Catch ya later blogger

Coming into this class I really wasn't sure what to expect.  Some of the ideas/themes I was already familiar with from having Dr. Mortimore for WIFYS, but some of the authors were completely new to me and rather provocative.  I'm not going to lie, some of the selections from the beginning including Bauerlein and Lasn really pissed me off.  But looking back on it, I can sort of identify that they, as well as the other material we covered had a purpose.

I feel that more than anything from this course, I have learned to think, which may sound silly.  Haven't we already spent 14+ years in school?  Shouldn't I already have known how to think?  This literature class has made me question what I "think" or "believe".  Before I had so many opinions thrown at me, as many of the authors we read do, I sort of just took everything I heard or was told as fact and did not consider that i could have questioned everything and found out how i really felt about things, instead of letting others do that for me.

I have really had my eyes opened by a certain authors.  At first i really didn't take "It's Gotta Be the Cheese" seriously, i was like oh come on someone wrote a poem about cheese? What sort of meaning could be in that?  Well throughout the course i feel that in someway everything tied back into the idea Kadosh was trying to illustrate, and that is the idea of plentitude.  I've often been unhappy when i have absolutely no reason to be spoken of.  I have all of the necessities of life and most of the material goods that I desire, so why wasn't i satisfied?  Aton Kadosh got it right, as Americans we are spoiled...we have plenty and we always want more.  Maybe the next generation iPhone, a better car, a nicer home...its never enough.  In Lasn's Culture Jam he rambles on and on about all of the selfishness and ridiculous new "diseases" that are catching on.  So many Americans are being treated for things that can't be seen and therefore may not even exist.  He alludes to the idea that perhaps they are bored with all that they have and need another way to get attention.  Henry David Thoreau had a different and slightly more refreshing approach to the idea of plentitude.  In the essay we read from Walden, he tells of himself going into the wilderness-well basically, and simplifying everything in his life.  He encourages readers to do the same, to really get back to what life is all about and to realize that material goods are not the only thing that is important.

Another reoccurring, and slightly terrifying theme we discussed that really hit home with me was voyeurism.  I never had a second thought on watching reality TV or why news of terrible things never really made me feel much of anything unless it some how directly affected me.  It was utterly sick how fascinated I was with The Hunger Games, kids were dying and killing each other, and there i sat riveted by it, by the drama of the whole thing.  I rarely watch TV, but I definitely get sucked into Teen Mom and in a sense i feel proud that I'm not that person, that i didn't screw up.  The discussion and the book really made me understand how desensitized our world has become and it really sickens me.

Overall, I really enjoyed the class and feel that the topics I mentioned above as well as other topics discussed throughout the semester were very relative to our everyday lives.  Even though at points I was so annoyed with the material presented to me, I feel that I have gained a lot.  Thinking critically is something that we are taught not to do, we need to know material for an exam, but we don't understand it's real world application.  I feel that this class has sort of breeched the gap between the two.

So, who really plays whom?

I want to start off by saying that I'm throughly disgusted with human nature, even my own.  The fact that we are so enthralled at the despair of others is more than just disturbing, its mortifying.  So begs the question, "Why are we so entertained?".  Perhaps because this 'drama/violence' is not something that we are accustomed to.  I feel as though this, and the idea of having the upper hand on the 'game contestants' are the main reasons for our euphoria.  We enjoy watching others struggle because in comparison, our lives seem so much better.  

Suzanne Collins recognized the human fascination with such drama for the basis of The Hunger Games.  In an interview with the author she stated that she had both classical and contemporary inspirations.  She borrowed some material from Theseus and Minotaur, a story in Greek Mythology.  The ideas from the stories are quite parallel.  In both children are sacrificed in the name of freedom; in Hunger Games it is to remind the villagers that they are not free and in the Myth it is to keep the people of Athens free.  Collins also used the Roman Gladiator games for ideas such as the all powerful government, contestants being forced to fight to the death and everyone being involved, even if their roles were so minimal as simply viewing.  Some of her other thoughts came from contemporary references.  She explained in her interview that she had been flipping between channels and came across both the war in Iraq and Reality TV shows.  I find it very interesting that she focused on the two.  In Iraq we have people fighting for freedom, and participants/contestants are giving up that very freedom by being on Reality TV shows. Ironic, huh?

I really feel that it all boils down to us, as humans, wanting our fifteen minutes of fame.  We don't care how or what we have to do, just as long as it is ours and everyone is watching.  It's sad that we live in a society that people crave so much attention.  But maybe the people on these shows and in Hunger Games weren't the people craving the most attention, perhaps it was the audience?  The 'game contestants' play up to whatever will give them and their shows the best ratings.  Shows with the best ratings are talked about by the viewers, the real attention junkies.  Nearly all of us are sucked into these shows and think that we have the upper hand, but really the participants are playing us.  They know what our reactions will be to certain things, they know what sells.  Sex, fights, bloodshed, death..any type of gory or steamy jolt and they have our attention and allegiance to further publicize them.

Voyeurs of 'Reality'

I generally don't have time to watch TV, so most of my viewing is limited to times we are in between semesters.  However, this weekend i was attempting to catch up on last season of Teen Mom on MTV.
The segment of the show that i watched was an episode entitled ' As Long as We're Together'

Teen Mom (Season 3) | Ep. 9 | 'As Long As We're Together'


In this episode, Farrah and her parents go on a trip to Arizona; for Farrah it is to look into homes, for her parents it seems to be a vacation.  If we skip around to one of the other couples followed by the show, you find Tyler meeting Catelynn's dad for the first time and her reuniting with her father, who is somewhat absent from her life.  Amber and Gary still have their problems, but for the sake of the holidays seem to be trying to keep it together for Leah.  As far as Maci and Bentley go, she seems to be trying to stick it out with Kyle, but is having problems balancing her schoolwork and time with Bentley.


I think every couple and single parent i have mentioned above is a 'hostage'.  Everyone knows and expects Farrah to shoot some snide remark towards her parents and make a scene no matter where they are.  Catelynn can be counted on to bring immaturity to the forefront.  Amber and Gary are constantly bickering and letting their emotions get the best of them, even in front of their daughters.  Lastly, Maci always has boy problems or issues with school, which of course we can all relate to.  


Of course i enjoy watching the show, otherwise i wouldn't waste nearly an hour of my time (i ffwd commercials).  I think what makes the show so alluring is the feeling of empowerment that one receives while watching someone struggle with life.  It's sick, but we all feel that we are in a sense 'better' than those we are watching; whether it be that we are bettered by watching and learning from their experiences or by false pretense.  As the audience we have the upper hand to think outside of the here and now, where as if we were constantly being filmed we wouldn't have the 'alone' time or time to clear our thoughts.  I also feel that for some of the more vulnerable and impressionable viewers out there, this show might be somewhat idolized in the sense that it is okay for younger teens to have children.  It's entrancing to have an inside view on the 'intimate' sides of these young women's lives; we can connect with them on some level because a lot of the things they are facing are the same ones we face everyday.  We almost get a sense that we know the people; I know on more than one occasion my friends and I have talked about the stars from teen mom as if they were someone we went to high school with. 


We are voyeurs. We enjoy watching others struggle. We are sick. 

Big Brother

In Orwell's 1984, 'Big Brother' and 'the Party' are government of England.  As such they are attempting to control all aspects of civilians lives, so far in that simply one's thinking could be a death sentence if exposed.  Lives of 'outer party members', essentially middle class, were to be lived in worship of the government and the ways that were set forth by the upper class also known as the 'inner party'.  In this era children were taught to spy; the little minions would even turn in their parents, if anything suspicious came to their attention.  So in essence 'big brother' was not just one person, but all that allowed the mental flogging of deceitful information to take hold in their brains.

In our society today i believe 'big brother' exists, but in a different sense.  No the government does not strictly control our every movement, but they can tap into our phone lines if there is reason to believe that treasonous behavior has or is taking place.  Corruption in government is something we still see a lot of today, yet for some reason we accept it as more bearable, maybe because one political figure does not have as much influence as one did in Orwell's novel.

Aside from the obvious, we are all in a sense affected by another 'big brother'.  We give up our right to privacy by using technology.  Anything that we post online or send in a text message can be retrieved, whether it be of malicious intent or not.  Once you hit send or post, that personal information or conversation is forever lingering in cyber space for anyone to stumble across and interpret in anyway they please.  My apartment complex has a protection on their internet usage, that will quarantine your computer if malicious content is found on your laptop through their filtering system.  They can go through your files and recent searches to see exactly what you were doing.

So do we still have privacy? Maybe, if we protect ourselves...

We are determined to be starved before we are hungry...

"...to front only the essential facts of life, and see if i could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when i came to die, discover that i had not lived."  In this quote Thoreau is explaining why initially he wanted to go to the woods.  While some may think he is being an extremist, i feel that he has really hit the nail on the head.  We are no longer living for the substance of life, were living for the next 'fix'.

In most of our cases that fix is technology.  Instead of enjoying our regular 'old' cell phones, we need new smart phones...but then they aren't really good enough either once we get them.  Our 'old' dell laptops? Yeah, well macs are sooo much better. I fall victim to this, just as much as the next person.  I ordered my mac after graduating HS and here we are a year and a half later and i'm ready to order the newer and sleeker macbook air.  How different is our addiction than a drug addict or a gaming addict? Not so different, is it?

If we were to live simply and not 'frittered away by detail' wouldn't we enjoy the little things in life a lot more?  By eating one meal a day, consisting of very bland unseasoned natural foods, wouldn't we appreciate the nourishment it offers our bodies much more?  It seems in this case we wouldn't be putting 'bad foods' into our bodies as much either, with the 'tastiness' gone.  

We're allowing all of these incidentals to consume and destroy us.  Many families are so detached meals that are eaten 'together' aren't really even together anymore.  I know personally, that my family does not allow cell phones at the table during meals, but that many do.  How connected are you at a meal if you parents are trying to talk to you and you are there texting away under the table, with the occasional 'uh huh' 'yeah' to add to the conversation?  Your parents, grandparents, siblings and whomever else your having dinner with won't be around forever, yet you waste your precious time texting away, instead of spending time with real people. One could argue that texting is socializing with other real people, and it is, but we really need to get back to the basics on somethings, like communication.

So in response to this weeks prompt: No, i couldn't live in the wilderness like Thoreau did.  I truely admire him for doing so and feel that it is primarily wrong that we live our lives today as we do.  Why do we think that we are entitled to waste this life we are given? We are so worried about getting through life we forget to live purposefully.  I know i now look at the activities that fill my day much differently than before i was introduced to Thoreau and Emerson as writers.  When I'm old, i hope to say that i too have lived deliberately and with purpose.

Dumbest Generation Yet? Maybe..

Like Bauerlein says, we may be the "dumbest generation".  As appalling as some of his accusations are, they are not without merit.  Most of us get sucked into facebook, twitter and google+ without even realizing it.  If we aren't gamers, we can sit back and stigmatize them, but in essence we are doing the same thing with social networking.  We get so caught up in whats going on online that we forget to live our lives and learn the very things that are right in front of us.  Instead of learning hands on from our parents how to cook or clean a tough stain we deem ourselves too busy.  So when we need to know something we rely on our computers, smart phones and iPads to give us the information.  Forget memorizing recipes, you can pull them up with nothing more than a few clicks.  Oh you don't understand mile markers along the highway, sure just put it in your GPS. All of the technology available today doesn't require us to think critically or even think at all.  The information is at our finger tips, instead of up in our brains.  

So with all of that said, who is to blame?

Sure some of the blame rests on our shoulders ( as Gen Y), but it doesn't seem that the finger can be pointed at only one group/generation.  In Drutmans LA Times Article, he says "... it reflects not stupidity, but a failure of the school system and of society(which is run by grown-ups)..." He couldn't be more on point. Judging this 'stupidity' from the outside things may look very two dimensional, but being in this "dumbest generation" allows for a more three-dimensional view.  It's easy for other generations to simply say 'its Gen Y's fault', since they aren't in our position they don't realize how their actions may also have affected us and shaped our generation.  Bauerlein provided us with some statistics in his interview: the younger generation spends on average six hours a week studying and 9 hours a week social networking.  This should cause a knee jerk reaction to parents; during welcoming day/orientation at Shippensburg, i know they told my parents that for each hour of instruction i should be spending at least three hours out of class studying and working with the material.  If adults were holding themselves to a higher standard and instead of trying to be our 'friends', we could learn the things older generations value.  

Technology, as i referenced above allows the continuation of our ignorance of the world around us.  We know where to find it, as the La Times article states, so we don't pay to much mind to it when we 'learn' it in class, or hear about it when we are walking down the street.  I know that we are all guilty of that, I am no exception.  I also find it hypocritical of older generations to knock the amount of time we spend on the internet though.  All of my classes now have online components, so even if i wasn't 'obsessed' with technology as is suggested by Bauerlein, I cant escape it.  The reason.tv interview mentions that the web wouldn't be bad if kids were surfing sites such as the Smithsonian Institute's, but being online for anything such as classes, only adds to the temptation to surf.  So if we shouldn't be surfing the web, they shouldn't be surrounding us with entrancing media.  

Overall, we may be the dumbest generation as of yet, but we will not remain the dumbest generation for long.  If we are uneducated in worldly happenings and household matters, our kids won't be either.  If the trend isn't stopped soon, every successive generation will be less intelligent than the last.  

What is this world coming to...

I realize that i can not entirely understand the people filmed in Second Skin or their relationships, because it is not a "world" i choose to take part in.  I'm sure people don't understand why i spend hours upon hours riding my horses or snowboarding either, but it is what i enjoy and they are "groups" i am identified with.  I in no way feel superior to the people I'm about to bash, but I'm entitled to my opinion...

Interacting in virtual worlds seems wholly stupid to me.  I disagree that freedom to be ones self is in any way associated with participation in games such as the ones mentioned in the video.  Players willingly admit to editing themselves and their lives, how is that giving them freedom? They are conforming to characteristics they think people will like about them.  Anyone in the mood to play devils advocate could say, well isn't that what we do in our own lives today? Sure it is, so why are these virtual worlds necessary? They aren't.

Addiction is a serious risk to many gamers. We all take risks in our "real" lives such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, driving cars, the list goes on...the point is: if one is trying to escape this "awful real world" that we have created, why are they going into virtual worlds where the same fundamental ideas/issues still exist? There is no point.

According to the movie, virtual relationships can exist in the real world.  One could liken them to e-Harmony or some other washed up dating site, but how well do you know someone from the internet?  Kevin one of the people documented, admitted to having a relationship with someone who was psycho, she came after him with a knife! Tough love? Real tough.  I'm repulsed by the idea of someone flying across the country to meet someone face to face that they have never met before in their entire lives and anticipate starting a relationship with.  I don't care if you met on e-harmony, facebook or in some video game...thats messed up. It would be like screaming to a rapist or murderer...me, me, pick me.

For instance: A man from my hometown and his pregnant girlfriend, soon to be wife moved to away from family and friends to begin their life.  The mother to be was searching for a deal on baby clothes on Craigslist where she found an older woman who had agreed to show her the selection she had at her house.  Upon meeting at the older woman's house, the mother to be was murdered.  The killer had pretended to be someone, edited herself, in cyberspace to lure the young mother into her home and cut out her baby, who died after tragically entering the world.  Had this woman not been trusting the personality she met online she still might be alive today.

**if you view the link, it does say allegedly..however, i know the mother of the man and it was true.  It just could not be proven in court.

To summarize, i feel that virtual worlds are an epic waste of time and dangerous.  I'm guilty of getting on facebook rather frequently as i'm sure most of you are.  However, i would never accept anyone i didn't know or try to begin a relationship with someone via cyberspace.  It's a dangerous and scary thing. I'm sure none of us want to end up like the woman i described above.  You may argue that this is an extreme case...but the extreme cases are real.  This isn't something to be messed with.  I don't feel that this form of technology or that these synthetic worlds are moving us forward.  It seems that were regressing.  The relationships portrayed in the documentary are strictly with other gamers, couldn't this be likened to segregation experienced in the 50's?  Gaming/social networking doesn't broaden our horizons it minimizes our view.