The Meta Post: Covey and Me

     My favorite blog post this quarter was my post titled "Frederick Douglass and Covey, One More Time." The Covey fight scene captured our attention as a class for its questionable plot details and exaggerations. The reason this fight was the centerpiece of a post in April, when we read Frederick Douglass in January, is because I came across a parallel in Karl Marlantes' What It's Like to Go to War during my junior theme research. 

Illustration of a bar fight.
Via http://www.tentimesone.com 

An illustration of Douglass
 fighting Covey. Via
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com

     Unlike my other posts, this post was one that I had been thinking about writing for a couple of weeks before I posted it. I knew that the connection between Covey and the line in Marlantes' book was too good to ignore, but frankly I didn't feel like delving into quote analysis and didn't know how to approach this post. 
     Once I did sit down to do the post, I think I did a very good job of identifying a very American theme: our love of fighting. Just like in our class discussion months earlier, I contrasted the length and purpose of actual fights and those of constructed, fake, for entertainment purpose fights. 
     In comparison to the beginning of the year, I pulled out a quote and actually analyzed it, while also providing other forms of evidence from our class discussion. 
     My only regret with this post is how I ended it. In most of my posts, I try to end with a thoughtful, thought-provoking question that allows the reader to comment whether it be in agreement of disagreement. In this post, I neglected to do that. I ended with more of a wrap-up type finish. That could be one of the reasons no one commented on it. While I didn't completely close off the post for discussion, I could have ended it with a question like, "How would Douglass' story have changed if the length of his fight with Covey had been shorter?" or "What is so American about fighting and fights?" 
     Regardless, this post showed the parallels between two texts, written 155 years apart from each other. Finding that line in Marlantes' book immediately brought me back to our class discussions and gave me a new appreciation for the Covey chapter in Douglass' narrative. Finding this same theme discussed in another book, validated our days of class discussion. 

My New Disappointments in Reality TV

       I, like many teenage girls, watch The Bachelorette. I have watched intermittently throughout the last couple years, but is the first season that I will watch fully. In the premiere, something struck me: the creation of the villain. This season's villain is named Kalon McMahon and he arrived to the show in a helicopter, while everyone else came in limos. Even more, he arrives last, adding to the drama and causing all the men to hate him. He is then portrayed as a complete jerk, and this is all in the first episode. 

       Now I realize he could very possibly be a jerk, but I also know that while it's supposed to "reality" television, the producers created McMahon's character. The way that the producers cut scenes influences how the viewers see different characters. As we talked about in first semester, everything is a construction. Most people know that reality shows are not really reality but these producers and many other producers have a specific storyline to fulfill and it has to be full of drama. McMahon even said this in the premiere: “I’m not here to make friends." If that isn't fed to him by the producers then I would be very surprised.


     While I am a huge fan of the show, I know to approach it with some skepticism. It is purely for entertainment and really isn't reflective of anybody's reality. I wonder if the show could survive without infusing story lines and drama. To compare it to an earlier show, Lauren Conrad of The Hills said that during that when they were filming they were always checking there phones from producers to see if they needed to discuss a certain topic or do something. (For the full interview click here). 
      
     These shows are my guilty pleasure. I know it isn't art or anything like that but it is entertaining. But finding out that so many of the aspects of the show are staged is a little disappointing. Do you think the above things take away from the value (which is already pretty low I will admit) of the show? Why is this television called "reality tv?" 

The Unchanging Nature of Beliefs

via theblaze.com

     Today in class we discussed and read an excerpt from White Noise and discussed the idea of "belief." Immediately I thought of my favorite John Mayer song titled, you guessed it, "Belief." The song opens with the following verse:


"Is there anyone who?
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all 
For something someone yelled real loud one time" 

Mayer is discussing the idea of one's beliefs and how protest or propaganda can or cannot change them and he makes a great point. He believes that it is rare for protests or signs to actually change someone's beliefs. I would have to agree with him.  Specifically, with the 2012 elections growing closer, I wonder what real impact political debates have on people. These are times for politicians to voice and support their opinions to the public against their competition but how often to these debates actually change the beliefs of viewers? 

Even more, with the NATO summit in Chicago, protestors were all the news this weekend. But it seemed that more attention went to controlling the protesters and maintaining safety than to the topic of their protests. I find it difficult to believe many people's opinions were changed by the NATO protesters. In what ways can one's beliefs change? How much impact do protests or signs really have on one's beliefs?
for full lyrics click here

Gatsby's Parties and Human Behavior

"People disappeared, reappeared, made plans to go somewhere, and then lost each other, searched for each other, found each other a few feet away" (Fitzgerald 37). 

While Fitzgerald was referring to a specific party at Gatsby's house, I found this statement parallel to the relationships and interactions between acquaintances throughout a lifetime. Fitzgerald recognizes a very common behavior: people grow apart, see each other again, promise to meet up again, lose each other again, and then see each other again. I know this is true for me. I will see someone I used to be close with and immediately wonder why I'm not closer with them, make plans with them, but of course those plans will fall through. In fact, it seems that Fitzgerald is almost making fun of how superficial people can be and how people lose touch so quickly with people they claim they are close with. 

Pages later, Fitzgerald does almost the same thing, referencing a seen at Gatby's party, saying, "The groups change more swiftly, swell with new arrivals, dissolve and form in the same breath..." (Fitzgerald 41). Instead of talking about how two people interact, now he is referring to how groups change over time.  

Do you think Fitzgerald is making a valid point about human behavior? Why does he use Gatsby's parties to make this point?