Comics get a bad rap. Most of the time they're seen as trashy or just a waste of an opportunity to read a book. While comics use pictures, that does not mean they're not as in depth as books. Graphic novels are getting some respect, which is great. However, some people still do not see the mix of words and art as real literature or real art. McCloud, however, the author of Understanding Comics, and the comic "Show and Tell" is able to convince even the most stubborn reader that putting words and pictures together has some merit, all through his use of ethos.
Ethos is using authority to add credibility to a piece. McCloud, as a comic book artist, has experience creating stories with pictures and words. He worked as an artist for DC Comics, created his own series, and written several books. His experience with creating visual literature gives him the credibility to explain why comics and graphic novels are pretty great, even for the oldest reader.
On the first two pages, McCloud draws himself as a child, connecting the reader (every reader was once a child) to the act of interchanging words with symbols and pictures.
On the fourth page, he explains how pictures and words go so well together. Words and pictures work together to get an idea across that would have been hard to understand otherwise. Clearly, as an artist, he understands how important putting words and images together to create one unique idea is. He lists seven different ways words and images interact: word specific (pictures add a point), picture specific (words create sounds), duo-specific (both words and images put the same idea across), additive (one concept enhances another), parallel (words and images work together but seem to go down different paths, so to speak), montage (words are pictures and pictures are words), and interdependent (both words and pictures needed to get the idea across). McCloud's knowledge on the subject and his clear concise explanation of each type of interaction shows that he clearly knows what he's talking about. The examples he provides allows the reader to clearly see where each interaction would be used.
In the next few pages, he draws a short comic about a girl getting ice cream. It's raining, she's crying, and then she eats the ice cream. The next set of panels is only words. Together, it creates a visual story. However, the words for the images do not have to match perfectly:
An image of a girl crying may be seen as sad, but by using words, she can say that she's happy about say, a surprise or a birthday. Using words and pictures is simply another way to delve into creating stories. It is not simple, and McCloud says that finding a balance can be hard. But clearly, with his experience, he's figured it out.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Celebrity Bodies
Celebrities are weird. The whole concept of them, I suppose. We find these people and for some reason we idolize them. That part I don't find very weird-everybody needs a hero, someone to look up too. But then we suddenly turn on them, which is weird. Like, why put a person you're eventually going to tear down on a pedestal? And they're usually torn down by the same thing that brought them to fame.
So I'm going to go with Jennifer Lawrence here.
Lawrence starred in the Hunger Games, X-Men, and American Hustle, to name a few. Everybody loved how down to earth she seemed. She didn't worry about trying to keep a "Hollywood" body and acted like any other person. She swore, she joked around. She was sarcastic and had a no nonsense attitude. To many people, she seemed like a great example of what a woman should be-beautiful AND interesting. (Which is really problematic but that's the point of what I'm trying to say here.)
And then all of a sudden? People were starting to get sick of her. They loved her acting, but wanted more celebrities in movies (Hollywood is fickle and fast after all). Apparently, she couldn't play more than one character-sassy and sexy. The persona of sassy and sexy for which she had been so praised was now a downfall. Instead of being confident, she was cocky.
People then began to resent her attitude and her careless way of speaking. She described lesbians as being slutty, made light of eating disorders, etc etc. (Sources at the bottom) While some people agreed with her, some people believed she had crossed the line, myself included. There's a difference between being confident and being rude. But in a way, how can you blame her for saying whatever comes out of her mouth when that was apparently her best trait?
There was also an issue of nudes. People send nudes, whatever. Lawrence, like many adults, had sent them to her partners but they ended up being leaked. People everywhere saw them, and she got shamed. Now, look-if you search Jennifer Lawrence on google just to find a picture of her face, hundreds of sexual images pop up too. People saw Lawrence as a sex object, and were delighted when she was comfortable with her body.
But when she was comfortable to showing her body to someone who was not the crazy sexed up masses of fans, she got backlash. Her being sexy was important to her fame, but because she didn't share it with everyone on the big screen, she was a slut.
The most recent issue: she yelled at a reporter for being on his phone during a conference. However, it was later discovered that the reporter did not speak English fluently and was using his phone to translate what Lawrence was saying. For many people who originally supported her, this was a final blow. She was rude, and inconsiderate to a man trying to understand what she was saying. But once again, she was praised again and again for having no filter-so why would she think it was wrong to yell at him. She has been put on that pedestal for so long that what we praised her for has become the innate parts of her personality.
She's the same person that she was when she started her career-she's still loud, and opinionated, and pretty. But while people use to praise her for this, now they see these qualities as downfalls and shame her. We created this sassy, gorgeous, down to earth, talented person, and were upset when she played the role too well.
Interesting, isn't it?
So I'm going to go with Jennifer Lawrence here.
Lawrence starred in the Hunger Games, X-Men, and American Hustle, to name a few. Everybody loved how down to earth she seemed. She didn't worry about trying to keep a "Hollywood" body and acted like any other person. She swore, she joked around. She was sarcastic and had a no nonsense attitude. To many people, she seemed like a great example of what a woman should be-beautiful AND interesting. (Which is really problematic but that's the point of what I'm trying to say here.)
And then all of a sudden? People were starting to get sick of her. They loved her acting, but wanted more celebrities in movies (Hollywood is fickle and fast after all). Apparently, she couldn't play more than one character-sassy and sexy. The persona of sassy and sexy for which she had been so praised was now a downfall. Instead of being confident, she was cocky.
People then began to resent her attitude and her careless way of speaking. She described lesbians as being slutty, made light of eating disorders, etc etc. (Sources at the bottom) While some people agreed with her, some people believed she had crossed the line, myself included. There's a difference between being confident and being rude. But in a way, how can you blame her for saying whatever comes out of her mouth when that was apparently her best trait?
There was also an issue of nudes. People send nudes, whatever. Lawrence, like many adults, had sent them to her partners but they ended up being leaked. People everywhere saw them, and she got shamed. Now, look-if you search Jennifer Lawrence on google just to find a picture of her face, hundreds of sexual images pop up too. People saw Lawrence as a sex object, and were delighted when she was comfortable with her body.
But when she was comfortable to showing her body to someone who was not the crazy sexed up masses of fans, she got backlash. Her being sexy was important to her fame, but because she didn't share it with everyone on the big screen, she was a slut.
The most recent issue: she yelled at a reporter for being on his phone during a conference. However, it was later discovered that the reporter did not speak English fluently and was using his phone to translate what Lawrence was saying. For many people who originally supported her, this was a final blow. She was rude, and inconsiderate to a man trying to understand what she was saying. But once again, she was praised again and again for having no filter-so why would she think it was wrong to yell at him. She has been put on that pedestal for so long that what we praised her for has become the innate parts of her personality.
She's the same person that she was when she started her career-she's still loud, and opinionated, and pretty. But while people use to praise her for this, now they see these qualities as downfalls and shame her. We created this sassy, gorgeous, down to earth, talented person, and were upset when she played the role too well.
Interesting, isn't it?
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Hey Guys
Because I was absent, the oldest blog post about politics will appear first on my blog, then the hip hop one, then today's one about zombies!!
I'm Glad I Have My Aussie Citizenship...
...Because America is absolute garbage right now. I have my Australian citizenship, so I joke around that if one of the crazy loons running for President wins, I'll be able to emigrate. But I really don't want to have to do that.
I don't know, but running for President seems like it should mean something more than publicity and memes, but whatever.
So how is it that we've gotten so far in the campaigns when to be honest, every candidate is rather loony? It has to be the way they talk. So, I'm going to look at four candidates and a tactic that each one of them uses. In this blog, I'm going to be looking at Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.
Ok, we've got Ted Cruz. I don't really know a lot about him and that's the point. He doesn't use anything to further his status in the election except that he's already a senator. I don't think he realizes that just being a senator will not cause you to win the election. Especially if you're the Zodiac Killer.
I rest my case.
Next is Trump. (I'm just going to do Republicans and then do the two Democrats to make it easier.) So, what can I say about Trump? Personally, I think he's a pile of garbage, and so do many Americans. So why is he doing so freaking well in the polls? Despite not being a politician, Trump knows how to use rhetoric to his advantage (he is, after all, a business man). Trump, as we discussed in class, has a very clever way of giving speeches. He first off describes how bad America has gotten, and how badly it is affecting his life. This makes people think, hey, if he has it bad, even though he's super wealthy, even if someone like him is suffering, then I definitely am! He also makes broad, general statements that everyone can agree with-veterans should be taken care of, and there should be more jobs. However, he then follows up these statements by blaming these problems on immigrants, but never really addressing how to actually fix the problem. His claim is to Make It Strong Again, but it really seems, that with his racist points of views, lack of experience, and lack of solutions to important problems, that voting him in as our President will make us weaker than we ever we before.
Okay so now we're on to the Democrats. I'm going to start with Hillary Clinton because more people seem to know who she is (though Bernie is getting some publicity). Now, I identify more with the Democrat party, so naturally I agree more with the ideas that the Democratic candidates put forward. (As much as I don't like Trump, I do agree that we need to take care of veterans. They are dealing with mental illness and high suicide rates. But a person shouldn't care about veterans because they're Republicans. They should care because that's an actual human thing to do.) Clinton wants to fix the economy for the middle and working class, and also improve education. She wants to do this by raising the minimum wage so that Americans can better afford higher education, like college. While I do like that Clinton proposes solutions to very desperate problems today, I can't take her seriously. I feel that she's trying too hard to make the young voters like her by talking about memes and Beyonce. Yeah, it's great to bring in young voters, especially because the youth vote is so expanse. But the high school and college students are looking for someone to fight for the debt they are facing, the discrimination they face in society.
(While I do not completely agree with Hillary, and don't like her methods to get voters, I will not stand for sexist comments. You may not want her as President because of her views, but it better not be just because she's a woman. However, just because she is a woman, and it would be great to have a woman president, that does not mean she's the right choice for the American people at the moment.)
And finally there's Bernie Sanders. I personally like Bernie Sanders-I agree with a lot of views and I like his suggestions on how to fix things. He focuses more on the problems on hand than talking about Beyonce or blaming one racial group for destroying the Earth. He proposes closing the huge gap of wealth with people by taxing the wealthier more, and supporting the forgotten voices in society, which is pretty great. Will he be able to accomplish his dreams of free public university? I'm not sure, because Congress at the moment is full of people who don't exactly agree with him. However, his use of pathos draws me. By describing the situation of college students, families that have lost young sons, daughters, and children, and his general sympathy for immigrants is causing many people to support Bernie.
I don't know, but running for President seems like it should mean something more than publicity and memes, but whatever.
So how is it that we've gotten so far in the campaigns when to be honest, every candidate is rather loony? It has to be the way they talk. So, I'm going to look at four candidates and a tactic that each one of them uses. In this blog, I'm going to be looking at Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.
Ok, we've got Ted Cruz. I don't really know a lot about him and that's the point. He doesn't use anything to further his status in the election except that he's already a senator. I don't think he realizes that just being a senator will not cause you to win the election. Especially if you're the Zodiac Killer.
I rest my case.
Next is Trump. (I'm just going to do Republicans and then do the two Democrats to make it easier.) So, what can I say about Trump? Personally, I think he's a pile of garbage, and so do many Americans. So why is he doing so freaking well in the polls? Despite not being a politician, Trump knows how to use rhetoric to his advantage (he is, after all, a business man). Trump, as we discussed in class, has a very clever way of giving speeches. He first off describes how bad America has gotten, and how badly it is affecting his life. This makes people think, hey, if he has it bad, even though he's super wealthy, even if someone like him is suffering, then I definitely am! He also makes broad, general statements that everyone can agree with-veterans should be taken care of, and there should be more jobs. However, he then follows up these statements by blaming these problems on immigrants, but never really addressing how to actually fix the problem. His claim is to Make It Strong Again, but it really seems, that with his racist points of views, lack of experience, and lack of solutions to important problems, that voting him in as our President will make us weaker than we ever we before.
Okay so now we're on to the Democrats. I'm going to start with Hillary Clinton because more people seem to know who she is (though Bernie is getting some publicity). Now, I identify more with the Democrat party, so naturally I agree more with the ideas that the Democratic candidates put forward. (As much as I don't like Trump, I do agree that we need to take care of veterans. They are dealing with mental illness and high suicide rates. But a person shouldn't care about veterans because they're Republicans. They should care because that's an actual human thing to do.) Clinton wants to fix the economy for the middle and working class, and also improve education. She wants to do this by raising the minimum wage so that Americans can better afford higher education, like college. While I do like that Clinton proposes solutions to very desperate problems today, I can't take her seriously. I feel that she's trying too hard to make the young voters like her by talking about memes and Beyonce. Yeah, it's great to bring in young voters, especially because the youth vote is so expanse. But the high school and college students are looking for someone to fight for the debt they are facing, the discrimination they face in society.
(While I do not completely agree with Hillary, and don't like her methods to get voters, I will not stand for sexist comments. You may not want her as President because of her views, but it better not be just because she's a woman. However, just because she is a woman, and it would be great to have a woman president, that does not mean she's the right choice for the American people at the moment.)
And finally there's Bernie Sanders. I personally like Bernie Sanders-I agree with a lot of views and I like his suggestions on how to fix things. He focuses more on the problems on hand than talking about Beyonce or blaming one racial group for destroying the Earth. He proposes closing the huge gap of wealth with people by taxing the wealthier more, and supporting the forgotten voices in society, which is pretty great. Will he be able to accomplish his dreams of free public university? I'm not sure, because Congress at the moment is full of people who don't exactly agree with him. However, his use of pathos draws me. By describing the situation of college students, families that have lost young sons, daughters, and children, and his general sympathy for immigrants is causing many people to support Bernie.
Hip Hop Planet
There's a joke in my family about music. My vavo, who speaks very broken English, loves music. When she tells us this though, it sounds as if she's saying that she laaaaaaaaaaaves moosic. We all kid around with her, and she laughs at it herself. But the point is, my vavo, who grew up between foster homes and has seen her own child die, holds music very closely to her.
This is because music expresses the emotions we all feel, love, sadness, happiness. But they also express the experiences and emotions of particular groups, like people in the black and Hispanic communities. Let's face it, white Americans treat their fellow citizens differently because they have darker skin. This treatment has been going on since the first Europeans landed in America, and it still exists today. There is no one isolated incident; instead, it is truth that if you are black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Native American, you will be treated negatively. You will face discrimination just because your skin contains a different amount of melanin or your hair looks different or that your lips/eyes have a different shape. You will face violence and cruelty and ignorance.
So where's this going (I do have the tendency to ramble after all)? Well, it goes back to music, especially hip hop. Hip hop is considered to have originated in South Bronx and Harlem. However, the music that was produced by those teens and young adults reflects the music of Africa and many Latinix countries, with the beat and sound. Hip hop is considered urban, but more importantly, it is considered black. (It's a big problem that something being associated with being black makes people think it's trashy but hey people are gross racists, and that's not what this post is about.)
Hip hop is taken one of two ways by white people-it's either rude garbage, or is the coolest thing ever.
Let's start with the latter. Black music and terms and language were not started by white people. (For example-on fleek? Yeah, not by a white kid.) White people appropriate black music and culture and clothing, completely ignoring the problems faced by the black community. White kids seem to consider that anything that isn't suburban country club to be some cool, urban kind of fun. White people viewing black culture as being underground and fun because it's not "proper" is insanely racist.
Now for the former. People think (it's usually the older community or the teen members of the KKK) that see hip hop as trash. They associate the music with black people-which is not wrong, because black people and Latinix people invented it, and it came from native African music-but like I said before, this is wrong because they associate things that have to do with being black with being bad. They talk about how all of the lyrics are trashy and gross. But do they acknowledge the part that white artists add to the "trashiness"? Didn't think so.
What really sucks is that the treatment of hip hop music by white people is not only giving it a bad name, but causing young people of color to see it as something to get away from. As McBride described, it reminded him of violence and the past he wanted to leave behind. "It held everything I wanted to leave behind." (McBride) Hip hop music is frank-it discusses the violence and the problems that many ethnic communities have to deal with. Especially the younger generation, as McBride says, is discouraged from listening to hip hop, and to embrace whitewashed Western standards. And if that happens, if hip hop artists are deprived of their voice, then who knows what the world will be like in the next few years?
Hip hop gives oppressed youth a voice that would so often be ignored. So, what will they be forced to pick by society? Whitewashed western beauty, or being black AND being beautiful? Because black and beautiful, hip hop and voice, go hand in hand.
This is because music expresses the emotions we all feel, love, sadness, happiness. But they also express the experiences and emotions of particular groups, like people in the black and Hispanic communities. Let's face it, white Americans treat their fellow citizens differently because they have darker skin. This treatment has been going on since the first Europeans landed in America, and it still exists today. There is no one isolated incident; instead, it is truth that if you are black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Native American, you will be treated negatively. You will face discrimination just because your skin contains a different amount of melanin or your hair looks different or that your lips/eyes have a different shape. You will face violence and cruelty and ignorance.
So where's this going (I do have the tendency to ramble after all)? Well, it goes back to music, especially hip hop. Hip hop is considered to have originated in South Bronx and Harlem. However, the music that was produced by those teens and young adults reflects the music of Africa and many Latinix countries, with the beat and sound. Hip hop is considered urban, but more importantly, it is considered black. (It's a big problem that something being associated with being black makes people think it's trashy but hey people are gross racists, and that's not what this post is about.)
Hip hop is taken one of two ways by white people-it's either rude garbage, or is the coolest thing ever.
Let's start with the latter. Black music and terms and language were not started by white people. (For example-on fleek? Yeah, not by a white kid.) White people appropriate black music and culture and clothing, completely ignoring the problems faced by the black community. White kids seem to consider that anything that isn't suburban country club to be some cool, urban kind of fun. White people viewing black culture as being underground and fun because it's not "proper" is insanely racist.
Now for the former. People think (it's usually the older community or the teen members of the KKK) that see hip hop as trash. They associate the music with black people-which is not wrong, because black people and Latinix people invented it, and it came from native African music-but like I said before, this is wrong because they associate things that have to do with being black with being bad. They talk about how all of the lyrics are trashy and gross. But do they acknowledge the part that white artists add to the "trashiness"? Didn't think so.
What really sucks is that the treatment of hip hop music by white people is not only giving it a bad name, but causing young people of color to see it as something to get away from. As McBride described, it reminded him of violence and the past he wanted to leave behind. "It held everything I wanted to leave behind." (McBride) Hip hop music is frank-it discusses the violence and the problems that many ethnic communities have to deal with. Especially the younger generation, as McBride says, is discouraged from listening to hip hop, and to embrace whitewashed Western standards. And if that happens, if hip hop artists are deprived of their voice, then who knows what the world will be like in the next few years?
Hip hop gives oppressed youth a voice that would so often be ignored. So, what will they be forced to pick by society? Whitewashed western beauty, or being black AND being beautiful? Because black and beautiful, hip hop and voice, go hand in hand.
A Modern Zombie
The world is changing vastly and I don't know if that's for the better. With new inventions come new addictions-for example, when soda became cheap and available everywhere, many people became addicted to the sugary drink. For me, my addiction is the internet.
The article we read today compared modern life to being in a zombie apocalypse. There's always some mindless, repetitive task to do (answering emails vs. shooting zombies in the head). It's not like an addiction, it's just something that has to be done so that we can survive. (You can't ignore important emails.) But the things that consume us, like my problem with the internet-I guess it could be considered an addiction because it feels like I need the internet to live. And I just took a test to determine my independence on the internet. I got 58, which was in the 50-79 zone:
"MODERATE 50 -79 points: You are experiencing occasional or frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life."
It's sort of like a drug to be honest. I would rather be reading a book or doing something fun, but instead I'm online liking and reblogging posts. Yeah, sometimes it's fun, and sometimes I don't go on for a few days, but I'm pretty constantly connected. Just a lot of tumblr, or YouTube. While this isn't necessarily bad, and it isn't my entire life, it is a problem.
It's like I just have to reblog posts or watch videos. I'm not spending so much time online because I find it fun, but because it's habit. It's my thing that I have to do, show my presence online to like things and add new stuff to my blog.
I suppose the way to end this zombie in my life would be to just delete my blog. But it's my thing to do, part of my daily habit. What would I do with all my free time?
I guess that, as described in the article, I just have to keep at it. It's almost like a job to just post stupid memes and do my rounds, but I guess that's my life. And the mindlessness it causes? It's so similar to a zombie apocalypse, it's hard to tell the difference.
The article we read today compared modern life to being in a zombie apocalypse. There's always some mindless, repetitive task to do (answering emails vs. shooting zombies in the head). It's not like an addiction, it's just something that has to be done so that we can survive. (You can't ignore important emails.) But the things that consume us, like my problem with the internet-I guess it could be considered an addiction because it feels like I need the internet to live. And I just took a test to determine my independence on the internet. I got 58, which was in the 50-79 zone:
"MODERATE 50 -79 points: You are experiencing occasional or frequent problems because of the Internet. You should consider their full impact on your life."
It's sort of like a drug to be honest. I would rather be reading a book or doing something fun, but instead I'm online liking and reblogging posts. Yeah, sometimes it's fun, and sometimes I don't go on for a few days, but I'm pretty constantly connected. Just a lot of tumblr, or YouTube. While this isn't necessarily bad, and it isn't my entire life, it is a problem.
It's like I just have to reblog posts or watch videos. I'm not spending so much time online because I find it fun, but because it's habit. It's my thing that I have to do, show my presence online to like things and add new stuff to my blog.
I suppose the way to end this zombie in my life would be to just delete my blog. But it's my thing to do, part of my daily habit. What would I do with all my free time?
I guess that, as described in the article, I just have to keep at it. It's almost like a job to just post stupid memes and do my rounds, but I guess that's my life. And the mindlessness it causes? It's so similar to a zombie apocalypse, it's hard to tell the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)