly available to us; where shall wisdom be found?" This is a fascinating question to me, and I hope Bloom gives his opinion throughout the text. I find that this question is becoming more and more relevant as technology improves.

Overall, I am excited to start reading the book. I am interested in reading and writing I have never heard of (or at least read) a text about a subject like this. Hopefully it can help me find myself.

TOW #9 - Be Wrong as Fast as You Can

In his piece, “Be Wrong as Fast as You Can,” Hugo Lindgren utilizes allusion and personal anecdotes to urge his reader to accept making mistakes. Lindgren used to be an editor the The New York Times and now is one at The Hollywood Reporter. His piece seems directed toward a more general audience; he essentially claims that you have to be willing to look silly before you can fully achieve your goals. Interestingly, I found his purpose applicable to this course. In the beginning of the year, we discussed how we would be successful in the class. A lot of it came down to this willingness to look bad. It’s similar to making an investment – in the beginning, it may not look so smart, but in the long run, the reward could be great.

Lindgren alludes to many famous people and companies that have undergone what he is talking about. For example, he quotes Pixar founder John Lasseter “’Every Pixar film was the worst motion picture ever made at one time or another,’ Lasseter said. ‘People don’t believe that, but it’s true. But we don’t give up on the films.’” By tying his message in with one of the world’s most famous animation film companies, Lindgren turns the idea of being wrong into something widely used, even by the best of the best.

In addition to allusion, Lindgren uses personal anecdotes to get his point across. He explains that even he, a normal person, just an editor for a newspaper, endures failure. Not only do celebrities and major brands make mistakes, but the average person does too. His point is that everyone will fail at some point, but if we fail early, we can learn from our mistakes the fastest, and can then succeed earlier.

Ultimately, I feel that Lindgren was successful in making his point. He gives examples, both on a personal and global level, to prove the relevance of messing up before succeeding. It is definitely something applicable in and out of the classroom, in more ways than we know.

TOW #8 - The Sunflower (IRB 1.2)

The second half of The Sunflower was very unique. Titled "The Symposium," it consisted of fifty-five responses (from many types of people) to Wiesenthal's question from part one: if you were a Jew during the Holocaust and a dying Nazi soldier begged you for your forgiveness, what would you do? When Wiesenthal was faced with this situation, he remained silent and walked away quietly. Considering each response was its own, separate essay, there was no consistent rhetorical device/strategy employed. However, the responses tended to have a similar structure. First, the writer gave some context (which became incredibly redundant as they repeated part one as well as each other) to their response, and then their actual answer with their rationale. The whole purpose of the second half of the book was to challenge the reader’s beliefs – to either enforce or change their philosophy based on responses from some respected people.

Many of the respondents made appeals to pathos and logos which made attempts to swing the reader. For example, in Robert McAfee Brown’s answer, he bluntly stated that “Jews of all ages are locked in a house that is then set on fire” (122). Other people made sure to emphasize the fact that young children were included. How can you forgive such a disgusting act? Although, naturally, responses varied, there seemed to be a greater trend toward people not forgiving. I personally agree – as several authors wrote, we must never forget and more so never forgive, because forgiveness would give the oppressors the comfortability to oppress again. An interesting point of view was the idea that it was simply not in our right to forgive – only those who were affected firsthand have that right. In Wiesenthal’s situation, it would not have mattered what he did because he was never touched by that specific soldier. It was not in his right to forgive on behalf of the other Jews.

Obviously, it is impossible for me to include the specific perspectives of all fifty-five respondents. But those that must stuck out to me were the ones which (1) claimed forgiveness was unacceptable and (2) discussed our pure right to forgive under the given circumstances. Wiesenthal’s composition was fascinating, and through the contrasting points of view of his respondents, it was definitely one that made me think.

Wiesenthal’s question invites consideration that could be compared to juggling fire. If you accept the man, you could receive backlash from the Jewish, and global, communities. But if you don’t, you could suffer from your own mental torment for the rest of your life. Is there a way to find a balance? How can you justify your decision?