Writing

 

Reading Essays and (1) Graded Reading Question Assignment

Reading Essays and (1) Graded Reading Question Assignment

Read the following essays in Chapter 3 of the book. Complete the reading questions that are listed after each essay in the ‘Reading the Text’ area. and submit the Reading Question Assignment

• Reality Pawns: The New Money TV by Nick Serpe
• You’ve Got the Wrong Song: Nashville and Country Music Feminism by Claire Miye Stanford
• What Their Clothes Tell Us About Those Girls by Anna Keszeg

  Unit 1 RQ 1 – Reading Questions 1 Answer the following [14] questions [as one document] that cover the three essays. Each answer must be a minimum of 150 words. You must include quotes/paraphrases from the readings in your answers. This will help you meet your word count. You may exceed the minimum if you choose. Before beginning, read and study the ‘reading question format’ and a ‘sample reading question answer’ under ‘sample papers’ on the course menu. 

 * Under ‘Reading the Text’:  

 Questions 1–5 [Nick Serpe essay] 

 Questions 1-4 [Claire Miye Stanford essay] 

 Questions 1-5 [Anna Keszeg essay] 

This is Instructor feedback

 You can see there are several questions following each essay. You must answer EACH question, and put a number beside the answer. Do not list a string of paragraphs. 0 points on this until I see you answering each question for each of the essays, and please make sure they are numbered.  

Thomas, J. – 2

Reading Questions Assignment #1

“Voting Democracy off the Island: Reality TV and the Republican Ethos”

Francine Prose

Questions 1-5

1. Published novelist and contributing editor at Harpers, as well as a writer on art for the Wall Street Journal, Francine Pose, believes the recent dramatic increase in the number of “reality-based” TV programs is due in part to production values and costs. The fact that they are, “…relatively cheap to produce…because they avoid the expense of hiring actors whose salary demands can rise astronomically if the show becomes a hit,” makes these reality shows a “dream come true”(Prose 224-225). These popular television shows claim to fame is their use of common and sometimes ordinary people, who typically have agreed to work for very little money, or the hope of earning millions of dollars and/or television fame. Prose contends that you are not alone if you find amusement, discomfort, or even embarrassment watching these proletarians as their misery plays out on our tubes. Shows like The Bachelorette, Extreme Makeover, Joe Millionaire and American Idol are attracting viewers in the millions (224), all to the delight of advertisers and studio executives. Prose sees the rise in this social movement of truth-driven shows as perhaps a way for unexceptional and ordinary citizens to become gladiators for the undistinguished class and to portray real life “responses to stress and humiliation…that simply does not exist when we see movie stars in scrubs sail a gurney down the halls of ER” (225).

2. Francine Prose contrasts reality TV with other sorts of programming, on the grounds of aesthetics alone that, “…reality-based shows are no better or worse than CSI, ER and Friends” (Prose 225). Viewers do realize that producers or editors, in an effort to entice certain hazards or tension that titillate the audience, may have tweaked what they are observing. Prose maintains that although these reality-based shows are not contrived prose, as expected with your typical sitcoms or dramas, and that despite being,”…instigated or exacerbated by the show’s producers” (225), viewers contend they are watching authentic people responding to the circumstances they have been dealt. Despite their preceptive ad-lib, reality television shows teach us lessons and fortifies what we already know about human frailties. The twists and turns written for dramas like Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives can leave us cleaving for the next episode. We are blissfully aware that a creative writer, in a solitary room, penned sexual encounters, murders, and dramas, with the sole purpose of keeping you captivated week after week. Whether drama, sitcom or reality-based, television is a money fueled industry. If the reality-based form of television brings in millions of viewers, you can be sure it will also be the choice for advertisers to hawk their wares!

3. Although I am admittedly one of the many millions of everyday viewers captivated by reality based television shows and like most, have my favorites TiVo’d, I do have concerns as to the social and philosophical principles that underline many of these reality based hit shows.. The indisputable thread that links these dramas under the reality umbrella is their ability to pit man against man. What happened to all for one and one for all? Is there a reason that only one contestant will survive? Used and no longer needed, how many cast-offs from these production machines are left to tend their own wounds in solitary silence, either revered or vilified? It seems either we love these competitors or we hate them, as they are “voted off” by teammates or the anonymity of a single phone call. There is no middle ground, no pat on the back, better luck next time. The people used and then thrown from these shows seem as dispensable as a tissue. The producers and directors can afford to be this ruthless because there will always be a steady stream of volunteers willing to step into the spotlight thinking they have what it takes to sustain them to the end, to be the one survivor, the one to walk away with the millions of dollars and of course, the fame. I feel I do need to say that the reality-based shows I watch tend to be on the mild side of the reality base. They do not involve humans brutally attacking their opponents either mentally or physically, intent on nothing more than their demise. They tend to be more along the lines of American Idol where the competition is artistically based and the playing field clearly ascribed, not hidden from the competitors until the last minute as to make for a better viewing for audiences.

4. The relationship that Francine Prose sees between reality TV and the Republicans is interesting and one I had not previously considered. In the same light that I do not see all reality shows as equal, I do not agree with Prose that the theme of reality-based television is the same rhetoric we are hearing from the current administration (Prose 226). Prose spouts, “…flinty individualism, the vision of a zero-sum society in which no one can win unless someone else loses, the conviction that altruism and compassion are signs of folly and weakness, the exaltation of solitary striving above the illusory benefits of cooperative mutual aid, the belief that certain circumstances justify secrecy and deception, the invocation of a reviled common enemy to solidify group loyalty-are the exact same themes that underline the rhetoric we have been hearing and continue to hear from the Republican Congress and our current administration” (226). Why limit this hyperbole to just the Republican administration? The same argument could be leveled against many politicians, regardless of their political affiliations. Prose’s argument that the current administration displays behavior typically seen on reality-based show is outrageous. To compare actions of the President and his staff with the antics seen on the show Survivor and The Bachelorette is stupid. Far too many people are quick to forget about 9/11 and appreciate the real reasons we are at war in Iraq. I think most Americans are smart enough to figure out what is reality and what is reality inspired as to the shows Francine Prose addresses.

5. Prose is convinced that a long-term diet of reality TV will have a negative effect on the American consciousness. The
more we watch this type of show, with its dog-eat-dog style, the more we cannot help but become “desensitized” (Prose 227) to events that occur in real life. Pose states, “If the lesson of reality TV is that anyone will do anything for money, that every human interaction necessarily involves the swift, calculated formation and dissolution of dishonest and amoral alliances…”( 227), how can we possibly be surprised by some of the actions of our government and politicians. I think we can all agree with Prose when she states, “After you’ve seen a “real person” lie about his grandmother’s death, you may be slightly less shocked to learn that our leaders failed to come clean about the weapons of mass destruction” (227). I’m sure most people, myself included, were offended that someone would lie so easily about his own grandmother, and then later boast of its effectiveness on the opposing group and what a great laugh it probably was to his grandmother. If you possess any human characteristics whatsoever, you couldn’t help but be appalled by his behavior. I agree to a point that if we cannot distinguish boundaries for reality-based television shows, we may numb what is and is not acceptable behavior in reality, however, I think most believe, as I do, that what we see on television is in fact, not real regardless of claims made by the shows executives.

“A Moral Never-Never Land: Identifying with Tony Soprano”

James Harold

Questions 1-4

1. Plato and Tolstoy believed that art could be “dangerous” because they felt peoples mind could be manipulated by such things. Tolstoy believed that an artist would transmit his thoughts and feelings to the person viewing the art. He felt that an artist’s state of mind could be passed on to the one who was experiencing the art.. His most simple explanation is that a person would laugh if they heard the laughter of another, cry after seeing another person’s sadness and pain. Tolstoy also believed that actors who performed onstage were dangerous as they were playing a part, not of themselves, and essentially lying to the audience. This perpetual lying could influence the audience with their emotions and in doing so, have enough of an emotional impact on them as to influence their lives. Plato, on the other hand, felt art could be used to confuse and mislead people. He felt that a world full of art was confusing the line between reality and fantasy and the mere presence of art would keep people distracted and therefore prevent them from searching for reality. He felt that the audience would sympathize with the artist and risk mass manipulation, effectively undermining our social stability. Both philosophers felt that the emotional repercussions of certain art, bad art to Plato, non-religious art to Tolstoy, could influence the type of person you could become.

2. James Harold believes the depiction of the mob in The Sopranos, “…continues the tradition of gangster fictions, but in a deeper, more reflective way than most do” (Harold 248). Harold does feel The Sopranos separates itself from the Italian-American mob persona in three distinct ways. The fact that The Sopranos is a continuing saga versus a theatre movie, gives the writers and creators the latitude to expound on the characters, particularly the main character, Tony Soprano, thereby giving us the sense that we might actually know them or how they might react in certain situations. Second, not only is the main character Tony portrayed as the gangster, in stereotypical, Italian-American gangster fashion, but the audiences also gets to see the softer side of Tony. The normal conundrums he faces, much like ourselves, concerning family, finances, marriage, and responsibility. Harold points out that the third difference is that The Sopranos is based on our way of life today, that, “Virtually every element…is very close to what is found in the real world” (245). We are allowed to compare our life with that of Tony Soprano in that we can emphasize in the many similarities we share with him as he tends to taking care of his family without losing sight of our differences. However, we also feel the tug of the contrasts, highlighting the many differences between our lives, with that of the Soprano family and Tony, as most of us do not utilize criminal behavior to support our families and ourselves .

3. James Harold believes that Dr. Melfi, Tony Soprano’s psychiatrist, is “…the primary moral center of the show, which serves to balance out the immortal facets of these attractive characters” (Harold 247). Dr. Melfi always keeps us grounded and reminds us that the life that Tony Soprano lives, and that of his friends, is not a life we should want to live. It is fraught with danger, murder, and immorality and is a decorous eventuality that we would probably not be so lucky as to have gotten away with as much as Tony and his gangsters have. Through the eyes of Dr. Melfi, we are able to see first hand what the immediate consequences of Tony’s decisions are. We are able to see how, in his heart, Tony wants the best education, lifestyle, and luxuries for his family, but through the eyes of Dr. Melfi, we see that he uses murder, gambling, extortion, and blackmail to maintain his family. A certain irony prevails in Tony’s life. The importance of his family and friends to him, but the sheer lack to the cost and consequences to other families brought on by his actions. Dr. Melfi helps us to assimilate the ripple effect of Tony’s actions on others in such a way that might be lost had we only seen through the eyes of Tony Soprano.

4. James Harold opens this article, “A Moral Never-Never Land: Identifying with Tony Soprano,” with the first-person opener, “I like Tony Soprano; I can’t help it” (Harold 249). This is perhaps his way of letting us know right off the bat, how he feels about the Tony Soprano character, regardless of the fact we are not supposed to like Tony Soprano. He kills people, some even considered friends, and he is a gangster with all of the plunderage this title and lifestyle imply. Tony is a ruthless, conniving, and viperous man. We all know this about Tony, James Harold knows this about Tony, yet he and others still like and admire him. James Harold is a philosopher and knows that morally he should fell disdain and fear for the main character of The Sopranos, yet he tells us up front that, regardless of all the heinous acts orchestrated or actually carried out by Tony, Harold understands and perhaps sympathizes with the character the actor portrays. The fact that Harold is a philosopher, makes him question if it is appropriate or even moral to think this way about Tony Soprano. I believe most men would like to see themselves as a “Tony Soprano” character. Tony provides for his family, he accepts responsibility for his actions and can even sleep well despite some of them. Tony is out conquering the big bad world in the only way he knows how to sustain those he cares about most and is the ultimate arbiter of machismo. Tony Soprano is definitely a man’s man. Philosophy aside, James Harold wants to be Tony Soprano, we all do!

“The Simpsons, Hyper-Irony, and the Meaning of Life”

Carl Matheson

Questions 2-5

2. Carl Matheson believes, “…today’s comedies tend to be highly quotational; many of today’s comedies essentially depend on the device of referring to or quoting other works of popular culture” (Matheson 250). The dictionary meaning for the term quotational is, “an explicit reference or allusion believe Matheson is in an artistic work to a passage or element from another, usually well-known work” (

www.dictionary.com

). What does Matheson mean when he references quotationalism regarding the meaning behind the Simpsons? Matheson states there are multiple layers of allusions and references to the daily lives of the Simpsons that go well beyond the usual parody one may expect to see in the show. These different layers explode onto the screen at once and may not be obvious or understood to all viewers. In the Simpsons episode, Matheson describes, “A Streetcar Named Maggie,” Matheson describes a scene where the theme from The Great Escape plays as well as later references to the Alfred Hitchcock’s famous movie The Birds. Some viewers may comprehend and find amusing the reference to The Birds movie and perhaps miss The Great Escape connections all together. Some may not get either one! Carl Matheson explains the hyper-ironic elements of the Simpson show offering, “…the flavor of humor offered by today’s comedies is colder, based less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary clever-than thouness” (250-251). Matheson believes that the irony of situations presented is over exaggerated producing situations and stories that are abstract or absurd “…beyond their logical conclusions” (251). I liken both of these examples to the type of comedies that are played out in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons. Most of the comedy is written with the child in mind, characters being hit with anvils and apparent, lasting injuries. Then there are the gags only the parents would understand references to old Hitchcock movies and movie stars like a rooster portraying Bing Crosby crooning to a group of hens or a rogue dog running around impersonating James Cagney, terrorizing all the other neighborhood dogs.

3. Carl Matheson says, “The idea that quotationalism in The Simpsons is the result of

‘something in the air’ is confirmed by the stunning everpresence of historical appropriation throughout popular culture” (Matheson 257). I believe what Matheson is saying is that while no one will relish having brown and gold shag carpet in his or her homes ever again, we would all like to have that 1969 VW Beetle convertible with 86 miles on it that is currently on display at a local Volkswagen Dealership. Everything old is new again. If no sense can be

made out of the current situation we are in, there is always the thought of how wonderful everything was at least, in the “good ole days.” Matheson makes the point that some changes have more to do with ecological or erosion issues, but far more times the changes have to do with profits and having the best new old thing! I can’t tell you how many times I have been driving with my teenage daughters in tow and a song comes on the radio that I instantly recognize as one I sang at their age. I am constantly telling them that their generation has stolen yet another song from the best era of music ever made!

4. When speaking of painting, science, sociology, and even philosophy, Carl Matheson makes the point that, “…claims about the nature of art, science, and philosophy are highly controversial” and he claims that, “views such as these are now in circulation to an unprecedented extent” (Matheson 256). With all of the quick access of the new internet age and its ability to make this such a small world, there is virtually no way to escape someone’s opinion about something on any level. You need only to log on to the World Wide Web and you can find authorities (or so they proclaim) that can tell you everything from the hundreds of different way to interpret the bible to the appropriateness of calling Pluto a planet. So where do The Simpsons or other television shows draw the lines? I think in as much as Carl Matheson makes good points about how far these shows can go, that proverbial “line” will be drawn where the buck starts. I believe shows like The Simpsons will go as far as people and advertisers will allow them to go. In the case of The Simpsons specifically, I believe most people do not necessarily pay attention to much of what happens on the show because they see it as an animated kids show.

5. Carl Matheson sees a connection between the “crisis of authority” and “hyper-irony.” When we run out of things to know or feel we know all there is to know, the only place to go became the, “cult of knowingness” (Matheson 258). Regardless of the fact that we may not ever be able to agree on what is the best car in the world or what makes for a perfect family, we will always have the ability to argue, agree, or disagree and prove our superiority over with our ability to fight, not necessarily be right. Matheson states that, “Hyper-irony is the comedic instantiation of the cult of knowingness” (258). Shows like the Simpsons do not attempt to educate its viewers on the proper way to run a family, who is to determine what is correct or not. The Simpsons use these platforms to provoke those who feel that they are all knowing and treats this provocation as a way of deriving pleasure from the attack of the superiority of the people it challenges. This is where The Simpsons derives its comedy and energy and,”…treats nearly everything as a target” (259). The show challenges viewers to go beyond their traditional or typical way of watching this show. Matheson states, “It plays games of one-upmanship with its audience members by challenging them to identify the avalanche of allusions it throws down to them” (259)