This was easy, yet difficult read. DFW made his ideas flow in way that lead one idea into another making it easy to follow what he was saying. The mass amount of abbreviations made this read very difficult for me. I kept forgetting what certain acronyms stood for and had to repeatedly go to the page were he listed all the abbreviations.
With the amount of abbreviations, the numerous facts about people aged 18-35 and voting, and the fact that this article was published in the Rolling Stone magazine, I think it’s safe to say that this article is intended for the younger adult crowd. If you tie the ease of reading this article with the previous observations it makes this article attract a younger crowd because it grasps their attention and keeps it.
While reading this I felt that DFW was very sarcastic. His disclaimer in the foreword and the “Who Cares” section really put a smirk on my face. While reading I got this “I don’t care what you think. I’m just writing this because they asked me to. So now I’m going to report the stuff I saw and how I perceived it,” attitude.
Even though DFW said this article wasn’t pro- or anti-McCain, you get this underlying rhetoric that it’s making you want to vote for him. He adds pathos appeal by telling us about McCain’s POW years. It even made me want to sit back and say wow…this man has been through a lot. But then again I get that sarcastic tone from DFW that’s saying “they guy has been through a lot…just vote for him,” which makes this article confusing on whether this article is completely sarcasm or if it’s a deeper meaning that we need to get.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Bullshit 1
To think, the whole premise of this article hinges on a simple difference in physical location. John McCain is in the Straight Talk Express and Rolling Stone is in Bullshit 1. John McCain is in the press salon and Rolling Stone is enduring a long DT squished between the techs and the 12M with nothing to do but think. And thinking is what Rolling Stone apparently does best. Thinking and writing. Essentially, that is what constitutes Up, Simba: pages upon pages of Rolling Stone pondering some of the paradox’s that plague modern politics. Trapped in battle “between cynicism and idealism…marketing and leadership,” (130) Rolling Stone, or more specifically David Foster Wallace, is left with nothing but his personal instinct and gut feelings to solve these paradoxes. And that is the point of the article. Rolling Stone is not campaigning for anyone. Rolling Stone is simply fond of the publicly discernable John McCain while also skeptical of the validity of this portrayal. Up, Simba is not arguing that you should or should not vote for John McCain. Up, Simba is making readers aware of how the media portrays John McCain while also questioning the legitimacy of such portrayals, and ultimately forcing readers to decide for themselves where John McCain falls on the scale between “Salesman” and “leader” (131).
David Foster Wallace shows no hesitancy in acknowledging major media’s specific tactics and methodology in dealing with a campaign. He even goes to far as to actively remind readers that he himself is part of that exact media when he decides to refer to himself as Rolling Stone. He is not hiding his agenda or the possible biases that could result from such an affiliation. Instead, most of the article is spent actively informing readers about how the media operate in the context of an election. Wallace is also very aware of the position that he, as a representative of Rolling Stone, takes amongst the hierarchy of media sources, and he never shies away from acknowledging his relative lack of importance. He constantly describes his subordination to the 12M and how, while they are furiously working, he is hanging out with the techs. However, due to his awareness of such things, he knows that he will not be able to provide any new, unique, or utterly valuable insights into the life of John McCain through direct contact with him. Instead, he chose to write about what he did have access to: the media itself.
I should now note that Wallace calling himself Rolling Stone is an important tactic in that it brings to the foreground his membership in the very media that he is writing about, and as such, I will also refer to Wallace as Rolling Stone henceforth.
Up, Simba provides a detailed look into the lives of the press corps that was responsible for the media’s representation of John McCain, covering both how they work and how they live outside of their work. In fact, because Up, Simba is so detailed in every description and also because it uses stereotyping commonplaces so well, readers will undoubtedly find themselves able to easily identify with Rolling Stone, feeling as if they too are riding the Bullshit 1. He uses this created sense of familiarity for a specific reason: Rolling Stone wants readers to know that the press corps are just humans doing their job. By humanizing the press corps, readers are better able to understand how they operate, and thus, are better able to look past all the spin and marketing and form their own personal opinion on John McCain. For that, ultimately is the goal of Up, Simba.
While Up, Simba is textually focused almost entirely on the media, it is contextually focused on John McCain. Although McCain himself is obviously prevalent throughout the article, Up, Simba really focuses mostly on the members press corps. Even the title itself refers to the press corps. Rolling Stone could have called title the article anything, yet Up, Simba, a phrase commonly uttered by a tech as he prepares to film, was chosen. Not John McCain: Real of Phony or any such title, but Up, Simba. However, through the focus on the media Rolling Stone is able to reveal the spin tractics and strategies and therefore raise countless questions about how John McCain is portrayed and whether this portrayal is his true persona or an act. All of these questions, Rolling Stone intentionally fails to answer, leaving readers forced to answer the questions for themselves.
"McCan"
This essay was quite the lengthy one but didn't struggle to keep my attention as much as I thought. Could it be perhaps the fact that Wallace was fire talker that up front referred to my generation as uninformed, naive when it comes to politics? Could be. Or maybe it's the fact that his first paragraph was "Who Cares," I don't know, but Wallace had my attention. You know that feeling that you get when someone tells you, "You don't know nothing," and so you get flustered and you are immediately drawn into whatever it is that they tell you don’t know. Well that was exactly the effect taking place here and might I say, it worked.
In the beginning first few paragraphs of this essay Wallace states a clearly defined audience which was 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers and then he continues on to call them out on their lack of knowledge and suggest that they will probably not even finish the article once they find out what it’s really about. I found this strategy to be quite effective, because it’s almost as if this becomes a game and you want to finish it just to show this seemingly arrogant jerk who’s right and who’s wrong. Nevertheless, the read becomes quickly interesting. Wallace begins to talk about the strategies that McCain used in furthering his campaign and attempted to further explain what many of us, or at least what I didn’t know, about this candidate.
One of the biggest points that I believe Wallace touches on relatively early would be McCain’s lack of self-interest and his trustworthiness, per se, because of it. This is something that I didn’t quite realize and never actually knew was a huge campaign strategy utilized by McCain. I knew he was a vet but when Wallace goes into detail about what exactly McCain went through, this to me showed great courage and at the same time much like the article said, made me wonder was this guy noble or insane?
This lends way to another rhetorical strategy when examining McCain’s torturous past, the ability to relate to the audience. Now wait, let me finish. This generation, the generation that Wallace points out is his audience has a “thing” for gore. Take for instance the popularity of such movies like “SAW” and the fact that we have become desensitized to much violence because of what we are exposed to in the media. Well, when Wallace begins to recap this moment in McCain’s life I can’t help but think gore and sadly enough I kept reading because I just had to know what happened. Did they hurt him more? Try to kill him? Or what other torturous things did they try to do this man, AND he survived. We must not forget he survived. That’s the kicker behind all the violence, the fact that this man suffered through this pain and voluntarily suffered four more years and lived.
However, McCain honestly seemed doomed in my eyes when looking back at this election. The new generation although, “uninformed,” is among the least prejudice, therefore giving way for Obama to work his magic. Although yes, presidential credentials and statistics mattered but, just like Wallace said stats weren’t checked too often by my group. The race issue was at the heart of this election and although McCain was noble or insane whichever you prefer, it still didn’t justify the fact that he was against some of the very ideas the new generation has come to love and accept, and let’s face it, as we all know Americans were ready to see some change. So this article did a great job at informing. I personally thought it was going to slay McCain’s campaign in the first few pages there but later learned it was actually informing an audience like me on the things I didn’t know, and didn’t care to find out, and actually left me with a greater knowledge and more respect for McCain, or as they named him in Hanoi McCan.
In the beginning first few paragraphs of this essay Wallace states a clearly defined audience which was 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers and then he continues on to call them out on their lack of knowledge and suggest that they will probably not even finish the article once they find out what it’s really about. I found this strategy to be quite effective, because it’s almost as if this becomes a game and you want to finish it just to show this seemingly arrogant jerk who’s right and who’s wrong. Nevertheless, the read becomes quickly interesting. Wallace begins to talk about the strategies that McCain used in furthering his campaign and attempted to further explain what many of us, or at least what I didn’t know, about this candidate.
One of the biggest points that I believe Wallace touches on relatively early would be McCain’s lack of self-interest and his trustworthiness, per se, because of it. This is something that I didn’t quite realize and never actually knew was a huge campaign strategy utilized by McCain. I knew he was a vet but when Wallace goes into detail about what exactly McCain went through, this to me showed great courage and at the same time much like the article said, made me wonder was this guy noble or insane?
This lends way to another rhetorical strategy when examining McCain’s torturous past, the ability to relate to the audience. Now wait, let me finish. This generation, the generation that Wallace points out is his audience has a “thing” for gore. Take for instance the popularity of such movies like “SAW” and the fact that we have become desensitized to much violence because of what we are exposed to in the media. Well, when Wallace begins to recap this moment in McCain’s life I can’t help but think gore and sadly enough I kept reading because I just had to know what happened. Did they hurt him more? Try to kill him? Or what other torturous things did they try to do this man, AND he survived. We must not forget he survived. That’s the kicker behind all the violence, the fact that this man suffered through this pain and voluntarily suffered four more years and lived.
However, McCain honestly seemed doomed in my eyes when looking back at this election. The new generation although, “uninformed,” is among the least prejudice, therefore giving way for Obama to work his magic. Although yes, presidential credentials and statistics mattered but, just like Wallace said stats weren’t checked too often by my group. The race issue was at the heart of this election and although McCain was noble or insane whichever you prefer, it still didn’t justify the fact that he was against some of the very ideas the new generation has come to love and accept, and let’s face it, as we all know Americans were ready to see some change. So this article did a great job at informing. I personally thought it was going to slay McCain’s campaign in the first few pages there but later learned it was actually informing an audience like me on the things I didn’t know, and didn’t care to find out, and actually left me with a greater knowledge and more respect for McCain, or as they named him in Hanoi McCan.
Two Sided
It was noted from the very beginning that there were “no partisan movies or conservative agenda,” regarding the article (Course Packet, 92). This summarized the very structure of the article. The article would state a given fact, discuss it in one way that would view McCain is a positive light, then turn right around and analyze it in another way that would view McCain in a negative light.
Take the example of how David Foster Wallace satirizes McCain as “a cool guy” (Course Packet, 107). Previous presidential candidates were in “student government and band,” which was perfect leadership experiences for a future presidential candidate, while McCain was a “varsity jock and hell-raiser” (Course Packet, 107). The audience indirectly sees how McCain is a bad choice for the presidency spot because of how he isn’t as qualified as the previous presidents. However, in the same paragraph, Wallace says how this quality of McCain can be good. Who doesn’t love a presidential candidate that seems like a human being? It’s the perfect commonplace for all voters.
Another good example is McCain’s time as a prisoner of war. His honor of the US military’s Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War showed capability “of devotion to something other… than his own self interest” (Course Packet, 96-97). However, this could also be deemed as bullshit, maybe even “both the truth and bullshit” (Course Packet, 97).
There are two sides to things for Wallace. He displays how one single fact can be twisted and turned to either appeal or repel the audience. This is a tactic that most politicians use (as implied by the article). Not only that, but it can be extended further to the realms of rhetoric. Any fact can be used for our purpose. We just need to know how to redefine terms and use the words to our advantage.
Take the example of how David Foster Wallace satirizes McCain as “a cool guy” (Course Packet, 107). Previous presidential candidates were in “student government and band,” which was perfect leadership experiences for a future presidential candidate, while McCain was a “varsity jock and hell-raiser” (Course Packet, 107). The audience indirectly sees how McCain is a bad choice for the presidency spot because of how he isn’t as qualified as the previous presidents. However, in the same paragraph, Wallace says how this quality of McCain can be good. Who doesn’t love a presidential candidate that seems like a human being? It’s the perfect commonplace for all voters.
Another good example is McCain’s time as a prisoner of war. His honor of the US military’s Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War showed capability “of devotion to something other… than his own self interest” (Course Packet, 96-97). However, this could also be deemed as bullshit, maybe even “both the truth and bullshit” (Course Packet, 97).
There are two sides to things for Wallace. He displays how one single fact can be twisted and turned to either appeal or repel the audience. This is a tactic that most politicians use (as implied by the article). Not only that, but it can be extended further to the realms of rhetoric. Any fact can be used for our purpose. We just need to know how to redefine terms and use the words to our advantage.
The audience...
I was totally caught off guard by the Foreword that was part of the article. I think that it added so much to the reading. The author talks about some of his rhetorical devices, which allowed me to be able to spot them throughout the reading. He explains that he is not a Republican, which promotes the idea that the article was not written to influence the audience into voting for McCain. It is also a little bit ironic that we are reading an article about the man who lost the Presidential election just last year.
The first paragraph of the article is the one that my mind kept flashing back to throughout the reading. Wallace uses McCain's strong Right ideals and the fact that McCain is a "serious hard-ass," to show that this is not a regular audience that is reading this article. It is obvious that this is written for a younger and "hipper" generation that does not value the serene nature of McCain so much as his bad-assness. I found myself laughing as Wallace used the idea of Senator John McCain whoring himself out. Wallace uses many ideas that are natural to much of the younger demographic that reads Rolling Stone, which is what this article is for. He establishes his audience within that first paragraph.
He emphasizes that McCain drawing 500 college kids at 3:00 am is absolutely absurd. But, at the same time he implies that it is not so stunning because of the younger voter turnout that occurred in the New Hampshire primaries. Wallace continually plays off of his audience and uses ideas that they are acquainted with to show what McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was truly like.
The first paragraph of the article is the one that my mind kept flashing back to throughout the reading. Wallace uses McCain's strong Right ideals and the fact that McCain is a "serious hard-ass," to show that this is not a regular audience that is reading this article. It is obvious that this is written for a younger and "hipper" generation that does not value the serene nature of McCain so much as his bad-assness. I found myself laughing as Wallace used the idea of Senator John McCain whoring himself out. Wallace uses many ideas that are natural to much of the younger demographic that reads Rolling Stone, which is what this article is for. He establishes his audience within that first paragraph.
He emphasizes that McCain drawing 500 college kids at 3:00 am is absolutely absurd. But, at the same time he implies that it is not so stunning because of the younger voter turnout that occurred in the New Hampshire primaries. Wallace continually plays off of his audience and uses ideas that they are acquainted with to show what McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was truly like.
David Foster Wallace lands one sweet gig
In the fourth paragraph of his Biblically-proportioned essay, David Foster Wallace explicitly identifies his intended audience: ‘you are an American between say 18 and 35.’ In the next few sentences, he clearly establishes the patronizing, even downright in-your-face-insulting, tone which he will take toward these “Young Voters,” whom he has just identified as his audience, for the remainder of the piece. Btw, DFW was 38 years old at the time.
Although I would not doubt that the 38-year old DFW considered himself sufficiently superior to the 18 to 35 year old readers of Rolling Stone magazine to justify the condescension with which he treats the group throughout Up, Simba, I certainly do not believe that these Young Voters were actually his intended audience. Rather, he uses this textual identification of his intended audience as a rhetorical device—something like what Heinrichs describes as “irony, the technique of saying one thing to outsiders and another to insiders.”
That is, while ostensibly addressing 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers, DFW was actually writing to his peers in the hallowed world of academia. English prof’s. Poly Sci and Gender Studies PhD’s. Folks who could grasp the ‘complicated stuff’ which didn’t make it into the magazine version. Which begs the question: if Wallace was really writing for such a high-minded audience, why didn’t he just make a few calls and get one of his friends to pull some strings over at the New Yorker?
By addressing 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers, DFW enables himself to use as many shit’s and fuck’s as he wants. He can devote multiple pages to the elaborate development of observations which border upon truism (i.e. Incessant inundation with sales marketing in the latter decades of the 20th century has made Americans increasingly cynical toward political campaigns...really?!) He can flow freely from academic-sounding flourishes to obnoxious run-on sentences filled with MTV colloquialisms—the parlance of our times. After all, the article was written for the 18 to 35 year old readers of Rolling Stone, right?
What to Believe?
As a could-care-less, uninformed young voter (basically who this article was repetitvely directed towards) I felt this article proved my already existing beliefs toward the political system and the whole campaigning process. This was just actual evidence and facts that I can now use as evidence to credit my beliefs. Furthermore, I also gained a respect that I didn't have before for McCain. I had heard a brief summary of his POW story and had also heard that his body to this day is still showing the effects from it, but I never had actually read into all the details of what happened. I know at the beginning of this article, the author says that this is intended to be non-biased toward either party or candidate and strictly informational, but as with all things, I understand bias still could be incorporated unintentionaly. Knowing this, my gained respect for McCain comes mostly from the story of what he did as a POW. That story in itself is enough to back his honest, sincere image that his tour was campaigning.
Overall, I feel this article was well done and was very insightful for me and my voting situation. My stance on voting has always been that you shouldn't go pick a candidate unless you have done full adequate research on the election. I think this article completely proved that idea. With all the "sales" going on in the candidates trying to persuade people to buy into their ideas and ultimately give them their vote, you can't fully believe anything they say. So because of this I feel you need to do extensive research from multiple different sources before you choose and argue with people over which candidate is better. Dig up information from the root of these people, where they are coming from, whats the story behind their campaign strategy etc. I feel had I of done this on this election being studied in this article, I would have ultimately came away voting for McCain. I would have chose him because at his point, how can we really know what the candidates are going to do in office and what they actually stand for. Even if McCain's strategies for healthcare, tax-reform, or fixing debt problems aren't as solid as other candidates, I think its more important to at least be able to find some kind of sense of trust in the candidate were planning to put into office. I think that will ultimately go further in office than what their "selling" as strategies they will implement to fix our countries problems because those strategies are only said to sound as good as possible to attract their target audience. This might be because this is how I choose to view most situations on people in that (with some exceptions) its not what the person said, it who the person is behind what is said. Meaning if a friend of mine says something stupid that I'm completely in disagree with if I feel I know the person well enough and know bottom line he means well and has similar views as me, I am capable of disregarding the statement over what I know about the person. And relate this to other people and situations by using as much as you know about them for their "who the person is behind what is said" and if you don't know enough about the person to make a fair judgement of their "who", this is where the exceptions come in and just use your best judgement.
From all this it comes down to the problem of what do I do about voting. I understand that much research needs to be done before I can be an educated voter, but do I care enough to actually take the time to do it, or believe enough that my one vote will make that much of a difference. To me, even after this article, the answer is no. The reason is just because this article just proved that the whole campaigning and election system is just a whole messed up bunch of bs. I don't know if I want to participate in a system that knows they have problems, recognizes what those problems are, knows that they could be fixed, but yet choose not to fix them because in some messed up way it benefits certain parties involved. On the other hand, by me recognizing this problem and choosing not to do anything in some kind of way to help fix it, I am being hypocritical in saying that I am not going to support it because by not doing anything is supporting it. I did like the idea the author brought up about even if your not voting your still voting and actually your probably even voting for the exact person you don't want to be voting for. This brought up a valid point and you know, who knows what I am going to actually do in the future voting wise. I guess beween now and the next election well see how much my motivation changes towards becoming an educated voter. Bottom line, this article helped put things in perspective and might serve as a first step in a direction towards becoming a more aware citizen involved in the political and voting processes.
Overall, I feel this article was well done and was very insightful for me and my voting situation. My stance on voting has always been that you shouldn't go pick a candidate unless you have done full adequate research on the election. I think this article completely proved that idea. With all the "sales" going on in the candidates trying to persuade people to buy into their ideas and ultimately give them their vote, you can't fully believe anything they say. So because of this I feel you need to do extensive research from multiple different sources before you choose and argue with people over which candidate is better. Dig up information from the root of these people, where they are coming from, whats the story behind their campaign strategy etc. I feel had I of done this on this election being studied in this article, I would have ultimately came away voting for McCain. I would have chose him because at his point, how can we really know what the candidates are going to do in office and what they actually stand for. Even if McCain's strategies for healthcare, tax-reform, or fixing debt problems aren't as solid as other candidates, I think its more important to at least be able to find some kind of sense of trust in the candidate were planning to put into office. I think that will ultimately go further in office than what their "selling" as strategies they will implement to fix our countries problems because those strategies are only said to sound as good as possible to attract their target audience. This might be because this is how I choose to view most situations on people in that (with some exceptions) its not what the person said, it who the person is behind what is said. Meaning if a friend of mine says something stupid that I'm completely in disagree with if I feel I know the person well enough and know bottom line he means well and has similar views as me, I am capable of disregarding the statement over what I know about the person. And relate this to other people and situations by using as much as you know about them for their "who the person is behind what is said" and if you don't know enough about the person to make a fair judgement of their "who", this is where the exceptions come in and just use your best judgement.
From all this it comes down to the problem of what do I do about voting. I understand that much research needs to be done before I can be an educated voter, but do I care enough to actually take the time to do it, or believe enough that my one vote will make that much of a difference. To me, even after this article, the answer is no. The reason is just because this article just proved that the whole campaigning and election system is just a whole messed up bunch of bs. I don't know if I want to participate in a system that knows they have problems, recognizes what those problems are, knows that they could be fixed, but yet choose not to fix them because in some messed up way it benefits certain parties involved. On the other hand, by me recognizing this problem and choosing not to do anything in some kind of way to help fix it, I am being hypocritical in saying that I am not going to support it because by not doing anything is supporting it. I did like the idea the author brought up about even if your not voting your still voting and actually your probably even voting for the exact person you don't want to be voting for. This brought up a valid point and you know, who knows what I am going to actually do in the future voting wise. I guess beween now and the next election well see how much my motivation changes towards becoming an educated voter. Bottom line, this article helped put things in perspective and might serve as a first step in a direction towards becoming a more aware citizen involved in the political and voting processes.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bob D
Bob Dylan has always been one of those artists that I hear about but never really listened to his music nor, ever realized if I was listening to his music. Growing up in a different era being exposed to a completely different genre of music. I'm used to hearing old school songs from artists like Luther Vandross who created a new sound for R&B and older artists like Al Green that talked about love and that good "soul music" that African Americans grew to love culturally.
However, I didn't grow up in a little bubble that consisted of only African American artists but I was definitely exposed to other artists like for instance, my mom loved Bruce Springsteen and she constantly blared his music in our garage as she pulled up from work. Nevertheless, Bob Dylan, as I expressed earlier, has always been one of those names floating around. However, after listening to his music, I don't know why. Maybe, I'm just missing the magic of his music and who knows, it could be the fact that I'm from a different era and am accustomed to music of different sound, as well as music with a different message.
After listening to A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall I felt a bit confused of the overall message. While some lines made sense other left me baffled and unable to figure out what exactly this means...I mean, a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? Nonetheless, I came to discover the message to seem to be about a parent who was looking for their "blue-eyed son” and along the way came across a slew of obstacles in the world. This to me alluded to a deeper message of the dilemmas and turmoil in this country. For instance, a young woman whose body was burning and ten talkers whose tongues were all broken. Nevertheless my problem still stands that while there is a message it seems to a bit hard to decipher at times because it seems like Dylan just decided to play a song and make up some lyrics, some go some don’t and that’s just my opinion and like I said maybe its because I’m not on “that level” or perhaps because I’m from another generation.
However, I didn't grow up in a little bubble that consisted of only African American artists but I was definitely exposed to other artists like for instance, my mom loved Bruce Springsteen and she constantly blared his music in our garage as she pulled up from work. Nevertheless, Bob Dylan, as I expressed earlier, has always been one of those names floating around. However, after listening to his music, I don't know why. Maybe, I'm just missing the magic of his music and who knows, it could be the fact that I'm from a different era and am accustomed to music of different sound, as well as music with a different message.
After listening to A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall I felt a bit confused of the overall message. While some lines made sense other left me baffled and unable to figure out what exactly this means...I mean, a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? Nonetheless, I came to discover the message to seem to be about a parent who was looking for their "blue-eyed son” and along the way came across a slew of obstacles in the world. This to me alluded to a deeper message of the dilemmas and turmoil in this country. For instance, a young woman whose body was burning and ten talkers whose tongues were all broken. Nevertheless my problem still stands that while there is a message it seems to a bit hard to decipher at times because it seems like Dylan just decided to play a song and make up some lyrics, some go some don’t and that’s just my opinion and like I said maybe its because I’m not on “that level” or perhaps because I’m from another generation.
Monday, November 2, 2009
What's Going On? - Marvin Gaye
While growing up, my mom and grandparents would listen to Marvin Gaye's albums and I would hear this song on numerous occasions. It wasn't until now that I actually read the lyrics and seen the underlying message Gaye was trying to get across.
Gaye was asking the world "What's Going On?". He wanted to know why we were having these wars. He wanted everyone to get along and talk out their differences. He even said in his lyrics that war is not the answer and that only love can conquer hate and that we need to find a way to bring love in and settle these differences.
I wouldn't call this a anti-war song. I believe it is promoting love and peace throughout the United States and throughout the world. Gaye wants us all to examine ourselves and try to approach situations in a non-violent way. This is a song that makes you really think and examine your life.
Gaye was asking the world "What's Going On?". He wanted to know why we were having these wars. He wanted everyone to get along and talk out their differences. He even said in his lyrics that war is not the answer and that only love can conquer hate and that we need to find a way to bring love in and settle these differences.
I wouldn't call this a anti-war song. I believe it is promoting love and peace throughout the United States and throughout the world. Gaye wants us all to examine ourselves and try to approach situations in a non-violent way. This is a song that makes you really think and examine your life.
The Unsung Singer - Phil Ochs
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22white+boots+marching+in+a+yellow+land%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/white-boots.html
In my opinion, folk singer Phil Ochs was one of the most articulate voices of the anti-Vietnam war movement. Of course, Bob Dylan was a staunch civil rights advocate and Ochs’ rival, but he abandoned his activist lyrics for those of surrealist rock and roll. I and many others are glad he did. However, Ochs’ loyalty to social and political justice resonates with me more than any other singer of the times.
While “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They are A-Changing” were emblematic of the evolving social discourse and an era of self-awareness, Phil Ochs’ songs and lyrics were often overlooked due to Dylan and other popular artists of the time.
Ochs’s 1968 song “White Boots Marching in a Yellow Land” unleashes a flood of images critical of America’s presence in Vietnam. It’s this inability to see nothing but vivid pictures of Ochs’ words that makes this song my favorite and his writing utterly moving.
Ochs doesn’t pull punches. His lyrics are angry and accusatory but concealed behind a veil of a major key chord progression. The song itself is an anti-hymn meant to ironically sound like a military theme march with trumpets blaring and snare drums rolling through the chorus.
The lyrics paint America as being the ethnocentric and untarnished “white boots” marching in the uncivilized “yellow land” of foreign soil. The use of yellow emphasizes bigoted ideology that color is significant and uses the derogatory nickname for Asian skin color as a symbol of ignorance. The line “The colors of a civil war are louder than commands” suggests that civil wars, both foreign and domestic are often struggles over racial supremacy.
Part of the irony of the song is its lyrical composition from the perspective of “America,” the “White boots.” The lyrics “It's written in the ashes of the village towns we burn/ It's written in the empty bed of the fathers unreturned” is laden with guilt and anger felt by Ochs for the bloody history written by his own country.
The most powerful part of the song comes in the last verse, where Orchs suggests that the politicians, “the comic and the beauty queen…dancing on the stage” have indoctrinated the minds of the recruits who “line[ed] up like coffins in a cage” to serve. In Ochs eyes, the mindset of the anti-communist, capitalist political agenda fueled the “fighting in a war we lost before the war began.”
Protest songs are composed of line after line of argument, some blatant, others subtle; some symbolic, others metaphorical. Ochs’ anger towards the war machine bred constant accusations he embodied in his song in the accessible manner of a simple sounding folksong.
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/white-boots.html
In my opinion, folk singer Phil Ochs was one of the most articulate voices of the anti-Vietnam war movement. Of course, Bob Dylan was a staunch civil rights advocate and Ochs’ rival, but he abandoned his activist lyrics for those of surrealist rock and roll. I and many others are glad he did. However, Ochs’ loyalty to social and political justice resonates with me more than any other singer of the times.
While “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They are A-Changing” were emblematic of the evolving social discourse and an era of self-awareness, Phil Ochs’ songs and lyrics were often overlooked due to Dylan and other popular artists of the time.
Ochs’s 1968 song “White Boots Marching in a Yellow Land” unleashes a flood of images critical of America’s presence in Vietnam. It’s this inability to see nothing but vivid pictures of Ochs’ words that makes this song my favorite and his writing utterly moving.
Ochs doesn’t pull punches. His lyrics are angry and accusatory but concealed behind a veil of a major key chord progression. The song itself is an anti-hymn meant to ironically sound like a military theme march with trumpets blaring and snare drums rolling through the chorus.
The lyrics paint America as being the ethnocentric and untarnished “white boots” marching in the uncivilized “yellow land” of foreign soil. The use of yellow emphasizes bigoted ideology that color is significant and uses the derogatory nickname for Asian skin color as a symbol of ignorance. The line “The colors of a civil war are louder than commands” suggests that civil wars, both foreign and domestic are often struggles over racial supremacy.
Part of the irony of the song is its lyrical composition from the perspective of “America,” the “White boots.” The lyrics “It's written in the ashes of the village towns we burn/ It's written in the empty bed of the fathers unreturned” is laden with guilt and anger felt by Ochs for the bloody history written by his own country.
The most powerful part of the song comes in the last verse, where Orchs suggests that the politicians, “the comic and the beauty queen…dancing on the stage” have indoctrinated the minds of the recruits who “line[ed] up like coffins in a cage” to serve. In Ochs eyes, the mindset of the anti-communist, capitalist political agenda fueled the “fighting in a war we lost before the war began.”
Protest songs are composed of line after line of argument, some blatant, others subtle; some symbolic, others metaphorical. Ochs’ anger towards the war machine bred constant accusations he embodied in his song in the accessible manner of a simple sounding folksong.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Eve of Destruction
While reading over the lyrics of the different songs, I thought back to The Fog of War and McNamara's last point on the stubbornness of human nature. The two songs that left the greatest impression on me was "Eve of Destruction" and "Masters of War." The two songs included various explicit statements reflecting the artist's anti-war stance.
"You're old enough to kill but not for votin'." In "Eve of Destruction," Barry McGuire sings of the disastrous path the world is taking by entering so many wars and fighting so much. Boys in their teens are being sent off to a war, a war that perhaps they do not even support yet they have no say in because they are still underage. Although the leader's of the country are trying to take steps to appease the public, hatred for others runs deep and it is impossible to satisfy everybody. This inescapable hatred causes human respect to fall apart and lose validity. Human nature is the cause of all of this ruin, and no matter how hard people may try to get rid of the bitterness and anger, it's all always still going to remain. Human nature cannot be changed, as stated by Robert McNamara.
"You've thrown the worst fear / That can ever be hurled." Bob Dylan's anti-war song, "Masters of War" is powerful in stating the major human flaws that bring about war. Those who are in control in countries give out orders that must be filled and behind the safety of their power, they placate the population through deceit, convincing the people that all is well and the increases in deaths are bringing about victory. The spreading of lies to cover the horrors of war is brought to the forefront, and Dylan can see right past the lies. Lies and deceit, terrible human flaws, can never result in good in the long run.
Passionate hate and anger between humans has brought about war in the past and the present, and this human imperfection cannot be mended. Though the two songs do not explicitly state this fact, they definitely still bring up the fact that humans are on a destructive path that cannot lead to any good, only more death and ruin.
"You're old enough to kill but not for votin'." In "Eve of Destruction," Barry McGuire sings of the disastrous path the world is taking by entering so many wars and fighting so much. Boys in their teens are being sent off to a war, a war that perhaps they do not even support yet they have no say in because they are still underage. Although the leader's of the country are trying to take steps to appease the public, hatred for others runs deep and it is impossible to satisfy everybody. This inescapable hatred causes human respect to fall apart and lose validity. Human nature is the cause of all of this ruin, and no matter how hard people may try to get rid of the bitterness and anger, it's all always still going to remain. Human nature cannot be changed, as stated by Robert McNamara.
"You've thrown the worst fear / That can ever be hurled." Bob Dylan's anti-war song, "Masters of War" is powerful in stating the major human flaws that bring about war. Those who are in control in countries give out orders that must be filled and behind the safety of their power, they placate the population through deceit, convincing the people that all is well and the increases in deaths are bringing about victory. The spreading of lies to cover the horrors of war is brought to the forefront, and Dylan can see right past the lies. Lies and deceit, terrible human flaws, can never result in good in the long run.
Passionate hate and anger between humans has brought about war in the past and the present, and this human imperfection cannot be mended. Though the two songs do not explicitly state this fact, they definitely still bring up the fact that humans are on a destructive path that cannot lead to any good, only more death and ruin.
Masters of War - Bob Dylan
It is frightening to think about how little the voice of the citizens counts in this country. Growing up, I had always been told that the United States was the land of the free, where every individual has the right to pursue happiness, and the freedom of speech is not just a meaningless collection of words. These ideals, however, are not always adhered to. There is a certain level of disenchantment that exists in the United States today, especially among my peers, that took root in the tumultuous years during which the Vietnam War took place.
Popular dissent against the "late war" had been growing steadily during the early 1960's and it had turned into a full-blown pacifist movement by the time that Masters of War had been released. Hearing this song made me consider how grand the "hippie" movement really was, what a large percentage of the U.S. population was against any military action in the far east, and how little those people's opinions counted in the end.
Oedipa
I feel that I am hopelessly being washed away in an Oedipa nightmare. It seems to me that, intended or not, Oedipa is quickly becoming our class mascot as we chase circles of confusing and intricate rhetorical strategies. Or are they confusing?
Oh so many questions.... Can an argument be believable when it is a lie? Is it still a lie when O'Brien has had the experience? Can it be considered untrustworthy even though the author is displaying his trustworthiness by not hiding his lie? Does the background behind McNamara have anything to do with the documentaries portrayal of him?... Oh so few answers.
Upon Completing The Things They Carried, I felt my questions had been answered and that I had a grasp of the novels general meaning. Now I feel that I am dealing with a completely different element of which I have no understanding. Likewise I feel that our class time dive into the rhetorical strategies behind The Fog of War has left me with loads of unanswered questions.
In relation to the understanding of plot pertaining to both The Things They Carried and Fog of War, I feel that I have an adequate understanding. What I don't understand is how something seemingly simple can become so impossible.
In both cases I understand that the rhetorical strategies deployed work, and I know of the strategies used, but I have no idea how the meeans reach the endpoint. I don't even know that there is an endpoint. I wonder if either O'Brien or Errol intended their work to be so complex.
To my audience: Please don't take this blog post as a complaint.
Oh so many questions.... Can an argument be believable when it is a lie? Is it still a lie when O'Brien has had the experience? Can it be considered untrustworthy even though the author is displaying his trustworthiness by not hiding his lie? Does the background behind McNamara have anything to do with the documentaries portrayal of him?... Oh so few answers.
Upon Completing The Things They Carried, I felt my questions had been answered and that I had a grasp of the novels general meaning. Now I feel that I am dealing with a completely different element of which I have no understanding. Likewise I feel that our class time dive into the rhetorical strategies behind The Fog of War has left me with loads of unanswered questions.
In relation to the understanding of plot pertaining to both The Things They Carried and Fog of War, I feel that I have an adequate understanding. What I don't understand is how something seemingly simple can become so impossible.
In both cases I understand that the rhetorical strategies deployed work, and I know of the strategies used, but I have no idea how the meeans reach the endpoint. I don't even know that there is an endpoint. I wonder if either O'Brien or Errol intended their work to be so complex.
To my audience: Please don't take this blog post as a complaint.
commonality of it all
In the song Blowin’ in the Wind, Bob Dylan uses a lot of symbolism in his lyrics. Whether it is about the “Doves,” a term used for anti-war people, or “a mountain.” His symbolism allows him to reach the listeners on a deeper level then expected.
His commonplace items and actions are mostly things seen everyday (with the exception of the cannonballs). He uses these to allow the listener to connect with the items so that they can imagine and expand what is sung. We are able to create scenarios in our heads that accompany the lyrics because we can draw a deeper meaning from the symbols used.
He is making us as the listeners feel comfortable with the lyrics, which allows them to affect us in a way that is not obvious at first. We do not think of the deeper meaning when we first come across the song, but after a while the words bring up stronger images of what they mean.
Bob Dylan uses freedom as a main theme, just like Hearts and Minds. They both seem to imply that the war is not helping people to attain freedom, but rather that we are stifling the imminent freedom of the people. He uses the common ideas to show the deeper meaning behind the words themselves and the feelings about the war itself, “The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.”
His commonplace items and actions are mostly things seen everyday (with the exception of the cannonballs). He uses these to allow the listener to connect with the items so that they can imagine and expand what is sung. We are able to create scenarios in our heads that accompany the lyrics because we can draw a deeper meaning from the symbols used.
He is making us as the listeners feel comfortable with the lyrics, which allows them to affect us in a way that is not obvious at first. We do not think of the deeper meaning when we first come across the song, but after a while the words bring up stronger images of what they mean.
Bob Dylan uses freedom as a main theme, just like Hearts and Minds. They both seem to imply that the war is not helping people to attain freedom, but rather that we are stifling the imminent freedom of the people. He uses the common ideas to show the deeper meaning behind the words themselves and the feelings about the war itself, “The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.”
Bob Dylan
Music is another outlet to express our inner emotions and thoughts. After a bad break-up, who does not rely on music's cathartic and healing qualities to moving us along the lamenting process?! Bob Dylan provided many songs that moved people through the lamenting emotions attached to the Vietnam War. In an interview with "USA Today," Bob Dylan said the song "Masters of Wars," "is supposed to be a pacifistic song against war. It's not an anti-war song. It's speaking against what Eisenhower was calling a military-industrial complex as he was making his exit from the presidency. That spirit was in the air, and I picked it up."
"Blowing in the Wind" proposes many unanswered questions and what is necessary to happen for us to answer these questions? I understand the answers being in the wind to mean that they may never be answered. Dylan addresses the questions that many were asking during the time of Vietnam War and expresses the same vagueness in understanding where the answers may lay. During where there many questions and little answers, Dylan connects with his listeners.
"Blowing in the Wind" proposes many unanswered questions and what is necessary to happen for us to answer these questions? I understand the answers being in the wind to mean that they may never be answered. Dylan addresses the questions that many were asking during the time of Vietnam War and expresses the same vagueness in understanding where the answers may lay. During where there many questions and little answers, Dylan connects with his listeners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)