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.