Honestly, everytime we see Kanye's name in a headline the majority of people will immediately reject whatever he's saying and it's even easier to do because of the things he's usually caught saying. By West stating that he does not read, the most people will automatically label him to be an imbecile.But perhaps we should push past the assumptions we've already made on West, based on previous indications of his character, to understand the point of his message.
What West might be attempting to express a concern that literature is overbearing on the reader. Kanye West seems to have been turned off by the superfluous and complex style of highly esteemed literature. West's feelings do have a backbone, as many people feel classics such as those of Shakespeare to be too complex to be read lightly. Even those who enjoy their literature with a passion have likely conveyed a frustration at times with the overly styled deliverance of a novel. The story of some books simply may not be worth the effort and time necessary for the author to convey it, which is to the discretion of each individual reader.
West's claim that his lack of interest in reading being caused by overly styled texts however, is simply an empty claim. Popular reads today are written in a more modern, direct style in order to attract younger readers without intimidating anyone. West's lack of interest in reading seems to be caused by the overlooking of the benefits of books which can not be ascertained from life. Surely there are many lessons taught by books which can be brought up in life experiences, many novels offer foreign locations and cultures or situations that one would not be likely to be faced with in their life time. In this way, reading diverse literature can certainly portray ideas which may not be attained in many a life time. Of course there are certain academic advantages to developing a healthy apetite for literature as it often proves to better one's mastery of their language. This last benefit of being a reader may be something West specifically should ascent towards.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Blue
I had lived by the sea for quite some years far away from trees
The sight was stunning for the first ten, but grew dimmer through the years
The sand, the rocks, the waves, and wind were beautiful to me
But in the end the solid blue would bring me to sullen tears
The specifics i choose not to conjure for fright of hurt and pain
But the color i had once beloved now reeked of unhappy news
I opted instead to move ahead and escape my estate to one less stained
Somewhere i could lick my wounds and escape from the solid blue
I found a cottage far away with forests and mountains
Much more of a nurturing place that did not remind me of you
There is still the blue of the wind, but with a palate of many, many more
So many colors that they have lifted away my mood of blue
The sight was stunning for the first ten, but grew dimmer through the years
The sand, the rocks, the waves, and wind were beautiful to me
But in the end the solid blue would bring me to sullen tears
The specifics i choose not to conjure for fright of hurt and pain
But the color i had once beloved now reeked of unhappy news
I opted instead to move ahead and escape my estate to one less stained
Somewhere i could lick my wounds and escape from the solid blue
I found a cottage far away with forests and mountains
Much more of a nurturing place that did not remind me of you
There is still the blue of the wind, but with a palate of many, many more
So many colors that they have lifted away my mood of blue
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Certainity in Novels
In this day and age a large amount of movies made are based off of popular novels. Classics like Doctor Zhavago, Jaws, The Godfather, Frankenstein and Gone with the Wind were all adapted to the screen after a book. Even some of the most popular movie and tv shows today were not originally planned for screen (ex: Twilight, Vampire Diaries, Harry Potter, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.), yet it is commonly known that the book is often better than the movie. Aside from films in which events and plot lines are completely changed, this mostly has to do with the narration.
Narration in a movie does not impress the majority of the public anymore. For the most part the constant voice-overs annoy the audience, however this is the main method of description in a book. While some may claim this is only true in first person narration, it is certainly present in stories told in third person narration too. In a book we can understand that the chair is green because the statement is plainly written while in a movie the image relies much more on perspective. Even something as simple as color can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the shades. A thought or feeling, like portraying that the main character is thinking about the loss of a companion, is much more difficult to express without dialogue in a film. To compensate for these difficiencies in films, many lines and scenes must be tweaked to keep the same meaning, causing changes in the script to be made when adapting from a written source.
The narration in a book is even very different in life because of this true picture the descriptions and feelings give us. In a sense, novels provide much more of a black and white world than real life. Due to the lack of a visual when we read, the author must give a solid description of places, people, and feelings. Though there surely is flexibility in these narratives, there is considerably more than in actual life when it is common for one person to be described completely differently from one person to the other. This idea that we are seeing through someone else's prospective is in the back of our minds as we read, but for the most part what is written is accepted (even more so in third person narratives than first person). It is an intriguing concept to grasp when delving into a new book.
The ability to give the reader a solid picture in a novel makes it possible for the point of the piece to be understood. Without creating a more certain understanding for the feelings and circumstances of the characters the meaning of a written piece would lose its specific meaning. Movies, therefore, must also construct a central idea and show one side of the story to make a statement, but is still more of a gray picture because the scenes are not constructed as certainly through written words. Though we can be moved by books and relate to the feelings illustrated within them, life does lack the element to make such direct points.
Narration in a movie does not impress the majority of the public anymore. For the most part the constant voice-overs annoy the audience, however this is the main method of description in a book. While some may claim this is only true in first person narration, it is certainly present in stories told in third person narration too. In a book we can understand that the chair is green because the statement is plainly written while in a movie the image relies much more on perspective. Even something as simple as color can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the shades. A thought or feeling, like portraying that the main character is thinking about the loss of a companion, is much more difficult to express without dialogue in a film. To compensate for these difficiencies in films, many lines and scenes must be tweaked to keep the same meaning, causing changes in the script to be made when adapting from a written source.
The narration in a book is even very different in life because of this true picture the descriptions and feelings give us. In a sense, novels provide much more of a black and white world than real life. Due to the lack of a visual when we read, the author must give a solid description of places, people, and feelings. Though there surely is flexibility in these narratives, there is considerably more than in actual life when it is common for one person to be described completely differently from one person to the other. This idea that we are seeing through someone else's prospective is in the back of our minds as we read, but for the most part what is written is accepted (even more so in third person narratives than first person). It is an intriguing concept to grasp when delving into a new book.
The ability to give the reader a solid picture in a novel makes it possible for the point of the piece to be understood. Without creating a more certain understanding for the feelings and circumstances of the characters the meaning of a written piece would lose its specific meaning. Movies, therefore, must also construct a central idea and show one side of the story to make a statement, but is still more of a gray picture because the scenes are not constructed as certainly through written words. Though we can be moved by books and relate to the feelings illustrated within them, life does lack the element to make such direct points.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Three Different Versions of "To Be Or Not To Be"
In Franco Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet, starring Mel Gibson, his choices of setting and staging causes his rendition of the classic to come across differently than in others. Both Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branaugh's films of the Shakespearean tale contrast because of such choices as well. By only looking at one scene from each movie, the feeling can be proven to be signifigantly changed. The setting and action of the famed "To Be Or Not To Be" sililoquy is shaped by the way the scene is shot.
When Mel Gibson takes on the part of Hamlet, he is given much more movement in his speech than in other productions. The angles the camera takes of him change notably more than either other examples of Hamlet. These changes in Hamlet's stance and facial exposure give the speech more of a transitioning effect. Every important new statement in the speech is broken apart by a movement of Gibson or the change in a camera angle. Hamlet, in this version, is visiting his father's tomb when giving these important lines. The setting is dark and still, giving us a feeling of darkness in what Hamlet is contemplating. The setting matches the mood of the segment.
In the production of Hamlet which stars Kenneth Branaugh, the movement creates the opposite effect. Instead of creating movement in the scene, there seems to be a noticable lack of energy. This gives Hamlet a sort of lazed imagine during his serious contemplation of suicide, wholy the opposite impression the viewer may get of Hamlet with Mel Gibson's acting. Though this version does not puncuate the scene as it did in Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation, the absence of other action may give more emphasis on the actual lines. The black and white filming and dramatic background music gives a more melodramatic feel of Hamlet. Hamlet's setting also leads one to believe he is debating committing suicide at the very moment as we see him on the edge of a tower and variously taking out and inspecting a dagger.
The biggest visible difference in Kenneth Branaugh's adaptation is the brightness and spendid area which Hamlet contemplates death in. While both other films had this sililoquy preformed in dark, dreary locations, Hamlet here is in a magnificantly ornamented ballroom. Though it can not be said that this room matches the speech, this use of juxtaposition causes the eeriness of Hamlet's thoughts to starkly stand out. This and Hamlet's lack of shown emotion lead us to the conclusion that this Hamlet is even more crazed than in Mel Gibson's portrayl.
When Mel Gibson takes on the part of Hamlet, he is given much more movement in his speech than in other productions. The angles the camera takes of him change notably more than either other examples of Hamlet. These changes in Hamlet's stance and facial exposure give the speech more of a transitioning effect. Every important new statement in the speech is broken apart by a movement of Gibson or the change in a camera angle. Hamlet, in this version, is visiting his father's tomb when giving these important lines. The setting is dark and still, giving us a feeling of darkness in what Hamlet is contemplating. The setting matches the mood of the segment.
In the production of Hamlet which stars Kenneth Branaugh, the movement creates the opposite effect. Instead of creating movement in the scene, there seems to be a noticable lack of energy. This gives Hamlet a sort of lazed imagine during his serious contemplation of suicide, wholy the opposite impression the viewer may get of Hamlet with Mel Gibson's acting. Though this version does not puncuate the scene as it did in Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation, the absence of other action may give more emphasis on the actual lines. The black and white filming and dramatic background music gives a more melodramatic feel of Hamlet. Hamlet's setting also leads one to believe he is debating committing suicide at the very moment as we see him on the edge of a tower and variously taking out and inspecting a dagger.
The biggest visible difference in Kenneth Branaugh's adaptation is the brightness and spendid area which Hamlet contemplates death in. While both other films had this sililoquy preformed in dark, dreary locations, Hamlet here is in a magnificantly ornamented ballroom. Though it can not be said that this room matches the speech, this use of juxtaposition causes the eeriness of Hamlet's thoughts to starkly stand out. This and Hamlet's lack of shown emotion lead us to the conclusion that this Hamlet is even more crazed than in Mel Gibson's portrayl.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Mamata in a Different Medium
In the Nation Public Radio interview with Nick Mamata, tittled The Paper Market, Mamata is questioned about his article and asked about his additional thoughts on his work at a paper mill company. Nick's voice seemed to be average. However Mamata's diction was somewhat lacking as he sped through his answers. His use of voice tone to convey feeling was also lack luster, his voice remained mostly monotoned throughout the recording.
This recorded interview led me to become less impressed by Mamata than I had been after reading his intriguing narrative. While in his written article he described his past job skillfully, using witty phrases and incorporating his point along with the humorous points in the narrative, in Mamata's recording he comes off as bland, unintellectual, and bland. His absence of diction and emotion in his voice leaves those who did tune in unsatisfied. While his jabs were witty when he put them down on paper hearing him talking about selling out unappreciative clients just seems petty.
The obvious issue with the lack of appeal Mamata has in a taped interview is due to poor public speach, a perfect example of the importance of using the right medium to get your point across. While Mamata is truely adapt in giving a good self portrayal in written form he seriously lacks the charisma in person. Mamata made the right decision when posting his story orginally on the internet rather than starting off on NPR or in a video. Because of his bad pacing and enunciation it is best for Nick to stick to writing down his stories.
This recorded interview led me to become less impressed by Mamata than I had been after reading his intriguing narrative. While in his written article he described his past job skillfully, using witty phrases and incorporating his point along with the humorous points in the narrative, in Mamata's recording he comes off as bland, unintellectual, and bland. His absence of diction and emotion in his voice leaves those who did tune in unsatisfied. While his jabs were witty when he put them down on paper hearing him talking about selling out unappreciative clients just seems petty.
The obvious issue with the lack of appeal Mamata has in a taped interview is due to poor public speach, a perfect example of the importance of using the right medium to get your point across. While Mamata is truely adapt in giving a good self portrayal in written form he seriously lacks the charisma in person. Mamata made the right decision when posting his story orginally on the internet rather than starting off on NPR or in a video. Because of his bad pacing and enunciation it is best for Nick to stick to writing down his stories.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Consideration for The Term Paper Artist
In Nick Mamata's article, The Term Paper Artist, the narrator describes his experiences while working for a term paper mill. "Dumb clients" provided the majority of Mamata's income. These individuals are humorously defined as being forced to pay for their papers "simply because they do not understand what a term paper is, much less anything going on in their assignments." Next illustrated is a class of customers who commonly only call for paid help once or twice. These people usually are completely void of knowledge on the subject they are to write about, but not generally idiotic as the previously mentioned clientele. The most pathetic group, in the eyes of the author, is that of highly educated frequent term paper mill users who are simply not comfortable with the English language.
Composing term papers is not a solid way of earning a living, but can be a simple way to make decent money in a short amount of time if it is possible to get in the rythm of putting one together. Mamata explains that the common mistake when taking on such a job is that people try "to write a paper, instead of filling five pages." Mamata emphasizes that he took the business of writing term papers as "a game" and that he found the key to it "is to amuse yourself."
In the concluding paragraphs the article switches to a more solemn tone. The problem with students not being capable of constructing their own papers, he claims, is that the students have not been exposed to proper formats of higher level papers, but are only given descriptions as to what one is like. "At the parties I go to, people start off laughing, but then they stop."
The Term Paper Artist skillfully begins with humorous insights on a business foreign to most readers. By making jests towards the intellect of the majority of his clientele, the nature of his ex-profession is successfully portrayed. Intrigue is drawn as he explains the mentality needed to complete the task of writing someone else's college papers.
The use of his comedic tone may throw us off from seeing a real point in his long commentary. Though this could be conceived as a flaw, this lack of foresight in his argument makes his final statements all the more memorable. With such a strong conclusion at the summary of the narrative Mamata's point is made blatantly clear.
Composing term papers is not a solid way of earning a living, but can be a simple way to make decent money in a short amount of time if it is possible to get in the rythm of putting one together. Mamata explains that the common mistake when taking on such a job is that people try "to write a paper, instead of filling five pages." Mamata emphasizes that he took the business of writing term papers as "a game" and that he found the key to it "is to amuse yourself."
In the concluding paragraphs the article switches to a more solemn tone. The problem with students not being capable of constructing their own papers, he claims, is that the students have not been exposed to proper formats of higher level papers, but are only given descriptions as to what one is like. "At the parties I go to, people start off laughing, but then they stop."
The Term Paper Artist skillfully begins with humorous insights on a business foreign to most readers. By making jests towards the intellect of the majority of his clientele, the nature of his ex-profession is successfully portrayed. Intrigue is drawn as he explains the mentality needed to complete the task of writing someone else's college papers.
The use of his comedic tone may throw us off from seeing a real point in his long commentary. Though this could be conceived as a flaw, this lack of foresight in his argument makes his final statements all the more memorable. With such a strong conclusion at the summary of the narrative Mamata's point is made blatantly clear.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)