Research Paper Proposal

To Sleep or Not to Sleep: The Question All Students Must Ask Themselves

How exactly does sleep deprivation affect students? Are there only short-term effects that must be dealt with, or are there long-term effects that will affect students in years to come? My mother has always told me that not sleeping enough is the worst thing a young person can do to him/herself. She would always explain the situation with phrases like, “the moon gives off a different energy early in the morning” or “your body needs at least 8 hours or else it will break down.” I usually sleep 6 hours or less every night, and I’m holding up for the most part. But I wonder if my body will be able to hold up over time. Of course, I know that the human body is not as energized and has to work harder to keep all the systems in the body function normally. But imagine what this does to your body in the long run? There’s a saying I hear quite a lot nowadays: “you can sleep when you’re dead.”

Many of my fellow students are either procrastinators, extremely overwhelmed, or overachievers. As many students choose to do homework or study rather than sleep, I want to be able to know how bad this choice may be on the body. I will research this topic through published scientific journals, articles from renowned doctors, and internet and library searches. When my research seems sufficient enough, I will be able to answer the question with proved scientific data and observations from credible professionals in their field. While laboratory science is the main focus of my research, I also want to delve into the topic of astrology, as my mother would, and see if the sun, moon, and stars are related to how well people sleep at night.

There is a lot of information on short-term sleep deprivation, as most teachers and parents will relay onto students. But through my research, I will find scientific data that will broaden the answer to long-term and astrological effects. There is a saying that many students say nowadays: “you can sleep when you’re dead.” I’m hoping that lack of sleep doesn’t kill you (at least not right away), but I predict that it will result in less energy and more health risks as an adult. Only science (and the stars) will tell!

Our Own American Atrocity

“To catch a death actually happening and embalm it for all time is something only cameras can do.” Susan Sontag claims her famous book, “Regarding the Pain of Others.” (257) Since the invention of the camera, photographers are able to capture any physical moment they want, eliciting an emotional response of out the viewer. While Sontag focuses on war imagery as a “[neutralization of the] moral force of photographs of atrocities,” (257) she also presents the idea of a double standard among these photos. Americans are often shown photos of atrocities, photos that show pain and suffering of sights so horrible and distant that they could never happen to us. They show the “inevitability of tragedy in the…backward – that is, poor – parts of the world” (263). After all, we’re such a progressive, impervious country that can never have such tragedy a reality for our countrymen, neighbors, and loved ones.

What Sontag is saying is that Americans are less likely to feel sensitivity towards those affected by atrocities if it’s not someone we know or can relate to. “The more remote or exotic, the more likely we are to have full frontal views of the dead and the dying” (262). In the picture above, none other than a child with blood all over him carried by a man. The recent Syrian crisis involving tensions between the government and the rebel forces shows how frightening and tragic the situation is over there. Blood, injuries, and the visible faces of death are common occurrences that seem so distant to us.

But could such a series of events occur in America? With the rise of break-ins to the White House, school shootings scattered across America, and the imminent potential attacks of ISIS forces in America, how will photographers show the 10 o’ clock news? Would they dare to show a picture of the deceased on the ground, right at the moment they were killed or soon after? Sontag writes of the “powerful interdiction against showing the naked face” of our own (262). For the sake of decency and the rights of relatives of the deceased, American photographers do not show the explicit faces of our dead due to atrocities. After the American tragedy on September 11, 2001, American news correspondents were careful not too expose too much or show any untasteful sights (261). But when it comes to the children of Syria with their shirts stained with blood, it suddenly becomes acceptable to capture that moment of death to display to a national audience? According to Sontag’s double standard, this sort of tragedy just happens in this part of the world, and there’s little we can do but snap a photo of it to show the world.

The double standard of photographs of atrocities around the world feeds what Sontag calls a “culture of spectatorship” (257). Americans can look at a photo of a child drenched in blood, but they cannot look at a photo of one of their own in the same position. A level of sensitivity is taken into consideration for our own countrymen. The photos they see of atrocities are of people in countries far and distant. The people in the photos are victims of their situation: they live in poor areas that inevitably have suffering and tragedy that cannot always be helped. Susan Sontag shows us that Americans have a sense of invulnerability and power. Even if we do have tragedy, we choose to not embrace it as we embrace the tragedy of those less fortunate than us. But as the times go on and tragedy is slowly creeping on the shores of the “Land of the Free,” this double standard needs to be adjusted and more fair to all of humankind.

Works Cited
Sontag, Susan. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2003. 257-263. Print.

We’re Forgetting The Most Important Part

Since when has art become about market value and not the raw emotion that one receives from looking at it?

John Berger’s Ways of Seeing presents readers with the idea of “bogus religiosity.” An original painting has the power to bring awe to its viewer; even if the viewer has seen the painting through any means of reproduction, be it the television or a photograph, the reproduction does not have the timelessness, magic, or religiosity of the original (21). The original pieces are considered “works of art” due to their rarity, meaningfulness, and the ability to survive.

Bogus religiosity is bogus. The reality with artwork, whether its an original piece or a reproduction, is that it shouldn’t focus on the material aspects like rarity and market value. Art should be about the expression of the creator through a certain medium, and through that medium, the viewer feels an emotional response toward the piece and the meaning of it. Of course, many paintings are only reveled because they are “holy relics.” Like Leonardo DaVinci’s Virgin of the Rocks, to be in front of and seeing the piece with your own body makes the painting and the experience “authentic and therefore…beautiful” (21). To Berger, a reproduction of a painting doesn’t hold the same response, but why shouldn’t it? Just because you see a relic of the past with your own eyes doesn’t make it any more meaningful than owning a print of it in your home. Art is about emotion and passion, and that emotion and passion should be able to be transmitted through any medium, not just through the power of the original piece.

The market value of a painting directly correlates with the piece’s worth and importance. Berger states that the market value of a piece makes a painting “impressive…and mysterious” (23). Sure, the fact that the piece is a relic and comes from a famous painter brings a sense of grandeur and worth for the painting, but this doesn’t apply to all paintings. For many cases, the importance is based on historical, social, or aesthetic value. Francisco de Goya’s La Maja Desnuda demonstrates the past and history, a perfect example of how art can be “more precise and richer than literature” (10). The nude woman in the painting is famous and worth millions not because it is an exceptionally painted portrait; it tells a story. It initiates emotions and draws spectators back to the time of the painter.

The painting hangs in Madrid today, but it holds more meaning that just being a piece of history and art. Emotions flow from the painter to the painting to the viewer. It doesn’t matter that a person may see La Maja Desnuda on a replica on his wall. If a person truly looked at a painting for what its meaning and emotional response were, the market value wouldn’t matter. Bogus religiosity wouldn’t matter. It’s time that lovers of the arts focus on the internal aspect and not the external aspect. We don’t need to see a painting in the flesh for a genuine experience and connection to the piece; we need to use our emotions to truly experience the painting, whether our eyes converge directly toward the painting or through a screen. Art is art; appreciate it for what it is, and not what the market value makes it out to be.

Anarchy in the Seven Kingdoms As We Know It

“When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or die.”

The HBO series from George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones, has taken the world by storm. The medieval and mystical world that Westeros is a part of is in complete anarchy. Morals are broken left and right; incest, murder, betrayal, infidelity, and nudity are common occurrences in the show. So why is this show so unbelievably popular in the United States and the rest of the world?

The premiere of season 4 yielded 6.6 million viewers through HBO alone. There were many others who tried to watch it on HBO GO that the site crashed (Pomerantz). I even went on some random website to watch the episode pirated because I didn’t have cable! The show’s historical fiction plot draws viewers in like a baited fishing rod attracts fish. Once you take a bite, it’s almost impossible to just wriggle yourself free from the captivating show. It rejects morality and embraces many taboo subjects, yet fans can’t get enough of the violent, dramatic, and unconventional culture that television programming is leaning towards today. With this show, anarchy has spread from the Seven Kingdoms to the seven continents (yes, Antarctica too) we inhabit on Earth.

Different families rule different regions of Westeros, ultimately ruled by the Lannister Family in King’s Landing. After the death of the king of House Baratheon, all hell breaks loose in Westeros. Many of the families, like House Stark of the North and House Tyrell, all play the “game of thrones.” Some play for power, others for vengeance. When Ned Stark was beheaded by the Lannister Family, there was an uproar in Westeros, and in our living rooms. Viewers were appalled by the first of many “George R. R. Martin-killed-another-main-character” moments that a Game of Thrones fan must endure. Fans feel a sense of connection and empathize with many of the characters: all the Stark family members being separated, Theon Greyjoy being “mutilated,” Khaleesi, the Mother of Dragons, becoming stronger and more powerful. I felt betrayal during the infamous “Red Wedding” episode, when I learned that there’s a better chance of surviving in battle than at a wedding. The power of empathy and connection makes television so captivating and dramatic to viewers today.

The show checks off to many of television’s requirements for a successful show: dramatic, exciting, unpredictable, and of course, scandalous. One of the show’s most risky – and successful – tools for effectiveness is its unconventionality. What other popular show gets away with a main character being stark naked in front of the cameras, incesual sexual relations, or blatant sexual intercourse on television?

Plot twist: we love this unconventionality. Because we live in a world where we aren’t allowed commit taboo acts (mostly because they’re immoral and illegal), we don’t feel so bad watching immorality on TV. It’s all fiction; just because a television show portrays a homicide, it doesn’t mean that the viewer will become a murderer. Being able to watch socially proscribed events on TV allows people to escape their lives for a little bit; they see familiar human beings and characteristics, only in a fantastical and thrilling realm. Of course, not everyone who watches the show enjoys the dirty aspects, but those aspects cater to an adult audience who is mature enough to withstand the sometimes overwhelming content in the show.

Game of Thrones also challenges gender roles. The females of the show are some of the most powerful, if not, influential characters that can change the game of thrones. Arya Stark is a prime example. The young, strong-willed Stark promised herself to avenge her loved ones. Her persistence to actively fight against corrupt powers like the Lannister’s and her rejection of the typical, subjected role of woman makes her unique. She’s a tough fighter for what she believes in, and viewers love her for it. On the other hand, Cersei Lannister, the manipulative, conniving mother of the worst child in the universe, Joffrey, stops at nothing to protect her family and their name. While everyone loves to hate her, it is difficult to not respect her for being such a strong individual despite the mess of a life she leads. While the men are definitely dominant, the women play a huge part in the show.

George R. R. Martin put all his eggs in one basket, dropped it, and the eggs still managed to stay intact. The show is so overwhelmingly chaotic that it’s a shock it’s still so popular. But the anarchy is what makes Game of Thrones work. Despite controversial, taboo risks and every type of immoral act a historical fiction can contain, people are still watching with their jaws dropping every five minutes from a forbidden love to a heart-wrenching murder of a beloved character. Martin played the game of thrones and won.

Works Cited

Pomerantz, Dorothy. “Why It Matters That HBO Go Crashed Again During ‘Game of Thrones’.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 7 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2014/04/07/why-it-matters-that-hbo-go-crashed-again-during-game-of-thrones/>.

Is Modern Family That Modern?

The definition of family has definitely changed over the course of human history. Bruce Feiler, a New York Times bestselling author, made the impression in his 2011 New York Times article, “What ‘Modern Family’ Says About Modern Families,” that the families in “Modern Family” resemble real families today. In his opinion piece, he is addressing a wide, general public: old, young, the technologically advanced, the old-school geezers, anyone with eyes and ears to watch and listen to the show, anyone with a family. He wrote multiple books and is nationally acclaimed in his books of religion and parenthood, so he seems to be an expert on family and parenthood (Bruce Feiler). To his readers, he fairly presents the families of “Modern Family” as a unit of love, honesty, conflict, forgiveness, and new components such as technology and the individual.

Feiler briefly introduces his readers to the families of the show: the stereotypical suburban family of a husband, wife, and three kids; a divorced father who remarried a Colombian woman with a son; and a gay couple who adopted a baby from Vietnam. They are all connected by blood or by marriage, clashing all different ideas and beliefs into one unit (Feiler). He makes the point known that there are some major factors that make them modern. The writers on the show understand, and Feiler emphasized, how crucial technology is to society today, so “nearly every scene is refracted through…an iPad screen, a cellphone camera, a baby monitor, a YouTube video” (Feiler). I cannot even walk out of the house without my cellphone, with the weather, news, and every updated status of my friends and family within the grasp of my hand.

With that said, Feiler accurately, at least in my experience, expresses how the characters in the show are always “engage[d] in this sort of running narratives of [their] lives.” They go off into “confessional interviews directly to an unidentified cameraperson.” In this interview, the characters explain their actions and thoughts honestly to allow viewers into what they feel individually. When Feiler mentioned families being exposed to vices such as Facebook and Twitter, I understood how these were emotional outlets for modern people. Technology simply has allowed family members to express themselves outside the family and be “more centered on how they function internally” (Feiler).

Although the author shows how “Modern Family” is modern, he also opposes this claim. Most of the aspects of family that we might see as modern have been prevalent in families for a long time now. Of course, technology and openly gay marriage is a modern occurrence, but shows from the 70’s aired controversial situations that were just as taboo as a kiss between two men: “victims of attempted rape…abortion…[kissing of] a transvestite” (Feiler). Interestingly, he brings up the point that the show is “the third-most popular show among Republicans,” showing that it’s actually quite conservative (Feiler). Some factors of family have and always will remain: love, conflict, and unity. He states that the “core values are the same,” but newly accepted elements like homosexuality, interracial couples, and immaturity have been a common occurrence for decades already.

The author makes valid points of new occurrences in television families, but there are so many more points that make up families today. In the show, each episode has a resolution to each problem. One of the writers, Steven Levitan, explains that in his show, “no problem is too big it can’t be swept under a hug” (Feiler). Realistically, not every problem can be solved with a little honesty and a hug. Families are much more complex than that. Because Bruce Feiler is an exemplary parent, being that he was named “Father of the Year,” his outlook on the family is positively idealistic (Bruce Feiler). In addition, the author overlooks some major components of family, such as religion. I would think that religion would play a major part in families, even today in an age where religion is not practiced strictly. Finally, each family is different. That’s why it is so difficult to define something as special and unique to each family.

Ultimately, Feiler supports his claim that the family is becoming more modern while maintaining “true family values.” He does put into consideration that some of the things we may consider modern have actually been a part of society for a long time. The family unit has evolved drastically over the past few generations, but Feiler did leave me with one question to ponder about. Is my family modern? I think that every family and its culture, traditions, and practices determine whether or not it progresses to modernity. But in the case of accepting and tolerating that which might have been taboo to the generation of our grandparents, the family is definitely becoming more modern.

Works Cited

“Bruce Feiler.” Bruce Feiler. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2014. <http://brucefeiler.com/about/about-bruce/&gt;.

Feiler, Bruce. “What ‘Modern Family’ Says About Modern Families.” The Washington Times. 23 Jan. 2011. Print.

All Hail Our Prince, Bart Simpson

Bart Simpson: class clown, trouble-maker, free spirit, “Prince of Irreverence.”

Douglas Rushkoff, a published author, wrote an essay, “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence,” to signify that the show The Simpsons and its satire was “nothing short of a media revolution” (241). Come to think of it, I don’t recall any TV show prior to The Simpsons that successfully got away with satirizing the entire American nation and culture. Of course, there were shows like Saturday Night Live that did so on a weekly basis, but there was always someone to blame when some jokes became too offensive. There were actual comedians to attack; with The Simpsons, viewers can only attack a cartoon. This show was able to show viewers a taste of mass media from the view outside of mass media. This “media revolution” emerged with the rise of what Rushkoff calls “screenagers” (244). He makes the point that these young, impervious members of society will not fall into mass media’s trap. Like Bart Simpson, the “screenagers” embody “youth culture’s ironic distance from media” and refuse to fall into their scheme of having power over the public (245). With this power from the younger generations, TV programmers struggle as the “screenagers”  “interact with…satirize…or even become” the media (245).

One problem I have with Rushkoff’s argument is that he makes it seem like the adults and older generation are incapable of keeping up with society. He informs readers that many of the writers of The Simpsons are “Harvard-educated” youth (246). Is it so impossible that some adults can be impervious to media’s consistent battle to win them over? Rushkoff has so little faith in the generation that raised the “screenagers.”  Other than this point, I strongly agree with his idea that this new age of American television viewers, like Bart, should “question the ways institutional forces are presented to us through media” (254).

Family Guy is very much on the same boat as The Simpsons. It’s a satirical show that more often than not is known to “offen[d] just about every group of people you could name” (258). Antonia Peacocke wrote “Family Guy and Freund: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious” to present her feelings in reaction to satire in the media. She seems to be addressing her readers in a light-hearted and fair way, keeping in mind that shows like these are actually offensive. Shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy only wish to “point out the weaknesses and defects of U.S. society,” but at a cost: mockery, intolerance, and dark humor (263).

In Family Guy, some social issues, like the blind following of celebrities, are addressed in a comical and light-hearted way. Others, and this is where people start to take major offense to satire, make fun of social issues by emphasizing the joke. For example, sexism is put on a spotlight in a negative way.  A businessman from the 50’s explains the natural state of a female, referring to her as “irrational…emotionally fragile…[and] insecure,” reminding men to give them physical rewards. (260) Upon first reading this, I thought this was extremely offensive. In actuality, the brilliant, intelligent way the programmers write the script is for the viewer to be able to discern what satire is and isn’t. The message to be learned from the businessman is that sexism is “denounce[d] and ridicule[d] rather than condone[d]” (263). The entire show itself has components that are to be denounced. The main character himself is a “lazy, overweight, and insensitive failure of a man” (264).

Peacocke sees that Family Guy is important because of its approach to satire but realizes it has “a line of indecency.” (266) Like mentioned before, satire comes at a cost – not every joke is going to be funny to everyone. To intelligently satirize American culture, some people will be offended. The creator of the show, Seth McFarlane, understands this point, but he feels that because of this, it’s important that “the easily misunderstood show doesn’t fall into the hands of those too young to understand it” (265). The show caters to an intelligent and young audience. Those who are too old, young, close-minded, or conservative will not understand the importance of such a show.

In the 21^st century, it isn’t strange to see a show that satirizes American culture. In fact, it’s pretty common in shows like Saturday Night Live that people are made fun of. Before the turn of the century, everybody got their information from the television as the media managers saw fit (242). Now, people everywhere can look at American culture in an entertaining but brutally honest way. American irreverence to media shows just how powerful the people are. And we can thank Bart Simpson, Prince of Irreverence, for that.

Can TV Make You Smarter?

I just finished another season of Breaking Bad. I feel as if my IQ rose ten points!

Clearly, sitting yourself in front of a television and staring into a screen will not make you any smarter. If anything, it might just hurt your eyes in the long run.

Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” makes the point that TV makes you smarter. Such a claim may seem bold to the passerby, but his “Sleeper Curve” theory holds a lot of substance. Johnson claims that “debased forms of mass diversion – video games and violent [TV] dramas and juvenile sitcoms – turn out to be nutritional” (215). It is only nutritional in that it cognitively keeps the brain stimulated. Television shows from the past are not as captivating as they are in recent times. As the content of TV shows is becoming more complex, the more effort is needed by the viewer to try to understand the story. Dana Stevens wrote “Thinking Outside The Idiot Box” as a passionate counter argument to Johnson’s article, emphasizing intelligence as a quality that cannot be heightened by investing more thought and effort into a show. The process of intelligence is not a game where you unlock new information once you complete a level; it is using your mind to become a better thinker and think outside the box.

Television today is much more demanding of the viewer. The viewer has to “pay attention, make inferences, [and] track shifting social relationships” (214-215). In the passage, Johnson brings up shows like Starsky and Hutch to exemplify the narrative threads of a show. Each episode follows a character and the storyline but in a seemingly uncaptivating and unexciting way. The transition from shows like Starsky to a modern show like The Sopranos shows just how much more capable a viewer must be to follow the storyline (217). Upon comparing the two shows, The Sopranos “follows up to a dozen distinct threads over the course of an episode” while Starsky follows one. (218) Viewers are forced to keep up with the overlapping course of events that make shows today so exciting.

Consequently, our food isn’t served to us on a silver platter anymore. The flashing arrows, key points of the show that “reduce the amount of analytical work” a viewer needs to understand the story, are less seen on screen (221). With shows like The West Wing and The Sopranos, the viewer must think, think, think. Even if the viewer does not understand what is happening at the moment, he is expected to cognitively make his own conclusions. In video games, a gamer must always be ready for his next move. Will he encounter a sniper when turning the corner in Call of Duty and how must he respond if he does see one? Games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty teach children to “[analyze] complex social networks, [manage] resources, [and recognize] long-term patterns.” This does make a person more capable and intelligent, especially in real-life situations.

Upon reading Johnson’s article, one must not take his words too literally. Dana Stevens makes Johnson seem like he is saying that intelligence will come overnight if one watches TV. She reminds readers that Johnson did not mention commercials. Commercials may take your mind off the TV show for a few minutes, but the viewer gets right back to focus when it returns. And concerning 24’s controversy with fictional and real political events, it is up to the viewer to think about the situation. The show does not “[discourage viewers] from thinking too much about ethic…” but it forces the viewer to be responsible for his their own thoughts (232). Ultimately, she, an avid TV viewer, concludes that TV neither enhances nor diminishes intelligence and does not contribute much to Johnson’s argument.

By sitting in front of a TV, can you become smarter? I may know more chemistry terms from Breaking Bad, but definitely not. Watching television and playing games, violent or not, in today’s age just shows how much less simple an audience is. In the past, audiences got by with simpler, slower-faced shows. Today, people are more entertained by challenges, like the sniper waiting at the corner or the cliffhanger of an episode that leaves you thinking until next week’s episode. But if you watch shows that stimulate the brain to constantly think, you may find yourself applying your cognitive abilities to situations outside box in front of you and in your mind.

 

Works Cited

Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” New York Times Magazine 2005: 213-30. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box.” Slate 2005: 231-235. Print.

Comp II Beginnings

I realize that I’m already off to a slow start in this class by not creating my own blog immediately after class. I only hope that my writing makes up for the fact that I sometimes take quiet a while to complete tasks.

Here’s to a great semester of mind expansion and carpal tunnel syndrome!