In the article by the Artifice about The Art of Trolling brings up very intriguing, detailed account of trolling: its history and origins, and its role in society today. I found the history and theory behind it very interesting. Trolls being multifaceted is touched upon as being tricksters or jesters - there for a momentary laugh and then forgotten until another troll pops up. There is no one troll or one viewpoint that they subscribe to. However, I feel like the article didn't quite reach far enough in their observations about trolls and the so-called "art" of trolling. Trolling is complicated and essentially has no hero or one goal, but I feel like if the writer went on his own trolling escapade, he could have a broader knowledge of what a day in the life of a troll would be like. There are many people who go through life observing and commenting this or that, not necessarily because they're being intentionally malicious or mean, but because they're human. I believe that trolling is a learned behavior - that by annoying people into doing what we want or seeing others do it, we do it again and again. I believe that trolling in in a sense a part of what makes us human. No matter what people say or do, there will always be someone who has their own opinion. People also seek it out. There's a certain craving for the drama of it all - the fact that a troll is able to get under someone's skin is something the people can laugh at and enjoy before forgetting ten minutes later. People can make any kind of observation that they want, especially on the internet, what it to be heard. [The troll is turned] into a jester figure who provides a momentary amusement and not much more. Trolling itself is an experiment of human activity online. Their motivations may not always lines up - they could be bored, or angry, or anything else - but trolls do feel somewhat accomplished when their goal is met: p*ssing people off. I feel like this is an idea that could have been expanded upon more in the article. Humans are messy drama queens that like to stir the pot. The acute rise in trolling in groups such as the Alt-Right has also gone down, or at least been very good at hiding. There's an excellent video I'll think below by YouTuber Contrapoints that I feel like has done an excellent job (one of many, of course) of analyzing and dismantling the Alt-Right trolls. While they're very likely hidden in private forums, those that are easy to see on public social media platforms. Just in the past few years, I've seen the rise and the slight decline in the Alt-Right's grip on the internet as people are looking out for signs. Trolling itself is anonymous, but some tactics used by specific groups are easy to spot once you're good at recognizing the signs.
0 Comments
Selecting which parody to do, I decided to go with healthcare. In our group, we chose healthcare as our topic and divided left-leaning, center-leaning, and right-leaning articles among the group. This is a topical issue, especially in today's political climate, and honestly any parody of healthcare would hit pretty close to home. Below is a meme I created that highlights a very common argument made by the right about healthcare. This tactic is used against those who are for universal healthcare as a way to look down on them for calling it "free" when it's actually paid for by tax payer money. Most, if not all, people who are for Medicare For All (M4A) know this, and this tactic is used to drown them out. Using simple arguments like these for a complicated issue can lead outsiders who are maybe unsure or unfamiliar with M4A agree and not look deeper into it. Often people don't spend a lot of time researching, or if they do, they lean more towards one side and ignore anything that disagrees with them. It can be helpful to engage different ideas, but there are moments when the person is not genuine and is only trying to get a rise out of you. A really strong point of parody is using what people don't know against them. In a sense, the opposing side almost has to know more about the subject than they do, and use it as a way to belittle them or make them feel inferior. These cheap tactics ignore the bigger issue, and by focusing on quick comebacks that most people wouldn't have a reply to, it keeps the issue under wraps. You also don't have to be an expert on the subject to make your opposer sound "dumb" - the quicker the comebacks or the faster you tell them, the more people are willing to listen to you (a la Ben Shapiro). I'm fascinated with this trend online, especially with trolls, who lift up the loudest, crudest, and often least educated person to be their spokesperson. Most of the language in this blog post below is very biased - as biased as the article we used for this project was - particularly against the poor. Imagine this: You're in the best country in the world. You can buy anything, be anything, do anything - as long as you work hard for it. In the free market, capitalism reigns and you can climb your way to the top in the land of opportunity for everyone! Maintaining this sense of "us vs. them" is key in almost every argument, especially when trying to get more and more people to "join" your side. This tempers with freedom of thought in a way that stunts people's desire to learn. I know this post was probably a little extreme or silly, but whether they were genuine posts or trolls meant to gain traffic, it was a culmination of things I've seen online myself.
While I was looking for ideas about my metaphor analysis, I stumbled across this gem (get it?) A real-life ad to get a replica of Megan Markle's engagement ring. I honestly couldn't believe it, and can't in good conscious pass up talking about this advertisement because I find it so random and very interesting. Megan burst into the international spotlight when she began her relationship with Prince Harry, and it became a sort of strange cultural significance that she was his "American princess" (as noted in the ad). Much in line with Kate Middleton's narrative that her relationships was a "fairytale," Megan's relationship was a major point of focus. Not only could the Brits obsessive her, but now the Americans could, too, and what better way that to...get the same ring she has? But even if you don't live in a country where monarchs reign, everyone is obsessed by the glamor of prince and princesses at least a little bit - and this advertisement definitely uses that to its advantage. After all, who doesn't want to pretend to be a princesses for a night? This ad is a little old - pre-May 2180 at the very least because it was before they married - but I'm positive that this was a huge hit. It's not even being sold online anymore (but the Royal Family is apparently selling really God awful replicas for $40, if you're still interested). In this ad, they acknowledge her as being "admired by millions" even if that's an exaggeration, and that she had a "fairy tale romance." I thought the use of fairy tale was interesting because, while we usually think of fiery tales as being a happily ever after, most fiery tales stem from lessons parents would teach to their children. Like not talking to strangers, going to the woods alone, or selling your voice to impress a man (ahem). Even the plots of most fiery tales are heteronormative, male-dominating stories meant to encourage women to settle down with their "prince charming" and be a wife and mother. Meghan is certainly not incapable of doing anything else now, and she seems to be a very happy wife and mother - but this kind of rhetoric is clearly meant to be romantic instead of just a sneaky way to glorify a historically oppressive, patriarchal system with no real power anymore. The ad also highlights that the replica share's Harry's attention to detail by placing diamonds from Princess Diana's personal collection by calling it a "legacy of love." Two things are simultaneously accomplished when it's described in that way: 1) bring in an emotional response people have about Princess Di, and 2) leading anyone who buys this replica to believe that they might be connected to this "legacy of love" by buying a knockoff. (Which, no matter the quality, is still a knockoff). The cherry on top is definitely when it goes on to say that this ring is "a beautiful way" to "be apart of this historic romance" - as if any owners of this fake engagement ring would be connected in anyway.
I'm not the only one who's indifferent to the Royal Family and Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's romance, but I did find this advertisement to be super interesting. Even though it's a weird thing to get, it's sold out and no longer available at the link. It's clear that the ring is catering to a specific audience that fantasies about one day meeting their own fairy tale prince, but the ring might just be pushing it. In this blog post, I will be looking at Bitzer's essay on rhetorical speech and apply it to my own life. For my example, I will be looking at when my friend invited me last-minute to cruise with her and her roommate last January. The obvious rhetorical situation is me going on the cruise with them. The reason why they needed me to go was because their third roommate hadn't paid my friend back for his ticket, and it was getting down to the last few weeks before they would leave for the cruise. They had originally wanted to go all together because it would be a way for them to get to know each other better and have fun. However, the third roommate has proven himself time and time again to be financially irresponsible, and my friend was frustrated that she had wasted her money because it was obvious he wouldn't pay her back. (She had bought the tickets in bulk to get the best deal possible.) She had previously mentioned to me how annoyed she was with her third roommate and even though she wanted to go to the cruise, it would have definitely brought the mood down if she had to pay for a whole other ticket.
The three major parts of Bitzer's rhetorical situation is the exigence, audience, and restraints. The exigence of this situation is that my friend's roommate not being able to pay her back for his ticket is causing her stress, and seeking me out to see if I wanted to go instead. One audience could be me, as it's my decision if I even want to go, or if I can even afford to go. Another audience could also be my boyfriend, as he wouldn't be able to go with me and even though he doesn't care what I do, I still wanted to talk to him about it and make him feel involved. And finally, the constraints are reasons the have the ability to persuade the situation, like my financial ability, my ability to take time off work, and my relationship with my friend and her roommate. At the time, I was working two jobs and taking a year off of school, so I would be able to pay her back in a timely manner. Second, even though I had two jobs, I had a good relationship with my managers at both locations and I was able to request the week off in plenty of time. Finally, my friend and I have been friends for years, and we've taken vacations together in the past so I knew I would have a good time. When she called to ask me if I wanted to go, she said she trusted me to pay her back whenever I could, and that I was the first person to ask because I'm usually down to do anything. Her roommate is also someone who I've hung out with a lot, and although I was apprehensive to spend an entire week with him, I was still interested in hanging out with him because he was funny. After everything was taken into account, I decided to go. Because of the reasons listed above, I decided it was a pleasant surprise and because I could afford to go, it would be a wasted opportunity to not go! I had a great time and made memories of a lifetime. :) Here is an interesting thought: should we still read books written by straight, white men? Now, when first hearing this, there can be an immediate reluctance and even backlash to this (admittedly) extreme question: why on Earth would anyone restrict themselves from reading a book for any reason? I mean, wouldn't stopping someone from reading a book based on one specific trait cause more harm than good? Is it not limiting? Well, perhaps that is true, but is that not what publishers and readers have been doing for centuries, long before women were writing/reading or even allowed to be (known) published writers? But, one could say, that was "all in the past," right? Certainly, because women make up the largest percentage of published (and even "successful") writers, it is certainly not the case? No - in fact, many popular women writers even use initials to hide their gender so that it does not keep someone from picking up a book just because it was written by a woman. There are countless studies about the relationship between women and literature - one study even finding that books about women are less likely to win awards. There is also the fact that most sci-fi and fantasy books are written by white men. And while it's certainly possible to read exclusively women writers without exhausting the list (what with the rise of women representation in SFF from all sexualities, ethnicities, and backgrounds), what is still considered "great" literary works that "Fathered" the genre is, and possibly forever will be, praised and lifted up. Their voices will always be there, their impressions even on writers today is inescapable. Could there possibly be a way of reinventing the wheel, of creating a world that does not have the finger prints of racism and misogyny? Are these things as internal as they are external? Is even all works written by white men always racist or minsogynst? I have no definitive answers to any of these questions, but they are questions that I have been thinking about for quite some time now. And these are questions that I will probably think about for many years to come, and even years down the road there will exist no clear answer. And much like what poet Adrienne Rish wrote in her poem "Diving Into the Wreck": "the things I came for/ the wreck and not the story fo the wreck/ the thing itself and not the myth/ the drown face always staring/ toward the sun." So many books, especially classics, are assigned reading in school. Strictly talking about American authors, when someone asks who the "Greats Titans" of Literature are, people unthinkingly name off Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Twain, Salinger, and many others. Do we not gloss over their bigotry, sexism, and racism because of their "art?" Is it even possible to separate the art from the artist when so much of what is considered to be "great" or "canon" is tied so much to these men? For much of history, women wrote under fake names (from the Bronte sister and George Eliot, to Mary Shelley and Louisa May Alcott), and even used their initials to not allow their gender to hurt their sales (think JK Rowling, EL James, SE Hinton, and LM Montgomery). While many men could chose to use their initials if they wanted to (or purely for aesthetic reasons only), women had to at times strategically name themselves so that they could be viewed as the same level as men. (Ironically, there is now a rise in men, who are now even encroaching on the mystery/thriller genre, many creating female-sounding pseudonyms as a way to "get in.") And okay, I just "went off" on a tangent about women's misrepresentation in literature and it's history of marginalization, but what about the crux of the question: should we still read books written by white, male authors? Do we STILL have to? Is the perspective they have to share even a good one, anymore? What kinds of perspective do they give in our own present, ever-expanding literary canon that would still be deemed as "valuable?" I do not mean to push "tokenism," or rather, reading a book solely based on the author's skin tone or gender just for diversity's sake. Readers should be picking books based on their merit, not based on how many check marks you can have to just say, at the end of the day, that you "read diversely." And, absolutely, a lot of these great works written by Dickens, and Tolkien, and Fitzgerald does have literary merit. However, what I am concerned with is who classifies "literary merit?" Who gets to decide whether something has the right to be read, and is there even a new way to decide that for ourselves? While there is no arguing that popular classics, dominated by men and their view of the world (and of women and other marginalized groups), there are are a group of women from that era - and beyond - to pick from. From Jane Austen and Virginia Wolff, to Margaret Atwood and NK Jemisin. You may still have to read books by men, but you can always balance it with a book by a woman. Sources:
VIDA: Women In Literary Arts. http://www.vidaweb.org Flood, Alison. “Books about Women Less Likely to Win Prizes, Study Finds.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 June 2015, www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/01/books-about-women-less-likely-to-win-prizes-study-finds. Bates, Jordan. “Literary Canons Exclude Works No Matter How Selective Canon Makers Are.” The Daily Nebraskan, 16 May 2018, www.dailynebraskan.com/culture/literary-canons-exclude-works-no-matter-how-selective-canon-makers/article_da83def2-ad43-11e2-b07a-0019bb30f31a.html. Snell, Tonie. “Tokenism: The Result of Diversity Without Inclusion.” Medium, Medium, 30 May 2017,medium.com/@TonieSnell/tokenism-the-result-of-diversity-without-inclusion-460061db1eb6. |
aboutWSU English Literature major and Marketing minor. Archives
May 2020
Categories |