Kanye Just Be So Stupid...

I think that Kanye’s statements, “Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book's autograph,” speak for themselves. If you do not read, you are not going to be able to speak correctly. Oftentimes you need to see something in print in order to understand it. For years I thought the phrase “play it by ear” was “play it by year.” It wasn’t until I saw it in print that I learned the correct version. That’s only a minor instance, but there are other, more important situations where we might mishear things or use slang and colloquialisms inappropriately because we’ve heard them so often in casual conversation. It is by reading that we learn that some of these sayings are improper. Sure, we still use slang, but we readers are aware of the proper way of saying things so that when a formal situation arises, we sound intelligent and professional. Reading helps us prepare for such situations.

Reading also teaches us to become good writers. You cannot be a good writer without first becoming a good reader. These are skills that are definitely needed in the “real” world. Most professions require you to write something – presentations, reports, etc. For someone who is an artist, you would think that reading would be one of their top priorities. The cleverest lyrics often include sly references to literary works. For instance, Led Zeppelin’s famous song “Stairway to Heaven” makes several allusions to Lord of the Rings. Even recent, silly, sugarcoated pop hits, like Taylor Swift’s “Love Story” reference the likes of Shakespeare, (maybe that’s the real reason Kanye grabbed the microphone from her…hmm). Books are an invaluable source to draw on for any writer; it does not matter whether they write novels, articles, or song lyrics – good writing begets good writing.

Kanye, in his infinite wisdom, also makes the statement, "I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life.” But there is a flaw with this statement and it has to do with the type of information he’s talking about. There are certain types of information that can only be conveyed by talking to people, while other types are more properly expressed in books. Each has their place, and people should try to divide their time between both, since they complement one another. We would not be able to enjoy books or write them if they did not reflect real life. This connects us to the stories, the characters, and to each other. What do we converse about? Books, movies, music, sports… It’s true that books are the only things on this list that cannot be appreciated side by side with another person, but they are also the things that lead to the longest and most in-depth conversations. Even with other forms of entertainment, we sometimes choose to enjoy them alone and when others are present, we tend to focus more on what we’re watching and/or listening to than the people around us. When it is over, we talk and discuss our shared experiences. This is not a waste of “living real life.” This is living real life.

With such long and “wordy” novels such as Crime and Punishment, there is a lot to talk about. I’ve had interesting conversations with my friends about some of the characters, their actions, the murder, and the infamous horse scene. Even people who detest reading the story have something to talk about, a common experience. “Did you read last night?” “Yeah, I was up until 1. I hate this damn book…” “The only part I liked was when the old lady got hit with the axe…” “Oh yeah…I wish that part was a bit more graphic…” With other novels and plays, such as Hamlet, it’s definitely worthwhile to be familiar with the story. Almost everyone who has ever been to high school has read Hamlet and/or Macbeth, so it’s a part of our culture’s general knowledge. Everyone is familiar with these plays and this gives us all something in common, something to talk about, allowing us to connect with each other in “real” life. This repeats itself a thousand times, with different books and different experiences.

Reading enables us to see the world from different perspectives and to better appreciate what is around us. While you can get a sense of this by watching a movie or listening to a song, reading a novel is a full and immersive experience that is unlike anything else. In a book, you can get inside someone else’s head, see the world through new eyes, and discover possibilities, places, and feelings inside yourself that you never imagined. Kanye is sure missing out.

Gray

I’ll never forget that one black night

Two friends of mine, they had a fight

Both asked of me to take their side

It was foolishly that I did decide

I’ll never forget that day of white

The snow on the ground was such a sight

The coldness and bitterness of the air

To what I was feeling could not compare

Between my friends I had to choose

Not realizing what I would lose

I thought that one could not be right

But I could not see both sides that night

And now that I have lost a friend

Something that I can never mend

I’ve made the choice to everyday

See all the sides, the shades of gray

Get Ready to Nerd Out....

When it comes to the fantasy genre, what distinguishes the truly great works from the mediocre is attention to detail and the authenticity of the world that is created. This may include the creation of a new species or culture or a modification of one that already exists. Some authors will even develop a mythology that is unique to their universe. In very rare cases, a writer will actually develop an entire language for their novel.

One of the greatest examples of this is J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. In addition to being a writer, Tolkien was a philologist, who loved studying languages. He drew on elements of different languages to develop his own. But he soon found something was missing – a culture behind the language. This was the principle factor that led him to develop Middle Earth, the setting of all of his most famous works. Though he created several languages for his stories, it is Elvish that stands out in most fantasy enthusiasts’ minds because it is the most structured. Some hardcore fans have actually attempted to learn Elvish and several actors in the Lord of the Rings movies were required to learn it. Viggo Mortensen, who played Aragorn, in particular, fell in love with the language and actually asked for more of his lines to be written in Elvish. Though it is extremely well-developed for a constructed language, Elvish is not a fully functional language and lacks certain aspects of grammar and syntax and does not have a fully developed vocabulary. Nevertheless, it is still more fully realized than most “languages” that appear in the fantasy genre and Tolkien remains as one of the few authors to ever construct a language so comprehensively.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s attention to detail and rich development of language is the reason why his works are so enduring. Few fantasy writers have put that much effort into the creation of their worlds. Besides sketching out an entire language, Tolkien also put a lot of thought into the races of people that feature in his novels (hobbits, elves, dwarves, orcs, Ents etc.) as well as the setting, geography, and landscape of Middle Earth. Each race lives in a distinct landscape, which is reflected in their culture; for instance, hobbits live simple, comfortable lives in the Shire, a peaceful, idyllic countryside, while dwarves prefer caves and mountains because they provide them with the resources of their main occupation and love – mining for jewels and precious metals. All of these elements add a layer of realism to Tolkien’s fantasy world, but it is still the language that sets him head and shoulders above the rest of most fantasy authors. For this reason, Tolkien has influenced many modern fantasy writers as well as game designers and movie producers. Appropriately enough, Tolkien even has a word in the dictionary named after him – tolkienesque and his imaginary creation of the hobbit, also appears as an entry.

We now live in a world where hobbits, Klingons, and Muggles* are familiar household names. This is because their creators have made them utterly unforgettable, by either ascribing to them a language or a richly layered culture and background. While Tolkien was not the first to do this, he was one of the best who did and has greatly influenced an entire generation of fantasy movies, games, and of course, novels.

*Muggles, of course, refer to non-magical people in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. While the people the word describes aren't particularly special and aren't ascribed any of things I mentioned, the word itself and the people who use it are unforgettable and that is what I was going for. I apologize for any confusion.

"To Be Or Not To Be..." Three Ways

In Franco Zeffirelli’s version of Hamlet, Mel Gibson portrays the eponymous character and delivers the “to be or not to be” soliloquy deep within a catacomb. The setting of the speech is quite dark and melancholy. It is the tomb of the previous kings and noblemen of Elsinore, including Hamlet’s father. Hamlet has no visible props on his person; he simply wanders around the graves while contemplating his choice. Unlike the other two versions of the play, Hamlet does not have a dagger or any visible means of killing himself. This gives the soliloquy a more contemplative quality and implies that Hamlet is not seriously considering suicide; he is merely toying with the idea. This version is more relatable for the audience than the other two versions because Hamlet appears calm and rational while he thinks about the nature of suicide. Many people have contemplated suicide, but the number of people who have actually attempted it is far fewer. All of these aspects make the scene appear more melancholy and thoughtful than exciting; the audience never believes for a moment that he will actually kill himself.

At the other end of the spectrum is Lawrence Olivier’s version of the play, where Hamlet is not only holding a dagger, but is also standing on the edge of the castle, ready to jump into the roiling seawater below. Hamlet’s soliloquy is much darker in this version and it appears that he seriously considering suicide. Though the audience can surmise that Hamlet will be in the rest of the play, it seems much more likely that he will take his own life than it does in either of the other two versions. The dark stormy sky, the dagger, and the ocean swirling beneath him all convey a sense of urgency and death that the other versions lack.

Kenneth Branaugh’s version of the play is the most unusual. The tone is rather unclear. Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet is standing in what appears to be a very large room in a mansion in front of a large mirror. The walls are a blinding white trimmed with gold, giving the room a rather gaudy, superficial appearance. The floor is tiled in black and white and the only prop that Hamlet possesses is a dagger that he draws towards the end of his speech. The setting does not possess the creepiness of the tomb or the urgency of the parapet, but has an eerie quality that the other two lack. The greatest difference between this and the other two film versions lies in the use of the mirror. The mirror provides an interesting concept of duality – the Hamlet who desires death and the Hamlet who fears death, which gives the scene added dimension.

In all three of these versions, the directors, though they may have different takes as to how to portray Hamlet’s suicidal thoughts, all capture Hamlet’s contemplation of the nature of suicide. Zeffirelli gives the scene a touch of sadness by setting it in the tomb of Hamlet’s father; Olivier paints the scene with serious urgency by giving Hamlet immediate access to the instruments of his death, and Branaugh brings a strange, hypnotic quality to the soliloquy with the use of the mirror to show the duality of Hamlet’s choice. All are unique interpretations of Shakespeare’s work and highlight the different aspects of Hamlet’s nature and character.

The Medium and the Message

In On the Media's interview with Nick Mamatas, the author of The Term Paper Artist himself discusses the business of writing term papers. Actually hearing Mamatas’s voice lends a new perspective on his role in this rather questionable business. Mamatas talks quite fast in a nervous, energetic fashion and speaks rather normally, using phrases such as “like” and “you know.” He also talks in sentence fragments, and sometimes repeats words. He does not give the audience impression of a strict English major or a highly educated professor – he sounds like a normal guy. But what’s really striking about Mamatas’s voice is his cavalier tone; he comes off sounding quite arrogant, something that was not evident in his article. If there were any hints of Mamatas showing some regret over his former profession in his article, they are proven completely unfounded here. Mamatas has no problem justifying his rather questionable past and the audience knows it. Though his verbal use of language resembles that of most English speakers in the United States, making him easier to identify with, his tone might alienate some listeners because he seems so unfeeling about the entire situation. It’s one thing to write about it, for the reader can draw their own conclusions based on what they “hear” when they look at the words, but it’s quite another thing to actually talk about it. Audio leaves little to interpretation; the speaker’s tone of voice takes care of that. It’s precisely this tone that makes audio a poor choice of medium for Mamatas. The right medium is crucial in expressing one’s ideas. Just because someone is a good writer does not mean they are a good speaker and vice versa. Mamatas, for instance, talks way too fast to be clearly understood, and alienates listeners with his tone of voice, making audio a bad medium in which to express himself in. Mediums should always be chosen based on what best suits the talents of the person who is trying to communicate. It is only then that people will truly understand their message.

Explication - The Term Paper Artist

In his article, The Term Paper Artist, Nick Mamatas reveals his insights on the legal, but rather immoral profession of writing term papers. “Writing term papers is above-board and perfectly legal,” Mamatas says, but he also goes on to compare it to “neo-Nazi rallies, tobacco company press releases, and those ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’ bumper stickers.” While all this is done with a light touch of humor, Mamatas does acknowledge that term paper writing isn’t the most honest profession. Much of the business relies on the stupidity of others. Often, a job marked as “DUMB CLIENT” would show up on Mamatas’s desk. This indicated that he was to use small words and would possibly have to underline certain parts of the paper such as the thesis, in order for the client to properly identify it.

“In broad strokes, there are three types of term paper,” Mamatas informs his audience. “DUMB CLIENTS predominate.” Although the two other types of clients are mentioned, identified as “one-timers” (fish out of water types that are genuinely confused by the material) and people from other countries that can’t speak English too well, it’s obvious that it’s the DUMB CLIENTS that Mamatas wants to focus on.

Though term paper writing is obviously hard for DUMB CLIENTS, it’s not an easy job for intelligent, experienced writers either. Many of Mamatas’s friends tried to take advantage of such a lucrative job, but “generally made the same fundamental error – they tried to write term papers.” The key to such a business, as evidenced by Mamatas’s attitude – is to amuse oneself and to not care so much about writing a good paper.

Ultimately, Mamatas tries to gear his article more towards the serious topic of the degeneration of public school systems, but by this point, it is far too late. While Mamatas’s commentary on the business of term paper writing is sometimes enlightening and often amusing, it drags on far longer than it should, getting particularly bogged down in the section where he describes his friends’ failed attempts at the business. For instance, these three sentences: “Another friend of mine spent hours trying to put together an eight-page paper on magical realism in Latin American fiction. At midnight she declared that it was impossible to write that many pages on books she had never read. She was still weeping, chain-smoking cigarettes, and shouting at me at 2 a.m.” While they provide nice imagery, they are completely unnecessary. It is a superfluous example in an already dull section of the article. The reader does not care about his friends; a simple statement that the profession is much harder than it appears would suffice.

The area that Mamatas’s article really falls flat in, however, is commentary on why schools produce so many DUMB CLIENTS. He offers a detailed explanation of DUMB CLIENTS, but never really takes the necessary step forward to show how they became this way. In his tagline, “The lucrative industry behind higher ed’s failings,” he implies that, for some of them at least, it was because of a lack of good education. In one of the best lines of the article, he says, “The students aren't only cheating themselves. They are being cheated by the schools that take tuition and give nothing in exchange.” The unfortunate thing is that he does not expound upon this. This is the most profound and interesting statement made in his entire article, but there is not much more to be said about it. Instead, the audience is treated to long, meandering paragraphs about the difficult nature of the business. Though Mamatas redeems himself somewhat through his humor, it is not enough to completely save this article. “The secret to the gig is to amuse yourself. I have to, really, as most paper topics are deadly boring,” Mamatas says of the term paper business. This advice, unfortunately, did not serve him well here.