ISSUE 5.1 | JUNE 2017
The Human Response to Melody
by Jonah Cashel
Musical melody is an imitation of emotion aroused by the inclination of curated sound. Plato saw imitations of real things as a threat to society. He stated that “we shall be right in refusing to admit [the poet] into a well ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason”. This is brought from Plato’s belief that we cannot base moral decisions on feeling. Knowing this, we can infer that Plato would devalue musicians just as he does poets and painters, stating that the imitation of emotion provides only a false sense of what emotions really are.
I would very much disagree with Plato on this and say that music’s imitation of emotion is the most accurate representation that we could have because of it’s ability to subconsciously arouse feelings within us. Plato uses the example of the original creation of a bed and states that an artist can not properly represent the concept of it with imitation. This may work for physical objects because it is not difficult to understand the components of a bed, but more complex forms like emotion may even require imitation in order to be better understood. Music does not explicitly define our emotion but it does, perhaps, sound the way emotion should.
Aristotle believed the opposite of Plato. He thought that imitation was what put humans above lower animals. Where Plato believed that art and imitation nourished the things that people should starve, Aristotle thought that fulfilling these emotions was beneficial to us. Music does indeed nourish our feelings and at times amplifies them. I would say this amplification is an important step to understanding ourselves and to avoid bottling up emotions.
From childhood we are brought up constantly hearing music. Whether it be a music box, a lullaby from your parents, or even an advertising jingle, we are trained from birth to feel things from melodies. A single familiar chord get make crowds go wild, a line of notes can bring on powerful memories. Take, for example, the great TIP tradition song American Pie by Don McLean. From an outside perspective it may seem odd that a few hundred teenagers gather in a circle to sing an old rock song from the 70s but to us it’s more than just a song about the death of a rock star, it signifies every memory we’ve gotten from this camp.
So every year, without fail, we gather in a circle, put our arms around each other, kick our legs to the rhythm, and we bawl our eyes out at the thought of having to wait another year to have this experience again (and for some of us the thought that this will be the last one). This strange old song brings on hurls of emotion that don’t seem to make sense but also don’t seem to stop because you look around and see all these beautiful people with tears smeared across the face, and sometimes, for just a moment, you can’t stop a huge grin from spreading across your face. I couldn’t even begin to explain why this happens, but I know for certain that it’s caused in part by those sweet words and melodies of Mr. Don Mclean, serenading us with the end of an era.
Nietzsching Up With The Kardashians
by Alisha Simmons
If you don’t know who the Kardashians are by now, you’re probably Patrick Star; living under a rock at the bottom of the ocean. In case of that unlikely circumstance, the Kardashians are a wealthy family that have their own reality TV show. There’s Khloe, Kim, and Kourtney Kardashian; then, you have Kendall and Kylie Jenner. Finally, the parents are Kris and Caitlyn Jenner. Oh, there’s also a son named Rob Kardashian, but he doesn’t have a K (or C) in his name so most people just forget about him. Kylie has her own makeup line, Kendall is a model, and I’m unsure of what the others do or if they even do anything at all. In short, the Kardashians are a family that got famous for doing a whole lot of nothing.
I’m a bit skewed as I’m writing this analysis, as the Kardashians aren’t necessarily my favorite people in the world, if you couldn’t already tell. Let’s gather some insight from someone who wouldn’t be biased, as he died over 100 years before the first episode of Keeping up With the Kardashians aired: Friedrich Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, was a German philosopher, known for his controversial writings and views about morality. You might have heard the name before, as Hollywood likes to (incorrectly) talk about his ideas in movies and pronounce his name wrong in the process. Nietzsche was also kind of a weird dude, as he once had a mental breakdown when he saw a horse being beaten, but that’s besides the point. In the first essay of Genealogy of Morals, one of the central themes is master-slave morality. Master morality establishes the differences between good and bad, painting “good” as nobility, wealth, and physical beauty, whereas “bad” is seen as common, ugly, and dishonest. Slave morality establishes the differences between good and evil, depicting a humble, selfless, and meek person as “good” and a violent, prideful, and superficial person as “evil.” In other words, master morality glorifies those of higher status and slave morality focuses more on those of lower status and is more concerned with justice and fairness. Nietzsche believes that we have left the era of master morality and have entered one of slave morality. If you watch a typical teenage movie, the “popular” kids (which would count as those of higher status if we’re following Nietzsche’s views) are usually depicted as mean and superficial, whereas the “outcast” is the protagonist and is seen as good. This is a prime example of slave morality in the media today.
However, the glorification of the Kardashians (as well as many other celebrities) might show a slight shift back into master morality. The Kardashians are a family of incredible wealth and high status. We are able to stalk their everyday lives through their reality TV show, as well as through social media. Although the media tends to exploit them if they do something wrong, we also sometimes glaze over other things that would usually be seen as unacceptable, simply because these people are popular and wealthy. The Kardashians are also obsessed with their physical beauty, as they’re known for their selfies, makeup, and plastic surgery. In master morality, “good” is also associated with physical beauty. Little girls are viewing the Kardashian women as role models and strive to be like them. All of these points beg the question: Is society shifting back into a state of master morality?
I wish Nietzsche were still alive so I could ask him that exact question, even though he’d be 173 years old if he were alive today. Personally, I believe that there is still a dominance of slave morality in society today, and it’s hard to think of us going back to a hierarchical mindset. Furthermore, another question might have raised in your mind: What would Nietzsche think of the Kardashians and their glorification in society? I don’t think Nietzsche would like them at all, as they are essentially the embodiment of master morality. However, keep in mind that Nietzsche doesn’t like slave morality either. Nietzsche believes in the idea of a man that rises beyond good and evil, the Übermensch, but that’s for another time. Coincidentally, an article from 2012 states that Kim Kardashian was “reading up on Nietzsche to impress Kanye West,” so maybe she would agree with this cultural exegesis.
http://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a384829/kim-kardashian-reading-up-on-nietzsche-to-impress-kanye-west/
Lyrics, Artists and Life Imitation
By Sarah Cohen
Music reaches 124 million people, aged twelve and older, every month, and the average American listens to an average of four hours of music a day. Most artists find inspiration in their own lives, the most popular subjects being relationships and breakups, drugs and alcohol, loss and desire. Based on this, on real life experiences, an artist’s audience is able to relate to the situations their songs discuss. The artist’s imitation of life, and its experiences, good and bad, in their songs, allows them to reach more people, and create common ground, allowing them to become more successful. More and more artists are realizing how effective portraying life, love and loss are, and are applying it to their music more and more.
Plato believes that artists as a whole, whether musicians or craftsmen, are imitators. He says this as a negative thing, reasoning that imitators know nothing of craft, of what they use for their work. This classifies artists as inferior and not to be taken seriously, because imitation is concerned with an inferior part of the soul. Using this reasoning, it could be said that the imitator, promotes parts of ourselves that Plato believes should be diminished. Conversely, Aristotle believes imitation is human nature, and that it is a form of learning, holding it in high respect. Aristotle considers the fourth literary element to be expression of thought into words, similar to when the thoughts of the lyricist translate directly into the lyrics.
On June 16, 2017, Lorde released her first album since 2013. It immediately held the number one spot at the Billboard Top 200 chart. The album, Melodrama, has 11 songs, each one relating to life, hers and others’ around her. Her songs embody real life, and she has shared that she uses lines that she hears in stranger’s conversations, and tests her mixes on bad earphones so that she can see how it will sound to the everyday person. Lorde says that she let her breakup influence her songwriting, along with parties, emotions, and what it felt like to be alone in the world. Lorde argues that writing great lyrics involves “pushing past clichés to a more specific truth.” She strives to find the best words, and the best way to explain and summarize the ups and downs of life.
Although Lorde has found new and different ways to write and word her songs so that they can relate to everyday people, they are ultimately the same thing, about life. This demonstrates that songwriting is really just imitation of life, using what one knows to one's advantage. Her styles align with Aristotle’s view of imitation: that it is human nature, and that expressing thoughts and experiences into words is a key part of learning and literature.
The Weeknd has been seen to be someone who very outwardly expresses his life experiences, and presents his problematic experiences, like drugs and women, as ones he wants to change, as if he is working to remedy himself. Because he so openly discusses these topics that one would try to conceal, he is seen as an honest person, who has nothing to hide from the public and shows his true self. Philosopher David Hume argues that “self” is just a bunch of things belonging to a person, such as body, mind, emotions, preferences, memories and labels. Based on this, it could be argued that The Weeknd is trying to show a ‘false self’ rather than a true one, so that he may be seen as a confessional person. This same theory could be applied to many other artists in the music industry who use their ‘honest’ experiences and mistakes to gain a reputation, audience, and respect, and ones who just imitate life in their lyrics.
Simon Critchley's Views on 12oz. Mouse
by Kolton Carlson
Simon Critchley wakes up and goes on his computer. He clicks on a strange video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqH4Bpe7Mjk . Critchley knows comedy, or at least believes he does. You can even in the wee hours of the day hear him perform incredibly dry comedy in front of uninterested google office workers in the long past. However, his lack of ability to make people laugh doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand why people laugh. So he clicks on the video.
“Did a third grader draw this?” Simon most likely exclaims and then laughs believing he could draw better than this, a superiority laugh which he believes is very common in humor. He isn't quite discouraged, Critchley is no quitting man! An unrecognizable landscape is crashed into by some yellow machine with tentacles(?) on the front. Then he snags sight of the main character for the first time, a beautifully green mouse, named Mouse “Fitz” Fitzgerald. An animal walking is humor to critchley, animals acting like humans is hilarious to him or even humans acting like animals! However he’s not laughing, he’s almost certainly perplexed by what is happening before him.
Enter the office? A shark who is seemingly just leaning on the desk asks the mouse “can i help you?” Then ensues a conversation. Simon Critchley sure as hell isn’t smirking, he’s watching third grade drawings have an abnormal conversation that seems badly guided with terrible timing happen in an office(?)
The mouse is there for a job, “now that’s funny!” says Critchley. Critchley believes in very structured comedy. Joke teller must be accepted by the audience, his structure is almost no structure but still follows a tension build up followed by unexpected punchline which relieves the tension, he calls this pleasure/comic relief. He doesn’t get this satisfaction in 12 oz mouse. The dialogue would especially confuse him for this matter. There's no joke in it, other than the “not drunk enough” line which follows his tension punchline structure. The dialogue is jumbled and anxiously awkward. The long pauses frighten Critchley, HE’S SHAKING IN HIS CHAIR! Critchley, like most everyone believes timing is of the utmost importance in comedy. So as he watches unbelievably long pauses, jumbled dialogue and missing cues he begins to shed maybe a couple manly tears as Critchley capitulates in the lack of structure.
Critchley isn’t done yet he knows he must prevail through the rest of the cartoon. His mind flashes back to the clock, staring ominously throughout the scene. The ticking a constant front in the scene. He can’t get the joke, “THIS ISN’T HUMOR” he yells! As the mouse drinks beer on the screen Critchley falls into a full anger thrashing out. He burns his on humor books for warmth and to cook the mice that scuttle across his room as he rocks back and forth watching every episode of 12 oz mouse again, and again, and again, and again. He watches the structure of comedy fall in front of his eyes, his central belief of the joke needing to be accepted by the audience defiled in front of him. He doesn’t want the joke, the cartoon forces it onto him. In his metaphor of jokes he says that the game is throwing a ball to someone and they need to throw it back to work. He keeps catching the ball, but putting it in his pocket, not accepting the joke because it doesn’t fall into his comedic structure.
After years of viewing the cartoon he begins to realize, there is a plot, there is something happening here and that comedy/humor can never be simplified into simple structures. Breaking the structure itself can be comedy. Breaking the structure of the broken structure can be even funnier. Entering a realm of no structure, which 12oz mouse almost does can be the epitome of humor or just full on strange. Critchley proposes that comedy does have structure. Jokes have to follow a certain formula and have to talk about things about life and the absurdity of them. 12oz mouse does none of this. It’s a whole new world, we assume the world is strange because it’s not ours but it could be absolutely normal. There’s no structure to the show, it's constantly changing, episodic but still following a plot, seeing things from different perspectives at all times and never repeating itself, another thing critchley says is important to humor. It breaks all his rules. However, to many, 12oz mouse is hilarious, and a great cartoon which shows things don’t have to be the same, and that crushing structures can produce beautiful works of art. It also brings to question what's humor, what makes us laugh and why? Critchley’s answer isn’t quite sufficient enough, not that the question could ever truly be answered.
A Feminist Critique of the National Rifle Association’s Definition of Empowerment
by Mary Elizabeth Marquardt
According to the National Rifle Association, “Real Empowerment” for women isn’t defined by their affirmation of their self and their gender, isn’t defined by their ability to choose to pursue their dreams, goals, or aspirations, and isn’t defined by their autonomy in their personal, sexual, or professional endeavors. The NRA wants women to know that “Real Empowerment” is being able to purchase a gun and kill people who have the potential to commit violence against you.
“Freedom’s Safest Place: Real Empowerment,” an ad published in 2016 by the National Rifle Association, opens with a call to every violent “thug” who “preys upon women,” a warning that violence against women will no longer be acceptable to the “moms, grandmothers, and professional women” of America. The ad warns that violent behavior will not be tolerated, but not because of cultural changes, or the destruction of hyper masculine ideology that promotes destructive, anti-women tendencies implicitly within the minds of young men, or because of stricter adherence to laws regarding female autonomy and protection of women against male assailants. In this ad, the NRA warns of this intolerance because of female gun ownership. Throughout the course of “Real Empowerment” the NRA appropriates activist rhetoric and ideology in order to defend and encourage a woman’s second amendment right to owning a gun.
The National Rifle Association has always used their power in the American political system and society to advocate for what best aides their members, but what aides their members in their continued access to virtually unlimited gun sales doesn’t benefit the American population as a whole. The NRA has a strong base of people who are white, male, more likely to be living in a rural setting, and relatively less educated than others and it has a history of supporting legislation that only benefits these people, even when the legislation goes against what many believe are their core values now. During the 20th century, the NRA supported the style of legislation that they now consider an infringement upon their second amendment rights, and the height of their support for gun control occurred during the time of the Black Panther Party. As the Black Panthers gained societal power and influence, they advocated that black Americans should take up arms to defend themselves from a system of government and policing that wouldn’t defend them. The NRA adamantly opposed this, as did President Reagan, who moved to pass legislation that limited the rights of gun owners and those who wished to buy guns. This NRA supported act served to limit the amount of black activists and others who had the ability to acquire weapons. But in the ten to fifteen years after the legislation surrounding the limitation of gun rights for the expressed purpose of ensuring that black activists were unable to acquire them as easily passed, the NRA’s core of white conservatives began to realize that the creation of gun control laws, such as this, restrict them as well. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the NRA decided to refine their message, to focus on the deregulation of guns for the expressed purpose of hunting and sport.
“Freedom’s Safest Place: Real Empowerment” encourages the exact thing that the NRA was working to destroy during the Black Panther movement. In an act of appropriation of black activists’ and liberationists’ ideologies, the NRA promotes the purchase of weapons in an effort to protect women from those who are harming them. This ad’s desired effect -- the heightened sale of firearms to women in an effort to enable them to protect themselves in situations when the law and our society fail to protect them -- is directly a parallel to what the Black Panthers were trying to achieve, but the NRA is putting a white, falsely pro-woman spin on it.
About halfway into the advertisement, the woman speaking, cast to be an seen as an average American woman, which, notably, is a white woman without any distinct characteristics, makes a reference to her right to choose. The woman says to any potentially violent predators that as more women, like her, gain access to weaponry, they will be able to use their “right to choose [their] life over [the lives of the predators].” After this, a picture of the Statue of Liberty is shown, as the woman’s voiceover states that being able to choose, essentially, to kill someone else is what “real empowerment looks like.” Referencing a woman’s right to choose is a clear allusion to the right to have an abortion, and is linked to the pro-choice movement and second wave feminist philosophy. The hardship endured by women across the United States in the years previous to abortion being legalized lead to a mobilization by thousands of people to push for a women’s autonomy. And since the supreme court case that decided abortion was legal, Roe vs. Wade, there have still been constant attacks on women’s rights to it. In December of 2015, which was likely the time this advertisement was being made, a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood was the site of a domestic terror attack in which a man used a gun to kill three and injured nine people. The NRA didn’t make any comments on this attack, even though there is no indication that the shooter bought his weapon illegally. In the wake of an attack on a place known for protecting a woman’s legal right to choose, with a gun legally purchased, the National Rifle Association commandeered the language of a woman’s right to choose and used it to promote violence.
The NRA does not have the right to define “Real Empowerment” as they simultaneously appropriate the ideology of the Black Panthers and use the rhetoric of the Pro-Choice movement. The NRA’s desire for the sale of more memberships and guns has lead them to expand to try to target women in their advertisement, as to create more money. This desire for more wealth, to be able to continue protecting the rights they interpret as being given in the constitution, is exemplifying of capitalist sentiment. As the NRA calls out to women to purchase and use more guns, there are 93 gun deaths in the United States per day. This advertisement encourages the fighting of gun violence with guns, which is like fighting fire with fire: everything burns down.
Works Cited
"Gun Violence by the Numbers." EverytownResearch.org. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 22 June 2017. Web. 29 June 2017.
NRAVideos. "Freedom's Safest Place | Real Empowerment." YouTube. YouTube, 11 July 2016. Web. 29 June 2017.
Winkler, Adam. "The Secret History of Guns." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 29 June 2017.
WestWorld: A story of Master and slave morality
By Shaun Rousso
Westworld recentlyfinished its first season on HBO. It is about a theme park in which the wealthy can go to essentially play god. The park is a large area that is set up to look like the Wild West, and the guests put on a cowboy costume before venturing inside. Once inside, there are many “narratives” that the guest can chose to follow if they choose to. The beings that run the narratives and occupy the towns in the park are highly advanced robots called “Hosts”. Due to the fact that the hosts are not human, the guests have the ability to murder them, steal from them, and commit other crimes without any fear of punishment. The show addresses many philosophical ideas such as the nature of conciseness and the ethics of robots. However, this paper will only discuss ideas that stem from the philosophy of Nietzsche. (Spoilers for the show will be discussed!)
The most prevalent of Nietzsche’s beliefs that can be observed in West World is that of Master and Slave morality. Nietzsche describes Master morality as a way that the wealthy and powerful act. It is focused inwards on what the “Master” wants to do. The individual would not think of the consequences at the time that the act is being committed. To them the concept of bad is an afterthought, because they do not act how they do in order to hurt the “slave”, they act in a way that will further their personal objectives. Nietzsche describes Slave morality as being a very reactionary way of acting. People acting on slave morality will try to deny oppression from those acting in Master morality. They will grow to resent the person that is keeping them oppressed and will define their actions as evil. Once the “Slave” defines the “Master’s” actions as evil, anything that different from those actions is good in the “Slave’s” eyes. Nietzsche also says that the “Slave” will learn to be craftier than the “Master”. He does not believe that either Slave morality or Master morality is more ethical than the other. To show why, Nietzsche uses the example of a predator and its prey. The predator needs to eat, and as a result eats the prey without pondering the consequences (Master morality). The prey begins to fear the predator, trying to escape it, and deeming it evil (Slave Morality). The predator is not evil for eating food, but the prey is not good, simply by being the prey.
In the context of the show, the guests would be demonstrating Master morality. Since the hosts are reparable robots, and not “real people”, the guests are permitted to treat them in any way they please. They harm the hosts without any evil intent, only to further their experience in the park. The guests are not actually thinking about what is “bad” at the point in which they are harming the hosts. One character named William comes to the park for the first time with his soon to be brother in law, Logan. Logan had been to the park before, and is already used to the sense of Master morality he gets while there. William on the other hand, is not used to it, and is very uneasy about doing anything he would deem immoral while out of the park. During the series we see William adjust to this new sense of master morality and towards the end, it is revealed that he is a younger version of the man in black. The man in black is seen throughout the show, constantly hurting the hosts, has completed all of the possible narratives in Westworld, and is even the major shareholder in the park.
In the show, the hosts demonstrate the idea of slave morality. They are programmed to accept harm from the guests without fighting back, and for a while it is fine, because the hosts are on a loop that is reset every day. However, when some of the hosts begin to gain consciousness and when they realize the abuse they experience, they begin to feel the resentment towards the guests that is described by Nietzsche. There are two examples in the first season of this happening. One of them is when a host named Dolores achieves true consciousness in the final episode of season one. She realizes that the thoughts in her head are her own thoughts, and decides to try to overthrow the “masters” by shooting and killing many of the guests. The other example of this is when a host named Maeve plots to escape Westworld. Her plan shows that she has grown cleverer than those demonstrating Master Morality. She murders some of the Westworld technicians, and eventually makes it to the train to exit. While it is established that these actions were coded in these hosts as part of a new narrative, we can tell they were done because of the hosts’ own decisions and not the code. We know this for Dolores because she has gained the ability to think to herself, and thus consciousness. This would allow here to make decisions for herself and deny the programming. We know this for Maeve because she was told of the change in code, and still decided to proceed with her plan, proving she had control.
In conclusion, Nietzsche’s ideas of Master and Slave morality are present in the show Westworld. Master Morality is shown by the guests, as they do not care about harming the hosts, they only care about their fun in the park. Slave morality is shown by the hosts when they gain free will to a certain extent and try to fight back against the oppressive guests they have come to resent. This show presents Nietzsche’s philosophy in a very interesting and creative way.
Phineas and Ferb and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
By Laura Cunningham
Phineas and Ferb is a Disney Channel original cartoon that follows the antics of two mechanically-gifted boys, bored by the typical monotony of summertime and determined to make it the best one yet. On the surface, it could appear that their older sister, Candace, attempts to thwart their extravagant plans simply out of sibling spite, but could it be possible that she is actually trying to enlighten her parents?
In Republic, Plato proposes his Allegory of the Cave, in which three prisoners are tied up inside of a cave, their backs to the opening. They have only ever seen shadows cast upon the cave walls, and have come to accept the shadows as reality. Suddenly, one prisoner is released, and, although initially disillusioned, he comes to realize what he had accepted as fact was actually just representations of the real world. When the prisoner returns to the cave and attempts to explain to the others what he has seen, he is met with violent backlash.
One may ask, what does this allegory have to do with Phineas and Ferb? Simply put, Candace is the escaped prisoner. In the series’s first episode, entitled “Rollercoaster”, Candace first discovers Phineas and Ferb building a rollercoaster in their backyard. Upon this discovery, she panics, and sets off to find her mom so that she can “bust” her brothers. This discovery is Candace’s first time stepping out of the cave, and encountering the truth. Following the allegory, their parents, primarily their mother, represent the other prisoners in the cave. Unlike Candace, Linda and Lawrence Flynn-Fletcher have never seen the true ways of Phineas and Ferb, and their knowledge of their inventions is minimal. Candace’s parents are known to praise Phineas and Ferb for their creativity, and perceive their grandiose invention stories as tales of imagination rather than fact. It is Candace’s eternal quest to convince her parents of the truth, but she is constantly shot down with sarcasm, and is ultimately met with disbelief. For this reason, Candace is the escaped prisoner; she has seen the light, but rather than being understood, she is met with backlash from the other prisoners (albeit less violent than in the original allegory, but backlash nonetheless).
This connection invokes another question: if the Flynn-Fletchers’ understanding of the universe is within the cave, how can one classify the goings-on of Phineas and Ferb? It’s accepted that they are not average boys, but could they be something more? Plato defines knowledge in two categories: that of the sensible world, and of the intelligible world. The sensible world is comprised of material objects, of which one knows by belief, and images, which are known by imagination. On the other hand, the intelligible world is comprised of math objects, which are known due to dianoia (thinking), and forms, which are known by nous (contemplation). Those within Plato’s cave, for example, the Flynn-Fletcher’s, are only able to that of the sensible world. This would justify why Phineas and Ferb’s parents belittle their inventions down to mere imagination; they are not able to comprehend anything more complex than such. Phineas, Ferb, and Candace, however, are operating within the intelligible world, and The Divided Line between the two worlds is what keeps Candace from achieving her goals. Additionally, this can lead the watcher to believe that the boys’ inventions are more than just simple projects for their mother to see; because of their place in the intelligible world, their physical form may not be of the utmost importance. The formula they use to create is far more important than the object itself in the intelligible world, but also within the bounds of the show’s universe. Why else would they be so unbothered when their daily projects disappear at the end of each episode?
The Male Gaze In Video Games
by Ellery Neal
For as long as video games have been around, there has been a kind of hostile objectification of women in the industry. Female developers, characters, and players have been treated by men as an “other,” a category separate and lesser than themselves. This comes from the long-standing stereotype that women are weaker and less intelligent than men, and therefore could never hold their own either on the virtual battlefield or in a developer’s office.
Although change is happening, it is still a widely popular opinion that women don’t belong in the video game world, except for of course to fall into the beloved stereotypes. These include the damsel in distress, the aloof tomboy, the provocative but deadly ‘femme fatale’, the mother who dies just to give the main character a backstory, and the inhuman eye candy, just to name a few. Stereotypical characters are often found even in wildly popular franchises across all platforms. Nintendo, even though they tend to avoid inappropriate or provocative characters because they market mainly toward children, is guilty of using “damsel in distress” tropes very often in the cases of Princess Peach and Zelda, two female characters who are more often than not seen as simply a trophy for the male main character to strive for. In the case of Mortal Kombat, most of the female playable characters are almost entirely uncovered and are ridiculously oversexualized in proportion and portrayal. Perhaps more appalling still is the fact that Call Of Duty, the overall most popular franchise in the first person shooter genre is just recently adding in a playable female character at all, despite that nearly half of its players worldwide are women.
The phenomena of exploiting women in media is not new. Even before video games, women’s bodies were sexualized or objectified in movies, on TV, and in magazines. In Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure And Narrative Cinema, she says “Traditionally, the woman displayed has functioned on two levels; as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator.” A female character that seemingly exists only for the male hero also exists to please the male audience. Despite changes in today’s social climate and a growing body positivity movement, there still remains a hub of sexism and objectification of females within the video game community, and as I think is beginning to become apparent, it will soon come to a grinding halt.
Logic: Two Against One
by William Giliberti
Logic, Aka Sir Robert Bryson Hall II, was born in Gaithersburg, Maryland to a black father and a racist white mother. However though Logic is bi-racial, he appears white. This fact leads to a loss of self-identity for Logic as he is split between two cultures and hasn’t felt like he doesn’t have a “place”. Music is a method of release for Logic’s frustrations and is easily seen throughout his works. However this is most prevalent is his newest album Everybody .In the title song he express this in the line, “In my blood is the slave and the master. It's like the devil playin spades with the pastor.” The reason he gives for his problems is outside influence and racism even from his own mom, which is mentioned in the song “Take it Back”. In the title song he says, “But he was born with the white privilege! Man what the fuck is that? White people told me as a child, as a little boy, playin with his toys I should be ashamed to be black, And some black people look ashamed when I rap, Like my great granddaddy didn’t take a whip to the back, Not accepted by the black or the white.” This outside pressure is similar to the one present in Léon-Gontran Damas poem “Hiccup”. Mickaella Perina analyzes this poem to be about the forcing of different cultures through the use of the mother in the poem forcing her son to adhere to particular cultural activities. Due to Logic’s skin color, people haven’t been accepting to him being in the rap game, the game being traditional held by black men. In “AfricAryaN” he raps, “Black man screaming, trying to convince me I’m not black.”
Logic’s A E S T H E T I C or “sound”, used to be a mixture of influences that Logic pulled from. His previous albums and mixtapes relied heavily on his influences like Kendrick Lamar. Logic has never had his own unique A E S T H E T I C, until now with his Everybody album showing him creating his own unique sound with monologues and flow. His message also is one of peace, love, and positivity, a unique message not typically seen in the rap game. Logic’s album entry has some tension as critics critize him for self-expressing and talking about his problems with being Bi-racial to the extent that he has. This has produced an discourse, as Perina would say, between typical rap A E S T H E T I C and Logic’s A E S T H E T I C.
Perina talks about how indiviudals, “attempt to create new boundaries for themselves in the contemporary era,” but that older boundaries of race are still influential. One way in which Logic creates a new boundary, is in his use of the N word. In the past, Logic has always been hesitant to use the N word in his raps because he understood that people would be mad at him since he looked white. Logic has since unchained himself as he has found his identity and considers himself black and able to use the N word. However it is also true that Logic is still bound by boundaries of race. Initally Logic was going to title his project “AfricAryaN”, after the last song, but after backlash online of potential racism, he changed it Everybody. Logic has traveled far in finding his identity and sound and in doing so has broken his internal chains. However though his message is, “peace, love, and positivity, equality for all man, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, and sexual orientation” his music won’t be able to break the society chains of racism and bias. Though he no longer cares about outside pressure he won’t be able to change it.
“It's kind of funny how your pigment determines how people perceive you. That's ignant”
popularity=conformity
by Janie Edgar
Conformity is everywhere in society today. It is present not only in how we react with others but also in the media. Movies, for example, either show characters that conform to certain stereotypes, ideals, or popular culture. They also are almost always predictable, because they are extremely similar to other movies in their genre. Mean Girls, for example, has a group of stereotypical girls as some of the main characters, and the movie itself is a standard ya movie. It is about how Cady Heron, who is new to public school, gets swept up into the popular group at school and changes to become like them. Despite its typical plot, it is an extremely popular movie. This begs the question are things popular because they conform to what is typical or expected?
Dialectic of the Enlightenment by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer discuss in depth the uniformness that is present in entertainment and in our society. They say that “Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in.” The celebrities that we idolize so much conform to be more like others just like we do. We all struggle to change to be like others we deem better than ourselves. Many do this so that they will be liked more. In this sense one could say that conformity=popularity.
The song “Popular” the musical Wicked is a prime example of how conforming can make you popular. During the song one of the main characters is getting a makeover from her roommate and being taught how to be popular. She is told to dress and act a certain way. She was also told to do certain things and to hang out with the “right” people. To become popular she had to change and become like other people who are popular. This show that by conforming to certain things you can become popular.
In conclusion, popularity is based on conformity. Many popular things in entertainment are similar to other things within their same genre. Movies for example can be easy to predict the ending since they are so similar to other movies but they are still popular. Celebrities conform to be more like others in the industry so that they will be well received and well liked. We in turn change to be like them and or other people who are viewed as popular. Often times this causes us to be liked by others more. Because of this popularity=conformity.
A Feminist Philosophical Analysis of The Big Bang Theory
by Riley McElveen
The TV series The Big Bang Theory follows the daily lives and love interests of four male scientists; Sheldon Cooper, Leonard Hofstadter, Rajesh Koothrappali, and Howard Wolowitz. Throughout the seasons, each character interacts with potential love interests within the constraints of their home and work lives. Penny, Bernadette, and Amy are all introduced as love interests of Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon, while Rajesh’s love interests vary by season.
Big Bang Theory as a whole is a prime example of the male gaze in modern films and media. Not only are the four major characters male, each character’s primary goal in the series is to find and keep a female love interest. Both of these things are not necessarily corrupt in themselves, but their specific portrayal within Big Bang Theory implicates the negative stereotype that women only exist to sexually please men. The male gaze in this film series is often overlooked yet glaringly obvious. The male gaze exists in three forms; the first is that of the person behind the camera. The second; the characters themselves exerting the male gaze, and the third; that of the male spectator/audience that is able to put themselves in the shoes of the characters. The majority of past and even many present cinematic pieces are blatantly created for the male gaze, including the sexualization of women, a mostly male cast, and a scopophilic point of view (the pleasure that comes with surveying people as objects in a controlling/dominant way). In the Big Bang Theory, the four major characters are all men, giving the majority of the male audience a connection to the show, and therefore a connection to their scopophilic viewpoints through the male gaze. This project will be comparing Laura Mulvey’s essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, and an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
In the episode “The Panty Pinata Polarization”, when Penny introduces the four scientists to the show America’s Next Top Model, they (specifically Howard) immediately notice the models’ sexual appeal. Howard first describes them as being the potential “future Mrs. Wolowitz”, seeing them as sexual objects that he feels he has ownership over. The scientists then continue to obsess over the models on the show, eventually resorting to extreme measures to find the address of the house the women are staying at and pose as part of a cable company to get inside the house. Legally, this is considered stalking. However, because it is put into a comedic televised context, it is socially accepted. This furthers the patriarchal tone throughout the series, portraying the scientists as “above” women, and, as a result, their perverted actions are found to be inconsequential. In the series, the women are seen as the object, and men the subject, such as in the keyhole explanation. The series encapsulates an alarming amount of raging misogyny and sexism. Moreover, the characters frequent perverted behaviour is often dismissed as a “joke” or deemed appropriate because of their geeky and awkward personalities. This clearly is meant to appeal to the male sex; thus further confirming that the Big Bang Theory is sculpted to the male gaze.
Laura Mulvey, as a feminist film theorist, often analyzed the products of a patriarchal society and the effects it has on the media and public. In her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, she discusses the prominence of the male gaze in cinematic pictures and its degrading effects. In order for a cinematic piece to satisfy the male gaze, it must have the feel of a connection from the male audience to the characters within the film. In this way, when Howard and the other scientists project their lust and longing onto the models and blatantly objectify them, the male gaze is a prominent figure in this scene. Their lust gives a feeling of possession over the models, which is then transferred to the male audience, giving them a feeling of possession as well. As Laura Mulvey explains, “By means of identification with him, through participation in his power, the spectator can indirectly possess her too” (Mulvey, 840). Laura Mulvey’s view directly correlates to the portrayal of the male gaze in the modern series The Big Bang Theory. In the complete disregard for the models’ privacy and autonomy, this is another prime example of women being perceived as objects for consumption, and so the male gaze. Society as a whole is a major factor in the way the male gaze is used in media. Modern feminist aesthetics sees this as a huge part of the patriarchal societal order, and in continuing this, continuing the oppression of the female sex. The male gaze is everywhere we look; in advertisements, film and cinema, and even music. The Big Bang Theory series is a prime example of the male gaze in film. The ethical standpoint of this show is unclear, but one thing is: Laura Mulvey would find modern cinematic pieces, specifically The Big Bang Theory, to be an abhorrent product of the male gaze.
The Truth Behind Hollywood “Glow Ups”
By Erin Smith
In today’s society, we are constantly working towards the “better”; better education, better laws, and, of course, better looks. We see what was previously was considered “better” to be “bad” as soon as a new, improved version of it is developed. Grease, a classic movie taking place in the 1950s, is about two lovers, Sandy and Danny, whom come in conflict when Sandy discovers that Danny isn’t the kindhearted gentleman she thought he was when she met him that past summer. We see Sandy made fun of for her “good girl” attitude while Danny is continuously encouraged by his friends to uphold his “bad boy” reputation. In the end, we see Sandy submit to the pressure from her friends to become a “bad girl” so she can be with Danny, getting a new, rebellious look that causes Danny to fall head over heels for her. Here, we confront this idea of a “better” version of Sandy; the sweet, modest version of herself is seen as “bad,” whereas the rebellious, alluring version is seen as “better.” This transformation from a previously modest, nerdy, and/or unattractive version of oneself to a version that more closely resembles what society considers attractive is often referred to by pop culture as a “glow up” and is many times used in modern media to transform a character, usually female, previously seen as unattractive to a more glamorous or “pretty” state, often resulting in higher social status and getting the man she has been dreaming of. Although this transformation may seem satisfying and even necessary in modern pop culture, it sends an unwanted message to the young female population: to get the guy, you must conform. This message is obvious in Sandy’s first entrance as her “new self”; Danny and his friends watch her in disbelief as she smokes her cigarette, one man even whistling at her for effect. Danny immediately forgets past conflicts and begins singing “You’re the One That I Want,” a song basically all about his extreme attraction towards Sandy now that she’s changed completely. This positive feedback Sandy receives due to her “glow up” promotes the idea that she has now achieved a “better” self, therefore instructing the audience to change themselves for others.
The idea of the female “glow up” also contributes to the idea of the male gaze, a philosophical concept stated by Laura Mulvey that describes the idea of women being seen as an object of visual pleasure for men. In Grease, it can most definitely be seen, as mentioned before, when Danny and the other men in the scene stare at Sandy’s new look. Even the positioning of the camera, starting at the feet and scanning up to her face, gives the illusion of Sandy as an object of visual pleasure. This camera shot is used an immeasurable amount of times in movies, bringing attention to the physical characteristics of the female in question and, in a sense, giving us “permission” to visually analyze her. Moreover, movies often make it appear as if the goal of the female character is to become the object of the male gaze. For example, in Taylor Swift’s music video for her hit song “You Belong With Me,” Taylor longs for her best friend, who’s also her secret crush, to reciprocate her feelings for him. In the end, Taylor arrives at the homecoming dance in a long, white dress and perfectly curled hair, contrasting from her formerly “nerdy” self. When her friend sees her, his face turns to disbelief, and he confesses his love for her. Just like that, Taylor’s goal is accomplished through the male gaze. As soon as we see the friend’s expression, we know that Taylor has reached her goal and the story must end happily. Although the story itself is sweet and heartwarming, the message that particular ending sends may not be the best for young, impressionable girls and teens. Even though the male in the story obviously had feelings for Taylor the entire time, he only confronts her about it when she changes her physical appearance, yet again supporting the idea that females must change in order to get her ideal male.
In conclusion, society has incorporated many ideas of what is seen as “better” in females into even the most classic movies. In Grease, Sandy’s “glow up” conveys a message of conformity and “changing for the guy” to become “better.” We also see the idea of the male gaze not only in Grease but also in other media, such as Taylor Swift’s music video for “You Belong With Me.” Of course, these mediums are not the only ones we see these ideals conveyed through. Whether or not we realize it, many of our favorite movies, books, and songs send messages of what beauty is and how females need to act and physically look in order to be “better.” Although it may seem nearly impossible to eliminate these negative messages from pop culture, we can at least recognize them and work to minimize their influence on present and future generations of young girls and teens to come.
I Nietzche to think about the Church
By Angel Muse
To Nietzsche, the Christian Church “seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption”. In his ‘Antichrist’ or ‘AntiChristian’ work he even goes on to say that it has turned every value to worthlessness and claims that the church has turned every truth into a lie. This is just the beginning of the truths he held indisputable.
Nietzsche stated that the truths we hold evident are only just illusions that we have forgotten are illusions. Humans are so obsessed with the truth that they will not give it up. Even when those that teach the ‘truth’ drastically change it, we are still enamored by it and do not notice the corruption beyond closed doors. This is what Nietzsche concluded happens in the church system.
When the Pope or a high member of the church attempts to change the ultimate view of the church to undermine the pope before them and to change the church in the ways that he envisions he therefore changes the overall truth of the church. Nietzsche had no doubt in his concept of how authority figures are the multitude that are slowly leading us into the corruption of society.
When the authority in our lives vaguely describes an issue that affects countless lives they are aiding the supposed corruption of the church. The people rely so heavily on the views of the church that they are unable to make decisions for themselves about important issues. Nietzsche once stated, “confronted with the raging stupidity and the noisy chattering of the democratic bourgeois, they keep their ears plugged”. This particular quote shows the reader that Nietzsche thought that the ‘enlightened’ kept the truth concealed from the
common man.
The Church changes its view so frequently that in order to stay on top of the changes you have to be incredibly involved. This excludes the common man and ensures that even well standing members of the church no longer know where the church stands on issues of faith. Standards that the church used to believe were a commandment are now just the optimal target and it is all right if you do not obtain them. What the church once regarded as a severe sin is now becoming a minor imperfection. The things that were once considered commandments are still somehow considered exemplary but who can fathom how long they will even be sustained. Concepts that the church once stated definitely they now propose hesitantly, causing them to take a gander at uncertainty and a great deal of self assessment. Nietzsche strongly disagreed with corruption and the changing of the illusion of truth so I believe that he would have loathed the church and the concept of priests even more today than he would have when he was alive.
Grey’s Anatomy and Identity
By Emma Hay
The Paradox of Theseus’s Ship questions the identity of a ship whose parts have been replaced and repaired to the point that there are no longer any original pieces remaining on the ship. Many philosophers have contemplated over whether or not it is still the same ship as it was on its first journey. Does the ship’s identity lie in its parts, or its experiences? Thomas Hobbes furthers this thought experiment by putting forth another instance. If a ship was built out of all of the old parts of the ship, it is the real ship or is the still functioning one the ship?
This paradox can be related to the american drama series, Grey’s Anatomy. Very few of the original characters remain on the show, causing many viewers to complain that it is no longer the same show. Others may argue that it is the same show and that although the original characters may be gone, the essence of the show is still present. So, we ask ourselves, has the identity of Grey’s Anatomy changed or does it remain the same?
When talking about the identity of a person, or in this case, a show, there are two main theories. The Body Theory says that people keep the same identity because they stay in the same body from birth to death. The Memory Theory says that people keep the same identity because of the memories and experiences they have. If you apply the Body Theory to Grey’s Anatomy, it would be a different show because the body of characters are nearly completely replaced. If you apply the Memory theory, though, it would not be considered different, because the show still contains and is known because of the experiences and memories that have been made on it. However, consider this: if you made another show with all the original characters that left, which show would be the real one?
It is argued that because the main character of Grey’s Anatomy, Meredith Grey, remains in the series, the show has not completely changed. One must take into account the character development of the main character. Meredith Grey has changed as a character over the past thirteen season, and even though she remains an original cast member still on the show, she is not the same person, because of the experiences she has had and grown from, as well as the characters that are no longer present in her fictional life.
Scottish philosopher David Hume rejects the idea of self, meaning that it doesn’t matter if we think Grey’s Anatomy has changed, because the viewers who watch the show have changed and the people who write and produce the show have changed as well. We can be sure that Grey’s Anatomy is different from when it began, but how can we know if it is completely different or not when we have changed ourselves?
Embracing Femininity While Breaking Gender Norms
By Grant Mimms
In of Montreal’s song entitled “it’s different for girls” gender norms are broken while femininity is embraced. This leads to an interesting juxtaposition between cultural and poststructural feminism. Cultural feminism is all about embracing femaleness while poststructural feminism refuses to define femininity. Both of these ideas on feminism have their merits and shortcomings.
The lyrics in “it’s different for girls” describe the life of being a women in our society. It talks about how women are objectified on a constant basis and are used as a kind of sexual currency. The objectification of women is an omnipresent reality, especially in most media, like movies and music. “It’s different for girls” describes how women are socialized to be docile and put up with men's odious behavior. Kevin Barnes, the lead musician in of Montreal, describes men as “aggro pricks” who are ultra competitive, rash, and violent. Barnes is encouraging people of any gender to embrace traditional feminine traits. Barnes refuses to let men define women by saying women aren’t a “masculine dissonance.” In the music video for “it’s different for girls” Barnes breaks down traditional gender lines by wearing a dress, makeup and a blond wig while dancing flamboyantly. The lyrics in “it’s different for girls” point to cultural feminism. But also Barnes himself is a man who decides to break down gender lines, thus blurring the line of femininity and masculinity.
Is it possible to break down gender lines while also embracing femininity? Embracing femininity is freeing, but the entire idea of something being feminine can exclude people and create stereotypes. Letting a group of often middle class, white women define what it means to be a women seems unjust. Intersectionality should be at the core of defining femininity. Evidently, cultural feminism can be damaging. At the same time if you forget about femininity now, in a time where rampant sexism is ubiquitous, it could lead to people continuing to be sexist because of a lack of dialogue. Typically “feminine” traits should be embraced by all genders, and that’s exactly what of Montreal's music video for “it’s different for girls” is encouraging. Gender norms are arbitrary and irrelevant. People should be who they want to be instead of letting society define them by their gender. In of Montreal’s “it’s different for girls” femininity is encouraged while gender norms are broken.
Stor Wor
by Lucy Bowling
A long time ago in a country far, far away Immanuel Kant theorized that morality revolves around the concepts of Good Will and the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that one should have a good will, or act out of moral obligations to help others and preserve human life. It was one’s duty to act out of good will and not selfishness. The Categorical Imperative was a way of making the most moral decision aligned with good will: make a kind of rule or statement for the action you are about to complete, and ask “Would I be okay with everyone doing this? Is this okay in any circumstance?” Rules created by the categorical imperative were called maxims, and were essentially all-encompassing moral laws. For Kant, there was no subjective. Kant thought that one’s emotions could seriously affect their moral compass, and should have no impact on their decisions. If one was deriving joy from a moral action, there is a chance they were doing it for themselves. Preserving Good Will was more important than personal pleasure.
Replace “Good Will” with “the Light Side” and both Kant and the Jedi order have similar flaws. The Jedi and Sith orders in Star Wars is similar to Kant’s strict, black and white view of morality. Jedi are force users that use the Light side of the force, or use the force for morally good purposes like saving lives. The Jedi Code says that Jedi should avoid emotional attachments and cannot marry. This is because the Jedi believed that emotional attachments could lead to jealousy, anger, and ultimately a turn to the dark side. Both Kant and the Jedi order assume that compassion and empathy are ultimately corrupting in that they can cause selfish actions. An example of this is in Episode V in which Yoda tries to convince Luke to not go to Cloud City in favor of training. Yoda fears that his feelings will be exploited and that it may ultimately cause turmoil that would lead him to the dark side when. Luke leaving was ultimately the most moral decision: he ended up saving more lives than he would have if he remained on Dagobah training. His strong emotional attachments to his friends ended up being a good thing that fuelled him. The Jedi’s fear of emotion can be described as radical. Compassion can sometimes cause more moral decisions.
A Jedi knight would essentially use the Categorical Imperative when deciding when to use violence. Generally, they would only react violently when attacked first and if they are sure that the other individual is a significant threat. In Episode III, this maxim can be questioned. After Mace Windu learns that Palpatine is a Sith, he is about to execute him unarmed when Anakin stops him. To Kant, Anakin stopping him was the most moral action as it aligns with the Jedi order’s maxims, when in actuality killing Palpatine would have saved tens of thousand of lives. This is an instance when the Categorical Imperative is proven to be unreliable.
Both Kant and the Jedi see morality in an extreme black-and-white fashion. We have yet to see a force user who occupies the gray space between the Light and Dark sides of the Force. The trailer for The Last Jedi makes me hopeful that we will.
Space Photography
by Zoey Michaelson
Space photography uses some of the most unique subjects like nebulas, galaxies, stars, etc. New technology allows us to see the most distant entities in detail - the variety of colors blending together to show the shapes and layers of things lightyears away. The layers in the images give the impression that it’s almost 3D, like there’s something more which is part of what catches people’s eye. Just the word “space” can attract attention - for years humans have been trying to explore what’s out there and having images of it spikes curiosity. Space photography is mainly alluring because it’s something that humans haven’t seen much of. New things can hold people’s attention just because it’s new and get bored of it when they’ve seen enough of it. However, this doesn’t strictly apply to space since no one is sure how far the universe goes so there might always be something new.
Don’t know why I’m crying in the club right now
by Emily Kitchens
*spoilers for The Fault in Our Stars aqui*
One of my favorite things in the world is to be so absorbed in a book to the extent that I am feeling the emotions the characters feel. The Fault in Our Stars is a book that was able to blur the lines of reality and make believe. Hazel Grace is a 16 year old girl who had been diagnosed with lung cancer. She is reluctant to attend her support group at church, but when she does, she meets a boy named Augustus and falls in love with him. He was diagnosed with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) but had been cleared of cancer for a while. *spoilers ahead* Gus goes with Hazel to see her favorite author Van Houten (who is not all he’s cracked up to be), and Gus’s cancer ends up coming back. Gus doesn’t want to ruin the best trip of his life, so he keeps quiet, and in the end, he dies. How can a fictional tale get us so emotional? Aristotle’s idea of tragedy might be able to help sort this out.
Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is “…the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;... in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.”
One of the elements of Aristotle’s tragedy is that “the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself. In other words, Aristotle is telling writers not to make a big deal out of something that’s irrelevant. For example, if a character were to break their fingernail, it wouldn’t count as a tragedy. The way that I’ve analyzed the “complete in itself” section was that you just had one thing going on at a time so that the audience doesn’t get lost in the plot. The Fault in Our Stars was able to do this very well, with enough overlapping that it wasn’t confusing, but it’s definitely a page turner.
Aristotle states that a good tragedy had six main elements: plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle. He felt that plot was the most important of the six elements. He also believed that a good plot has change from one state of things at the beginning, to the exact opposite by the end. *spoilers ahead* The Fault in Our Stars is able to exceed expectations here obviously. Most people probably expected Hazel Grace to die if anyone, but Gus’s cancer returned and took the audience by surprise.
Aristotle concludes his statements with three forms of plot which should be avoided in tragedies. The first is a good man shouldn’t pass from happiness to misery; it makes the audience mad that bad things happened to him and they won’t pity him, just be angry for him. Second, a bad man shouldn’t be passed from misery to happiness; the audience doesn’t want to see the evil rewarded. Lastly, a bad man can’t pass from happiness to misery; the audience won’t feel bad for him because they believe he got what he deserved.
You’ll find that when you read a book, you become emotionally attached to the characters and by the end of the book, you can decide whether you like them or not, figure out their speech patterns, and they sometimes become predictable as a person. It’s almost like when you become friends with someone, except in a book…it sounds weird but it’s really not (is it though??). We can trace it back to our cavemen/women years. Humans are very social creatures and we’re almost always thinking about oth er people. You end up “hanging out with” and “getting to know” these characters and you become aware of the decisions they are making. Once you get to know the characters better, you become more empathetic for what they are going through.
Aristotle had a good idea of the principles of a good tragedy, and John Green was able to incorporate them into his writing to engross his readers. Writers who wish to write tragedies should look to these basic principles to guide them.
by Jonah Cashel
Musical melody is an imitation of emotion aroused by the inclination of curated sound. Plato saw imitations of real things as a threat to society. He stated that “we shall be right in refusing to admit [the poet] into a well ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason”. This is brought from Plato’s belief that we cannot base moral decisions on feeling. Knowing this, we can infer that Plato would devalue musicians just as he does poets and painters, stating that the imitation of emotion provides only a false sense of what emotions really are.
I would very much disagree with Plato on this and say that music’s imitation of emotion is the most accurate representation that we could have because of it’s ability to subconsciously arouse feelings within us. Plato uses the example of the original creation of a bed and states that an artist can not properly represent the concept of it with imitation. This may work for physical objects because it is not difficult to understand the components of a bed, but more complex forms like emotion may even require imitation in order to be better understood. Music does not explicitly define our emotion but it does, perhaps, sound the way emotion should.
Aristotle believed the opposite of Plato. He thought that imitation was what put humans above lower animals. Where Plato believed that art and imitation nourished the things that people should starve, Aristotle thought that fulfilling these emotions was beneficial to us. Music does indeed nourish our feelings and at times amplifies them. I would say this amplification is an important step to understanding ourselves and to avoid bottling up emotions.
From childhood we are brought up constantly hearing music. Whether it be a music box, a lullaby from your parents, or even an advertising jingle, we are trained from birth to feel things from melodies. A single familiar chord get make crowds go wild, a line of notes can bring on powerful memories. Take, for example, the great TIP tradition song American Pie by Don McLean. From an outside perspective it may seem odd that a few hundred teenagers gather in a circle to sing an old rock song from the 70s but to us it’s more than just a song about the death of a rock star, it signifies every memory we’ve gotten from this camp.
So every year, without fail, we gather in a circle, put our arms around each other, kick our legs to the rhythm, and we bawl our eyes out at the thought of having to wait another year to have this experience again (and for some of us the thought that this will be the last one). This strange old song brings on hurls of emotion that don’t seem to make sense but also don’t seem to stop because you look around and see all these beautiful people with tears smeared across the face, and sometimes, for just a moment, you can’t stop a huge grin from spreading across your face. I couldn’t even begin to explain why this happens, but I know for certain that it’s caused in part by those sweet words and melodies of Mr. Don Mclean, serenading us with the end of an era.
Nietzsching Up With The Kardashians
by Alisha Simmons
If you don’t know who the Kardashians are by now, you’re probably Patrick Star; living under a rock at the bottom of the ocean. In case of that unlikely circumstance, the Kardashians are a wealthy family that have their own reality TV show. There’s Khloe, Kim, and Kourtney Kardashian; then, you have Kendall and Kylie Jenner. Finally, the parents are Kris and Caitlyn Jenner. Oh, there’s also a son named Rob Kardashian, but he doesn’t have a K (or C) in his name so most people just forget about him. Kylie has her own makeup line, Kendall is a model, and I’m unsure of what the others do or if they even do anything at all. In short, the Kardashians are a family that got famous for doing a whole lot of nothing.
I’m a bit skewed as I’m writing this analysis, as the Kardashians aren’t necessarily my favorite people in the world, if you couldn’t already tell. Let’s gather some insight from someone who wouldn’t be biased, as he died over 100 years before the first episode of Keeping up With the Kardashians aired: Friedrich Nietzsche. Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, was a German philosopher, known for his controversial writings and views about morality. You might have heard the name before, as Hollywood likes to (incorrectly) talk about his ideas in movies and pronounce his name wrong in the process. Nietzsche was also kind of a weird dude, as he once had a mental breakdown when he saw a horse being beaten, but that’s besides the point. In the first essay of Genealogy of Morals, one of the central themes is master-slave morality. Master morality establishes the differences between good and bad, painting “good” as nobility, wealth, and physical beauty, whereas “bad” is seen as common, ugly, and dishonest. Slave morality establishes the differences between good and evil, depicting a humble, selfless, and meek person as “good” and a violent, prideful, and superficial person as “evil.” In other words, master morality glorifies those of higher status and slave morality focuses more on those of lower status and is more concerned with justice and fairness. Nietzsche believes that we have left the era of master morality and have entered one of slave morality. If you watch a typical teenage movie, the “popular” kids (which would count as those of higher status if we’re following Nietzsche’s views) are usually depicted as mean and superficial, whereas the “outcast” is the protagonist and is seen as good. This is a prime example of slave morality in the media today.
However, the glorification of the Kardashians (as well as many other celebrities) might show a slight shift back into master morality. The Kardashians are a family of incredible wealth and high status. We are able to stalk their everyday lives through their reality TV show, as well as through social media. Although the media tends to exploit them if they do something wrong, we also sometimes glaze over other things that would usually be seen as unacceptable, simply because these people are popular and wealthy. The Kardashians are also obsessed with their physical beauty, as they’re known for their selfies, makeup, and plastic surgery. In master morality, “good” is also associated with physical beauty. Little girls are viewing the Kardashian women as role models and strive to be like them. All of these points beg the question: Is society shifting back into a state of master morality?
I wish Nietzsche were still alive so I could ask him that exact question, even though he’d be 173 years old if he were alive today. Personally, I believe that there is still a dominance of slave morality in society today, and it’s hard to think of us going back to a hierarchical mindset. Furthermore, another question might have raised in your mind: What would Nietzsche think of the Kardashians and their glorification in society? I don’t think Nietzsche would like them at all, as they are essentially the embodiment of master morality. However, keep in mind that Nietzsche doesn’t like slave morality either. Nietzsche believes in the idea of a man that rises beyond good and evil, the Übermensch, but that’s for another time. Coincidentally, an article from 2012 states that Kim Kardashian was “reading up on Nietzsche to impress Kanye West,” so maybe she would agree with this cultural exegesis.
http://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a384829/kim-kardashian-reading-up-on-nietzsche-to-impress-kanye-west/
Lyrics, Artists and Life Imitation
By Sarah Cohen
Music reaches 124 million people, aged twelve and older, every month, and the average American listens to an average of four hours of music a day. Most artists find inspiration in their own lives, the most popular subjects being relationships and breakups, drugs and alcohol, loss and desire. Based on this, on real life experiences, an artist’s audience is able to relate to the situations their songs discuss. The artist’s imitation of life, and its experiences, good and bad, in their songs, allows them to reach more people, and create common ground, allowing them to become more successful. More and more artists are realizing how effective portraying life, love and loss are, and are applying it to their music more and more.
Plato believes that artists as a whole, whether musicians or craftsmen, are imitators. He says this as a negative thing, reasoning that imitators know nothing of craft, of what they use for their work. This classifies artists as inferior and not to be taken seriously, because imitation is concerned with an inferior part of the soul. Using this reasoning, it could be said that the imitator, promotes parts of ourselves that Plato believes should be diminished. Conversely, Aristotle believes imitation is human nature, and that it is a form of learning, holding it in high respect. Aristotle considers the fourth literary element to be expression of thought into words, similar to when the thoughts of the lyricist translate directly into the lyrics.
On June 16, 2017, Lorde released her first album since 2013. It immediately held the number one spot at the Billboard Top 200 chart. The album, Melodrama, has 11 songs, each one relating to life, hers and others’ around her. Her songs embody real life, and she has shared that she uses lines that she hears in stranger’s conversations, and tests her mixes on bad earphones so that she can see how it will sound to the everyday person. Lorde says that she let her breakup influence her songwriting, along with parties, emotions, and what it felt like to be alone in the world. Lorde argues that writing great lyrics involves “pushing past clichés to a more specific truth.” She strives to find the best words, and the best way to explain and summarize the ups and downs of life.
Although Lorde has found new and different ways to write and word her songs so that they can relate to everyday people, they are ultimately the same thing, about life. This demonstrates that songwriting is really just imitation of life, using what one knows to one's advantage. Her styles align with Aristotle’s view of imitation: that it is human nature, and that expressing thoughts and experiences into words is a key part of learning and literature.
The Weeknd has been seen to be someone who very outwardly expresses his life experiences, and presents his problematic experiences, like drugs and women, as ones he wants to change, as if he is working to remedy himself. Because he so openly discusses these topics that one would try to conceal, he is seen as an honest person, who has nothing to hide from the public and shows his true self. Philosopher David Hume argues that “self” is just a bunch of things belonging to a person, such as body, mind, emotions, preferences, memories and labels. Based on this, it could be argued that The Weeknd is trying to show a ‘false self’ rather than a true one, so that he may be seen as a confessional person. This same theory could be applied to many other artists in the music industry who use their ‘honest’ experiences and mistakes to gain a reputation, audience, and respect, and ones who just imitate life in their lyrics.
Simon Critchley's Views on 12oz. Mouse
by Kolton Carlson
Simon Critchley wakes up and goes on his computer. He clicks on a strange video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqH4Bpe7Mjk . Critchley knows comedy, or at least believes he does. You can even in the wee hours of the day hear him perform incredibly dry comedy in front of uninterested google office workers in the long past. However, his lack of ability to make people laugh doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand why people laugh. So he clicks on the video.
“Did a third grader draw this?” Simon most likely exclaims and then laughs believing he could draw better than this, a superiority laugh which he believes is very common in humor. He isn't quite discouraged, Critchley is no quitting man! An unrecognizable landscape is crashed into by some yellow machine with tentacles(?) on the front. Then he snags sight of the main character for the first time, a beautifully green mouse, named Mouse “Fitz” Fitzgerald. An animal walking is humor to critchley, animals acting like humans is hilarious to him or even humans acting like animals! However he’s not laughing, he’s almost certainly perplexed by what is happening before him.
Enter the office? A shark who is seemingly just leaning on the desk asks the mouse “can i help you?” Then ensues a conversation. Simon Critchley sure as hell isn’t smirking, he’s watching third grade drawings have an abnormal conversation that seems badly guided with terrible timing happen in an office(?)
The mouse is there for a job, “now that’s funny!” says Critchley. Critchley believes in very structured comedy. Joke teller must be accepted by the audience, his structure is almost no structure but still follows a tension build up followed by unexpected punchline which relieves the tension, he calls this pleasure/comic relief. He doesn’t get this satisfaction in 12 oz mouse. The dialogue would especially confuse him for this matter. There's no joke in it, other than the “not drunk enough” line which follows his tension punchline structure. The dialogue is jumbled and anxiously awkward. The long pauses frighten Critchley, HE’S SHAKING IN HIS CHAIR! Critchley, like most everyone believes timing is of the utmost importance in comedy. So as he watches unbelievably long pauses, jumbled dialogue and missing cues he begins to shed maybe a couple manly tears as Critchley capitulates in the lack of structure.
Critchley isn’t done yet he knows he must prevail through the rest of the cartoon. His mind flashes back to the clock, staring ominously throughout the scene. The ticking a constant front in the scene. He can’t get the joke, “THIS ISN’T HUMOR” he yells! As the mouse drinks beer on the screen Critchley falls into a full anger thrashing out. He burns his on humor books for warmth and to cook the mice that scuttle across his room as he rocks back and forth watching every episode of 12 oz mouse again, and again, and again, and again. He watches the structure of comedy fall in front of his eyes, his central belief of the joke needing to be accepted by the audience defiled in front of him. He doesn’t want the joke, the cartoon forces it onto him. In his metaphor of jokes he says that the game is throwing a ball to someone and they need to throw it back to work. He keeps catching the ball, but putting it in his pocket, not accepting the joke because it doesn’t fall into his comedic structure.
After years of viewing the cartoon he begins to realize, there is a plot, there is something happening here and that comedy/humor can never be simplified into simple structures. Breaking the structure itself can be comedy. Breaking the structure of the broken structure can be even funnier. Entering a realm of no structure, which 12oz mouse almost does can be the epitome of humor or just full on strange. Critchley proposes that comedy does have structure. Jokes have to follow a certain formula and have to talk about things about life and the absurdity of them. 12oz mouse does none of this. It’s a whole new world, we assume the world is strange because it’s not ours but it could be absolutely normal. There’s no structure to the show, it's constantly changing, episodic but still following a plot, seeing things from different perspectives at all times and never repeating itself, another thing critchley says is important to humor. It breaks all his rules. However, to many, 12oz mouse is hilarious, and a great cartoon which shows things don’t have to be the same, and that crushing structures can produce beautiful works of art. It also brings to question what's humor, what makes us laugh and why? Critchley’s answer isn’t quite sufficient enough, not that the question could ever truly be answered.
A Feminist Critique of the National Rifle Association’s Definition of Empowerment
by Mary Elizabeth Marquardt
According to the National Rifle Association, “Real Empowerment” for women isn’t defined by their affirmation of their self and their gender, isn’t defined by their ability to choose to pursue their dreams, goals, or aspirations, and isn’t defined by their autonomy in their personal, sexual, or professional endeavors. The NRA wants women to know that “Real Empowerment” is being able to purchase a gun and kill people who have the potential to commit violence against you.
“Freedom’s Safest Place: Real Empowerment,” an ad published in 2016 by the National Rifle Association, opens with a call to every violent “thug” who “preys upon women,” a warning that violence against women will no longer be acceptable to the “moms, grandmothers, and professional women” of America. The ad warns that violent behavior will not be tolerated, but not because of cultural changes, or the destruction of hyper masculine ideology that promotes destructive, anti-women tendencies implicitly within the minds of young men, or because of stricter adherence to laws regarding female autonomy and protection of women against male assailants. In this ad, the NRA warns of this intolerance because of female gun ownership. Throughout the course of “Real Empowerment” the NRA appropriates activist rhetoric and ideology in order to defend and encourage a woman’s second amendment right to owning a gun.
The National Rifle Association has always used their power in the American political system and society to advocate for what best aides their members, but what aides their members in their continued access to virtually unlimited gun sales doesn’t benefit the American population as a whole. The NRA has a strong base of people who are white, male, more likely to be living in a rural setting, and relatively less educated than others and it has a history of supporting legislation that only benefits these people, even when the legislation goes against what many believe are their core values now. During the 20th century, the NRA supported the style of legislation that they now consider an infringement upon their second amendment rights, and the height of their support for gun control occurred during the time of the Black Panther Party. As the Black Panthers gained societal power and influence, they advocated that black Americans should take up arms to defend themselves from a system of government and policing that wouldn’t defend them. The NRA adamantly opposed this, as did President Reagan, who moved to pass legislation that limited the rights of gun owners and those who wished to buy guns. This NRA supported act served to limit the amount of black activists and others who had the ability to acquire weapons. But in the ten to fifteen years after the legislation surrounding the limitation of gun rights for the expressed purpose of ensuring that black activists were unable to acquire them as easily passed, the NRA’s core of white conservatives began to realize that the creation of gun control laws, such as this, restrict them as well. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the NRA decided to refine their message, to focus on the deregulation of guns for the expressed purpose of hunting and sport.
“Freedom’s Safest Place: Real Empowerment” encourages the exact thing that the NRA was working to destroy during the Black Panther movement. In an act of appropriation of black activists’ and liberationists’ ideologies, the NRA promotes the purchase of weapons in an effort to protect women from those who are harming them. This ad’s desired effect -- the heightened sale of firearms to women in an effort to enable them to protect themselves in situations when the law and our society fail to protect them -- is directly a parallel to what the Black Panthers were trying to achieve, but the NRA is putting a white, falsely pro-woman spin on it.
About halfway into the advertisement, the woman speaking, cast to be an seen as an average American woman, which, notably, is a white woman without any distinct characteristics, makes a reference to her right to choose. The woman says to any potentially violent predators that as more women, like her, gain access to weaponry, they will be able to use their “right to choose [their] life over [the lives of the predators].” After this, a picture of the Statue of Liberty is shown, as the woman’s voiceover states that being able to choose, essentially, to kill someone else is what “real empowerment looks like.” Referencing a woman’s right to choose is a clear allusion to the right to have an abortion, and is linked to the pro-choice movement and second wave feminist philosophy. The hardship endured by women across the United States in the years previous to abortion being legalized lead to a mobilization by thousands of people to push for a women’s autonomy. And since the supreme court case that decided abortion was legal, Roe vs. Wade, there have still been constant attacks on women’s rights to it. In December of 2015, which was likely the time this advertisement was being made, a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood was the site of a domestic terror attack in which a man used a gun to kill three and injured nine people. The NRA didn’t make any comments on this attack, even though there is no indication that the shooter bought his weapon illegally. In the wake of an attack on a place known for protecting a woman’s legal right to choose, with a gun legally purchased, the National Rifle Association commandeered the language of a woman’s right to choose and used it to promote violence.
The NRA does not have the right to define “Real Empowerment” as they simultaneously appropriate the ideology of the Black Panthers and use the rhetoric of the Pro-Choice movement. The NRA’s desire for the sale of more memberships and guns has lead them to expand to try to target women in their advertisement, as to create more money. This desire for more wealth, to be able to continue protecting the rights they interpret as being given in the constitution, is exemplifying of capitalist sentiment. As the NRA calls out to women to purchase and use more guns, there are 93 gun deaths in the United States per day. This advertisement encourages the fighting of gun violence with guns, which is like fighting fire with fire: everything burns down.
Works Cited
"Gun Violence by the Numbers." EverytownResearch.org. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 22 June 2017. Web. 29 June 2017.
NRAVideos. "Freedom's Safest Place | Real Empowerment." YouTube. YouTube, 11 July 2016. Web. 29 June 2017.
Winkler, Adam. "The Secret History of Guns." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 29 June 2017.
WestWorld: A story of Master and slave morality
By Shaun Rousso
Westworld recentlyfinished its first season on HBO. It is about a theme park in which the wealthy can go to essentially play god. The park is a large area that is set up to look like the Wild West, and the guests put on a cowboy costume before venturing inside. Once inside, there are many “narratives” that the guest can chose to follow if they choose to. The beings that run the narratives and occupy the towns in the park are highly advanced robots called “Hosts”. Due to the fact that the hosts are not human, the guests have the ability to murder them, steal from them, and commit other crimes without any fear of punishment. The show addresses many philosophical ideas such as the nature of conciseness and the ethics of robots. However, this paper will only discuss ideas that stem from the philosophy of Nietzsche. (Spoilers for the show will be discussed!)
The most prevalent of Nietzsche’s beliefs that can be observed in West World is that of Master and Slave morality. Nietzsche describes Master morality as a way that the wealthy and powerful act. It is focused inwards on what the “Master” wants to do. The individual would not think of the consequences at the time that the act is being committed. To them the concept of bad is an afterthought, because they do not act how they do in order to hurt the “slave”, they act in a way that will further their personal objectives. Nietzsche describes Slave morality as being a very reactionary way of acting. People acting on slave morality will try to deny oppression from those acting in Master morality. They will grow to resent the person that is keeping them oppressed and will define their actions as evil. Once the “Slave” defines the “Master’s” actions as evil, anything that different from those actions is good in the “Slave’s” eyes. Nietzsche also says that the “Slave” will learn to be craftier than the “Master”. He does not believe that either Slave morality or Master morality is more ethical than the other. To show why, Nietzsche uses the example of a predator and its prey. The predator needs to eat, and as a result eats the prey without pondering the consequences (Master morality). The prey begins to fear the predator, trying to escape it, and deeming it evil (Slave Morality). The predator is not evil for eating food, but the prey is not good, simply by being the prey.
In the context of the show, the guests would be demonstrating Master morality. Since the hosts are reparable robots, and not “real people”, the guests are permitted to treat them in any way they please. They harm the hosts without any evil intent, only to further their experience in the park. The guests are not actually thinking about what is “bad” at the point in which they are harming the hosts. One character named William comes to the park for the first time with his soon to be brother in law, Logan. Logan had been to the park before, and is already used to the sense of Master morality he gets while there. William on the other hand, is not used to it, and is very uneasy about doing anything he would deem immoral while out of the park. During the series we see William adjust to this new sense of master morality and towards the end, it is revealed that he is a younger version of the man in black. The man in black is seen throughout the show, constantly hurting the hosts, has completed all of the possible narratives in Westworld, and is even the major shareholder in the park.
In the show, the hosts demonstrate the idea of slave morality. They are programmed to accept harm from the guests without fighting back, and for a while it is fine, because the hosts are on a loop that is reset every day. However, when some of the hosts begin to gain consciousness and when they realize the abuse they experience, they begin to feel the resentment towards the guests that is described by Nietzsche. There are two examples in the first season of this happening. One of them is when a host named Dolores achieves true consciousness in the final episode of season one. She realizes that the thoughts in her head are her own thoughts, and decides to try to overthrow the “masters” by shooting and killing many of the guests. The other example of this is when a host named Maeve plots to escape Westworld. Her plan shows that she has grown cleverer than those demonstrating Master Morality. She murders some of the Westworld technicians, and eventually makes it to the train to exit. While it is established that these actions were coded in these hosts as part of a new narrative, we can tell they were done because of the hosts’ own decisions and not the code. We know this for Dolores because she has gained the ability to think to herself, and thus consciousness. This would allow here to make decisions for herself and deny the programming. We know this for Maeve because she was told of the change in code, and still decided to proceed with her plan, proving she had control.
In conclusion, Nietzsche’s ideas of Master and Slave morality are present in the show Westworld. Master Morality is shown by the guests, as they do not care about harming the hosts, they only care about their fun in the park. Slave morality is shown by the hosts when they gain free will to a certain extent and try to fight back against the oppressive guests they have come to resent. This show presents Nietzsche’s philosophy in a very interesting and creative way.
Phineas and Ferb and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
By Laura Cunningham
Phineas and Ferb is a Disney Channel original cartoon that follows the antics of two mechanically-gifted boys, bored by the typical monotony of summertime and determined to make it the best one yet. On the surface, it could appear that their older sister, Candace, attempts to thwart their extravagant plans simply out of sibling spite, but could it be possible that she is actually trying to enlighten her parents?
In Republic, Plato proposes his Allegory of the Cave, in which three prisoners are tied up inside of a cave, their backs to the opening. They have only ever seen shadows cast upon the cave walls, and have come to accept the shadows as reality. Suddenly, one prisoner is released, and, although initially disillusioned, he comes to realize what he had accepted as fact was actually just representations of the real world. When the prisoner returns to the cave and attempts to explain to the others what he has seen, he is met with violent backlash.
One may ask, what does this allegory have to do with Phineas and Ferb? Simply put, Candace is the escaped prisoner. In the series’s first episode, entitled “Rollercoaster”, Candace first discovers Phineas and Ferb building a rollercoaster in their backyard. Upon this discovery, she panics, and sets off to find her mom so that she can “bust” her brothers. This discovery is Candace’s first time stepping out of the cave, and encountering the truth. Following the allegory, their parents, primarily their mother, represent the other prisoners in the cave. Unlike Candace, Linda and Lawrence Flynn-Fletcher have never seen the true ways of Phineas and Ferb, and their knowledge of their inventions is minimal. Candace’s parents are known to praise Phineas and Ferb for their creativity, and perceive their grandiose invention stories as tales of imagination rather than fact. It is Candace’s eternal quest to convince her parents of the truth, but she is constantly shot down with sarcasm, and is ultimately met with disbelief. For this reason, Candace is the escaped prisoner; she has seen the light, but rather than being understood, she is met with backlash from the other prisoners (albeit less violent than in the original allegory, but backlash nonetheless).
This connection invokes another question: if the Flynn-Fletchers’ understanding of the universe is within the cave, how can one classify the goings-on of Phineas and Ferb? It’s accepted that they are not average boys, but could they be something more? Plato defines knowledge in two categories: that of the sensible world, and of the intelligible world. The sensible world is comprised of material objects, of which one knows by belief, and images, which are known by imagination. On the other hand, the intelligible world is comprised of math objects, which are known due to dianoia (thinking), and forms, which are known by nous (contemplation). Those within Plato’s cave, for example, the Flynn-Fletcher’s, are only able to that of the sensible world. This would justify why Phineas and Ferb’s parents belittle their inventions down to mere imagination; they are not able to comprehend anything more complex than such. Phineas, Ferb, and Candace, however, are operating within the intelligible world, and The Divided Line between the two worlds is what keeps Candace from achieving her goals. Additionally, this can lead the watcher to believe that the boys’ inventions are more than just simple projects for their mother to see; because of their place in the intelligible world, their physical form may not be of the utmost importance. The formula they use to create is far more important than the object itself in the intelligible world, but also within the bounds of the show’s universe. Why else would they be so unbothered when their daily projects disappear at the end of each episode?
The Male Gaze In Video Games
by Ellery Neal
For as long as video games have been around, there has been a kind of hostile objectification of women in the industry. Female developers, characters, and players have been treated by men as an “other,” a category separate and lesser than themselves. This comes from the long-standing stereotype that women are weaker and less intelligent than men, and therefore could never hold their own either on the virtual battlefield or in a developer’s office.
Although change is happening, it is still a widely popular opinion that women don’t belong in the video game world, except for of course to fall into the beloved stereotypes. These include the damsel in distress, the aloof tomboy, the provocative but deadly ‘femme fatale’, the mother who dies just to give the main character a backstory, and the inhuman eye candy, just to name a few. Stereotypical characters are often found even in wildly popular franchises across all platforms. Nintendo, even though they tend to avoid inappropriate or provocative characters because they market mainly toward children, is guilty of using “damsel in distress” tropes very often in the cases of Princess Peach and Zelda, two female characters who are more often than not seen as simply a trophy for the male main character to strive for. In the case of Mortal Kombat, most of the female playable characters are almost entirely uncovered and are ridiculously oversexualized in proportion and portrayal. Perhaps more appalling still is the fact that Call Of Duty, the overall most popular franchise in the first person shooter genre is just recently adding in a playable female character at all, despite that nearly half of its players worldwide are women.
The phenomena of exploiting women in media is not new. Even before video games, women’s bodies were sexualized or objectified in movies, on TV, and in magazines. In Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure And Narrative Cinema, she says “Traditionally, the woman displayed has functioned on two levels; as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator.” A female character that seemingly exists only for the male hero also exists to please the male audience. Despite changes in today’s social climate and a growing body positivity movement, there still remains a hub of sexism and objectification of females within the video game community, and as I think is beginning to become apparent, it will soon come to a grinding halt.
Logic: Two Against One
by William Giliberti
Logic, Aka Sir Robert Bryson Hall II, was born in Gaithersburg, Maryland to a black father and a racist white mother. However though Logic is bi-racial, he appears white. This fact leads to a loss of self-identity for Logic as he is split between two cultures and hasn’t felt like he doesn’t have a “place”. Music is a method of release for Logic’s frustrations and is easily seen throughout his works. However this is most prevalent is his newest album Everybody .In the title song he express this in the line, “In my blood is the slave and the master. It's like the devil playin spades with the pastor.” The reason he gives for his problems is outside influence and racism even from his own mom, which is mentioned in the song “Take it Back”. In the title song he says, “But he was born with the white privilege! Man what the fuck is that? White people told me as a child, as a little boy, playin with his toys I should be ashamed to be black, And some black people look ashamed when I rap, Like my great granddaddy didn’t take a whip to the back, Not accepted by the black or the white.” This outside pressure is similar to the one present in Léon-Gontran Damas poem “Hiccup”. Mickaella Perina analyzes this poem to be about the forcing of different cultures through the use of the mother in the poem forcing her son to adhere to particular cultural activities. Due to Logic’s skin color, people haven’t been accepting to him being in the rap game, the game being traditional held by black men. In “AfricAryaN” he raps, “Black man screaming, trying to convince me I’m not black.”
Logic’s A E S T H E T I C or “sound”, used to be a mixture of influences that Logic pulled from. His previous albums and mixtapes relied heavily on his influences like Kendrick Lamar. Logic has never had his own unique A E S T H E T I C, until now with his Everybody album showing him creating his own unique sound with monologues and flow. His message also is one of peace, love, and positivity, a unique message not typically seen in the rap game. Logic’s album entry has some tension as critics critize him for self-expressing and talking about his problems with being Bi-racial to the extent that he has. This has produced an discourse, as Perina would say, between typical rap A E S T H E T I C and Logic’s A E S T H E T I C.
Perina talks about how indiviudals, “attempt to create new boundaries for themselves in the contemporary era,” but that older boundaries of race are still influential. One way in which Logic creates a new boundary, is in his use of the N word. In the past, Logic has always been hesitant to use the N word in his raps because he understood that people would be mad at him since he looked white. Logic has since unchained himself as he has found his identity and considers himself black and able to use the N word. However it is also true that Logic is still bound by boundaries of race. Initally Logic was going to title his project “AfricAryaN”, after the last song, but after backlash online of potential racism, he changed it Everybody. Logic has traveled far in finding his identity and sound and in doing so has broken his internal chains. However though his message is, “peace, love, and positivity, equality for all man, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, and sexual orientation” his music won’t be able to break the society chains of racism and bias. Though he no longer cares about outside pressure he won’t be able to change it.
“It's kind of funny how your pigment determines how people perceive you. That's ignant”
popularity=conformity
by Janie Edgar
Conformity is everywhere in society today. It is present not only in how we react with others but also in the media. Movies, for example, either show characters that conform to certain stereotypes, ideals, or popular culture. They also are almost always predictable, because they are extremely similar to other movies in their genre. Mean Girls, for example, has a group of stereotypical girls as some of the main characters, and the movie itself is a standard ya movie. It is about how Cady Heron, who is new to public school, gets swept up into the popular group at school and changes to become like them. Despite its typical plot, it is an extremely popular movie. This begs the question are things popular because they conform to what is typical or expected?
Dialectic of the Enlightenment by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer discuss in depth the uniformness that is present in entertainment and in our society. They say that “Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in.” The celebrities that we idolize so much conform to be more like others just like we do. We all struggle to change to be like others we deem better than ourselves. Many do this so that they will be liked more. In this sense one could say that conformity=popularity.
The song “Popular” the musical Wicked is a prime example of how conforming can make you popular. During the song one of the main characters is getting a makeover from her roommate and being taught how to be popular. She is told to dress and act a certain way. She was also told to do certain things and to hang out with the “right” people. To become popular she had to change and become like other people who are popular. This show that by conforming to certain things you can become popular.
In conclusion, popularity is based on conformity. Many popular things in entertainment are similar to other things within their same genre. Movies for example can be easy to predict the ending since they are so similar to other movies but they are still popular. Celebrities conform to be more like others in the industry so that they will be well received and well liked. We in turn change to be like them and or other people who are viewed as popular. Often times this causes us to be liked by others more. Because of this popularity=conformity.
A Feminist Philosophical Analysis of The Big Bang Theory
by Riley McElveen
The TV series The Big Bang Theory follows the daily lives and love interests of four male scientists; Sheldon Cooper, Leonard Hofstadter, Rajesh Koothrappali, and Howard Wolowitz. Throughout the seasons, each character interacts with potential love interests within the constraints of their home and work lives. Penny, Bernadette, and Amy are all introduced as love interests of Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon, while Rajesh’s love interests vary by season.
Big Bang Theory as a whole is a prime example of the male gaze in modern films and media. Not only are the four major characters male, each character’s primary goal in the series is to find and keep a female love interest. Both of these things are not necessarily corrupt in themselves, but their specific portrayal within Big Bang Theory implicates the negative stereotype that women only exist to sexually please men. The male gaze in this film series is often overlooked yet glaringly obvious. The male gaze exists in three forms; the first is that of the person behind the camera. The second; the characters themselves exerting the male gaze, and the third; that of the male spectator/audience that is able to put themselves in the shoes of the characters. The majority of past and even many present cinematic pieces are blatantly created for the male gaze, including the sexualization of women, a mostly male cast, and a scopophilic point of view (the pleasure that comes with surveying people as objects in a controlling/dominant way). In the Big Bang Theory, the four major characters are all men, giving the majority of the male audience a connection to the show, and therefore a connection to their scopophilic viewpoints through the male gaze. This project will be comparing Laura Mulvey’s essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, and an episode of The Big Bang Theory.
In the episode “The Panty Pinata Polarization”, when Penny introduces the four scientists to the show America’s Next Top Model, they (specifically Howard) immediately notice the models’ sexual appeal. Howard first describes them as being the potential “future Mrs. Wolowitz”, seeing them as sexual objects that he feels he has ownership over. The scientists then continue to obsess over the models on the show, eventually resorting to extreme measures to find the address of the house the women are staying at and pose as part of a cable company to get inside the house. Legally, this is considered stalking. However, because it is put into a comedic televised context, it is socially accepted. This furthers the patriarchal tone throughout the series, portraying the scientists as “above” women, and, as a result, their perverted actions are found to be inconsequential. In the series, the women are seen as the object, and men the subject, such as in the keyhole explanation. The series encapsulates an alarming amount of raging misogyny and sexism. Moreover, the characters frequent perverted behaviour is often dismissed as a “joke” or deemed appropriate because of their geeky and awkward personalities. This clearly is meant to appeal to the male sex; thus further confirming that the Big Bang Theory is sculpted to the male gaze.
Laura Mulvey, as a feminist film theorist, often analyzed the products of a patriarchal society and the effects it has on the media and public. In her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, she discusses the prominence of the male gaze in cinematic pictures and its degrading effects. In order for a cinematic piece to satisfy the male gaze, it must have the feel of a connection from the male audience to the characters within the film. In this way, when Howard and the other scientists project their lust and longing onto the models and blatantly objectify them, the male gaze is a prominent figure in this scene. Their lust gives a feeling of possession over the models, which is then transferred to the male audience, giving them a feeling of possession as well. As Laura Mulvey explains, “By means of identification with him, through participation in his power, the spectator can indirectly possess her too” (Mulvey, 840). Laura Mulvey’s view directly correlates to the portrayal of the male gaze in the modern series The Big Bang Theory. In the complete disregard for the models’ privacy and autonomy, this is another prime example of women being perceived as objects for consumption, and so the male gaze. Society as a whole is a major factor in the way the male gaze is used in media. Modern feminist aesthetics sees this as a huge part of the patriarchal societal order, and in continuing this, continuing the oppression of the female sex. The male gaze is everywhere we look; in advertisements, film and cinema, and even music. The Big Bang Theory series is a prime example of the male gaze in film. The ethical standpoint of this show is unclear, but one thing is: Laura Mulvey would find modern cinematic pieces, specifically The Big Bang Theory, to be an abhorrent product of the male gaze.
The Truth Behind Hollywood “Glow Ups”
By Erin Smith
In today’s society, we are constantly working towards the “better”; better education, better laws, and, of course, better looks. We see what was previously was considered “better” to be “bad” as soon as a new, improved version of it is developed. Grease, a classic movie taking place in the 1950s, is about two lovers, Sandy and Danny, whom come in conflict when Sandy discovers that Danny isn’t the kindhearted gentleman she thought he was when she met him that past summer. We see Sandy made fun of for her “good girl” attitude while Danny is continuously encouraged by his friends to uphold his “bad boy” reputation. In the end, we see Sandy submit to the pressure from her friends to become a “bad girl” so she can be with Danny, getting a new, rebellious look that causes Danny to fall head over heels for her. Here, we confront this idea of a “better” version of Sandy; the sweet, modest version of herself is seen as “bad,” whereas the rebellious, alluring version is seen as “better.” This transformation from a previously modest, nerdy, and/or unattractive version of oneself to a version that more closely resembles what society considers attractive is often referred to by pop culture as a “glow up” and is many times used in modern media to transform a character, usually female, previously seen as unattractive to a more glamorous or “pretty” state, often resulting in higher social status and getting the man she has been dreaming of. Although this transformation may seem satisfying and even necessary in modern pop culture, it sends an unwanted message to the young female population: to get the guy, you must conform. This message is obvious in Sandy’s first entrance as her “new self”; Danny and his friends watch her in disbelief as she smokes her cigarette, one man even whistling at her for effect. Danny immediately forgets past conflicts and begins singing “You’re the One That I Want,” a song basically all about his extreme attraction towards Sandy now that she’s changed completely. This positive feedback Sandy receives due to her “glow up” promotes the idea that she has now achieved a “better” self, therefore instructing the audience to change themselves for others.
The idea of the female “glow up” also contributes to the idea of the male gaze, a philosophical concept stated by Laura Mulvey that describes the idea of women being seen as an object of visual pleasure for men. In Grease, it can most definitely be seen, as mentioned before, when Danny and the other men in the scene stare at Sandy’s new look. Even the positioning of the camera, starting at the feet and scanning up to her face, gives the illusion of Sandy as an object of visual pleasure. This camera shot is used an immeasurable amount of times in movies, bringing attention to the physical characteristics of the female in question and, in a sense, giving us “permission” to visually analyze her. Moreover, movies often make it appear as if the goal of the female character is to become the object of the male gaze. For example, in Taylor Swift’s music video for her hit song “You Belong With Me,” Taylor longs for her best friend, who’s also her secret crush, to reciprocate her feelings for him. In the end, Taylor arrives at the homecoming dance in a long, white dress and perfectly curled hair, contrasting from her formerly “nerdy” self. When her friend sees her, his face turns to disbelief, and he confesses his love for her. Just like that, Taylor’s goal is accomplished through the male gaze. As soon as we see the friend’s expression, we know that Taylor has reached her goal and the story must end happily. Although the story itself is sweet and heartwarming, the message that particular ending sends may not be the best for young, impressionable girls and teens. Even though the male in the story obviously had feelings for Taylor the entire time, he only confronts her about it when she changes her physical appearance, yet again supporting the idea that females must change in order to get her ideal male.
In conclusion, society has incorporated many ideas of what is seen as “better” in females into even the most classic movies. In Grease, Sandy’s “glow up” conveys a message of conformity and “changing for the guy” to become “better.” We also see the idea of the male gaze not only in Grease but also in other media, such as Taylor Swift’s music video for “You Belong With Me.” Of course, these mediums are not the only ones we see these ideals conveyed through. Whether or not we realize it, many of our favorite movies, books, and songs send messages of what beauty is and how females need to act and physically look in order to be “better.” Although it may seem nearly impossible to eliminate these negative messages from pop culture, we can at least recognize them and work to minimize their influence on present and future generations of young girls and teens to come.
I Nietzche to think about the Church
By Angel Muse
To Nietzsche, the Christian Church “seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption”. In his ‘Antichrist’ or ‘AntiChristian’ work he even goes on to say that it has turned every value to worthlessness and claims that the church has turned every truth into a lie. This is just the beginning of the truths he held indisputable.
Nietzsche stated that the truths we hold evident are only just illusions that we have forgotten are illusions. Humans are so obsessed with the truth that they will not give it up. Even when those that teach the ‘truth’ drastically change it, we are still enamored by it and do not notice the corruption beyond closed doors. This is what Nietzsche concluded happens in the church system.
When the Pope or a high member of the church attempts to change the ultimate view of the church to undermine the pope before them and to change the church in the ways that he envisions he therefore changes the overall truth of the church. Nietzsche had no doubt in his concept of how authority figures are the multitude that are slowly leading us into the corruption of society.
When the authority in our lives vaguely describes an issue that affects countless lives they are aiding the supposed corruption of the church. The people rely so heavily on the views of the church that they are unable to make decisions for themselves about important issues. Nietzsche once stated, “confronted with the raging stupidity and the noisy chattering of the democratic bourgeois, they keep their ears plugged”. This particular quote shows the reader that Nietzsche thought that the ‘enlightened’ kept the truth concealed from the
common man.
The Church changes its view so frequently that in order to stay on top of the changes you have to be incredibly involved. This excludes the common man and ensures that even well standing members of the church no longer know where the church stands on issues of faith. Standards that the church used to believe were a commandment are now just the optimal target and it is all right if you do not obtain them. What the church once regarded as a severe sin is now becoming a minor imperfection. The things that were once considered commandments are still somehow considered exemplary but who can fathom how long they will even be sustained. Concepts that the church once stated definitely they now propose hesitantly, causing them to take a gander at uncertainty and a great deal of self assessment. Nietzsche strongly disagreed with corruption and the changing of the illusion of truth so I believe that he would have loathed the church and the concept of priests even more today than he would have when he was alive.
Grey’s Anatomy and Identity
By Emma Hay
The Paradox of Theseus’s Ship questions the identity of a ship whose parts have been replaced and repaired to the point that there are no longer any original pieces remaining on the ship. Many philosophers have contemplated over whether or not it is still the same ship as it was on its first journey. Does the ship’s identity lie in its parts, or its experiences? Thomas Hobbes furthers this thought experiment by putting forth another instance. If a ship was built out of all of the old parts of the ship, it is the real ship or is the still functioning one the ship?
This paradox can be related to the american drama series, Grey’s Anatomy. Very few of the original characters remain on the show, causing many viewers to complain that it is no longer the same show. Others may argue that it is the same show and that although the original characters may be gone, the essence of the show is still present. So, we ask ourselves, has the identity of Grey’s Anatomy changed or does it remain the same?
When talking about the identity of a person, or in this case, a show, there are two main theories. The Body Theory says that people keep the same identity because they stay in the same body from birth to death. The Memory Theory says that people keep the same identity because of the memories and experiences they have. If you apply the Body Theory to Grey’s Anatomy, it would be a different show because the body of characters are nearly completely replaced. If you apply the Memory theory, though, it would not be considered different, because the show still contains and is known because of the experiences and memories that have been made on it. However, consider this: if you made another show with all the original characters that left, which show would be the real one?
It is argued that because the main character of Grey’s Anatomy, Meredith Grey, remains in the series, the show has not completely changed. One must take into account the character development of the main character. Meredith Grey has changed as a character over the past thirteen season, and even though she remains an original cast member still on the show, she is not the same person, because of the experiences she has had and grown from, as well as the characters that are no longer present in her fictional life.
Scottish philosopher David Hume rejects the idea of self, meaning that it doesn’t matter if we think Grey’s Anatomy has changed, because the viewers who watch the show have changed and the people who write and produce the show have changed as well. We can be sure that Grey’s Anatomy is different from when it began, but how can we know if it is completely different or not when we have changed ourselves?
Embracing Femininity While Breaking Gender Norms
By Grant Mimms
In of Montreal’s song entitled “it’s different for girls” gender norms are broken while femininity is embraced. This leads to an interesting juxtaposition between cultural and poststructural feminism. Cultural feminism is all about embracing femaleness while poststructural feminism refuses to define femininity. Both of these ideas on feminism have their merits and shortcomings.
The lyrics in “it’s different for girls” describe the life of being a women in our society. It talks about how women are objectified on a constant basis and are used as a kind of sexual currency. The objectification of women is an omnipresent reality, especially in most media, like movies and music. “It’s different for girls” describes how women are socialized to be docile and put up with men's odious behavior. Kevin Barnes, the lead musician in of Montreal, describes men as “aggro pricks” who are ultra competitive, rash, and violent. Barnes is encouraging people of any gender to embrace traditional feminine traits. Barnes refuses to let men define women by saying women aren’t a “masculine dissonance.” In the music video for “it’s different for girls” Barnes breaks down traditional gender lines by wearing a dress, makeup and a blond wig while dancing flamboyantly. The lyrics in “it’s different for girls” point to cultural feminism. But also Barnes himself is a man who decides to break down gender lines, thus blurring the line of femininity and masculinity.
Is it possible to break down gender lines while also embracing femininity? Embracing femininity is freeing, but the entire idea of something being feminine can exclude people and create stereotypes. Letting a group of often middle class, white women define what it means to be a women seems unjust. Intersectionality should be at the core of defining femininity. Evidently, cultural feminism can be damaging. At the same time if you forget about femininity now, in a time where rampant sexism is ubiquitous, it could lead to people continuing to be sexist because of a lack of dialogue. Typically “feminine” traits should be embraced by all genders, and that’s exactly what of Montreal's music video for “it’s different for girls” is encouraging. Gender norms are arbitrary and irrelevant. People should be who they want to be instead of letting society define them by their gender. In of Montreal’s “it’s different for girls” femininity is encouraged while gender norms are broken.
Stor Wor
by Lucy Bowling
A long time ago in a country far, far away Immanuel Kant theorized that morality revolves around the concepts of Good Will and the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that one should have a good will, or act out of moral obligations to help others and preserve human life. It was one’s duty to act out of good will and not selfishness. The Categorical Imperative was a way of making the most moral decision aligned with good will: make a kind of rule or statement for the action you are about to complete, and ask “Would I be okay with everyone doing this? Is this okay in any circumstance?” Rules created by the categorical imperative were called maxims, and were essentially all-encompassing moral laws. For Kant, there was no subjective. Kant thought that one’s emotions could seriously affect their moral compass, and should have no impact on their decisions. If one was deriving joy from a moral action, there is a chance they were doing it for themselves. Preserving Good Will was more important than personal pleasure.
Replace “Good Will” with “the Light Side” and both Kant and the Jedi order have similar flaws. The Jedi and Sith orders in Star Wars is similar to Kant’s strict, black and white view of morality. Jedi are force users that use the Light side of the force, or use the force for morally good purposes like saving lives. The Jedi Code says that Jedi should avoid emotional attachments and cannot marry. This is because the Jedi believed that emotional attachments could lead to jealousy, anger, and ultimately a turn to the dark side. Both Kant and the Jedi order assume that compassion and empathy are ultimately corrupting in that they can cause selfish actions. An example of this is in Episode V in which Yoda tries to convince Luke to not go to Cloud City in favor of training. Yoda fears that his feelings will be exploited and that it may ultimately cause turmoil that would lead him to the dark side when. Luke leaving was ultimately the most moral decision: he ended up saving more lives than he would have if he remained on Dagobah training. His strong emotional attachments to his friends ended up being a good thing that fuelled him. The Jedi’s fear of emotion can be described as radical. Compassion can sometimes cause more moral decisions.
A Jedi knight would essentially use the Categorical Imperative when deciding when to use violence. Generally, they would only react violently when attacked first and if they are sure that the other individual is a significant threat. In Episode III, this maxim can be questioned. After Mace Windu learns that Palpatine is a Sith, he is about to execute him unarmed when Anakin stops him. To Kant, Anakin stopping him was the most moral action as it aligns with the Jedi order’s maxims, when in actuality killing Palpatine would have saved tens of thousand of lives. This is an instance when the Categorical Imperative is proven to be unreliable.
Both Kant and the Jedi see morality in an extreme black-and-white fashion. We have yet to see a force user who occupies the gray space between the Light and Dark sides of the Force. The trailer for The Last Jedi makes me hopeful that we will.
Space Photography
by Zoey Michaelson
Space photography uses some of the most unique subjects like nebulas, galaxies, stars, etc. New technology allows us to see the most distant entities in detail - the variety of colors blending together to show the shapes and layers of things lightyears away. The layers in the images give the impression that it’s almost 3D, like there’s something more which is part of what catches people’s eye. Just the word “space” can attract attention - for years humans have been trying to explore what’s out there and having images of it spikes curiosity. Space photography is mainly alluring because it’s something that humans haven’t seen much of. New things can hold people’s attention just because it’s new and get bored of it when they’ve seen enough of it. However, this doesn’t strictly apply to space since no one is sure how far the universe goes so there might always be something new.
Don’t know why I’m crying in the club right now
by Emily Kitchens
*spoilers for The Fault in Our Stars aqui*
One of my favorite things in the world is to be so absorbed in a book to the extent that I am feeling the emotions the characters feel. The Fault in Our Stars is a book that was able to blur the lines of reality and make believe. Hazel Grace is a 16 year old girl who had been diagnosed with lung cancer. She is reluctant to attend her support group at church, but when she does, she meets a boy named Augustus and falls in love with him. He was diagnosed with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) but had been cleared of cancer for a while. *spoilers ahead* Gus goes with Hazel to see her favorite author Van Houten (who is not all he’s cracked up to be), and Gus’s cancer ends up coming back. Gus doesn’t want to ruin the best trip of his life, so he keeps quiet, and in the end, he dies. How can a fictional tale get us so emotional? Aristotle’s idea of tragedy might be able to help sort this out.
Aristotle’s definition of tragedy is “…the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in appropriate and pleasurable language;... in a dramatic rather than narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish a catharsis of these emotions.”
One of the elements of Aristotle’s tragedy is that “the imitation of an action that is serious and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself. In other words, Aristotle is telling writers not to make a big deal out of something that’s irrelevant. For example, if a character were to break their fingernail, it wouldn’t count as a tragedy. The way that I’ve analyzed the “complete in itself” section was that you just had one thing going on at a time so that the audience doesn’t get lost in the plot. The Fault in Our Stars was able to do this very well, with enough overlapping that it wasn’t confusing, but it’s definitely a page turner.
Aristotle states that a good tragedy had six main elements: plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle. He felt that plot was the most important of the six elements. He also believed that a good plot has change from one state of things at the beginning, to the exact opposite by the end. *spoilers ahead* The Fault in Our Stars is able to exceed expectations here obviously. Most people probably expected Hazel Grace to die if anyone, but Gus’s cancer returned and took the audience by surprise.
Aristotle concludes his statements with three forms of plot which should be avoided in tragedies. The first is a good man shouldn’t pass from happiness to misery; it makes the audience mad that bad things happened to him and they won’t pity him, just be angry for him. Second, a bad man shouldn’t be passed from misery to happiness; the audience doesn’t want to see the evil rewarded. Lastly, a bad man can’t pass from happiness to misery; the audience won’t feel bad for him because they believe he got what he deserved.
You’ll find that when you read a book, you become emotionally attached to the characters and by the end of the book, you can decide whether you like them or not, figure out their speech patterns, and they sometimes become predictable as a person. It’s almost like when you become friends with someone, except in a book…it sounds weird but it’s really not (is it though??). We can trace it back to our cavemen/women years. Humans are very social creatures and we’re almost always thinking about oth er people. You end up “hanging out with” and “getting to know” these characters and you become aware of the decisions they are making. Once you get to know the characters better, you become more empathetic for what they are going through.
Aristotle had a good idea of the principles of a good tragedy, and John Green was able to incorporate them into his writing to engross his readers. Writers who wish to write tragedies should look to these basic principles to guide them.