Expect the Unexpected

             The one show my family gathers together to watch is Big Brother.  This reality game show brings in twelve houseguests to live in one house for the duration of summer.  The houseguests are isolated from the outside world and can’t even watch TV or the news.  Every week, they participate in a competition and the winner is dubbed the Head of Household, or HOH.  The Head of Household then nominates two houseguests for eviction.  However, the two nominees have a chance to save themselves in the power of veto competition and take themselves off the block.  The week finishes with one houseguest going home and the new head of household competition.  Like any other reality show, there is always drama.  I personally always look forward to each season and guess which houseguests will form showmances (romantic relationship on the show).

Big Brother prides itself on bringing in a multitude of different personalities from across the country onto the show.  Every season there is always a small town girl, a mom or dad, and a free-lance bachelor, along with people of different race and homosexuals (there was even a transgender woman last season).  The producers include these conflicting personalities to, “front-load the probability for drama into the very premises of their shows” (Rushkoff 38).  One of the most popular seasons was Season 12 when Rachel and Regan would get in a fight almost every episode.  This bickering between the two characters would create drama in the house and appeal to viewers to watch the show. 

In a presentist culture, we live in an always-on “now” where our priorities are in the present, not the future.  Reality shows, like Big Brother, roll camera 24 hours a day, hoping to catch little snippets of conflict or drama.  In the house, “any moment is as potentially significant as any other.  It’s up to the editors to construct something like narrative, after the fact” (Rushkoff 36).  These disconnected moments of the houseguests’ lives create a choppy viewing experience, however the viewers do not mind this.  In present shock, in which we are living, people are now used to not having a sense of future or direction so the individual events in the house seem normal.

Another iconic part of Big Brother is Zingbot.  Zingbot is a robot that comes into the house every season to “zing” the houseguests.  The robot’s sole purpose in the house is to create drama.  It brings up houseguests’ pasts, secrets they have, and insults that would create tension.  Last season, Zingbot brought up the fact that a houseguest had a girlfriend back home, but he started a showmance with someone in the house.  This comment and the aftermath that followed allotted for at least ten minutes of the show.  The reason something like Zingbot would be created is due to the fact that in a presentist culture, we are living in a world without narrative so, “producers of reality TV must generate pathos directly, in the moment.  This accounts for the downward spiral in television programming toward the kind of pain, humiliation, and personal tragedy that creates the most immediate sensation for the viewer” (Rushkoff 37).  Embarrassing and degrading characters on the show attract more viewers and distract them from the fact that there is no narrative being told.

Big Brother’s catchphrase is, “expect the unexpected.”  The saying was coined due to the many twists the show throws at its characters to change the game.  Twists are just another way to add drama and suspense to a show that has no story being told.  Like video games and Game of Thrones, “the show is not about creating satisfying resolutions, but rather about keeping the adventure alive and as many threads going as possible” (Rushkoff 34).  The multiple changes to the game display the effort to keep the show interesting and engage the audience, which is hard considering it does not have a narrative to begin with.

Big Brother is a classic example of a show created out of present shock.  In this way of life, we do not look towards the future or have a sense of direction and instead focus on the moment.  The reality show incorporates different personalities and many twists to create drama between houseguests and engage viewers.  As Julie Chen always promises, “expect the unexpected.”

Works Cited

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

A Stylish Feast

Hemingway uses a specific style of writing his novel, A Moveable Feast.  He recalls his time in Paris through first person perspective. All of his memories and opinions of the people he met are from his own viewpoint.   A Moveable Feast is very detailed and conveys Hemingway’s feelings throughout the novel in every experience he has.  The tone is matter-of-fact because Hemingway is looking back on all his encounters and can write about them in a way in which he says it like it happened.  Hemingway goes into deep detail about every instance.  He includes street names, restaurant names, and every detail about the scenery where he goes.  These details allow us to experience Paris as he sees it.  Also, Hemingway uses polysyndetons often in his novel which is somewhat confusing by having so much information in one sentence.  As Hemingway works in a café, he, “went back to writing and entered far into the story and was lost in it.  He was writing it now and it was not writing itself and he did not look up nor know anything about the time nor think where he was nor order any more rum St. James” (Hemingway 18).  Hemingway’s style of including detail allows the audience to experience his encounters and make their own impressions of the people he meets.

            The chapters in the novel follow the time in Hemingway’s life and the events that transpire.  Because Hemingway is looking back at what happened, some details could have gotten mixed around and be portrayed differently than what actually happened.  The sequence of events, therefore, makes the story confusing and hard to follow.  Hemingway uses the seasons as a pathway for time, as well.  He sees spring as the best time of life while fall is leading to depressing times.  The occasions in A Moveable Feast are part of Hemingway’s prime time of life, or his spring.  Hemingway shows his opinions towards the seasons and how they affect life when he says, “you expected to be sad in the fall.  Part of you died each year when the leaves fell from the trees and their branches were bare against the wind and the cold, wintry light. But you knew there would always be the spring, as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen… When spring came, even the false spring, there were no problems except where to be happiest” (Hemingway 39).  The seasons help portray how Hemingway feels about certain events.

            In AP Language, we study style in literary works and how style affects the argument made or the story.  Hemingway uses style in his novel, including polysyndetons and extra details, to help give personality to his work and put emphasis on certain parts.  The novel goes over Hemingway’s problem of writing a novel and writing something meaningful.  Hemingway goes over the difficulties he encounters when he meets the different writers and how to work with all of them.  A Moveable Feast is an autobiography because it goes over Hemingway’s own life in Paris.  The novel begins in the early 1920s when Hemingway is about 25 years old.  This is a time in his life when he meets many important writers and tries to develop his writing into something more substantial.

Works Cited

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

You Passed High School? Great, now leave.

            Schools today focus on preparing students for their future, as well as teaching students that the minimum is acceptable.

            Neil Postman in his book, The End of Education, states different narratives schools take on for a reason to teach students.  One of the narratives Postman stated as outdated, the Economic Utility narrative, I believe is still in effect.  The Economic Utility purpose tells students that, “if you pay attention in school, and do your homework, and score well on tests, and behave yourself, you will be rewarded with a well-paying job when you are done” (Postman 27).  Public education is training students to pass high school, go onto college, and eventually get a career.  This practice is definitely apparent in our school environment, in which we have advisory every week whose sole purpose is to prepare us for getting into college and what to do afterwards.  With education shaped around this principle, schools are creating a future-minded and career-set public.  A public such as this one can be beneficial and/or detrimental to society.  On one hand, students are closer to figuring out what they want to do in the future and how to contribute, while on the other hand, students might not be learning or paying any attention to other subjects which will limit their education. 

            Also, public schools, especially in Florida, are now lowering their standards for standardized tests to pass grade levels and to graduate from school.  Students have recently been performing very badly on the annual FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.  So, “In order to make sure that students succeeded on the test, the passing grade was lowered” (washingtonpost.com).  When public education is dumbed down such as this, it creates a public that believes the minimum is okay and that you don’t need to try as hard in order to succeed.  Society will be affected very badly if educators allow this to keep happening. 

            Schools in the twenty-first century create a public that has a large focus on students passing high school where the minimum is acceptable, and go onto college in which they prepare for a job in the future.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

Strauss, Valerie. "Test Scores Plummet — so Florida Drops Passing Grade." Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 21 May 2012. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Epicurus vs. Postman.... Who Will Win?

           The Epicureans would have had a blast in the 21^st century.  In the novel, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, we are brought through a course of philosophy, covering all the major philosophers of all time.  Epicurus were one of them.  Throughout Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, he states how television is degrading our society and how all serious forms of discussion have turned into entertainment.  So, who were the Epicureans? What did Postman believe about entertainment, and why would the Epicureans and Postman disagree?

            Epicurus founded a school in Athens for philosophy around 300 B.C.  He was influenced by Aristippus who, “believed that the aim of life was to attain the highest possible sensory enjoyment,” (Gaarder 131).  Epicurus’s followers were called Epicureans and they followed a certain belief in how to live life to the fullest.  Epicureans emphasized that every action a person does should be for the purpose of pleasure, even if the outcome will not be advantageous.  As the philosophy practice progressed, the followers, “developed an overemphasis on self-indulgence.  Their motto was ‘Live for the moment!’” (Gaarder 133).  As we can all relate, many people in the 21^st century do things for the satisfaction of doing them, instead of learning and doing the best things for themselves.

            Neil Postman on the other hand believes entertainment and over-indulged pleasure in the modern world is dangerous for society.  The culture of television, “offers viewers a variety of subject matter, requires minimal skills to comprehend it, and is largely aimed at emotional gratification,” (Postman 86).  Postman takes on the more logical point of view in how our entertainment-based culture, based on ‘emotional gratification’, is making people less logical and unable to discuss clearly.

            In a debate between Epicurus and Postman, both sides would get very heated.  Epicurus had a faith in pleasure and that the best thing someone can do is receive satisfaction.  Postman would retort with how this pleasure would bring society down a notch in its ability to think clearly, learn, and be rational.  The Epicureans later believed to live in the moment.  Postman discusses this point and how it is present in today’s news.  News segments only last for a few moments, then go onto the next topic.  Whereas the Epicureans believed this living for the moment was beneficial, Postman believes it does not provoke thought and cannot be taken seriously. 

            So, do you agree with Epicurus that we should live for pleasure and satisfaction, or with Postman that too much pleasure is detrimental?

Works Cited

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994. Print.

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985. Print.

9/11 Discussion

            September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center was attacked by a radical group of terrorists, al-Qaeda.  George W. Bush, the president at the time of the attack, gave a speech nine days after the event.  His use of language and diction contributes to the speech’s effect on the population and heightens his promise to Americans.  Ten years after the attack, Noam Chomsky wrote an essay contradicting Bush’s actions and condemning the United States to “American exceptionalism” which is very much accurate.

            George W. Bush uses rhetoric after the attack of 9/11 through his descriptive words and tone of voice.  In the beginning of his speech, Bush uses ‘we’ to address the American population instead of talking directly from his point of view.  His use of this pronoun institutes a feeling of inclusiveness and unity between the American people which contributes to his uplifting and reassuring tone.  The encouraging tone follows in, “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.  Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done,” (Bush 1).  I have found that uplifting attitudes towards events spur more support than violent and accusing tones.  I believe Bush begins and finishes with a reassuring attitude to get the support of the population and make everyone feel safe and secure.  Bush uses normal diction, along with regular vocabulary in order to address as many people as possible in the United States.  His speech also includes many anaphoras to give it a strong and powerful message.  Later on in his speech, Bush includes many facts about the terrorists involved in the attack to inform citizens and to make it known that the United States will stop them.  Bush’s promise to Americans is that, “every terrorist group of global reach will be found, stopped, and defeated,” (Bush 4).  He supports his promise through his answering of common questions about what to do and what al-Qaeda is about.  Bush is very stern and commanding towards the terrorist regimes by using harsh language which help his reassuring attitude towards America that we will not be attacked again.  All of these aspects of Bush’s speech contribute to his reassuring and later commanding tone and attitude to support his promise to Americans.

            Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, has a very different point of view than Bush and is critical of the United States and its actions during the years following 9/11.  The United States is built on democracy and freedoms.  These are the main practices we promote and use throughout history and in the present.  However, Chomsky makes a point on how our country is at times a hypocrite and follows “American exceptionalism.”  Made clear by Bush, the United States will attack any government or country that supports terrorism or harbors terrorists.  However, Florida allowed Orlando Bosch, an international terrorist, to live in the state, supported by the first George Bush who pardoned Bosch from any punishments.  According to George W. Bush, “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” should be revoked (Chomsky).  Florida remained unscathed even though it violated the rule of not harboring terrorists.  Similarly, the assassination of Osama bin Laden violated international law by not allowing the terrorist a fair trial (a right the United States supports greatly).  If the circumstances are in American favor, like killing bin Laden, our country will not follow law and do whatever it takes to accomplish our goal. Finally, the United States committed the, “supreme international crime—the crime of aggression,” (Chomsky).  Due to Bush invading Iraq with armed forces, America violated law and began a war because it was in America’s best interest to do so.  The United States takes part and exploits “American exceptionalism” because it allows us to accomplish our goals, even though we don’t abide by our own values. 

Bush, George W. “President George W. Bush’s Address to Congress and the Nation of Terrorism”. 20 Sep. 2001. Address.

Chomsky, Noam. Was There an Alternative? Huffington Post, 6 Sep. 2011. Web. 10 Sep. 2015. 

Language is Devolving

In our 21st society, everyone relies on technology in their daily life. One form of this technology, is in telephones.  When people text on their phones, they do not use the regular, proper form of language.  They instead say "u", "ttyl", and "lol".  I have even caught myself typing "u" and not using formal language when emailing a teacher and writing essays.  Through this incorrect way of communicating language, language itself is devolving into acronyms and less thought provoking speak. 

When speaking, the younger generation now puts their thoughts across using "like" and finishing with "and stuff" because they cannot form complete thoughts as compared to the older generation who think before they speak to ensure they are saying the right thing.

Ever since the introduction of the telegraph and photograph, society has allowed language to devolve and has enjoyed this change.  “The telegraph,” according to Neil Postman, “introduced on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence” (Postman 65).  The information the telegraph brought was disconnected. Because the information had nothing to do with them, the information had no meaning and no impact on people so they couldn’t act on anything. People began to speak and converse about pointless topics.  If the topics aren’t important, why talk the same way about unimportant topics, as the important topics?  I believe that since the information people constituted as their daily “news” was not important, the people began to care less about how they spoke and let their language degrade.  Some examples could be the before mentioned such as “like”, “um”, and adjectives like “awesome” instead of words that conveyed real emotion and thought.

Soon after the telegraph, the photograph accompanied news articles and information. It brought blips of information that weren’t connected to each other so the material was fragmented and incoherent. (Sound familiar). The photograph could not capture any idea or abstraction, so discussion could not be made, and therefore nothing could be learned.  The new forms information was being presented in, hindered societal progress.  Without discussion and communication, language does not matter.  So, when the photograph did not allow discussion, language was used less frequently and slightly lost its importance, making it devolve.

 Postman also elaborates on how education on television is degrading the English language. The television education philosophy states how sequence and continuity are not important, nothing should be remembered, and discussion/reason should be excluded.  These teachings are the opposite of what language should be: sequential and connected, memorable, and should have reason and discussion.  Through education on t.v., like Sesame Street, nothing is really taught and children do not learn anything.  Instead, they believe that the fundamentals of language are actually not important, so real language is lost and not used.

Hopefully with English classes in the future, more informational books, and the realization of what is happening to language, it stops devolving and takes a turn in the other direction for the benefit of society.

Works Cited

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Group, 1985. Print.